In the course of working on revisions, I’ve been pondering the closing lines of poems. Examining the close of a poem is common revision practice; and over the years, I have gathered much advice concerning when and how to end a poem, some of which is conflicting (of course). Perhaps most famous is Yeats’ idea that the poem should click closed like a box. But poets themselves may disagree. Mentor & Muse (no longer extant) devoted its last issue to just this topic, and clicking on the link will get you to the opening page–on which you will find numerous poetry worthies quoted regarding the way poems ought to end. The essays in the issue are also worth reading, though you may end up feeling more confused than ever about what poems need to do. https://mentorandmuse.net/issue-11-on-poetic-closure/

And just consider the word “closure.” It derives from the word for a fence, wall, or enclosure, also meaning to lock and from the Latin verb for to close. Gestalt psychology employed it to refer to the sense of satisfaction that comes from making things (or feelings) whole even when parts are missing or when a visual image is fragmented. It’s something the human brain seems geared to do: make a whole from bits and pieces. For example, in Impressionist paintings, we see the images’ gestalt despite interrupted and fragmentary brush work. Which strikes me as not unlike many poems I can think of. So when a poem closes with a measure of uncertainty or ambivalence, is the poem flawed? Or can attentive readers make a whole or sense of the piece through the marvels of the brain’s networking activity, connections, resonance?

~

I’ve read that the turn in a poem is a key to the closing, and ending lines will be stronger depending on how near they are to (or distant from, and evocative of) the turn. This seemed helpful revision advice. Yet does every poem require a turn? The idea of the volta is ancient indeed, but it need not be a prescription for all the poems in the world. Poetry from other than Western cultures often proceeds quite beautifully without a turn, and does that mean that such a poem is static? That’s often seen as a negative in art: when nothing moves, or moves the viewer. I’d like to refer my readers to L.A. Johnson on Jericho Brown’s duplex form, “Radical Stasis” in Poetry. What could be more static than repetition? And yet in Brown’s work, the lack of a turn implies circularity, not necessarily ambivalence and certainly not a lack of movement. Johnson calls it a transformation.

I want to experiment with how altering a poem’s closing might lead to changing the poem’s form or structure for a stronger impact. Another option I’ve used is moving the last lines to the start or near the start of the poem. Maybe those lines weren’t really the image or idea that particular poem was aiming for. And then there is docking the tail of a poem. It may be a cruel practice for dogs and horses, but a poem can benefit from a careful removal of the unnecessary closing line(s). Closing lines that summarize a point can wreck my delight in a poem, and alas, I tend that way sometimes…I spent my childhood Sundays in church, listening to my dad declaim from the pulpit. The oral and rhetorical structure of sermons is routed into my brain, and that can be a real problem when I draft. Poetry can be many things, but I don’t care for poetry that sermonizes.

At any rate, I have a LOT of unfinished drafts that might benefit from change-ups. Instead of writing a blog post, I ought to be working on those! But in closing, here’s a poem by Kay Ryan that uses stasis and the tedious routines of housework as operation and image, and that ends with the non-ending of making things “unhappen.”

Linens
by Kay Ryan

There are charms
that forestall harm.
The house bristles
with opportunities
for stasis: refolding
the linens along
their creases, keeping
the spoons and chairs
in their right places.
Nobody needs to
witness one’s exquisite
care with the napkins
for the napkins
to have been the act
that made the fact
unhappen.

~