In Grey Lynn Park

3 Sep


IMG_3147.silver birchesjpg 




Taiaha man


this morning

in Grey Lynn park

I saw a man


a taiaha

he had ridden

to the middle

of the football

field beneath

a feathered sky

his bike beside him  

and he

between goal posts

in penny royal air

leapt and plunged

swung and sprang

into the light




Walking in Ponsonby today

2 Sep

IMG_3210. treejpg



2014-09-02 17.41.26



leaning on a green post

28 Apr


Reading Jane Austen

16 Apr


Pride and Prejudice is celebrating two hundred years of publication. Everyone’s been talking talking about it: The Listener Book Club where they were self-declared ‘Jane Austen virgins’; The Slate Book Club where someone was reading it to his daughter, and in The Telegraph, a video clip of Chawton where Jane Austen wrote it. ‘I think if there were to be a fire, we’d all rush to save the table,’ says the curator, and the camera moves slowly towards a demure round table and a quill pen.

The quill makes me think of a blotter – according to Jane Austen’s nephew [1] she hid her writing beneath her blotting paper – only her family knew she was writing novels; she had to be prepared for all kinds of interruptions – no room of her own, but consequentially perhaps, a porous ear for every conversational nuance.

Another woman on the video reads from a letter to her sister Cassandra: ‘“Today, I want to tell you that I’ve got my own darling child from London.” Her own darling child,’ the curator intones, ‘is of course her book.’ Someone else says how simple her plots are and how relevant. ‘Look at how they’ve taken to Jane in Bollywood.’

Jane Austen is always ‘Jane’; her devotees are ‘Janeites’; you wonder how she’d feel to be ‘Jane’ to these long-range adorers, considering how important names are to her. Even the disingenuously named Frank Churchill, in Emma, one of the few men always to be called by his whole name, is offended by the way Mrs Elton addresses Jane Fairfax: ‘“Jane,” indeed!’ he says to Emma. ‘You will observe that I have not yet indulged myself in calling her by that name, even to you.’

I didn’t know this was the two hundredth anniversary of the publication of Pride and Prejudice, but in January I was driving to Auckland from Hawkes Bay and listened to it in the car. I’ve won two things in my life – a block of dairy milk chocolate in standard six (for getting the Catechism questions right) and a tin of assorted classics on CD a few years ago. The CDs are good when you’re crawling behind cattle trucks on winding roads.

‘I dearly love a laugh,’ Lizzy Bennet says to Miss Bingley and Darcy in the drawing room at Netherfield. I do too. Pride and Prejudice is very funny. I thought it was funny when I first read it at school, when I discovered the obvious comics, and over the years, others have amused me as much as walking, witty Lizzy. But the more you read the other novels, the more you realise that even though fun and being ‘diverted’ is a constant seam throughout them all, there is a corollary to that sentence: ‘I hope I never ridicule what is wise or good. Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can.’

I suppose the pleasure I get from reading the novels now is cumulative. It’s hard now to think of one without remembering the others, and sensing a pattern at work, sometimes apparent, sometimes veiled, but always present. Her sentences are perfectly formed and perfectly in tune – they’re like the music of Mozart where you might be seduced by the ripple of the piano and miss (at first) the oboes wailing beneath. There is humour and delight but there is also sadness, grief and criticism, and within the exploration of emotional states, artistry: the ‘fine brush’ on ‘two inches of ivory.’

Miss Bates in Emma is one of my favourite characters. Each time I read her, I want to be her – want to read her words aloud because they are so funny, and at her dottiest, I know we are rather alike – I have an inordinate capacity for trivia.

Here she is preparing to read a letter from Jane Fairfax to Emma in Chapter XIX:

And since you are so kind as to wish to hear what she says – but, first of all, I really must, in justice to Jane, apologize for her writing so short a letter, only two pages, you see, hardly two, and in general she fills the whole paper and crosses half. My mother often wonders that I can make it out so well. She often says when the letter is first opened, ‘Well, Hetty, I think you will be well put to it to make out all that checker-work’ – don’t you madam? And then I tell her I am sure she would contrive to make it out herself, if she had nobody to do it for her, every word of it; I am sure she would pore over it till she had made out every word. And, indeed, though my mother’s eyes are still not so good as they were, she can still see amazingly well with the aid of spectacles. It is such a blessing! My mother’s are really very good indeed. Jane often says when she is here, ‘I am sure, grandmamma, you must have had very strong eyes to see as you do – so much fine work as you have done too! I only hope my eyes may last me as well.’

