Ktismatics

27 August 2007

On Keeping Your Day Job

Filed under: Reflections — ktismatics @ 1:04 pm

Money is a kind of poetry.

– Wallace Stevens

Wallace Stevens was a surety claims attorney for the Hartford Insurance Company. I don’t know if he made enough selling his poems to quit the business, but as I understand it he didn’t want to.

A surety bond guarantees that a construction company will complete the work it’s being paid for, according to specifications and on time. What can go wrong? Plenty. The contractor might not have the know-how to tackle a really complex job. Maybe they’ve never done such a big project before. Maybe they’re overextended – too much work spread across too many job sites and not enough foremen to keep things on track. Maybe they underbid the job and just can’t afford to complete the project. Maybe they’ve gotten distracted by some other problem on some other job, and they lose focus on the jobs they could do in their sleep. So many ways for things to go wrong. If the contractor can’t get the job done, then it’s up to the surety company to find somebody else who can. That’s not so bad – there are plenty of other companies out there willing to do the job. The problem is paying for it.

When a contractor runs into problems on the job, he thinks he’s going to be able to fix them eventually. Usually it takes money to fix problems. So the contractor keeps submitting progress reports and invoices, keeps cashing checks, keeps spending money, and still the problem doesn’t fix itself. Instead it gets worse, and it spreads. Pretty soon the contractor is borrowing money from his other jobs to try to fix the bad one, and after awhile he can’t pay his workers and subcontractors and suppliers. He gets past due letters: 30 days past due, 60 days, 90. Pretty soon somebody slaps a lien on the job, and that’s when the owner – the guy who hired the contractor, the guy who pays the contractor – first gets the clue. Something is going terribly wrong here.

That’s when they call the surety company. Maybe the bond underwriter already knows that things are going badly for his client. Usually there’s at least some prior indication that things are a little shaky, but the contractor can always come up with an explanation. And you’re inclined to believe him. You’ve been doing business with the contractor for years, collected tens of thousands of dollars in premiums from him, sat down across the table from him, walked through his yard, kicked the tires on his trucks, joked around with his office manager. You like the guy. Besides, if you pull the plug, stop writing bonds, what’s the contractor going to do? He needs new work to pay for cleaning up the problems on the old jobs. But sometimes you can feel it; you know you’re just throwing good money after bad. Finally the whole house of cards falls down around the contractor’s head. Then comes the sickening moment when the underwriter, the guy who has stuck his neck way out for this contractor, hands over his file to the claims attorney. And then you know you’ve just cost your company a few million bucks.

Stevens said that holding down a regular job was good for him, good for his writing. It’s hard to imagine. Here’s a guy who’s just spent all day wrangling over past-due bills and selling off contractors’ houses to pay off the creditors. Then he closes his files, walks to the train station, buys himself a drink in a plastic cup, hops the train, sits down and writes a poem on the commute home? I read somewhere how Stevens would be at the office, right in the middle of dictating a letter, when he’d just stop, pull out a pad of paper, and write a few lines of poetry. They say he kept his poetry in the lower left drawer of his desk, separate from his claims work. Still, how separate could they have been?

One of Stevens’ poems starts like this: “I placed a jar in Tennessee.” He might have said “jar,” but maybe he was thinking about a building, some surety claim, some half-built eyesore that Stevens found a way to get finished. Was he proud to see that building sitting on top of that Tennessee hill, turning the surrounding wilderness into a kind of landscaping? Or did he wish he could have demolished the thing? Maybe Stevens just decided to make a settlement with the owner, and they left a half-finished empty shell of a building up there on the Tennessee hill, “tall and of a port of air.”

Every once in awhile you get the sense that some of the papers from the right desk drawer found their way to the left drawer. “The earth is not a building but a body,” Stevens wrote. His job was to make sure that buildings got built on the body of the earth. “There is no difference between god and his temple,” he wrote. “A claim man finds it difficult sometimes to distinguish himself from the papers he handles,” he wrote in a 1938 article for Eastern Underwriter.

“Money is a kind of poetry” – I wonder what he meant by that? They say he wrote his poems on little slips of paper that he’d stash in the lower left desk drawer. When he was finished with a poem he’d hand the little papers to his secretary and she’d type them up for him. Maybe when he’d open that drawer at the office, those little slips of paper would remind him of money, like a wad of dollar bills stashed in there. But then wouldn’t he have said it the other way around – poetry is a kind of money?

“Money is a kind of poetry.” Was he just another greedy bastard, and that’s why he kept his claims job, so at the end of the day he could go home, pour himself a glass of claret, and admire the fine paintings on his walls? He made poems, and he made money – same thing, just little pieces of paper, two sides of the same coin. Then again, maybe he was looking at money like a bond claims man, a poetic one. The flows of money, the meaning of money, the reality made up of an accumulation of abstract things, like a poem that’s really not just a string of words.

Advertisements

8 Comments »

  1. “One of Stevens’ poems starts like this: ‘I placed a jar in Tennessee.’ He might have said ‘jar,’ but maybe he was thinking about a building, some surety claim, some half-built eyesore that Stevens found a way to get finished. Was he proud to see that building sitting on top of that Tennessee hill, turning the surrounding wilderness into a kind of landscaping?…Maybe Stevens just decided to make a settlement with the owner, and they left a half-finished empty shell of a building up there on the Tennessee hill, ‘tall and of a PORT of air.'”

