
WH Auden

Karl Shapiro
The upset among fiction publishers over the Pulitzer Prizes this week reminded me of a post I prepared some time ago and have never published, till now:
In 1945, the Pulitzer Prize committee judged British poet W.H. Auden to have published "by far" the best book of poetry, but the prize went to a book by Karl Shapiro for political reasons. Shapiro was said to be “one of us”-- he was in uniform, while Auden was said to have communist antiwar leanings.
Auden, an Englishman living in the U.S., went into military service in 1945, and won the prize in 1948.
The frankly-political judgments were recorded in papers from the 1945 Pulitzer Prize deliberations held at Columbia University toward the end of World War II. Columbia released the documents to me for research on a book I’m doing about the places Shapiro served in the war, Australia and New Guinea.
Everyone in this story is dead. Auden died in 1973. Shapiro died in 2000.
The Pulitzer poetry jury of three men met in late February 1945. Then on March 6, 1945, the head of the jury, Yale English professor Wilbur Cross (who was also a former governor of Connecticut) sent two letters to Columbia Provost Frank Fackenthal. One "Dear Mr. Fackenthal" letter was the official jury report. The other "Dear Mr. Fackenthal" was a personal cover letter containing political judgments.
Auden’s book “For the Time Being” was “by far the most distinguished of the group,” the official report said, then it went on to say that the next best book was “V-Letter and Other Poems,” by Karl Shapiro, who was serving in the army in the Pacific.
Shapiro has not the technical skill of Auden in versification. But he writes well in a straight-forward natural manner. Auden addresses the intellect, Shapiro addresses the emotions.
The other Dear Mr. Fackenthal letter from Cross undermined the judgment in the report. Cross wrote:
Auden has been classed by some critics as a communist on the score of his earlier poems. He has indeed been very severe on contemporary English society. He has fought for the underdog. In the beginning he posed as a revolutionist like Shelley.
Members of the Jury indulged in a long discussion on Auden...
Among the factors the jury weighed, Cross said, was the fact that Auden had won a prize from the American Academy of Arts and Letters “… and perhaps it would be better to settle on Shapiro who is ‘one of us’’”
A few days later, Cross sent Fackenthal a third letter (responding to a letter from the provost that is not in the file). This letter described Auden as a British poet and Shapiro as an American "through and through" but harped on political themes:
You are right, I think, in your inference from my personal letter to you that the Pulitzer Poety Jury ‘would be just as well content to make the award to Shapiro and leave Auden for a later award.’ This is decidedly my own view...
Shapiro is in active service in this war. Auden is keeping aloof from it for reasons I do not know. Incidently [sic] he several times touches upon the war in a volume of poems entitled Another Time, published in 1941. There he writes:
"Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return."
Most sincerely yours, Wilbur Cross
Auden was never a communist. He never joined the Communist Party, declaring himself a “bourgeois,” but he flirted openly with communism in the 1930s, according to W.H. Auden, A Biography, by Humphrey Carpenter. “Communism is the only political theory that really holds the Christian position of absolute equality in value of every individual," Auden said then. In 1932 he wrote a poem called “A Communist to Others." At that time, his friend Christopher Isherwood wrote, “He now outwardly supported Marxism," and the writer Harold Nicolson recorded in his diary that Auden did a poetry reading for English friends that was “not so much a defence of communism as an attack upon all the ideas of comfort and complacency which will make communism difficult to achieve in this country.”
In March 1945, a month after the jury's deliberations, Auden applied to join the American armed forces, as part of a “United States Strategic Bombing Survey” in Germany, according to Carpenter's biography. Auden became a major in the U.S. army as a “Bombing Research Analyst in the Morale Division." He then spent several months in Europe interviewing civilians.
Auden’s long poem The Age of Anxiety, published in 1947, was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1948.
I know that sounds conspiratorial. But it should be pointed out that at least one member of the Pulitzer jury leaked. Louis Untermeyer called Shapiro's promoter and girlfriend (and later wife), Evalyn Katz, to give her the news that Shapiro had won, though he swore her to secrecy (Shapiro tells the story in his autobiography). Possibly a juror told Auden about the judgment against him?
Two postscripts:
I. I told this story to David Bromwich, Sterling Professor of English literature at Yale, who has written extensively on modern poetry. He said that by whatever means, the Pulitzer Committee may have reached the right literary judgment:
As a matter of purely literary judgment, the Columbia archive letters you paraphrase might be said to have arrived at the right judgment for the wrong reason. But they are misinformed about Auden in every possible way.
(1) He supported the war against Hitler--though without pomp or righteous accusation. The lines,
"Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return"
are about the Versailles arrangements and their consequences; his sense of the deeper-lying causes of the war comes through in some other lines of "September 1, 1939":
Accurate scholarship canUnearth the whole offenceFrom Luther until nowThat has driven a culture mad,Find what occurred at Linz,What huge imago madeA psychopathic god.(2) Auden was never a Communist, and by 1945 he hardly considered himself a man of the Left (though he published in The Nation and The New Republic). He had become a high Anglican in religion.In giving the award to Shapiro, the judges were, oddly, recognizing Auden in some way. Shapiro had earned a reputation as a proficient follower of Auden--the sort of gifted disciple who brings out the hidden resources of a fresh poetic style.I'm not sure which of the two I would have voted for; there's a case to be made that V-Letter and Other Poems is a better book than For the Time Being. The latter is a virtuoso piece of writing, a Christmas Oratorio in the modernist idiom, sustained for several hundred lines, cast in prose as well as verse. (One precedent: Murder in the Cathedral.)But I think Shapiro was a pretty wonderful, energetic poet in his first two volumes: Person, Place and Thing and V-Letter and Other Poems. Shapiro's war poems--including "Troop Train," "Full Moon: New Guinea," and "Elegy for a Dead Soldier"-- are the only poems of the Second World War that anyone remembers now, except a few by Randall Jarrell (who didn't see combat) and three by Louis Simpson: "Carentan O Carentan," "The Battle," and "The Runner." F.O. Matthiessen's Oxford Book of American Verse (1950), the best anthology ever made of American poetry, includes several poems from V-Letter.
II. The prize established young Shapiro’s career. Though he later called it a “Golden Albatross” and derided the prize as a middlebrow honor, it assured him employment. Writing about himself in the third person, 45 years later (in Reports of My Death), he said, “He would always be able to get lectures, even jobs, even good jobs, doing what he wanted in and around poetry, and he wouldn’t have to sit behind a librarian’s desk answering silly questions about how to address a duchess or which zoos keep unicorns.”


I really liked this short snippet out of the hinterlands of the Middle East.
I hope you can follow this up. I also miss your personal reflections from your own personal life. Sometimes with a Jewish theme, sometimes not.
The incident with your neighbour, and the builder, is still a short story that I return to.
“The incident with your neighbour, and the builder,…”
link?
Could Auden’s having been a pretty open homosexual have had anything to do with the decision?
(Interesting that gay celebrities like Auden and Klaus Mann were able to serve in the U.S. Army in the 1940′s. I guess it was the Cold War that changed things.)
That immediately occurred to me too. Also, his propaganda during the Spanish Civil War and about Japanese atrocities in China (Journey to a War) got him seen as a “premature anti-Fascist.”
premature anti-Fascist.
good one. i guess that makes some of us ‘premature anti-islamophobes’.
how were the photographs of the authors chosen? the photo of auden certainly wasn’t taken until decades after the pulitzer flap being discussed. odd to say the least to see the geriatric, befuddled auden and the smooth vitality of shapiro. is this more unrestrained symbolism?
sorry marc, i had a young auden but it was a vertical, and looked like hell when it was in the feature strip; you saw him from the knees down. the shapiro is actually a little after this era.
sorry? it’s a bit late for that. i’d say that the damage has been done. i just found the choice of photos curious given the historical context. there’s a great photo in the public domain of auden beating shapiro at arm wrestling at hemingway’s cuban home, circa 1947, hemingway raising auden’s arm aloft. that would have been the better choice.
What ever are you talking about Marc? I agree, better photos could have been used. But, really, “the damage has been done?” Symbolism? What damage? What symbolism?
This is a post about how Auden’s Pulitzer may have been sacrificed by the Committee on political grounds. Phil happens to be on Auden’s side. If Phil wanted to inject symbolism into the narrative, he would have made Auden look more youthful and energetic, you know, to win over all of us buffoon readers who need pictures to make judgments…
Putting a youthful picture of Shapiro is nothing more than pure happenstance. If it were more, doesn’t it go against the intended grain of the actual post?
it’s a joke, exiled. maybe not a good joke, but a joke. or maybe half a joke, with a point to be made. phil’s explanation is fine by me, but he also knows better than most that photos are often the story, and are carefully selected in many instances. and i still think the arm wrestling photo would have worked better.
PS the symbolism bit refers to phil’s obsession with the decadence and decline of WASPish culture during the simultaneous mid-century ascendence of american jewish culture. or something like that.
i didn’t know you were writing a book about places Shapiro served in the war. intriguing. i agree with krauss, i like these kinds of posts.
“Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return”
are about the Versailles arrangements and their consequences
that is what i assumed when i first read it.
RE: “Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return” are about the Versailles arrangements and their consequences. . .
MY COMMENT: And now I often see these lines used in relation to heinous Israeli actions such as the Cast Lead assault on Gaza (’08-’09) and the attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
RE: “and he [Shapiro] wouldn’t have to sit behind a librarian’s desk answering silly questions about how to address a duchess or which zoos keep unicorns.” ~ Shapiro
MY COMMENT: Lol (Laugh out loud)! ! ! Of course, there are probably worse fates to suffer.
Ground beneath the palsied heel of mummers.
Have to admit I’ve never heard of Shapiro, and I don’t think I’m poorly read. But one thing we can say with confidence: Auden has stood the test of time better, and a PUlitzer in 1945 didn’t have any effect one way or another on that.
My own view is that prizes of the PUlitzer sort (or Nobel or MacArthur or take your pick) are really quite damaging. Some become obsessed with winning the prize. I knew a chemistry prof years ago who had been passed over while his colleague won for work they had collaborated on. The man was bitter beyond the telling of it. The joke among physicists was that it was called the “No-Bell” because the actual discoverer of pulsars — Jocelyn Bell — was ignored by the prize committee while her thesis adviser shared the prize (the physicist who had theoretically predicted the existence of pulsars, Thomas Gold, of Cornell, was also passed over).
Others, having won, can’t get past it. And then there’s the history of terrible recipients, not least the long list of real monsters who’ve won the Nobel Peace Prize.
A small handful of people have taken a stand against such prizes. The one who comes immediately to mind is N. David Mermin, physicist at Cornell. His public opposition to a Nobel Prize of any kind cost a stellar Cornell physics department at least a couple of Nobel Prizes in physics. Now, how could that be if the committee were saintly, impartial arbiters of genius that they would like us to believe they are? It’s well-known that Graham Greene, though nominated more than any other for the Nobel in literature, never won because there was one person on the committee who swore up and down that no Catholic would ever win as long as he had anything to do with it.
It may be difficult to say whether the PUlitzer in poetry or fiction is politically tainted by short-sighted, narrow-minded bigots on a committee, but the prizes for journalism, history, etc., certainly are. An Eric Hobsbawm or Tony Judt or Edward Said is a wildly unlikely recipient (albeit, not impossible) compared with nice, safe candidates. I was astonished that AP reporters won this year for revealing the gross misconduct of the NYPD. (Giuliani would have called for closing Columbia University.)