We never get to hear the letter, although throughout the chapter Miss Bates tells us we are about to: ‘I am going to have the pleasure of reading it to you’, ‘but we shall presently see in Jane’s letter’, ‘as you will hear presently’, “as I am going to read”, and finally, and brilliantly: ‘Well, now I have just given you a hint of what Jane has written about, we shall turn to her letter.’ But Emma has had enough and off she skips.

I think it’s possible to argue that of all Emma’s failings in the novel, her ridicule of Miss Bates at the picnic is the one we can’t laugh at. Snobbish Emma for discouraging Harriet from considering Robert Martin, blind Emma for not realising Mr Elton really fancies her or that Frank Churchill is using her as a front for his secret wooing – all these situations have elements of humour which Jane Austen exploits remorselessly, but cruel Emma for exposing Miss Bates at the picnic:

‘Oh!’ exclaimed Miss Bates… ‘I shall be sure to say three dull things as soon as ever I open my mouth, shan’t I?’ looking round with the most good-humoured dependence on everyone’s assent.

Emma could not resist.

‘Ah!’ ma’am, but there will be a difficulty. Pardon me, but you will be limited as to the number – only three at once.’

It is such a loaded occasion – has been much looked forward to but from the start everything goes wrong – there was ‘a languor, a want of spirits, a want of union which could not be got over.’ It’s this sense of separateness and boredom which makes Emma behave so badly.

Miss Bates is Emma’s opposite: ‘poor, sunk from the comforts she was born to; and if she live till old age, must probably sink more.’ No wonder Mr Darcy rebuked Emma. No wonder Emma ‘felt it at her heart. How could she have been so brutal, so cruel to Miss Bates?’


I’ve recently read an essay by Virginia Woolf about films, or The Cinema as she entitled it. It was written in 1928 when you could say film had far to go, but much of what she wrote then seems still to hold true. She writes of the disjuncture between eye and brain when we watch a film: ‘The eye licks it all up instantaneously, and the brain agreeably titillated, settles down to watch things without bestirring itself to think.’ She uses Anna Karenina as an example of what happens. The eye says, ‘Here is Anna Karenina.’ A voluptuous lady in black velvet wearing pearls comes between us. But the brain says, ‘That is no more Anna Karenina than it is Queen Victoria.’ For the brain knows Anna Karenina almost entirely by the inside of her mind – her charm, her passion, her despair. All the emphasis is laid by the cinema upon her teeth, her pearls and her velvet…Eye and brain are torn ruthlessly asunder as they vainly try to work in couples.’

So when I read the title of Tim Upperton’s article (Listener Mar 2:) entitled Fortune Hunter: The soundtrack throughout Pride and Prejudice is the jingle of pounds, shillings and pence I thought of Virginia Woolf’s essay. Apart from fortune hunter, soundtrack jangled – was this going to be about the novel or the movie? The piece was accompanied by three photographs from the BBC series.

He begins with that famous opening sentence, so we know he means the novel, and swiftly declares that ‘all of Pride and Prejudice – all of Jane Austen, in fact – is contained in it.’ He builds a case for Elizabeth’s underlying motives: even though she’s funnier, cleverer, more aware than her mother, her sisters or her friend, it’s actually seeing Pemberly that makes her change her mind about Darcy, and she admits as much to Jane after she and Darcy have married[2]. He concludes by arguing that Elizabeth, and by extension, Jane Austen, believes that ‘in matrimonial affairs, there is no difference between the mercenary and the prudent motive’, and that this attitude has formed the basis of every Mills and Boons novel ever after.

His summary is perfectly compatible with what happens to our judgment when a novel becomes a film. Indeed, he blames Colin Firth for not allowing us to see what a ‘complete arse’ Darcy really is. Perhaps when he was writing, he glanced at the film again and his ‘eye and brain were torn ruthlessly asunder as they vainly tried to work in couples.’ There was Colin, brooding, wet and irresistible in the water. Was this really the same man who said there was no one in the room tolerable enough for him to dance with?

