Skip to main content

Guest Review: Pugh On Hillier

Sheenagh Pugh reviews
A Quechua Confession Manual
by Sheila Hillier


A first collection by an older writer is always interesting, not least because writers with more life experience often have more to write about. Hillier is a medical sociologist who has lived and worked in many countries. She has also clearly read a lot, but I'm not sure she needs to credit the books that have helped inspire various poems as she does at the start; it's a generous impulse but can give the process an unwanted whiff of midnight oil.

Be the poet whatever age, most first collections are uneven. Hillier's observation is sometimes very sharp and startling, as in "Jealousy", where she pinpoints beautifully the sensation of being in love and vulnerable:

Someone who's cut the letter Y in me
from belly to neck is opening up the flaps to take a look

It would be odd if she were always that effective, and of course she isn't. There are a few poems that seem merely anecdotal, notably "Emperor of the Kitchen Garden", in which a man grows veg. And in "A Sleeping Spell" (which I wish were not the book's last poem, since for my money it's a long way the weakest) the observation seems vapid, in a 70s-hippyish sort of way, and the language curiously awkward and approximate. "From the green forest breathe in deep" is an odd instruction; how can one breathe "from" anything, and "green" is a bit redundant; had the forest been any less expected colour, it might have been worth mentioning. And in "Three beeswax candles' yellow light/Honey the air", shouldn't the verb be "honeys", singular, since it relates to the light rather than the candles?

But her observation and execution are usually much better, and the poems I liked best are those that draw on her wide reading, travel and general life experience, plus the verbal skill that allows her to craft them into something memorable. "Fisherman", "Village Fugitive", "Institute of Nuclear Medicine" and "Pollux and Castor, elephants" are all successes in this line, but my favourite is "Scanno Abruzzo 1953", a sort of non-love story, or a love story that might have been, set in what sounds like a small Italian village and involving two ageing people:

He's walked up,
dusty from the dry red fields.
He looks at her neat boots,
the beading on her widow's hat,
hears her stiff dress rustle in the wind
and catches the glow of a pearl rosary
against her velvet collar.

He should have married her
when Alessandro fell off that roof.

At this point, and when "she leans towards him, whispering", I was worried that soppiness and happy endings might be about to ensue, but not a bit of it. As she bends his ear about her children in Rome, he reflects

He thinks that she's become a bore,
praising the city she's seen only once,
the children that have left and won't come back.
He doesn't nod agreement

This rings completely true, yet so does the buried eroticism of the opening lines, and of the ending, with the same eroticism frustrated and dissipated:

A sharp wind nags his skin;
he feels there's thunder somewhere North,
rain without purpose in the city, squalls
exploding on pavements, spattering the cars,
to disappear in drains, a waste, a waste of water.

This is a powerful and moving poem (and, to my mind, a much more natural competition-winner than some in here that were placed in competitions, which just shows what a lottery they are).

I was less keen on some of those poems that seem determined to be "strange".  There was a fashion, which I think might be drawing to a close, for taking a subject or viewpoint not so much original as downright eccentric – I recall, some years ago, Jo Shapcott doing a competition adjudication (Exeter, I think) in which she said she'd seen so many poems with relentlessly quirky subjects or viewpoints that they were becoming tiresome, and in fact one of the things I like about older poets is that they don't often feel that need Lewis Carroll identified, for poets to look at all things with a sort of mental squint. Quirkiness can have its place – the subject matter of "Castor and Pollux, elephants" is unusual in the extreme but it works because what the poem is about, fundamentally, is love and priorities. The title poem is another such, taking an unusual but successful way into writing about culture clash and belief.  But in others like "Envoy" and "Thermidor", the extended metaphors, for me, start eating their own tails and getting so damn clever you can't see past them to whatever the poem was meant to be about.  Imagery works best when it isn't a firework display in its own right but a lamp illuminating something else – like the sketch in "Dreaming of the Dead" where the departed, unwilling to leave, inhabit our dreams like Hitchcock,

bobbing into frame
as plumbers, flower-sellers, "man-in-lift",
small parts


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".