Terrorism and Poetry: A Matter of Interpretation

Timothy McVeigh was executed on June 1, 2001, as the first convicted criminal execution carried out by the Federal government since 1963.  McVeigh, known as the Oklahoma City Bomber, was found guilty of the bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995, killing 168 people.  The terrorist attack was the deadliest in American history before 9/11 occurred.  Before his execution via lethal injection, McVeigh chose to leave a transcribed copy of William Henley’s poem, ‘Invictus’, in lieu of a final statement.  In the wake of his death, citizens, particularly the surviving family members of the bombing victims, were in uproar over the note.  The title, ‘Invictus’, is Latin for unconquerable; a sentiment not publically favored when coming from a convicted terrorist.  Henley’s work is no stranger to an underlying dark nature.  His poetry recounts his lifelong hospitalization and near brushes with death

A narrative deeply rooted in poetic device, religious themes, and the basic nature of poetry interpretation can be found when viewing ‘Invictus’ through the lens of terrorism, as the story of deeply destructive, yet self-perceived unconquerable, terrorist unfurls.  By viewing Henley’s poem through this lens, a question is raised about the nature and appropriateness of reader appropriation, and the ways in which it impacts how society views literature. 

The scene, tone, metaphor and overall effect of ‘Invictus’ paint the aftermath of a terroristic action, following capture and shifting the focus towards reflection.  The line of narrative the poem creates under this specific lens mirrors closely what is considered to be the inspiration for its conception.  Henley opens with the following stanza, implying a few key points:

Out of the night that covers me,

Black as the pit from pole to pole,

I thank whatever gods may be

For my unconquerable soul.

The first is the establishment of a self-referencing narrator, who has found an ‘out’ from a dark situation.  The use of “night” is ambiguous in this position, referring to either literal nighttime and the imagery of darkness, or a metaphorical meaning, supported by the fact that night “covers me”, which could imply an internal battle.  Henley goes further with the darkness imagery in the following stanzas:

In the fell clutch of circumstance

I have not winced nor cried aloud.

Under the bludgeonings of chance

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the Horror of the shade,

And yet the menace of the years

Finds and shall find me unafraid.

His reference to the “fell clutch of circumstance” as “Black as the pit”, “the Horror of the shade”, “this place of wrath and tears” and “the gate” allude to a traditional idea of hell, and imply the judgment that accompanies one’s placement in this setting (McLuhan).  Yet, the narrator seeks to defy this imagery and find the “out” alluded to in the first stanza.  This journey is solely possible due to his “unconquerable soul”, allowing him strength to have not “winced nor cried aloud”, to have a “bloody, but unbowed” head, and despite “the menace of years / find and shall find me unafraid”.  These threads deal with unbridled belief in not only the narrator’s self, but his mission and endgame.  As he moves through the hell-scape, he never finds his faith in himself tested, eventually anointing him as the “master of my faith” and “captain of my soul”.  He seeks to triumph over what chains him, a sentiment that could easily be interpreted as destruction in the name of a cause.  This pliability and ambiguity blurs the line between self-creation and destruction of the world to create.

Henley’s use of religion throughout the poem has an interesting evolution.  In the first stanza, he finds himself thanking “whatever gods may be / For my unconquerable soul”.  The uncertainty in the first line is disregarded by its successor, as the narrator finds no need to question the true source of the strength of his soul.  Yet, by the final stanza, the narrator’s views have changed, stating “I am the master of my fate,/ I am the captain of my soul”.  Master and captain both imply power that the narrator now posses, evolving completely from the gratitude shown for “my unconquerable soul” in the first stanza.  Whatever higher purpose initially drove the narrator forward is wholly replaced along the way by his own power.

This is a powerful sentiment, suggesting both the pluralism and individuality of terrorism.  Pluralism is visible in the beginning, when the narrator finds purpose outside of himself and his circumstance from a higher being.  In McVeigh’s case specifically, he found his purpose in the need for what he believed to be rightful vengeance against the government.  This idea of pluralism presents the crucible.  Yet, the action has to be carried out on an individual level, solely based on the willpower of the narrator.  However, the narrator’s reference to “the bludgeonings of chance” inbetween this binary show his wavering faith in “whatever gods may be”, driving him further into himself as he struggles with these ideologies.  After he has done so, he has completely severed his ties from this pluralistic omniscience, and truly become “the captain of my soul”.  This address the theme of free will, a question often addressed when considering terrorist ideologies.  The narrator presumably does not have free will at the start of the poem, as he relies on the bestowment of an “unconquerable soul”, but by the end he believes this has changed.  It is of note that McVeigh was an atheist, and sought comfort in the idea of being in charge of his own life, and ultimately his own death.  The decision to use the poem in the first place demonstrates his desire to retain control over the circumstances around him until he died.

