As Albert Einstein once remarked, “So long as there are men, there will be wars.”
War is an ongoing global matter and a recurring topic in literature. Structured in the style of a catechism, the poem “What Were They Like?” composes a dialogue discussing the Vietnam war’s destructive effects on Vietnamese culture. The work accurately captures the criticisms its author, Denise Levertov, has against bellicosity. Born and raised in England, Denise Levertov was the younger daughter of a multifaceted family. With a Welsh mother and a Russian Jew father (who later converted to Christianity), the “liberation theology” prevalent in Levertov’s family, as well as her experience as a nurse during World War II, greatly influenced her political activities (Roberts). She actively spoke against wars in poems such as “What Were They Like?” which directly targets The Vietnam War, and “In California During the Gulf War,” which criticizes the titular 1991 conflict. However, her emphasis on anti-war themes and political disputes lead to substantial opposition to her work. Critics believe that Denise Levertov opted against the “making of poems as art” in favor of “making [a] politically efficacious statement” (Jarman). Although her poetry conveys a clear denunciation of wars, she communicates her feelings through vivid visual imagery, extended metaphors, and convincing juxtapositions instead of crude emotions. Moreover, poems such as “Making Peace” dabble in the idea of anti-war by posing a comparison between the art of poem-making and peace-making; she not only criticizes the war but also explores peace with her poetry. Although her poetry conveys a clear denunciation of wars, she communicates her feelings through vivid visual imagery, extended metaphors, and convincing juxtapositions instead of crude emotions. Through powerful poetic techniques in her famous poems: “What Were They Like?” “In California During the Gulf War,” and “Making Peace,” Denise Levertov examines the lasting effects of war on civilian life and culture and ponders upon its solution.
Denise Levertov specifically focused on the subject of humanity within the scope of wars, discussing the detrimental effects, and due to her long term residence in the United States, she extensively argued against U.S. interventions in Vietnam and the Middle East. First introduced during John F. Kennedy’s presidency, the political tension within Vietnam escalated under Lyndon B. Johnson into an irreversible tragedy. The Vietnam War sparked many controversies, domestically and internationally, in regards to U.S. foreign interventions, and inhumane attacks and a large number of civilian deaths further drove discussion surrounding the morality behind the war. Anti-war movements were prevalent at the time; their participants demonstrated their disapproval of the Vietnam intervention by “spitting on returning soldiers” and “chanting ‘Murderers!’” The criticism of the war reached an all-time high as “veterans were ignored or considered embarrassment by both their government and the general population” (Rowe 122). Poets such as Denise Levertov also partook in the activism of the time through anti-war literature. However, widespread public denouncement of the war did not prevent other future U.S. interventions, as other disputes such as the Persian Gulf War began in 1990. Denise Levertov, as an active humanist, wrote against the Gulf War in “In California During the Gulf War,” and artists like her helped to raise awareness and speak for peace through their works.
In order to successfully present the cruelty of the war, Denise Levertov employed a large amount of irony in her poems focusing on wars, especially her highly anthologized work, “What Were They Like?” Separated into 2 big stanzas, the structure of this poem resembles the style of Christian catechisms, which is very likely intentional considering Levertov’s religious background; she converted from “earthy agnosticism” to Christian belief in the 1980s. Similar to how catechisms are typically used to instruct youths about Christianity, this poem employs an informative tone. Some believe that the poem takes the form of an interview, with the interviewer asking questions in stanza 1, while the interviewee answers questions in stanza 2 (Pournara). Another possibility is that Levertov is mimicking military-style conversations, as the word “Sir” appears twice later, implying respect the responder has for the questioner. A military-style conversation would implicitly criticize the U.S. military that was attacking Vietnam at the time. Nonetheless, the unique structure of this poem creates irony as the questions appear to be ignorant. They are all in the form of past tense, starting with “did,” “were,” and “had.” The questioner is interested in the mundane activities of the Vietnamese, as they ask whether they have “ornaments,” “speech and singing,” and “quiet laughter” (Levertov). Combined with the past tense, Levertov implies the disappearance of Vietnamese culture through those questions. The culture’s past vibrance explains why the questioner is asking seemingly odd, or even ignorant questions. Besides the irony in the structure of this poem, Levertov also creates irony through diction. In stanza 1, the speaker specifically asks whether the Vietnamese use the “lanterns of stone.” As lanterns correspond to light: hopeful and ethereal, while stones are natural objects that are heavy and earthly. The light and stone juxtapose as the responder responds with “their light hearts turned to stone” (Levertov). The stone is no longer a positive representation of nature, but a negative symbol of the frozen Vietnamese culture. The transformation of light hearts to stone represents the disappearance of hope, which is replaced with heavy and unchangeable stones. Levertov further employs juxtaposition when the responder states that “laughter is bitter to the burned mouth” (Levertov). Laughter, supposedly cheerful and contradictory to bitterness, is now bitter; the burned mouth alludes to the military strategies used against the Vietnamese, particularly the way bombs and guns created fire and disasters for the civilians, explaining why laughter is now bitter. The irony continues with two visual images as the responder describes the close connection between the Vietnamese and nature through “peasants,” “life was in rice and bamboo,” “peaceful clouds,” and “the water buffalo [that] stepped surely along terraces” (Levertov). With those simple words, Levertov implies the naivete and innocence of the Vietnamese people, portraying them as a group of people in close connection with nature, undisturbed. However, the calm image is quickly challenged by another image with “bombs smashed… mirrors” and “time only to scream” (Levertov). The war clearly disrupts the peaceful life of Vietnamese people, and through the powerful juxtaposition, Denise Levertov leaves her audience sympathizing with the destruction in their lives.
