before we get to your five book choices, could you say something about who kierkegaard was?
søren kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher and writer. He was born in 1813 and died in 1855, and he wrote most of his writings in the 1840s and 1850s. He is now often considered the father of existentialist thought, but he is actually much more than that. he had a great influence on the philosophy of the 20th century, but his philosophy is very rich and complex. he has religious, theological, and spiritual dimensions, as well as more progressive modern themes that people might be more familiar with.
You are reading: Soren kierkegaard best books
You have written several books on Kierkegaard, but the most recent is a biography. most biographies of philosophers are boring; philosophers tend to be people who spend a lot of time in libraries, or writing, or just talking to people. but kierkegaard is quite different in this respect. why is it such an interesting topic for a biography?
One of the interesting things about biography as a literary genre is that it raises philosophical questions about the truth and meaning of a human life: what does a good human life look like, how can we judge a life, etc. Writing a biography seemed like a philosophical activity to me.
“What does it mean to be true to yourself, if the self that you are is always changing? That question launched Kierkegaard’s philosophical career.”
with kierkegaard, those questions about how to live and how to be human are unavoidable; he wrestled with them both in his writing and in his existence. he was a philosopher who put his life into his work; For example, when he broke off his engagement to Regine Olsen. after being engaged to this young woman for a year, he changed his mind and broke up. this was a turning point in his own life, but it also raised questions about authenticity, what it meant to be true to himself, and ethical questions about human freedom, and how other people might judge our actions as incorrect. in his case because he had broken a promise. and yet he felt that there was a higher truth about what he was doing.
I was also very interested in the question of what it means to live a true life, a life that is true to oneself, when, as human beings, we are always in the process of becoming, always changing. So what does it mean to be true to yourself, if the self that you are is always changing? That question launched Kierkegaard’s philosophical career, and it’s also a biographical question. In many of his books, he focused on the themes of romantic love, fidelity, commitment, and marriage, and he kept returning to these issues throughout his philosophical writings. therefore, his life and his writings were actually intertwined in very distinctive ways.
He is very much a writer as well as a philosopher, a literary writer using pseudonymous characters and funny games about who is the author of the book and where the manuscripts come from etc. he too was incredibly prolific in a very short life.
I think he was actually a compulsive writer. One of Kierkegaard’s distinctive character traits is his ambivalent attitude. he was ambivalent towards his father; he was ambivalent towards Christianity; he was very ambivalent about being an author.
On the one hand, he loved to write, that’s how he expressed himself, and his vocation was to be a writer. but he also felt quite tortured on the more public side, not so much for writing as for publishing: to put his writings in the world and, therefore, to be noticed and exposed to the judgments of other people. he was hyper thoughtful and hyper shy about how he might be perceived by others.
Although he loved writing and found it difficult to stop even when he really wanted to, he often debated whether to publish something once he had written it. His use of pseudonyms is tricky, but one of his purposes was to give himself a way to publish his work while still hiding something. that is a psychological aspect of pseudonyms; they also have other philosophical and performative aspects. Certainly linked to this is this ambivalence about being a conspicuous human being in the world, being seen and judged.
In his choice of five books, he has omitted many of Kierkegaard’s most famous books, such as one or another, which contains the famous “Diary of a Seducer”; There is even an edition published as a separate slim book, hosted by John Updike. you have also put aside fear and trembling, another classic much loved by existentialists. Could you say something about his first choice, the lily of the field and the bird of the air? It’s a very poetic title, but not one of Kierkegaard’s best-known books.
no, it’s probably one of his lesser known books. is a collection of three speeches. Throughout his life, Kierkegaard wrote these speeches; he didn’t call them sermons, but they were basically like sermons. Indeed, the sermon was the genre in which Kierkegaard wrote most consistently. many of his more experimental pseudonymous works were accompanied by collections of religious discourses. and in fact he preached a few sermons in churches in copenhagen during his lifetime. So, I think for Kierkegaard, the genre of the speech was very important to him and he enjoyed writing it.
This particular collection of speeches is especially lyrical and beautiful. as you say, the title – the lily of the fields and the bird of the sky – is already poetic. It’s also a fairly accessible book, partly because it doesn’t have a complicated structure like one or the other, which has several different authors, and it’s also very long.