Henley’s poem, despite perception in the literary realm as having “no internal organization” and minimal poetic action in the form of lingual interaction and metaphors, finds favor “simply by an external appeal to audience assumptions”. (McLuhan)  Widely associated with Nelson Mandela’s imprisonment at the hands of apartheid South African government, the poem inspires hope and faith within oneself amidst troubling times.  Henley’s personal struggle with tubercular arthritis from a young age lends itself to critic-acclaimed “senseless swagger” and a “self-consciously heroic attitudinizing” that secured itself as “widely anthologized and learned by rote and quoted (Cohen, 191).  Yet it is poetry’s very nature to “not necessarily ask to be trusted”, reveling “in duplicity and disjunction, making it difficult for us to assume that any particular poetic gesture is inevitably responsible or irresponsible to the culture that gives the language meaning” (McCooey, 494).  McVeigh’s choice of this poem as the conduit of his last bodily expression takes full advantage of this sentiment, using it as a provocative contestation of the thematic “stoicism and suffering by a poet conventionally respected for bravery” (McCooey, 489).  It is critical to note that Mandela’s use of ‘Invictus’ could fall under this same scrutiny.  At the time of his imprisonment, he was viewed as a terrorist by the South African government.  This highlights a crucial paradox that is applicable to McVeigh and the general ideology of terrorism.  In poetry, interpretations of the author’s meaning and intent can greatly vary depending on the reader due to the conciseness and general vagueness that characterizes the literary form.  As such, the reader reflects different life experiences, beliefs, values, traditions, and ideologies in the interpretation and consumption of the work.  In Mandela’s case, there is great discrepancy on his status as a terrorist.  Certainly to the government his ideologies contradict, he was a threat, but to the millions oppressed by apartheid, he was a revolutionary (Kolani).  The same logic can be applied to McVeigh.  The details of his trial suggest his deep-rooted belief in the necessity and importance of his horrific actions, leading him to view himself as a hero.  Under this assumption, his choice of ‘Invictus’ clarifies.  McCooey suggests  “interpreting texts is the route to self-understanding as a human being” as “texts are the medium through which readers arrive at self-understanding; they are the bridge between the subjectivity of the self and the objectivity of the world” (McCooey, 495).  Regardless of the public perception of his crimes, McVeigh found enough self-understanding in Henley’s poem to utilize it as his parting message to the world.  This “appropriation caused disquiet partly because he shows the radically unstable nature of texts”, further driving emphasizing the pliable nature of poetry and the power of interpretation.  Perhaps McVeigh found a form of immortalization through the poem, hoping to insinuate that his life and his actions transcend any punishment that might befall him.  In a sense, he was unconquerable as no justice would be able to undo the damage and death he had caused.  His own death was not enough to cancel out the 168 lives he took.  For this, McVeigh could attest to the line “My head is bloody, but unbowed”.  He, as well as many terrorists throughout the world, may find themselves caught in the wake of their destruction, yet they offer no sympathy, refusing to allow their resoluteness to waiver.  The widely accepted literary interpretation of Henley’s work deals with the idea of conquering death as well, yet on an individual health level.  There is no collateral damage in this interpretation, with the narrator’s refusal to bow his bloodied head representing strength and perseverance. Yet, the poem itself supports this vast juxtaposition, and even supports the nature of poetry that would allow the terrorists themselves to identify with the traditional literary interpretation- that they represent strength and perseverance for their cause.

McVeigh had a fair amount of media access in the year leading up to his execution, and understood the public’s desire for him to express remorse over his actions.  His defiance was plain in his choice of parting words.  The simple handwritten note, not even baring the title, served as a reminded to the vast interpretation of literature, particularly poetry.  The poem, depicting the narrator’s rise from hell and constraint under a pluralistic omniscient to a state of total self-control, gives purpose and meaning to his action, in his eyes.  This highlights a larger narrative within the institution of terrorism itself- a question of the finite difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary.  This is reflected in the debate over poetry interpretation, and finds that the choice rests primarily in popular opinion at the time.  As such, McVeigh’s morbid use of a poem traditionally associated with strength and even the beloved Nelson Mandela, can find little contest.

Bibliography

Cohen, Edward H. The Huntington Library Quarterly: Two Anticipations of Henley's 'Invictus'. 37 Vol. University of California Press, 1974. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

Kolani, Ruth. "Terrorism and Modern Literature, From Joseph Conrad to Ciaran Carson (review)." Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 2.2 (2004): 213-218.

McCooey, David. "Poetry, Terrorism, and the Uncanny: "Timothy McVeigh's 'Invictus'"." Criticism 54.4 (2012): 485-505. Web.

McLuhan, Herbert Marshall. "Henley's 'Invictus'." Explicator 3