These days we can’t read Pride and Prejudice without having the film in our heads. But, films and television series are finished within a few hours, and off we go to have a latte. We can’t do with them what Elizabeth does with a letter (and by extension a book): ‘When she had gone through the whole letter, though scarcely knowing anything of the last page or two, she put it hastily away, protesting that she would not regard it, that she would never look at it again…But it would not do. In half a minute the letter was unfolded again.’ Elizabeth walks in the grove for two hours ‘reading and rereading’ (my italics), and how her responses change. At first she reads ‘with a strong prejudice’, ‘an eagerness which hardly left her power of comprehension’, but then ‘she began the mortifying perusal of all that related to Wickham and commanded herself to examine the meaning of every sentence.’ She ‘reads and rereads with the closest attention’ and becomes ‘absolutely ashamed of herself’ until finally acknowledging that she had been ‘blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd.’ ‘Til this moment I never knew myself,’ she declares. The tenor of Darcy’s letter might not reflect well on him, but its sentiments act upon Elizabeth’s heart and mind – they cannot be denied.

I suggest that both her and Emma’s moments of self-awareness are as profound as Hamlet’s, ‘There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow…the readiness is all’, or Macbeth’s, ‘I am in blood / stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o’er.’

In fact, Virginia Woolf links Jane Austen and Shakespeare in A Room of One’s Own: she writes that ‘the minds of both had consumed all impedients; and for that reason we do not know Jane Austen and we do not know Shakespeare. If Jane Austen suffered in any way from her circumstances it was in the narrowness of life that was imposed upon her…it was the nature of Jane Austen not to want what she had not. Her gift and her circumstances matched each other completely…’

I wonder if Jane Austen was as serene as Virginia Woolf would have us believe, or that Tim Upperton’s suggestion that her attitude to marriage beats to the jingle of pounds, shillings and pence. Yes, Elizabeth marries Darcy and yes, she is charmed by Pemberley. But Darcy’s letter changes her; reading and reflection deepen her – she becomes less judgmental, more insightful. She is rewarded, but not just because she is lively, but because she has arrived at a moral and emotional maturity, crossed a moral river unaided – she was certainly not helped by her feckless parents, but that’s another story.

Darcy too has altered. For someone as disdainful of the Bennets as he undoubtedly was at first, he spares no effort in tracking down Lydia and Wickham, pays off the latter’s debts, buys him a commission and forces them to marry. And this achieved so discreetly that Elizabeth’s uncle must pretend to have effected the couple’s social restoration. If this is accomplished as a prelude to another proposal to Elizabeth, it is hardly from a mercenary motive: ‘Her heart did whisper that he did it for her.’ Tim Upperton wishes we see more of Wickham, but no matter how beguiling he appears, Wickham is, to borrow Tim’s own phrase, ‘a complete arse.’ He lies about his past, almost seduces Darcy’s sister, actually seduces Lydia – ‘Tell Sally [the maid] to mend a great slit in my muslin gown’ – and must be frog-marched into marriage which was never his intention.

The jingle of coinage is undoubtedly heard, but consider life if you were a poor eighteenth century woman. Miss Bates is in Emma not just to make us laugh. Jane Fairfax’s future is decidedly uncertain. Mrs Smith in Persuasion is an impoverished sick widow who can’t walk, never goes out and is reduced to making pin cushions for those poorer than herself. In Sense and Sensibility Mrs Dashwood is thrown out of her house because of a legal entailment – no wonder Mrs Bennet is worried about her daughters’ futures, Mr Bennet being too inert to leave his library to find a way of augmenting his income. Similarly, the wages of sin are high. Once Mr Collins hears about Lydia, he writes to Mr Austen advising him to cast her off forever – the man’s too comical to be a complete arse, but his views were commonplace. In Mansfield Park, Maria Bertram is banished by her family to ‘another country’ for living with Henry Crawford, and let’s not forget Mrs Clay, another impoverished solitary woman in Persuasion who will probably be cast off once William Elliot tires of her.

Happy marriage is rare in Austenland. The Bennets, the Bertrams, the younger Dashowoods, the older Knightleys all have shrivelled relationships. It is possible, however, as we see with the Crofts in Persuasion and the Gardiners in Pride and Prejudice  whose marriages are based on esteem or respect – two of Jane Austen’s favourite words. Elizabeth’s father, speaking from experience says to her, ‘I know you could never be happy or respectable unless you truly esteemed your husband…let me not have the grief of seeing you not able to respect your partner in life.’

If you consider Jane Austen’s own aim for her writing: ‘two or three families in a country village – the very thing to work from,’ it is social cohesion that interests her as much as financially bolstered love. Her genius lies in the way she continues to show us who we are as we negotiate our fragile and comical lives. Virginia Woolf says, ‘Jane Austen is a mistress of a much deeper emotion than appears on the surface…a trifle which expands in the reader’s mind. She stimulates us to supply what is not there…Think away the trifle, the surface animation, the likeness to life, and there remains an exquisite discrimination of human values.’