To establish her profound anti-war themes, Denise Levertov relied heavily on symbolism, as she frequently utilizes blossoms as means of hope. In one of her lesser-known poems, “In California During the Gulf War,” Denise Levertov spoke against the United States’ intervention against Iraq, which had occurred due to long-standing oil disputes, by contrasting sunny California with the flaming Persian Gulf. In the first 2 stanzas, she implies the white blossom is Californians by mentioning the “white blossoms” with “trees and bushes rusted by Christmas roasts,” and “hillsides exhausted by five years of drought,” both of which are representing America. Then, she criticizes the Americans by drawing on a simile comparing “white blossoms and guests arriving joyfully… not perceiving the sackcloth others were wearing” (Levertov). Through this analogy, she directly attacks the nonchalant attitude Americans had during the war, suggesting all humans should stay concerned about social matters, instead of focusing on individual gains. Furthermore, the contrast between the joyful American and poorly dressed “others,” the Iraqi people, evokes a sense of guilt within the reader. However, the poem quickly switches tone in stanza 4; the blossoms now represent fragile hope and continuity by “clinging to thin branches” and “[lifting] the sunken heart even against its will” (Levertov). The “flimsy” blossoms of hope are then compared to “our resistance to the crimes committed — again, again — in our names” (Levertov). The comparison between the weak but continuous hope and anti-war protests by the Americans directly reflects her opinion on anti-war efforts; she believes “the peace movement in [the United States] is just an agglomeration of individuals” (Burrows). She wants her audience to acknowledge the weakness in their anti-war efforts by directly connecting the Iraqi people’s hope with protests in America. The last blossoms in this poem appear in the last stanza; Levertov claims that “the blossoms were not doves,” and the war “had not ended” when it was claimed that way (Levertov). The last analogy draws attention to the real world; Levertov warns readers that although the Gulf War may end, and although there were anti-war efforts being made, it doesn’t change the fact that war continues to be inherently detrimental to society and the people within it. The symbol of blossoms and buds also appears in the aforementioned poem, “What Were They Like?” In stanza 2, Levertov inserts the symbolism of hope and blossoms again by connecting “children killed” and “no more buds.” For this poem, the disappearance of the buds represents a discontinuity, as the responder mentions the “[Vietnamese] gathered once to delight in blossom” (Levertov). The blossom corresponds to the once-thriving community, prior to the war. Yet the war destroyed the buds, so the blossom no longer exists; the future of the community is gone due to the influence of the war. Levertov largely employed the symbolism of blossoms in her poems regarding the war to create contrasts; blossoms are supposedly astounding and beautiful, and Levertov’s connection of them and the war instantly convey her message to the reader: war means destruction to beautiful things.
