In the following essay, he describes how Robinson’s
technical style allows him to use language that might
seem excessive in another poem.
In ‘‘Miniver Cheevy,’’ Edwin Arlington
Robinson created a character who comes across
as an actual, living person. Most readers are
likely to be haunted by the sense of familiarity
that happens when they encounter good litera-
ture. They are likely to feel that Cheevy is some-
one they know. Not that they have actually met
him, but everyone knows people of his type: a
blowhard, a malcontent who finds fault with
everything around him, and believes that he can-
not be satisfied because he is living in the wrong
time. Others might have read some of the same
history books, though not as many of them.
Others might have studied antiquity, but the
Miniver Cheevys of the world feel that they are
the only ones who can truly understand it. To
them, the only explanation for their existence
must be some unaccountable glitch in the nature
of time itself.
The fact that Cheevy is a familiar character
is not, in itself, enough to account for this poem’s
continuing impact. In theory, being recognizable
should have the exact opposite effect. Readers
should be able to look the poem over once, catch
the pathos of how Miniver Cheevy misses the
point of who he really is, and then move on
quickly. That is not the case, though. Over the
years, the situation Robinson describes in this
poem has persisted, proving itself relevant for
each generation. The poem has retained its
impact. It is Robinson’s artistry, not his subject,
that keeps ‘‘Miniver Cheevy’’ alive while one
poetic trend after another passes by.
Regarding Robinson’s poetic style, one element
that draws attention is his word choice, especially
his verbs. Cheevy doesnot lose weight, he grows
lean. He does not disapprove, he ‘‘scorns.’’ He
‘‘assails,’’ ‘‘weeps,’’ ‘‘dreams,’’ ‘‘rests,’’ ‘‘mourns’’
(twice), and ‘‘curses,’’ and he ‘‘thought, and thought,
and thought, / And thought’’ about the nature of his
life but does nothing to change it. Something
that might please another person could get Cheevy
dancing. He does not just want to travel back in
time to the Renaissance, he wants to sin incessantly
in order to be included among the Medici. Creative
writing textbooks in the early 2000s command
beginning writers to spice up their prose with
active verbs and to avoid using passive verbs,
and Robinson illustrates the benefits of such a
principle.
In addition to his chosen verbs, Robinson
chose nouns that make his subject come alive:
‘‘scorn,’’ ‘‘swords,’’ ‘‘steeds,’’ ‘‘renown,’’ ‘‘grace,’’
and ‘‘gold’’ are all effectively used. The adjectives
he used are fitting as well, including ‘‘lean,’’
‘‘bright,’’ ‘‘ripe,’’ ‘‘fragrant,’’ and ‘‘sore annoyed.’’
This poem provides a fine example of how a writer
can command the reader’s attention with effec-
tively chosen words.
Thus, the familiar character is rendered
through the use of a familiarrhetorical device. It is
well done, but still, there has to be more to Robin-
son’s achievement. If it were as easy as replacing the
mundane words in a poem with thought-provoking
substitutes, there wouldalready have been tens of
thousands of poets pushing Robinson out of the
literature anthologies. There are at any given time
countless writers following the textbook advice
about snappy verbs and suitable nouns, and few
have yet achieved anything with the same kind of
energy that lights up ‘‘Miniver Cheevy.’’ There must
be other factors at work.
After word choice, the next most arresting
technical achievement of ‘‘Miniver Cheevy’’ is its
stanza form. In his quatrains, Robinson follows a
consistent pattern, lacing his consistency with
enough flexibility to keep the poem interesting.
The line lengths vary, but they do so in a regular
pattern.
The lengths of the lines differ within each
stanza of the poem, but they are consistent from
stanza to stanza. The first line of each stanza has
eight syllables; the second lines generally have
nine, except in stanza 4, where the second line
has ten syllables, and in stanza 8, where the sec-
ond line has eight. Even in variation he shows
balance, adding an extra syllable at the end of
the first half of the poem and subtracting one at
the poem’s end. All of the third lines, like the first
lines, have eight syllables. The shortened final line
of each stanza has five syllables. This works for
the comic effect, continually cutting short the
established pattern of eight to nine syllables per
line, creating an anticlimax whenever the reader
has come to expect a longer line. Still, even
though the last line might divert from the
expected line length in each stanza, it maintains
its five syllable count. This consistency works well
with the word choices in ‘‘Miniver Cheevy.’’
There comes a time in the reading of almost
any bad poem when a reader shifts attention
from the poem to the poet who wrote it. Certain
kinds of language can cause this shift in attention.Miniver Cheevy