This is the joy and satisfaction of reading Jane Austen. The novels have the quality of ‘two inches of ivory’; they repay ‘earnest perusal’, their trifles expand in our minds in a way no Mills and Boon story or a film of a novel can ever achieve. Pride and Prejudice was originally entitled First Impressions. Tim Upperton’s response to Pride and Prejudice may in fact be compared with Darcy’s first impression of Elizabeth: ‘tolerable.’  But Darcy observes and considers: he perceives her uncommon intelligence and revises his ‘insufficient pretensions.’

[1] James Austen-Leigh

[2] In fact, she also considers how much she could have loved him the day she hears news of Lydia’s elopement when he comes unexpectedly visit her at the inn: ‘Never had she felt that she could have loved him as now, when all love should be in vain.’ Chapter XLVI.

‘Fancy, the little Dutch child.’

3 Apr


‘What you want to be,’ said Alan Bennett’s Mam when he was about five years old, ‘is a gentleman farmer…They earn up to £10 a week.’

Why gentlemen farmers Bennett asks years later, and his older self replies, ‘The answer of course was books.’ His mother had never met a gentleman farmer, but she read novels and there they could be found, comfortable, secure and powerful.

That small exchange in his essay, The Treachery of Books, triggered one of those frissons that comes over you when the words on a page leap up and speak just to you.

Suddenly I was about eight in the kitchen watching my mother iron my father’s shirts. He was working late, my brothers were in bed, my sister wasn’t yet born; we were drinking warm bournvita.

‘If you want to be a teacher, my mother was saying, ‘you must read… I always wanted to be a teacher… But the war…’

A teacher for my mother was like a gentleman farmer for Alan Bennett’s. Being a teacher meant pens, paper and books. Did I want to be a teacher? I became one…of course – I was the oldest child, flagship of my parents’ dreams – bespectacled, diligent, dutiful. Mostly I’ve liked teaching. Always I’ve loved reading. As soon she could, my mother joined us up at the tiny Havelock North library, and for every birthday, gave my brothers and me small Nelson editions of the classics – Dickens, Thackeray Jane Austen and the Brontës were waiting for us whether we were ready or not.

My mother grew up in a convent in the north, and five years after the war, she left England forever with a suitcase and a book – The Valley of Decision. She sailed into Wellington one day in 1950 and lived in Oriental Bay, until she met my father who’d also come to New Zealand on a reconfigured troop ship. He dragged with him a wooden green trunk with his name stencilled across its surface. These two objects symbolised what was most important for my parents – and probably for every immigrant: education and a yearning to belong.

They built a house of blocks as secure as the third little pig’s, on a steep hill in Havelock North. It was at the end of a road; there were paddocks and sheep. Behind the house there was a forest.

And so we come, by the power of place, to fairy tales. There must have been a book; my mother must have read. But it’s her voice I hear saying Once upon a time…, Close by the King’s castle lay a great dark forest…, And they all lived happily ever after. The forest outside our house was full of sounds and airs – there were magpies in the macrocarpas – but it didn’t give delight. It was dark, there were sheep tracks, there were stinging nettles and people you couldn’t see but felt – Hansel and Gretel, Snow-White, Rapunzel. You could become Little Red Riding Hood and I did. My mother had one of those half-aprons which I transformed into a red velvet cloak. Through the forest I flew to a grandmother in a castle, an old wooden house with verandahs and a green-lidded well. The old woman who lived there lay in bed with a hairnet on her head and a tin of Quality Street chocolates on a bedside table. ‘Fancy, the little Dutch child,’ she’d say when I stood near her wondering whether she was crying or laughing because of her rheumy eyes.

I was charmed by that house and the people who looked after her: a house-keeper, a woman my mother called a ‘companion’ – different from a ‘friend’, and Ted the dungareed gardener who made a stile – the world was full of words – across the barbed wire between our house and the forest.

I was not an outdoors child. I felt early the perils of the dark wood – even the Hundred Aker Wood, where Pooh and Piglet wandered. I loved the opening sentence of Jane Eyre – ‘There was no possibility of taking a walk that day’, because that meant everything would unfold inside.

That old house was dark and mysterious. Outside the bedroom was a corridor with a strip of green carpet held in place by brass rods. All the doors along the corridor were closed, and the more I read, the more they became the door to Bluebeard’s chamber, to the Red Room where Mr Reed  died, to Clarissa Dalloway’s glacial green bedroom.

My reading has been formed by two things – my mother’s voice and that house. My mother has a very musical voice and instinctively understood the lure of rhyme, rhythm and repetition, and as long as she got the essentials right in a fairy tale, we didn’t mind deviation while she poked the washing with her washing stick or sat by the window knitting.

She also had a high opinion of Churchill, and we had a copy of The Island Race in our house. My brothers and I pored over this for hours, especially the execution of poor Catholic Mary Queen of Scots whose lapdog emerged from her skirts after her head had been cut off. I formed a conviction that English history was the most important history; my Dutch heritage suppressed mainly because of my unpronounceable name, and my father’s fondness for kissing us in public and calling out to us in his loud Dutch voice – so everyone looked.

There was also a problematic book, which although we loved very much because it showed us where he came, from confirmed my secret feelings that Dutch people were unreliable – they might seem quiet and low-lying, but give them a chance and they’d make a loud attention-drawing racket. The book was about Hendrika, a cow who ate too much grass, grew very fat, and fell, first into a canal, and then onto a raft. She loved being on her raft – she mooed with happiness – an embarrassing Dutch moo – and she was on a quest for a straw hat with streamers. On every page you see happy, plump, plain Dutch people in clogs, caps, and lacy aprons, staring at the cow in the canal. When she finally clatters into the cheese market spilling red waxy balls in all directions, Mr Hofstra her owner, shouts out her name in his loud Dutch voice.

It is such a good story and Spier’s illustrations are peerless, but as a child, I shuddered because of its subliminal message of exposure. I wanted to see but I didn’t want to be seen.

Which brings me back to the house in the forest. I crept around the edges of that old lady’s life but she became a blue print for other old women in literature – the grandmother whose spectacles Peter mended in Heidi, Mrs Bates in Emma whose spectacles Frank Crawford also fixed while secretly wooing Jane Fairfax. These two were silent – but one day I met one of my favourite and funny old ladies: Marcel’s stationary aunt Octave in Swann’s Way who ‘no longer wished to leave, first Combray, then within Combray her house, then her bedroom, then her bed’. She also had a bedside table – ‘a high altar of statues, missals and medicines.’ On the table in my old lady’s house, apart from the Quality Street chocolates, I remember only a glass and water jug beneath beaded crotcheted covers.

Aunt Octave talked to herself, and Marcel, the attentive watcher listened: ‘I must be sure to remember I did not sleep…(for never sleeping was her great claim…and sometimes she forgot herself and said, ‘What woke me up’ or, ‘I dreamed that’… and would blush and correct herself instantly’.

For most of my reading life, I’ve read novels, and loved especially novels which make me laugh, but I’ve now I’m interested in remembering. So often the first memory is of the mother’s voice, as Alan Bennett has showed us in that early essay, and Francis Spufford begins his marvellous memoir with, ‘“I can always tell when you’re reading somewhere in the house,” my mother used to say.’

For Virginia Woolf, the first memory is the primal memory:

‘If life has a base that it stands upon, if it is a bowl that one fills and fills and fills, – then my bowl stands upon this first memory. It is of lying half asleep, half awake, in bed, in the nursery at St Ives. It is of hearing the waves breaking, one two, one two, and sending a splash of water over the beach, and then breaking, one two, one two, behind a yellow blind. It is of hearing the blind draw its little acorn across the floor as the wind blew the blind out. It is of lying and hearing this splash and seeing this light, and feeling… the purest ecstasy I can conceive.’

Every time you read a book, you bring to those words on the page all the experiences that have ever formed you – it wasn’t until I sat down to write this essay that I understood that at some level, I am still the little Dutch child listening to my mother, or standing by the bed of an old woman in a dark old house hoping for a chocolate from the Quality Street tin.

Family Songbook and walking home

7 Mar


On Tuesday night I went to the Gus Fisher Gallery for the launch of John Newton’s new book of poems: Family Songbook. It’s a beguiling little book even before you’ve opened it – its cover wholly taken up by a Woollaston sketch. I like sketches – they seem to be simple, possibly a prelude to something more serious like a painting, but often they are the artist’s first impression so there’s an energy and lightness about them that may not always stay in a painting.

