Desert Island Poems: Poem by Simon Armitage

Simon Armitage worked for a long time as a probation officer, and gave serious thought to that as a full-time career before his poetry started to take off. In a recent interview on Giles Brandreth’s Rosebud podcast, he talks for some time about his life as a probation officer and how he felt, ultimately, helpless in the face of helping some of the offenders. He even wrote his Masters dissertation exploring the connection between video nasties and how that might have influenced the behaviour of criminals. This poem, simply entitled ‘Poem’, has been anthologised a lot, and I happen to be reading it here from Don Paterson’s 101 Sonnets. I’ve written before about my predilection for a sonnet and this is another fine example of the form, demonstrating an innovative approach to rhyme in particular. Moreover, I think the reason I’ve chosen this poem is that it utilises fully what I believe is the most important aspect of a poem: ambiguity. There is a real depth of humanity in the poem as it describes the Jekyll and Hyde nature of the main character.

The Title

If you’ve ever been to a poetry workshop, and present a poem with the title ‘Poem’ you may well be told to change it, or that it’s unimaginative. Why, then, has Armitage called his poem, simply ‘Poem’? I think there are two reasons for this: 

1. Giving it this title, relates to the Biblical, religious strand in the poem, also picked up with his use of parataixs and reference to the fact the character taxied his mother to churhc. 

2. This is a poem which presents the ambiguity of a person’s character. The focal point of this poem is the fact that the man is conflicted. But in doing this, Armitage is also highlight that the primary function of a ppem is exactly that: to present two sides of a situation, and for those two sides to remain suspended in the air, without judgement. It’s called ‘Poem’ because it’s a poem about poetry and what poetry does. 

Parataxis

The repeated use of ‘and’ also known as parataxis is used throughout the poem and supplies a visual element as much as a rhythmical one. Parataxis was used in the Old Testament, particularly Genesis, and by using this technique here Armitage is contrasting the modern situation of the man, who is both good and sinning, with ancient book of the Bible. In using the parataxis the poem is given a sense of elevation, almost like it’s a passage from a gospel. Yet in this, there is no great message or lesson to be learned, simply that he was a conflicted individual who did ‘this’ and ‘that’.

Imagery

Armitage is a master of deploying imagery, and this poem is almost cinematic in the way each line gives a new image. It’s astonishing the range of imagery he manages to cover in the space of 14 lines. 

The Ending: A Rhyming Couplet?

It is said that Paul Muldoon can rhyme cat with dog, well I think that Simon Armistage’s rhyming throughout this poem gives Muldoon a run for his money. Nowhere is this more evident than in the final two lines where he rhymes ‘back’ with ‘that’. When I first read the ending of this poem, I didn’t quite know what to make of it, and it felt fairly flat, but then I read it again, and like most of the best endings it appeared to me to be more complex than I first gave it credit for. Firstly, the fact that it’s quite a flat ending, where there is no ascendant epiphany seems to be the whole point. The ending is conflicted because the character is conflicted. But this poem is not simply about this character, it is called ‘Poem’ after all and not centered on the man. No, I’d argue that this poem is as much about poetry as it is about the man. Ambiguity is at the heart of poetry, and Armitage is using this character to represent that. Armitage is highlighting that as readers we must be alert to the fact that poetry is about holding two thoughts together at once - the speaker of this poem is not judgemental about the man, it presents his situations factually, and we are left to make up our own mind. But this is not just the experience of this poem, it is the experience of poetry universally. 

Sonnet

In typical Armitage style, it presents itself as simple, but on successive readings deepens and becomes more complex. The poem’s relationship to the history of the sonnet adds another layer of complexity - most sonnets are love poems, but this sonnet is about a divisive character and the complex ways in which love (or lack thereof) manifests itself in his life. The fact the poem is divided into four also goes some way in disguising it as a sonnet, almost as if to say that, in the modern world, and particularly in the world of this character, the harm that he enacts is redeemed by the love that he shows, and that ultimately, people do good and bad, and instead of making a judgement about someone’s life, perhaps we should, instead, be able to consider their personality more three dimensionally.

The Ending

Was the character a good person or not? Well, no judgement is passed: he was someone who sometimes did this and sometimes did that. Armitage, I think, is trying to say that, in all of us, there is a Jekyll and a Hyde, and that is human nature. The speaker of the poem is not condemning the character, nor deifying him - just presenting us, the readers, with the facts and the images to make up our own minds. We can see that Armitage’s experience as a probation officer would have come to bear in this poem, as he must have worked with many offenders with complex personalities. This poem explores the complexity of human behaviour in 14 neatly turned and rhythmical lines, leaving us with a memorable, conflicted character.

If you’re looking to hear more from Simon Armitage, I’d recommend his lectures as Oxford Professor of Poetry which you can listen to here, or an interview he did on Giles Brandreth’s Rosebud which you can also listen to here.