Rainer Maria Rilke: Letters to a Young Poet

[Heteronym]

In 1902 an aspiring poet named Franz Kappus sent a letter to his idol, Rainer Maria Rilke, asking him to evaluate some of his poetry. In the course of this relationship Rilke would send ten letters to Kappus, which the young poet collected and published after Rilke's death.

In these letters Rilke discussed how one knows whether one is cut out to be a writer – if you couldn’t write anymore, could you keep on living? -, stressed the importance of introspection and loneliness in the production of art, celebrated sexuality, affirmed his belief in God, identified his inspirations, and dismissed the importance of literary and esthetic criticism.

Although Kappus started corresponding with Rilke in order to receive some critiques, Rilke never talked too much about his poems, declaring an aversion to criticizing art at all. Instead he tried to help Kappus determine whether he was fit at all to follow the life of a poet and to find the meaning of his life.

It’s a beautiful short book, in which Rilke just pours his soul into each letter, and probably remains the perfect introduction to this writer. I only regret Kappus’ letters are not included, although they probably haven’t survived history. I also wish I knew whether Kappus ever became the poet he wanted to be.

 

[Peder]

Yes, indeed! As I recall Rilke set a high bar -- the one you mention -- and really was quite uncompromising in his view. I was left wondering how anyone could become a poet within the framework of Rilke's standards. But then again, I am neither writer nor poet and have no experience of that passion.

 

[Heteronym]

Well, Rilke probably lived for poetry, but I think his lonely method only worked for him. In his Memoirs, Pablo Neruda described himself as a lively man who loved the contact with people and wrote poetry irregularly, amidst travels across the world, political manifestations and public readings.

I do think there's a lot of truth in Rilke's belief that for a writer writing is an essential part of himself: if a writer won't rejoice in writing, what can that mean? What does he write for then?