There are scribbled clouds and scribbled poplars; there are the spines of hills and hills shaded or cross-hatched; there seems to be a track, it might be a river, might be a road. Woollaston worked in ink (I think) and sometimes it’s dark and sometimes it’s  faint, but all the time you feel his eye framing the landscape – order and placement underpin apparently artless marks. The title, Family Songbook, is in a sort of charcoal American typewriter font, and John’s name below in a muted shade of orange. Everything about the cover suggests, not exactly nostalgia, but a reassessment – a looking back, although of course, looking forward – movement – is also implicit in the diagonal lines that dance across the sketch.

Michele Leggott gave the book a wonderful launch. She said she’d been living with the poems for at least a year – that John had made a CD of them for her so they were in her ears. She said she always started at the back of a book first; that this was a wise decision in the case of Family Songbook because many things contained in the notes helped the reading of the poems. She explained how the loops of illusions in Envoi ripple throughout the other poems. Finally she addressed them – six long poems, and conceded that autonomous as they are, they are also one long poem which is in fact an answer to a question John asked in his collection Lives of the Poets:

                           How do you translate

                           the old family story into something that anyone else

                           wants to hear?

And John read several poems. We all wanted to hear.

Family Songbook is ‘an old family story’, and family a capacious noun in which people, place, music and art move and join and part and are woven together. This is what has stayed:

Woolsheds were meant to be woolshed-red.

Now everywhere they’re galvanised iron.

What if the colour were to vanish

from a landscape? That oxidised crimson

like dried blood, the pond with its sugary

crust of duckweed, Jonathans ripening in April

streaked with honey. Cold it be simpler?

I need this colour, as much as I need

That towering summer in the riverbed

somewhere below Ikamatua:

salmony blush on the granite boulders,

water the colour of yellow Chartreuse;

A sandy hollow, your mahogany

tan; a happy, clumsy, scribble of self.

From Great Days in New Zealand Painting

Later that night I walked through Aotea Square all hedged about with high hurricane fencing. There were security guards here and there, a few people smoking on seats. I walked around the side of the Aotea Centre where the techies unload their stuff – there’s a path and some steps up to Mayoral Drive. A woman with a long skirt was pulling herself slowly up the path holding on to the rail.

‘Walk with me,’ she said. ‘You’re going too bloody fast. Me, I’m fat and I’ve got my Achilles tendon.’

There was something strange about her – her face round as a plate, her teeth glinting in the overhead light, and the curious ownership of her tendon. Her voice was a blend of Australian and Indian.

‘That hurts,’ I said. ‘My sister tore her Achilles. Where are you going? You don’t sound as if you come from here.’

She gestured towards the hotel across the street. ‘There,’ she said. ‘I’m from Perth. I’m on a tour of your beautiful city, but I couldn’t find a hole in the wall. I needed some cash. I get all the way down there with my leg and then, look –’ she pointed up at the ASB tower – ‘I could’ve just walked me over there. Can you walk with me across the road? I’m scared cos of my leg.’

We walked slowly out into the middle of Mayoral Drive towards the hotel. I could smell the last of the star jasmine.

‘But where do I get in?’ she asked.

‘I thought you were staying here.’

‘I am, but it looks different from before.’

We walked round to the entrance on Grey’s Avenue. She leaned against the raised concrete garden bed and stared at me.

‘What do you do for a crust?’

‘I write.’

‘You a writer? Books?’

‘No books.’

‘What kind of writer if you don’t write books?’


‘Essays.’ She pauses. ‘Essays.’ She tried the word out. ‘Well, thanks, writer. You look like a nun. Are you getting it?’




Something about Ladders

13 Feb

all-the-places-ive-ever-knownThe first is a photograph of an orange ladder. The photograph hangs in my house but not for much longer because I’m giving it to my daughter for her birthday in a week’s time. That’s not the absolute truth – it is her birthday – in four days actually, and I am giving it to her, but not for a month, when she comes to Auckland. I don’t want to, which you could say, is why I’m fudging. I want to keep it. But she chose it, and if you can, you give things to your children, especially when they love them.

Thing is a reductive word.

‘They’re only things,’ said the photographer one misty morning as he strode through the streets and caught a cobweb in a corner, a bundle of blankets by a blue fence, a steeple piercing the fog.

And in this case, it’s only a ladder leaning beside a wall. I wrote against at first, and now I look again. I see that it isn’t; that the ladder has to be leaning on something protruding from the building, otherwise it would be angled differently – might never have caught the photographer’s quick eye. The building isn’t local. Those slabs of stone look too big, too old to have been built on our soft yellow clay, and that deeply recessed window strengthened by iron bars suggests caution, protection, privacy – so different from our batten and board or chicken-meshed walls which we can almost push our hands into. Or out of.

