In, the memory of Old Jack, berry tells the story of Jack beechum, a 92-year-old Port William resident and one-time farmer living out his final days in the inn in downtown Port William where he is looked after by his long-time friend Mat Feltner, one. Yet as we read the story and become acquainted with Jack, we realize that his is largely a tragic story. Born to a father unable to care for him or for the land, as a young man Jack inherits a farm in disrepair and carrying considerable debt. Under the tutelage of Ben Feltner, mats father, the young Jack learns to care for the land and to farm it well—to farm it sacramentally, as the language in The gift of good Land would put. What Jack is learning to do in these early days is to work in a certain way toward certain ends—ends governed by considerations beyond human ambition or simple profit margins. The goal is health and, beyond that, fruitfulness. Berry describes this well in his essay the long-Legged house, (collected here ) where he describes how preparing his familys cabin for his soon-to-be wife tanya helped teach him something about work as well as marriage: For weeks before the wedding I spent every spare. I mowed around it, and cleaned it out, and patched the roof.
Berry, wendell united architects - essays
But as Berrys phrasing suggests, reverent breaking is not just about discrete actions, but about the kind of people we are. Most of us who exploit the world, after all, are not so vicious that we willingly do things to desecrate gods creation. Rather, we do it through our carelessness, laziness, or ignorance, failing to recognize the connection between our actions and the health of creation. And so the real question with Berry isnt so much how we can break creation reverently, but how we can become the sort of people capable of breaking creation reverently. And this is why berrys novels are so vital to understanding his work. For it is in his novels that he shows us how we can go about becoming the sort of person capable of such a relationship to the created order. One of the particularly powerful images Berry uses to capture this reverent relationship to creation is marriage. The stories of Port William are stories of marriages—Ptol Proudfoot and his wife miss Minnie in the early 20th century all the way to the faithful stewards Danny and Lyda Branch of Berrys later stories. Throughout Berrys body of work, marriage functions as a means of learning how to live in creation, how to break it with reverence and in such a way that, in time, it will actually flourish. There are three marriages in particular that can offer a powerful picture of how Berry thinks farming we can break creation honorably and how we can become the sorts of people capable of such things.
I suspect Wendell Berry did as well, and perhaps, could the discussion be disentangled a bit from its political setting, still does. Not that I care what Wendell Berrys positions are. But there is a lot to learn from his patient investigations into the nature of things, not least from his comparison of poetry and marriage. Near the end of, the gift of good Land, wendell Berry writes, to live, we must daily break the body and shed the blood of Creation. When we do this knowingly, lovingly, skillfully, reverently, it is a sacrament. When we do it ignorantly, greedily, clumsily, destructively, it is a desecration. In such desecration we condemn ourselves to spiritual and moral loneliness, and others to want. This", perhaps more than any other"tion from his work, gets to the heart of Berrys vision and the purpose of his writing. Berrys project for over 50 years has been house to argue for the goodness of reverent breaking and to demonstrate its possibility.
It does not belong to the definition proper, apparently, so it is not subject to the restriction that it not be altered to suit circumstance. It is not a slippery slope argument, but a request for definition, to ask what statement other terms in Berrys notion of marriage are equally non-essential. Obviously the vow must be essential, and the life-long character of it (until death). But what else is essential? What are the boundaries, the limits, that he wrote so eloquently about remaining within? Apparently what is essential is the vow alone. I had assumed much more.
But he does apparently move to include homosexual relationships in the category of marriage (I assume he is thinking of that status of permanent, lifelong commitments between homosexual partners). That is hard to square with the language and the direction of his Use of Old Forms essay. On the second page of that essay, just to get things going, he offered this brief account of marriage: Marriage is the mutual promise of a man and a woman to live together, to love and help each other, in mutual fidelity, until death. It is understood that these definitions cannot be altered to suit convenience or circumstance, any more than we can call a rabbit a squirrel because we preferred to see a squirrel. Poetry of the traditionally formed sort, for instance, does not propose that its difficulties should be solved by skipping or forcing a rhyme or by mutilating syntax or by writing prose. Marriage does not invite one to solve ones quarrel with ones wife by marrying a more compliant woman. Certain limits, in short, are prescribed imposed before the beginning. And, as rehearsed above, he spends several thousand words exploring the way our loves fit into that ancient form that we are not free to alter. Thirty years later the man and woman part needs to be extended and expanded; it looked like an essential limitation but apparently was not.
Wendell berry essay - quality paper Writing Help that
Andy catlett from 2007, which is among my favorites). I could also have written it in the present tense because thats how you write about old books: author says this, author argues that. But recently berry went out of his way to make a public statement about marriage and about homosexuality, or to expound on gay marriage. i know Berry was speaking aloud and not crafting a careful or considered essay, and I can also tell that his main job that day was to declare whose religion-political program he abominates most, which he did with paragraph some gusto, roundly condemning and shaming his. And i always think of Wendell Berry as getting a sort of free pass on actual political issues, since his overall position is wonderfully and unmappably cattywompus from available electoral options (though i expect party leaders can count on him to vote democrat when push. But I write in the past tense because berrys recent remarks make a definitional move that this older essay didnt foresee, and doesnt even seem to permit.
They put a question mark after many of his earlier statements. He has retroactively obfuscated his point about limits and definitions. Heres what I mean: In his recent remarks, berry mocks the idea that homosexual marriage is opposed to and a threat to heterosexual marriage, as if the marriage market is about to be cornered and monopolized by homosexuals. He goes on to make the excellent point, which is exactly in line with his decades-long argument, that infidelity, divorce, and promiscuity without any regard for marriage are the real problem. Marriage as an institution is breaking down around us because its being done so badly. Heterosexual marriage does not need defending It only needs to be practiced, which is pretty hard to do just now. He has a good point, perhaps even the main point, and well hardly catch Wendell Berry cheerleading for the culture of sexual self-expression and self-fulfillment.