With her critical, sometimes radical attitude and style towards literature with humanitarian topics, Denise Levertov experienced many criticisms against her approach, as some believe her poems are a means of political statement rather than art. However, as a counterpoint, not all of Levertov’s poetry on the topic of war contains direct criticisms. In “Making Peace,” Denise Levertov draws an extended metaphor between poetry and peace-making to promote a solution to global conflict. Levertov first introduces the idea that “peace, [is] not only the absence of war” (Levertov) to suggest the broadness of the subject of peace, suggesting that although there’s no war, it doesn’t mean peace. Levertov then describes poems as the “grammar of justice” and “syntax of mutual aid” (Levertov). Grammar and syntax are clearly English literature terms while justice and mutual aid are related to peace; Levertov hints at the fact that her poems aren’t weapons for a political statement but rather tools to achieve peace. She continues using the analogy of poetry writing and peace: “A line of peace might appear if we restructured the sentence our lives are making, questioning our needs” (Levertov). Levertov suggests that peace comes through preventing corrupted power, making treaties, and most importantly, following them. Critics such as Paul Lacey believe there exists a connection between making peace and making poetry, since they both require “the most ethical, precise, and respectful use of language” (Lacey). Levertov’s extended metaphor intends to provide readers with similar ideas. She directly links peace and poetry in the last stanza, by suggesting that “peace… /might pulse then, /stanza by stanza into the world” (Levertov). She implies that peace requires time and commitment, similar to creating poetry; poetry isn’t made through simply acknowledging the urge and feeling to write poems, but rather by transforming that feeling into actions. The poem is “not there ahead of itself,” and it “can’t be imagined” and “can’t be known” (Levertov), similar to peace. By connecting poetry and peace, she encourages her readers to believe in the potential success of creating peace, although it may seem impossible. Levertov chooses to preach the possibility of peace in “Marking Peace,” though still revolving around an anti-war agenda, her approach shifts from explicit criticism to a less subtle and more artistic illustration of her message.
Through her multifaceted upbringing and her serving as a British nurse during World War II, Denise Levertov developed an ardently disapproving attitude against war. And with her passion for poetry, Levertov transformed these beliefs into numerous pieces surrounding the topic of war, discussing its detrimental effects on nations, people, and cultures. Although her later radical approach to the topic of anti-war and other political issues such as feminism and environmental protection brought her criticism, Denise Levertov continued to provide insightful viewpoints regarding the topic of war by employing multiple poetic techniques such as irony, extended metaphors, and juxtapositions in her works, “What Were They Like?” “In California During the Gulf War,” and “Making Peace.” Although we have not yet achieved world peace, Denise Levertov’s devotion to promoting peace through poetry brings awareness to humanity’s ongoing moral struggle, subsequently encouraging societal progress and hope.
Works Cited
Jarman, Mark. “Lives of a Poet: Denise Levertov.” Review of Denise Levertov: A Poet’s Life. The Hudson Review, winter 2014, hudsonreview.com/2014/02/lives-of-a-poet-denise-levertov/#.Y79rJ3bMLrf. Accessed 11 Jan. 2023.
A book review of Denise Levertov: A Poet’s Life by Mark Jarman details Denise Levertov’s career as a poet.
Levertov, Denise. “In California During the Gulf War.” 1992. Evening Train, compiled by Levertov, New Directions Publishing Corp, 1992. Poets.org, poets.org/poem/california-during-gulf-war. Accessed 10 Jan. 2023.
—. “Making Peace.” 1987. Breathing the Water, by Levertov, New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1987. Poetry Foundation, http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/53900/making-peace. Accessed 10 Jan. 2023.
—. “RESIST: A 1968 Interview with Denise Levertov.” Interview by E.G. Burrows. Michigan Quarterly Review, 1968, sites.lsa.umich.edu/mqr/2019/10/resist-a-1968-interview-with-denise-levertov/. Accessed 11 Jan. 2023.
An interview with Denise Levertov by E.G. Burrows details her opinion about the draft and war in general, and it reflects her viewpoints on political activities.
—. “What Were They Like?” All Poetry, allpoetry.com/What-Were-They-Like-. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023.
Pournara, Lizzy. “Personal Experience and Public Events Entwined in Denise Levertov’s ‘What Were They Like?’ and ‘Life at War.'” Poeticanet, http://www.poeticanet.com/denise-levertov-8217-8220-what-were-they-like-a-197.html?category_id=84. Accessed 20 Jan. 2023.
This is a personal essay from a MA student providing insightful analysis on “What Were They Like”.
Roberts, Deborah. “An antiwar poet and activist.” Review of A Poet’s Revolution: The Life of Denise Levertov. ISR, no. 90, isreview.org/issue/90/antiwar-poet-and-activist/index.html. Accessed 11 Jan. 2023.
A review of the book A Poet’s Revolution: The Life of Denise Levertov by Deborah Roberts, this source provides a detailed family background of Denise Levertov and connects “What Were They Like” with her past experience.
Rowe, John Carlos. “The ‘Vietnam Effect’ in the Persian Gulf War.” Cultural Critique, no. 19, fall 1991, pp. 121-39, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1354311. Accessed 25 Jan. 2023.
This journal by John Carlos Rowe provides a detailed analysis of the influence of the Vietnam War on the Gulf War.
Be First to Comment