Navigating the personal: An interview with Poet Laureate Rita Dove

Navigating the personal: an interview with Poet Laureate Rita Dove

Rita Dove was named U.S. Poet Laureate in 1993. Born in 1952, she has published four books of poetry (including Thomas and Beulah, which won her a Pulitzer), a short story collection, a novel, and, most recently, a play in verse. Dove is Commonwealth Professor of English at the University of Virginia and lives near Charlottesville with her husband and daughter, Aviva. The following is an interview with Rita Dove by Emily Lloyd.

EL: In your new play, "The Darker Face of the Earth", the character Augustus is a black slave who must choose between fierce ties to the budding civil rights movement and the desire to protect his mother (whom he finds out late in the play is white and the mistress of the plantation he plans to overthrow). He chooses to protect his mother and is named a traitor by the other radical slaves. His situation brings to mind the 70s feminist slogan that "the personal is political", the desire of many feminists to integrate the two, and the difficulty we often experience in trying to accomplish that integration when faced with an actual moral dilemma. Is Augustus representative of a view that integration is ultimately unrealistic? Do you feel that the personal necessarily outweighs the political?

RD: I don't think he's representative of that...we have to remember that this is a drama, not an essay. Being a drama, and therefore a fictionalized account, it seeks to show one example of an individual's handling of that conflict. We can extrapolate, but -- it is just one example. The situation between black slaves and their masters was radically different from the situation today. In the context of the play itself -- in the context of slavery and the antebellum South -- integration was completely unrealistic. In this day and age, I would say that integration is not only plausible but necessary if we are to survive.

I think that the personal is ultimately what is most important to us. On the other end of this pendulum, the political can radically change our personal lives. We swing back and forth. I think the one reason why we experience as a people such conflicting emotions when it comes to politics and how the government works is that we (as Americans) don't want to give our politicians or the government too much power, because we believe so fervently in the sacredness of the personal -- and I think that's a healthy impulse -- but I think there are times when only a larger political movement can get things done. Thing have to be done on a larger level, because people are resistant to change. The personal v. the political -- the question is one of the basic questions of our time. Where is the line? I don't think that there IS a line; they blend into one another. But I think we have to ask ourselves that question every day.

EL: Keeping the personal v. political in mind, I'd like to talk about how you choose (or choose not to) deal with politics in your writing. When a white, heterosexual male writes poetry, he can write about whatever subject he chooses without it begin "suspect". However, when a woman, or a person of color, or a gay person writes, people often seem to expect the writing to deal with the political concerns she or he is undoubtedly faced with. As a woman of color and poet who has been thrust into the limelight, do you feel any pressure/desire to use your poetry as a megaphone for voicing your political views? Do people automatically expect you to write with an eye towards the political? If so, is this expectation reasonable in terms of the potential attention and good such work can bring (as has Alice Walker's), or insulting in that you are expected to trade your individuality to become the "spokespoet" for a larger group?

RD: You hit the nail right on the head about what the dilemma is. As a poet, the pressure is there but I will not take it on -- that is, to use my poetry as a mouthpiece for political concerns. The reason why is that I believe one can fool oneself when trying to wrench purpose from the art -- the art turns out bad. I always feel it, even when I'm writing, that someone will say, "What are you doing writing about cellos -- you should be writing about black women". But I would be dishonest if I were to ignore certain aspects of my humanity in favor of others -- in favor of the politically correct ones -- because I would be skewing the entire person. Part of my political/personal mandate is to represent life in all of its complexities, in its fullness. That means that if I'm writing a poem in which I notice a flower, if I felt it was important to talk about this flower, I would be dishonest not to do it just because I thought it wasn't directly about being black and a woman. Besides, how do I know it ISN'T about being black or a woman?

So often what stereotypical behavior is about is the denial of full humanity to another person. The person who is acting in a bigoted manner simply does not see that the target of their prejudice is a complete human being. An artist, I feel, can help us recognize and see that fullness. That's why I think that consciously to opt to be political in one's work will ultimately reduce the richness of it. I believe that if I bear witness to the word around me and if I am honest in my description of that world it will ultimately be political...