It may be, wrote berry near the end of the essay, that form serves us best when it works as an obstruction to baffle us and deflect our intended course. It may be that when we no longer know what to do we have come to our real work and that when we no longer know which way to go we have begun our real journey. The mind that is not baffled is not employed. The impeded stream is the one that sings. As the great formophile william Wordsworth said, they scorn not the sonnet with its ancient, fixed rules, just as nuns fret not at the convent door.
Likewise, when Auguste rodin bloviated that no truly great man has ever confined his love to only one woman, lovers know that Rodin should have talked less and sculpted more, for he sculpted like a demigod but spake as a fool. It is the keeping of the form, berry wrote, that gives us our instruction. We had been prepared to learn what we had the poor power to expect. But fidelity to the form has driven us beyond expectation. The world, the truth, is more abounding, more delightful, more demanding than we thought. I have written this appreciation of Berrys 1982 essay poetry and Marriage: The Use of Old Forms in the past tense because it is more than 30 years old. I could have written it in the present tense because wendell Berry is very much alive and still writing, and some of his recent work is some of his best (dont miss his short novel.
Wendell, berry : wikis (The full wiki)
Properly used, a verse form, like a marriage, creates impasses, which the will and present understanding can solve only arbitrarily and superficially. Because he knew that the blessings flowed precisely from the restriction (remember the paradox of form, which simultaneously closes and opens, is jealous to be generous he leaned into the limitations. These halts and difficulties do not ask for immediate remedy; we fail them by making emergencies of them. They ask, rather, for patience, forbearance, inspiration the gifts and graces of time, circumstance, and faith. And he added, i think changing the register of his speaking: They are, perhaps, the true occasions of the poem: occasions for surpassing what we know or have reason to expect. (An aside: i am so grateful that i know no details of Wendell Berrys lifelong marriage to his wife tanya. If i knew any, could I resist the temptation to hear affectionate complaints about Mrs. Berry in every line of this words essay? Nietzsche was right when he warned that with such pot-peeking they reduce the authors whole effort to nothing; so that they deservedly gain, not a philosophic outlook or instruction, but -at best, or at worst,- nothing more than the satisfaction of vulgar curiosity.).
But in all cases, he argued, the possibility of breaking a vow can tell us nothing of what is meant by making and keeping one. Divorce is the contradiction of marriage, not one of its proposed results. Berry invoked department two muses who are at work in both poetry and marriage alike: the muse of Inspiration, who gives us inarticulate visions and desires, and the muse of realization, who returns again and again to say, it is yet more difficult than you thought. This is the muse of form. It is the willingness to hear the second muse that keeps us cheerful in our work. To hear only the first is to live the bitterness of disappointment. Berrys constant theme throughout was constancy: vowing, staying, keeping form, enforcing freedom, remaining open to new possibility within the given, and to unexpected gifts. The most forceful passages in Berrys essay, if they are not the passages rejecting divorce, are the ones confessing the difficulty of staying within the form of poetry or marriage.
berry made it clear that divorce had no such standing. Marriage is a form entered into, which has its own built-in conclusion and fulfilment: death. A marriage is a formal vow, berry argued, and as such it can be seen to stand opposite not-vowing. Until the wedding vows are said, the argument that one might find a better spouse has standing because there is no argument or evidence that can be produced against it; statistical probability would seem to support it: given the great number of theoretically possible choices. The vows answer that argument simply by cloture: the marriage now exists beyond all possibility of objection. Yes, that was Berrys relentless point. The power to break the vow is not parallel to the power to make. Undoubtedly, he admitted, thinking of Jephthah and Agamemnon, some vows ought to be broken. Undoubtedly, some marriages are wrong, some divorces right.
He admitted that there is some danger of becoming cute or precious in carrying this analogy out to such length, and yet i am working on the assumption that the analogy is valid. He tried to solve a few vexed issues with the analogy, such as how to think rightly about those less formal poetic genres (clue: free verse is like courtship). But if the thought project was to work at all, he insisted, the analogy is most readily apparent if we think of marriage and poetic forms as set forms that is, forms that in a sense precede the content, that are in a sense prescriptive. These set forms are indispensible, i believe, because they accommodate and serve that part of our life which is cyclic, drawing minds and lives back repeatedly through the same patterns, as each year moves through the same four seasons in the same order. There was a season back in the 1980s when Wendell Berry was writing a lot about the nature of poetry. Most of the essays collected in the volume. Standing by words dillard (including this essay on poetry and Marriage) were on that topic. Marriage, on the other hand, is one of about half a dozen constant themes in Berrys writing; almost no berry book, fiction or non-fiction, prose or verse, can avoid the topic for long. He relates marriage to the land, to the cycling of the seasons, to civic membership, to the intergenerational bond of human community, to the nature of humanity, to life under God.
How to write an essay on your life, i need help
In his 1982 essay, poetry and biography Marriage: The Use of Old Forms, wendell Berry used poetry and marriage as images of each other. It was hard to tell whether the essay was mainly about poetry or mainly about marriage, because the two were mutually illuminating. Berry moved his analogical eye back and forth between these two things in order to evoke from them a deeper reality that is always very hard to speak about: form. Poetry and marriage, said Berry, are both caught up in the paradox of form, the paradox in which strict limits are imposed, and somehow simultaneously a great possibility is established. Entering into a form, berry pointed out, jealously defines a way and in the same movement generously invites a great good. It closes as it opens. Berry worked the comparison for 14 brilliant pages, by turns bringing clarity and evoking mystery (some of my favorite sentences in this essay are the ones I dont fully grasp).