The Cracks Between What We Are and What We Are Supposed to Be: Essays and Interviews

7. Evaluation of an Unwritten Poem: Wislawa Szymborska in the Dialogue of Creative and Critical Thinkers

7 Evaluation of an Unwritten Poem Wislawa szymborska in the d ialogue of Creative and Critical Thinkers From the ancient world to the r enaissance, when the sciences, arts, and humanities all spoke the same language, it was not unusual to find scientists writing poetry or to find poets, philosophers, and artists probing the universe with the curiosity of scientists. With their increasing specialization, the disciplines have diverged, resulting often in mutual incomprehension. a s a poet who studied sociology as well as literature, Wislawa szymborska, the 1996 winner of the n obel prize in Literature, is particularly interesting to consider in terms of the divergence of the arts and sciences or the dialogue of creative and critical thinkers. a number of symborska’s poems reflect on the rift between poetic and prosaic discursive modes and the clashing styles of creative-intuitive and critical-analytical thinkers. perhaps the most explicitly antagonistic in its view of their separation is the following poem. eVa LUa ti o n o F an Un Writ ten po e M in the poem’s opening words the authoress asserts that while the e arth is small, the sky is excessively large and in it there are, i quote, “too many stars for our own good.” in her depiction of the sky, one detects a certain helplessness, the authoress is lost in a terrifying expanse, she is startled by the planets’ lifelessness, and within her mind (which can only be called imprecise) a question soon arises: whether we are, in the end, alone under the sun, all suns that ever shone. 36 Chapter 7 in spite of all the laws of probability! a nd today’s universally accepted assumptions! in the face of the irrefutable evidence that may fall into human hands any day now! That’s poetry for you. Meanwhile, our Lady Bard returns to e arth, a planet, so she claims, which “makes its rounds without eyewitnesses,” the only “science fiction that our cosmos can aἀord.” The despair of a pascal (1623–1662, note mine) is, the authoress implies, unrivalled on any, say, a ndromeda or Cassiopeia. o ur solitary existence exacerbates our sense of obligation and raises the inevitable question, How are we to live et cetera, since, “we can’t avoid the void.” “‘My God,’ man calls out to Himself, ‘have mercy on me, i beseech thee, show me the way . . . ’” The authoress is distressed by the thought of life squandered so freely, as if our supplies were boundless. she is likewise worried by wars, which are, in her perverse opinion, always lost on both sides, and by the “authoritorture” (sic!) of some people by others. Her moralistic intentions glimmer throughout the poem. They might shine brighter beneath a less naïve pen. n ot under this one, alas. Her fundamentally unpersuasive thesis (that we may well be alone under the sun, all suns that ever shone) combined with her lackadaisical style (a mixture of lofty rhetoric and ordinary speech) forces the question: Whom might this piece convince? The answer can only be: n o one. Q.e.d .1 szymborska dramatizes a classic conflict of creative and critical thinking. in a witty dissection of a nonexistent poem, she considers the value of literature or art versus logical analysis or scientific reasoning. The poet takes on the voice of an analytical reader who could be a literary critic with a scientific bent or a scientist critiquing the language of poetry. The speaker in the poem is a reader who values facts, reason, and precision over emotion, szymborska in the d ialogue of Creative and Critical Thinkers 37 rhetoric, and the imprecision of metaphor. r egarding the poem as a logical argument or mathematical proof, this critical reader complains that it fails to meet its burden and thus is unpersuasive. n ot only does this stern critic give the poem a low mark but the poet herself is also downgraded. Metaphors and ambiguities are not just dismissed as examples of imprecision; they are also cited as evidence of the poet’s fuzzy thinking, her innately flawed judgment . The poet’s intuitive rather than analytical approach fails to convince this reader of the poem’s merit. What otherwise might be regarded as a poet ’s strengths, this speaker perceives as shortcomings: “That’s poetry for you.” Unlike the exacting critic, the poet tries to support “perverse opinions” with a “naïve...