Who put the ladder there and why? It’s chipped, old – see those two bits of peeling tape; a scruffy ladder, a repaired ladder – but that’s as it should be – ladders are tools; they help you fix things – I think of wires and connection, of bulbs and light, which, you with your landlocked feet, can’t reach. Ladders lift you; give you another point of view, change who you see, how you see. Change you. The rungs of this ladder are pale bars of light quietly, quietly carrying your eyes (your feet) up to the frame of the photograph – and then what? That’s what I like about this photograph – its mute mystery. The ladder has become more than only – more than a thing – it leans beside the wall. Waiting. And from an invisible anchor on the leaf-splattered pavement, it lifts its arms.

The photograph hangs in my house waiting for my daughter. I pass it every day – each time I get up from this chair, there it is, and sometimes the strength of its silence forces me to turn to it. I look at the black rectangle behind the ladder: a window between two slabs of grey stone – dark enough to imagine it’s just a black space which makes the orange ladder more brilliant. But if I look again, I see that the darkness is speckled with light – the bars divide the window into sections and each might be the skin of the sea, a cloudy night. Or even a message in braille. The bars divide; the bars protect – at different times we need to see in different ways.

I’m myopic. I worry always about not seeing – clearly, enough, into the distance – and indeed I must peer into this dark void to discover that quiet glitter. But it’s there, just as the rungs on the ladder are ascending bars of light, just as the ladder stretches up and out of the photograph…

This photograph, you might say, is a study of light and its unexpected revelations. The walls confining the dark window are chipped, chalk-scrawled, paint-splattered. But someone has used them as a book, board or easel; someone has wanted to make a mark, less lovely than those dancing shapes in dark caves; yet has yearned to leave a trace. And the orange ladder on the gritty concrete (does it stretch up, or lean down like a bar of sun?) whispers that we long to be lifted – to see and be seen. In the light.

So when my daughter comes next month, I’ll give her the photograph. It will hang in her  flat where the traffic never stops and the birds clatter like knives. She too will look at it each day and its serenity and beauty will make her pause as she wipes the table or picks up her daughter’s toys.

We’ll think of each other. The ladder is a bridge.

The second ladder has escaped. It floats in a blue sky at dusk and the blue is washed like silk, like milk. The sky fills the canvas; is empty but for the ladder; your eyes drink the blue – you can’t have enough of it – you breathe and it fills you, and the space of it carries the ladder – and you. You float in that blue space too, your arms also outstretched, straining towards that ear of a moon. The ladder sprang from a dark distant mountain, but in its eagerness, has miscalculated – it will never reach the moon, for the moon is unassailable. But it doesn’t matter. Only the leap matters. And the leap is into enormity and silence. In a place of seemingly forbidding ‘emptiness’ whose components are stripped to earth, air and sky, what do you hear but your own footsteps, the wind carrying random patches of birdsong or animal howl.

The painting is Ladder to the Moon. Georgia O’Keefe, whose house Ghost Ranch lay on the badlands near the Jemez Mountains, said, ‘if I walk for fifteen minutes from the house, I am in some place I have never been before; where it seems no one has been before.’ The painting was inspired by a vision she had of a floating ladder and possibly a prayer: ‘if I painted this place often enough, perhaps God would give it to me.’[i]

I first saw the painting on Poetry Day in 2006 when I was, briefly a relief teacher in the Far North. That day I was the in the art room and my instructions were simple: ‘Clss to continue w projects. They know what 2 do. Folders in box in back room. Ask Tiriti to hand out. NB fill in roll. VIP. Thanx.’

‘Who is Tiriti?’

‘Me Miss.’

‘Me Miss.’

‘Me Miss.’

‘He’s away today. Miss.

‘Gapped it Miss.’

‘Catching kina Miss.’

‘You like kina Miss?’

‘Where’s Sir Miss?’

‘Is that your name on the board miss?’

‘You married Miss?’

‘You Indian Miss?’

‘Where you come from Miss?’

‘I seen you at the supermarket Miss.’

‘Can we have the radio on Miss?’

‘No. Could you put your phone away please.’

‘Aw, shit. Sorry Miss. Can’t Miss. My sister’s having a baby Miss. Any minute Miss. I might get da call. Sir always lets us.’

