Stevens, of course, is a poet who has produced some of the most widely anthologized poetry in the canon. Most of the plaudits for these poems are justified; there are also other poems that (to my knowledge) are not as widely known that appear in this volume that are definitely worth careful reading (the first two that come to my mind are “Esthetique du Mal” and “Prologues to What Is Possible”, both of which appear in the back half of this collection). In terms of craft, there’s a certain admirable rigor to the forms he uses and how he proceeds to unspool his main “theses”, as it were (the poetry being very philosophical or metaphysical in nature… in fact, the poetry succeeds most when he’s able to successfully blend this with a more emotive tone or affect). Poets who want to minutely study how words, poetic and rhetoric devices, sounds can be marshalled to enhance their own writing would do well to even study many of the minor works.
So, why the middling review? These “Selected Works” contain a lot of writing that I would characterize as inferior or less-interesting variations of the strongest poems (in no particular order and not comprehensive, these include “Sunday Morning”, “The Snow Man”, the aforementioned 2 works, “Credences of Summer”, “The Owl in a Sarcophagus”, “The Poem of Our Climate”, some parts of “Notes Towards a Supreme Fiction” and “An Ordinary Evening in New Haven”). Stevens, probably moreso than most poets (although this is a problem in a lot of collected works), dwelled on the same conceits consistently, plumbing their depths with an obsessiveness that unfortunately relies on the depth of the conceits themselves to work. Sometimes, beneath the language there’s “no there, there” (amusingly, this idiom almost sounds like something that could come from a Stevens poem). However, at what point is an idea such as this conveyed more proficiently than at the end of the relatively simple early poem “The Snow Man” (a poem that is rightly anthologized): “Which is the sound of the land/Full of the same wind/That is blowing in the same bare place/For the listener, who listens in the snow,/And, nothing himself, beholds/Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.” In fact, this idea is the opposite of the “no there there” type of thought. So much of the rest of the work unspools and circles around the idea that there is a thing, and an idea of the thing; and, then, that the idea of the thing also contains or does not contain the idea of the opposition of thing, or some sort of contrary notion of the thing; and that a whole world (relative to the construction of metaphors) can exist out of these notions, and that there can be meta-structures of metaphors that can be developed that continually reveal new truths about said original thing, but then we must return to the original thing… and, really, 400 pages of poems about that is probably too much for even several sittings. The Palm at the End of the Mind also has the unfortunate effect of making the anomalous poems seem better than they are, most likely (although I’d have to do some sort of controlled experiment by re-reading them in isolation to uncover this effect), while making the canonical work simply seem like better versions of other things that aren’t so good, which in its turn reduces their effect.
In a way, putting together a selected works does Stevens a bit of a disservice due to the lack of evolution in the obsession… the writing, over time, simply becomes a more complicated version of what he was doing in the early work, which was already fairly complicated to begin with. What is a reader to make of something like the first stanzas of “Someone Puts a Pineapple Together”: “O juventes, O filii, he contemplates/A wholly artificial nature, in which/The profusion of metaphor has been increased./It is something on a table that he sees,/The root of a form, as of this fruit, a fund,/The angel at the centre at this rind,/This husk of Cuba, tufted emerald,/Himself, may be, the irreducible X/At the bottom of imagined artifice,/Its inhabitant and elect expositor./It is as if there were three planets: the sun,/The moon and the imagination…”. Yet, much of poetry is like this, exploring the metaphorical possibilities for expression of some sort of fundamental identity, only to circle back and examine more metaphorical impressions. Those who aren’t scholars of poetry, or who don’t write poetry and won’t benefit from studying the craft, are going to struggle to penetrate it. Those who do write it, then, are left to grapple with, in the end, not a question of poetry, but of philosophy and metaphysics. What is the value of these explorations, more than 100 years later? Do we believe that examining elements of craft and expression (such as metaphor, or how a poem comes to exist, or the nature of “how can we contemplate X vs metaphorical representation of X vs the idea of non-X”) holds value, outside of the hermetic world of the text? How one answers these for oneself will likely inform how one feels about reading it in its entirety.