>> So, now we're looking at a poem called Lines for an Abortionist's Office which was published first in 1936. And then, and then, in a book in 1937, also during the depression. Written by Ruth Lechlitner who was with her husband, Paul Corey, a writer, an active leftist, and somewhat, associated briefly also with the Communist Party of the United States. A radical. And, she writes a poem that I think I'll read to you. It's, it's just four stanzas and you can tell me about this, the way the stanzas work. Close here thine eyes, O State: These are thy guests who bring To gods with appetites grown great A votive offering. Know that they dare defy The words of law and priest--- Better to let the unborn die Than starve while others feast. The stricken flesh may be Outraged, and heal; but mind Pain-sharpened, may yet learn to see Thee plain, O State. Be blind: Accept love's fruit: be sleek Fat and lip-sealed. Forget That Life, avenging pain, will speak. Thrust deep the long curette. That last line is hard to hear and hard to read. What's this poem about? Who wants to take a shot at that? Dave? >> I think she's, rallying against the hypocrisy of the state. Just knowing that all these things are going on, and that it's the cause of them and that it's burying it's head in the sand. >> Okay. But specifically, this, by 1936, the state is generally supportive of poor people through the new deal. But in this particular area, the state is not. Why? What area are we talking about? >> Talking about abortion. >> Abortion. How is the state not supportive of abortion rights? >> It's, I mean, the same way that it's discussed in, it's still discussed today. I mean, there's lots of ethical, moral, and of course, religious ... >> Oh, but you can be more specific. This is prior to Rowe versus Wade. >> Like 40 years prior to Rowe versus Wade. >> It's, it's illegal. >> It's illegal. >> It's, it's still, I mean, completely illegal. >> When you break, it's breaking the law to decide that you need to have an abortion, and then have one was illegal. So, state could refer to the state, the state of New York, or to the state, capital S, which is what Dave meant, the government. Who else is coming in for criticism implicitly? >> The church. >> Which church? Is it the Protestant church? >> Catholic. >> Catholic church. >> Emily, any evidence in the poem of Catholicism? >> Priest, it said there. Catholic church in them. >> There's a priest, anything else? >>, What about the votive offering? >> That's, that's going to be fairly, Catholic, no? >> I, I suppose. Yeah. >> Okay. So, this is, I mean, why, why, this is the ABC's of abortion politics. But why, why is this writer seemingly angry at the state and at the church? >> I suppose, because denying the right to abortion is in a sense, it's stifling one life in service of another. >> Well, the Church's position on abortion is fairly strong. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. So what, what, what, so what she, what she's saying? What's the gist of this? Let's get to it, Molly? >> What's her position here. >> Well, I feel like she is using children as a metaphor for sacrifice, or unborn babies as a metaphor for sacrifice. >> But can we be less fancy than that? Just what, like, what's she saying on the surface about this situation. >> Oh, and she says, better to let the unborn die than starve while others feast. I think she's saying that abortion is necessary in cases and that the church isn't letting them do it. >> That, this is an argument that's still made. That's still in contention. What's the argument? >> I think, I think she's saying just turn a blind eye to the issue and just let it happen kind of. >> Close here thine eyes, O State. You know abortions are taking place so, don't look. But, what is she, what is she saying when she says, better to let the unborn die than starve while others feast? >> What's the argument being made? >> I think she's blaming the state for causing the conditions that all these people feel the need to get abortions. >> And what specifically is, this is an argument that liberals make. Right? >> Overpopulation. >> We don't even have to go there. Should I have this baby in the middle of the depression and I can't afford to feed it? Your rules make me have this baby. This is a, a line that she's super, and she's, she's, she's quoting, essentially. Better to let the unborn die that, than starve while others feast. This is an argument about poverty, about women who are who need to give birth to children they can't support. Okay. So, what's her position, I just want to make this clear. Anna, what's the position of this speaker? On the. >> She's. >> The abortion question. >> She's saying that the state should allow abortions to occur in situations where the family or, you know, in some cases, even like the single mother, like can't. >> You're so, a participant in the rhetoric about abortions of the twenty-first century where you're thinking about conditions. I don't think she's thinking about conditions here. She's talking about the right of a woman to decide whether to abort a baby she can't take care of. I don't think there are any other conditions. Although, the conditions of the depression is ubiquitous so. >> I know that's more, that's like another like, conditions of the depression make it such that in lot of cases, they can support. >> Yes. >> More children. >> So, why does, and this stricken flesh may be outraged and healed, healed but mind pain-sharpened, may yet to learn, may yet learn to see the plain, O State. What's she saying Amaris, there? Can you translate that? >> That physical pain is transient, but. >> Meaning the abortion itself. >> Yes, but the psychological suffering continues. >> And what will the psychological suffering lead her to see? >> To see the state and all its cruelty. So, she's giving the eyes to, or the power of vision to the woman in question. It's, she's taking it from the state and giving it to. >> The state will be blind. >> Give the woman the power and the agency to see for herself. >> The woman can see through the hypocrisy of the state and the church. Why do we keep thinking of church? What's the form of this poem? >> It's to see. >> Ballad. >> It's a ballad, it's an, A, B, A, B, ballad, how is the, what's the meter? >> Iambic. >> Three, four. >> Know that they dare defy, that's three stresses, the words of law and priests, there's your iambic line. The words of law and priests, three. Better to let the