‘He’s going to be a uncle, Miss.’

‘He is already.’

‘Yeah, he does.’

‘We always have the radio.’

‘Well, not today. Sir says you know what to do and your projects are in a box in the back room.’

‘’S locked Miss. Got da key?’

‘Sir didn’t say anything about a key.’

‘Sir’s a douche bag Miss.’

‘Excuse me.’

‘’S true Miss.’

‘Try da door Miss. See. ’S locked. Cos we are robbers Miss.’

It was true. The back room door was locked, and the art room a tunnel with windows facing a concrete yard with a leaking tap and three plastic bins. If you walked to the windows, you could see beyond the yard, the symmetrical branches of Norfolk pines, beyond which lay the blue bowl of the bay. Posters on the walls – of the Northland Panels, a Clairmont sofa, and Picasso at a bull fight – vied with students’ renditions of Fomison or manga. There were six or eight paint-splattered tables, an assortment of plastic stools and about twenty students. The girls were squashed around a table at the back of the room putting on make-up, texting, or eating. They threw apples to one another. Some had yoghurt and fed their friends with plastic spoons or poured it down their throats. They aimed the cores and containers at the bin near my desk. They were not good shots. Others in pink or pale blue puffer jackets shared earplugs and jiggled to unheard music. A few looked up occasionally through panda eyes, but mostly they faced the windows so I looked on an impenetrable pastel-coloured puffered wall.

The boys wore nylon jackets with stripes and numbers, and caps so it was hard to see their eyes. Some had enormous diamond studs in their ears. They pushed back the sleeves of their jackets and sprawled across the tables. They drew gigantic penises, or masked men with guns on one another’s arms, legs and hands. They took turns at decorating, they compared, contrasted and congratulated.. It was 9.15. The class finished at 10.

On the table apart from Sir’s instructions and the roll book was a battered book of paintings by Georgia O’Keefe.

‘Has Sir been telling you about Georgia O’Keefe?’

‘She lived in da desert Miss.’

‘She liked bones Miss.’

‘And close-ups of flowers, Miss.’

‘She was rude as, Miss.’

‘She was a rude dude.’

‘Have you looked at her flowers?’

‘Can’t Miss. Too disgusting.’

‘She must of been a pervert, Miss.’

‘Sir’s a pervert, Miss.’

‘Are you a pervert Miss?’

‘Here is a painting,’ I said. ‘What do you think?’


‘’S Cool, Miss.’

‘’Sucks Miss.’

‘Why is da ladder flying to da moon, Miss?’

‘It was smoking weed, Miss.’

‘You want some weed, Miss?’

‘What do you like about the painting?’

The girls put gloss on their little fingers and spread it on each other’s lips. I walked to the boys’ table and put the book in front of them. They raised their heads and tipped their caps back and their big brown hands stroked the page.

‘It wants to excape Miss.’

‘Like us, Miss. We want to excape. It sucks here Miss.’

We looked at the moon and the mountains and the floating ladder. We talked about walking and being quiet and symbols and why they wore diamonds and rings.

‘It’s Poetry Day,’ I said. ‘Here’s a poem about a ladder. Write it in your homework books. Take it home and read it to your parents. Learn it by heart. I’m coming back tomorrow.’

‘Can’t Miss.’

‘Why not?’

No book, Miss. No pencils neither. They locked in da back room. Bell’s going in ten minutes Miss. We gotta tidy up and get ready for School Council Meeting.’

‘Just do it.’

‘Oh Miss.’

‘I’ll time you.’


The Ladder 

Too short to reach the roof,

too short to threaten important windows,

the ladder lies on its side

behind the house, out of sight.

The ladder lies in the grass,

A different grain in each of its rungs

(and wings on each rung

so where can you place your feet?).

And as you can see, it is rotten.

Nevertheless, it longs to be lifted.

Bill Manhire


[i] /

Ladder, Paris, Harvey Benge

Austenprose - A Jane Austen Blog

Join the celebration of Jane Austen novels, movies, sequels and the pop culture she has inspired

Poetry Box

A New Zealand Poetry Page for Children

Art and My Life

A blog about art in my everyday life


We came through the Gate of the Crossing in a year that is not remembered and will never be forgotten . . .

Bernard Beckett

Author information and occasional blog


Reading. Writing. Parenting. Angsting.


An attic light. A floodlight. A burning wreck.


Eve de Castro-Robinson's blog


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: