Literary Analysis Of David Kalstone's 'Crusoe In England'

1148 Words3 Pages

In the afterword to Becoming a Poet—David Kalstone’s study of Elizabeth
Bishop—James Merrill writes that the poem “Crusoe in England” is “an exception to Bishop’s preference for the happy ending, or the ruefully cheerful one” (259).1 If the melancholy of “Crusoe in England” makes it uncharacteristic of Bishop’s work, “One Art,” another of the poems in her collection
Geography III, exhibits a similar deviation, although it notably begins with a
“ruefully cheerful” declaration:
241
The art of losing isn’t hard to master; so many things seem filled with the intent to be lost that their loss is no disaster. (1–3)
In the face of overwhelming loss, Bishop appears in this first stanza to have constructed an admittedly bittersweet, but nonetheless …show more content…

By the end of this meditation, however, the sentiment of these first three lines has been exposed as an ironically failed attempt to master disaster, with the poem’s final stanza uniting those two words in a heartrending concluding couplet. The poem’s first line is an expression of what Bishop desperately wants to be true; the remaining eighteen lines document Bishop’s painful admission, through both content and form, that such a claim is dishonest.
Similar motivations mark the poem’s title and first stanza: somehow lessen loss’s sting by asserting either its uniformity or ubiquity. Loss has no distinction,
Bishop declares in the first three lines, willingly using the nebulous and catch-all word “things” to describe loss’s casualties. Subsequent stanzas qualify this statement with specific examples, but the poet’s purpose remains constant: stress the homogenous nature of loss. Whether it be the “fluster” of losing something as comparatively trivial as “door keys” or losing something as vast as “a continent,” both are ultimately, Bishop argues, the same “one art”
(4, 5, 14). These claims are meant to prevent disaster by simultaneously juxtaposing disparate items and denying their differences. The poet …show more content…

When the second stanza ends with the poem’s first line, highlighting the poem’s central proposal, that proposal’s reasonableness remains intact. Stanza 3 adds distance and speed to the equation of loss. Bishop’s incremental repetition of line 3—“None of these will bring disaster”—still does not seem grossly unreasonable, although the shock of the suddenly personal “you” in line 8 hints that the most taxing examples are yet to come.
The rest of the poem is written explicitly in the first person, with Bishop suddenly asserting her own investment in the accuracy of the proposal in line
1. The preceding two stanzas were misleading, we discover. Rather than being written to a third party, lines 4 through 9 showed the poet tentatively dipping her toe into the subject’s troubled waters; from the fourth stanza on, Bishop immerses—and implicates—herself more fully, conjuring up objects and ideas of heightened personal worth. Lines 10 and 11 call attention to another distinction in the art of losing:
I lost my mother’s watch. And look! my last, or next-to-last, of three loved houses went.
The “look” of line 10 exposes the growing complexity of Bishop’s

Open Document