unborn die, that's sort of three, and sort of four. Than starve while others feast, that's a, that's a regular stanza. That's a, so it's an A, B, A, B, three, three, three, three stanza. It's a fairly, we're, we're, we, we discussed when we talked the ballads of Emily Dickenson where there are three places where we see ballads. One was, the pub. And Max, remember about what you said why ballads are goods in, good in pubs? >> Cuz they're the reason to sing while you're drunk. >> Yeah, when you're drunk you can remember the lines, right. The second was the child's bedroom, the nursery rhyme. And the third was, the church. So, what do you think folks? Ruth Leckwitner, a poet, is using the most traditional kind of hymn. She's even using the rhetoric of prayer. Is she? Anybody see the rhetoric and vocabulary and diction of prayer? >> Yeah, the O State. >> O State. >> The thine, the [inaudible]. >> Thine, close here thine eyes O state, This is a prayer. This is a hymn. So, tell me, what do you think? She's, so this poet is using traditional form in order, to, the form itself is saying, is part of the message. What's the form saying? What's the message of the form itself? This is a big moment in your education as students of poetry. >> Isn't that attaching almost sort of divine, or at least, like deeply moral mission to something which at that time and even still at this time is considered a moral? She's, she's talking about abortion in a ... >> She's advocating. >> Matter of prayer and saying that it's not sort of, a strange from or remove from the sort of, general moral mission, I suppose. >> So, if she's opposing abortion, she could write a poem in which the rhetoric and formal choices in aesthetic of the poem could occupy a space that's totally separate from the church. But instead, she uses the very heart of the church's aesthetic in order to make a case against it, what do you think? >> I don't know. I, I think there's something deliciously sacrilegious and. >> [laugh] >> The way that she. >> Sacrilegious. >> Yes. >> [laugh] >> I must say, that sounds so good. >> [laugh] >> That. [laugh] ... >> [laugh] >> In, in that she uses that she subverts the form by just, you know, still, still kind of using the body of religion when the contents are so opposed to it and so discordant with it. And. >> So, how is she handling the discordance that you've just described? >> Isn't she exploiting at this point? >> She's celebrating it. >> Yeah. >> She's saying, you want ballad? You want hymn? You want prayer? I'm going to crawl inside, the very heart of the rhetoric, and language, and means representation of this institution and I'm going to sing it my way. You want, you want you want prayer? You want offering? I'm going to give this aborted fetus to you. I'm going to lay it on your rhetorical doorstep, that my offering. I mean, the reason I'm being so graphic is that she invites it. Thrust deep the long curette, what's she saying there? Let's not be too graphic, but. >> Abort away. >> Go ahead, make my day. >> [laugh] >> Abort away. >> [laugh] >> Nice. >> [laugh] >> This is really, I find it very, spine chilling to read the last line. She's saying, this is what you want? You want to look the other way, you want to be blind while I see? Well, guess what? Life avenging pain will speak and I will speak in rhymes, and I will speak in meter, and I will speak in your song until you see me plain. Go ahead, make my pain. So, does the choice of fairly strict, traditional poetic form work in the service of the poem's radicalism, its content radicalism? Ali? >> I, that's what I would say. >> By creating a formal irony. Emily, yes? >> Yeah. >> Powerful for you? >> Yeah. >> Amaris? >> Yeah, I think it's very effective. >> So, we're, we're finding that form can be iron, ironic. Not, not exactly something you depend on modernism for, but we looked, we looked at John Peale Bishop's Fuck You Half Ass poem which is called A Recollection. And, we discovered that form can get ironized. Therefore, the kind of high hilarity, 1920's high modernism purpose, this for a political purpose. Dave, thought on the formal irony? >> She uses it as a Trojan horse to, get into the front door and then. >> A ballad as a Trojan horse, I like poetry. I like not only poetry, but modern poetry, where, as we've said before, once you've seen modernism, you can't possibly go back. The, the, the genie has been let out and you must, when you use a traditional form, you must reckon with what it stands for. Form means, form signifies. It's not simply a story about abortion. The form is the thing that clinches this poem. Your thought, Anna? >> I just, I don't know. I think that just as the way the teens in 20's were a time of making it new. >> Mm-hm. >> The depression is also a time of making it new. >> So, it should. >> The Depression is also. >> You're, you're, you're, you're kind of not persuaded by the traditionalism here. >> I'm not into it. >> You'd like it to be newer. >> I think, I think that there are other ways to make it new than going kind of, having this knee jerk back to. >> Mm-hm. >> What was before modernism. I don't know. >> Okay. >> I can't get. What we've. >> Fair enough. >> Seen in modernism. >> Fair enough. >> I had. >> Molly? >> What I kind of like that it's sort of, sort of a signifier, a symbol of the depression that she's using something old. She's having to re-use something and recycle something because the resources aren't there to make a whole new thing. >> Oh, that's so meta, I love that. >> [laugh] >> That's really cool. Max? >> I think I, I disagree with you Anna. I think if there's, there's certainly is a sort of political urgency to this poem and, and she's, it's, it's, it's definitely not like the modernist that we've seen concerned so much with itself or with language or with, with poetry, . But, definitely with this, the issue that it's addressing. And so, I think it is very effective to, to, not to just talk about it but rather to have this subverted form as a way to, to get to the heart of the matter there, and to make. >> Yeah, definitely, I appreciate what she's doing, definitely. It's just not what I would've done in her situation. >> So, again, the question we applied before to Genevieve Taggard is, does the revolution that is augured in the content of the poem, does it extend to the means of representation? And here, the only way to do that is to see the form, the traditional formal choices ironized. The Trojan horse mode.