    Supposedly that jar, transparent and so in a sense iconic, stood for the IMAGINATION. It gathers everything below together into a meaningful whole. Which makes sense, considering his book: “The Necessary Angel,” which is about the imagination.

    But maybe you are well aware of that, and being playful…

    Regardless…”money as a kind of poetry”…”you will toil by the sweat of your brow”…”come all who are weary and heavy-laden…” which would indicate the opposite of his being a greedy bastard…??

    :)

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 27 August 2007 @ 2:18 pm

  2. The poetry of a work of the imagination constantly illuminates the fundamental and endless struggle with fact, said Stevens. I wonder if the struggle against the sheer facticity of his day job gave Stevens’ poetry a more severe and resolute commitment to imaginative vision, to the kind of meaning that couldn’t be reduced to the legal and financial considerations in which he was also adept. What strikes me is the compartmentalization he must have been able to impose on himself, or perhaps the clarity of the window through which he could see the poetic. Stevens wasn’t just a guy in a cubicle futzing around with his poems when nobody was watching; he was a vice president.

    So: “money is a kind of poetry” — why do you say that such a comment makes him the opposite of greedy?

    “Supposedly that jar, transparent and so in a sense iconic, stood for the IMAGINATION. It gathers everything below together into a meaningful whole.”

    The wilderness rose up to it,
    And sprawled around, no longer wild.
    The jar was round upon the ground
    And tall and of a port in air.
    It took dominion every where.
    The jar was gray and bare.
    It did not give of bird or bush,
    Like nothing else in Tennessee.

    The jar displaces and tames nature; the jar itself is gray and bare. Imagination encloses a bit of nature inside a round transparent container and calls it art, but what seems like a creation turns out also to be a destruction. So maybe Stevens held an ambivalent stance toward poetry and all works of imagination that impose meaning on the wilderness. Money is another work of the imagination that tames and encloses, another gray and barren creation of man.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 27 August 2007 @ 3:06 pm

  3. My suspicion is that it was more “or perhaps the clarity of the window through which he could see the poetic” than the compartmentalization.

    “So: ‘money is a kind of poetry’ — why do you say that such a comment makes him the opposite of greedy?”

    I don’t know if he was or not. I’m just saying that I don’t think that his ability to be in that money world and the poet he was came out of his greed. Could have. But I think it was more his clarity of vision, as mentioned.

    “Money is another work of the imagination that tames and encloses, another gray and barren creation of man.”

    And money is a kind of abstract invisible representation, similar to what is formed in the imagination. Interesting connection. I think Stevens was modern; there was a kind of hard, cold, driving anethetic cinematic, modern/literary quality to his work. Where there’s like a passion hidden in it rather than worn on the sleeve. Where passions and emotions are taken to be private matter, and yet a shared part of what makes us human.

    Maybe the whole point of his money comment being poetry, then, was to reconcile things. Poetry is reconciliation!
    :)

    In fact, it seems like much of the shift from modern to “postmodern” was from a hopefulness to a hopelessness.

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 27 August 2007 @ 3:21 pm

  4. I doubt that Stevens made money from his writing, and he certainly doesn’t seem to have compromised his art for the marketplace. The usual argument is that, since he had other sources of revenue, he could remain a purist in his writing. But he seems to have regarded his day job as useful to society; he probably regarded poetry as completely useless, a pure aesthetic act. But as you say, though it has the modern cool abstraction, his poetry does resonate with the human spirit.

    My dad worked for the same insurance company as Stevens, though they worked in different towns and specialties so they never met. And I used to be a surety underwriter, but for a different company. It’s almost as if I knew the guy…

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 27 August 2007 @ 5:06 pm

  5. Further information on Stevens’ business career from Wikipedia: By 1934, he had been named vice president of the company.[5] After he won the Pulitzer Prize in 1955[6], he was offered a faculty position at Harvard, but declined since it would have required him to give up his vice presidency of The Hartford. Stevens was 76 years old at the time; he died later that year.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 28 August 2007 @ 10:00 pm

  6. You don’t think he made money off his poetry? He was widely published, even while alive. And…he won the dang Pulitzer. I wouldn’t know, but I was guessing that he did make money off it.

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 29 August 2007 @ 1:31 am

  7. Stevens’ first book of poetry was published in 1923, when he was 44 years old. He didn’t put out a new volume until 1935, when he was 56. Then he kicked into high creative output for the next 20 years until his death. So if he made money as a writer, it probably wasn’t until he was at least 60 or so. Now you have to wonder whether he might have written even more, been even better, had he quit his day job and started writing as a younger man. Or had he not lived and observed and thought enough yet, did his unique way of writing a poem need that long to ferment?

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 29 August 2007 @ 5:22 am

  8. My professor seems to think that you just have to be old to do good stuff. I don’t know if it needed that long to ferment or not. But I think there’s some validity to the idea of maturation. Corbusier was 40 when he did his first famous building. And that’s younger than everyone else. Lou Kahn was 54 or something like that. The generally expected standard in architectural circles is 50.

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 29 August 2007 @ 10:54 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: