I enjoyed reading the poems of the New York School this week, particularly the handful we were assigned by Kenneth Koch. Initially I was intrigued because of the setting – I am from New York and found it funny to read the bios about the poets who were writing/living/visiting the places I grew up in and near. When I got to the end of our reading list, I connected especially with Koch’s “Permanently” due to the characterization of the different parts of speech in language. These pieces are personified into characters that are capitalized in the poem, representing them as not just what they are but something different Koch is assigning to them. I really enjoy grammar and the nuances of the English language and was delighted it was being used in the poem to represent a few different subjects, specifically love and admiration.
One aspect of the New York School I appreciated was the parallel and connection to abstract expressionism, particularly influenced by artists who were practicing these styles in their paintings and works. The use of grammar was a perfect example of the types of abstract but relatable ideas the New York poets were practicing during their time. Giving the Noun, Verb, and Adjectives the actions and movements remove them from being specifically imagined people and allows them to just be objects or broad concepts. The “Nouns” can be assumed to be people, most likely men because of how they are affected by the “Adjective”, described as a “dark beauty” (line 2). But a “Verb” comes into the picture and creates “The Sentence”, which lends several meanings to the storyline of the narrator being infatuated with a woman. The sentence can refer to how sentences are formed by a verb causing an action to happen (a catalyst), or it can be something like a life “sentence”, where the interaction with the woman was a defining moment that sentenced the narrator to a lifetime of longing.
The poem is written in free verse with a consistent meter that flows well. There are 4 stanzas and one instance of indentation, specifically where Koch states, “Each sentence states one thing” and gives examples of a few types of sentences (line 5). The first sentence is striking, giving a summary to the entire poem, where Koch is reminiscing on his first encounter with the “Adjective”, a woman he will never forget seeing for the first time:
“Although it was a dark rainy day when
the Adjective walked by, I shall remember the pure and sweet expression on her face
until the day I perish from the green, effective earth.” (lines 5-7).
So, while Koch asserts each sentence says one thing, this sentence is saying several things, due to the personification of the woman as an Adjective and the importance of her presence in his life. The removal of a name or even a direct reference to a “lover” or person creates that abstraction for the reader – they can then put themselves into the poem and use the poet’s words and descriptions to assign their own meaning.
The next sentence is wholly unimportant, an interrogative asking, “Will you please close the window, Andrew?” (line 8). The one after is much more descriptive, actually using adjectives within the sentence, and saying much more. The groupings of sentences are a conversation about a very important moment in the speaker’s life, then a discussion about flowers changing color on the windowsill. To me, this was an example of how trivial certain aspects of life can seem when you have something important on your mind, or how one tries to distract themselves with everyday life. However, I would like to know what everyone else thought about this section and if they agree with this idea!
My favorite sentence was line 11, where Koch states “In the springtime the Sentences and the Nouns lay silently on the grass”, painting a warm and calming image of peace and stability. But we learn the Conjunction is lonely, calling out “And” and “But” with no response from the Adjective. The poem finishes with the absence of the adjective connecting with the Conjunction, and being “lost in the sentence” as the narrator is lost in his beloved’s “eyes, ears, nose, and throat” (lines 15-16). He is infatuated with a woman and will be until the end of time (the end of language) and laments this “can never be undone” (line 18).
With all of these cute mentions of grammar and language, my favorite part of the poem was actually the last stanza. This is because of the striking resemblance between the last lines and Andrew Marvell’s poem, “To His Coy Mistress”. The listing of the woman’s attributes and how the narrator is lost in them connects the longing and admiration of a woman he can not have. Though this poem is not as risqué as Marvell’s, the lofty concepts of love and admiration are still present and come through similarly. Much like Marvell does with his personification of time, Koch’s representation of the elusive “Adjective” and the longevity of language itself, is the equivalent of eternity and admiration until that end.
I’m also including the poem so everyone can refresh themselves and see what I’m referring to. To His Coy Mistress | The Poetry Foundation
I love the close attention you give to this poem! It bears so many hallmarks of NYS verse. There are abrupt changes in tone to the point where the concluding sentimentality feels–even as it is awkwardly introduced by that analogy of of adjectives being lost in sentences–utterly moving. Are we supposed to feel moved? Is this where the audience laughs? There are non-sequiturs and empty fillers, like those three sentences, even as each one hints at deeper meaning or else some deeper confusion: what do we make of the odd phrasing “effective earth,” or the next sentence’s move to break the compositional fourth wall and enter the sene of the poem’s own composition, or the final sentence’s meditation on how time and environment change objects of beauty for better or worse. I also love how the poem dramatizes the poet’s relationship to language, and language’s relation to creating structures of feeling.
There’s a lot going on here–thanks for walking us through your experience of the poem!
Alice, your readings are always so thoughtful, and this one is no exception. When you started, I expected to learn more about your New York and how you connected to a place in your memory through the poetry, or maybe how you saw new things because of how or what someone wrote. Instead, you walked us through Koch’s poem so thoroughly that I have a much deeper understanding of it than I originally did.
I am also fascinated by language, but language in poetry seems like Russian or some dialect of Chinese that I will never master, even when it’s written in clear English. I understand the personification. I saw the Nouns as men, and understood that Adjective was the object of his desire. However, the Verb that drove up and created a sentence had me confused. And this is why I struggle with poetry.
I thought of Adjective as an interlude. She was something that Noun, many Nouns, admired, maybe because she exists to describe Nouns. It seems like Adjective is something to be looked at, remembered, but is not a partner, like Verb is. When Verb is added, then something more is created – Sentence (like family). So in Spring, when the families are lounging around, Noun recalls Adjective fondly, but she isn’t there. That isn’t her place.
I loved reading your understanding of this poem. You analysis of the sentences and nouns creating a peaceful atmosphere or reference feels very appropriate. With sentences, they are whole and complete including nouns that help give specificity to the person, place, thing, or idea, the sentence is discussing. The connections tend to turn sentences a different way then it begins. Adjectives are only in tandem with nouns, so the adjective not responding to the conjunction makes sense since it is not paired together.
I loved your fun interpretation of this poem while addressing its correlation to how these words are used in form!