It is either very interesting and important, but it is also quite a disorienting book to go into as a reader, while The Lily of the Fields and the Bird of the Air is quite short and has a simple structure. For me, it explores the central question of all of Kierkegaard’s philosophy, which is: what does it mean to be a human being? it is inspired by jesus’ sermon on the mount, where jesus says “he considers the lily of the field. he looks at the bird of the air.” he is evoking the flower and the bird as examples of a kind of carefree existence, with no need to worry about tomorrow.
In Kierkegaard’s hands, the lily and the bird are a kind of contrast to human experience, which is far from carefree; it is actually an experience full of anxiety and shyness and that feeling of being seen and judged by others. we do not have the immediacy of a lily or a bird. While it is simple for a lily to be a lily and for a bird to fly through the air, in Kierkegaard’s opinion it was very difficult and complicated to be a human being. he saw being human as a task that everyone has to learn.
so, you’re really exploring this question of how to be human in these speeches in a very beautiful and poetic way. I would recommend this book as an entry point into Kierkegaard’s thought.
It is interesting to think about the biographical element. Kierkegaard was unusual and eccentric in many ways, but in at least two important ways. I don’t know if he recognized this in his writings, but there aren’t many portraits of him left, probably because he was self-conscious about his appearance because he had a spinal deformity that caused him pain and discomfort.
I also had this terrible feeling that I would die young. that probably stemmed from something his father said and did: once he had renounced god, a sin against the holy spirit that is considered unforgivable. Kierkegaard turned out to be right about his dying youth. those things, his physical clumsiness and his heightened sense of his own mortality, made him incredibly self-aware, I think, as a human being, which then becomes, in part, the subject of him.
yes, that’s right. what’s interesting about kierkegaard is that he’s almost like he’s intensely human. all human beings, or most of us, worry about our appearance and wonder how others will judge us. we think about our physical appearance and whether we will be perceived as successful, powerful, confident, cool or whatever. All human beings have this self-awareness, but Kierkegaard had it to a high degree. and more importantly, he also wrote a lot about it: he really explored and analyzed the experience, and put it into words.
“all human beings have this self-awareness, but kierkegaard had it to a high degree”
On the one hand, he can be seen as an eccentric person, but on the other he articulates an experience of being human that we can all recognize, even if we are not as aware of it within ourselves as he is. . Kierkegaard saw authoring it as making more people aware of their own existence and the question of their own humanity.
kierkegaard was very human, actually. he often felt disappointed that people didn’t take him more seriously. he would write about that disappointment and then try to pretend he didn’t care what people thought of him. he hid his disappointment with an attitude of defiance. we all recognize and understand those feelings. but quite bravely, he expresses his feelings in words, very powerful words. he is a brilliant writer.
so, it’s someone who witnessed a human being experience: he’s eccentric, sure, but he’s also very relatable.
Tell me about the disease of death, your second choice of book.
Not the most appealing book title, but The Sickness of Death is one of the clearest statements of Kierkegaard’s mature philosophical position. he wrote it in the late 1840s, by which time he had already written some of his most famous works.
in it he defines human beings as spiritual beings. he says that human beings are not self-sufficient; we are not autonomous, but all dependent on god. Whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not, we all have a relationship with God. obviously, that is a view situated within a particular religious tradition.
for kierkegaard, that is what a human being is: a being that is not self-sufficient. And he argues that when we don’t understand our own relationship with God, we are in despair. so he diagnoses that desperate condition that actually turns out to be something everyone suffers from, he says. To a greater or lesser extent, we are all moving away from God and, therefore, from our true nature as dependent beings.
See Also: Juliet Blackwell – Book Series In Order
but then, he diagnoses several different forms of this despair. It can take the form of a kind of melancholy, or it can take the form of a more defiant attitude to life in which you think you don’t need (and don’t want) God. It is a very sharp book psychologically.
Is it written in your own name?
no, this is a book he wrote under a pseudonym: anticlimacus. Many of Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous authors are people who say they are not religious. they don’t really have faith; They don’t understand what it is to be a Christian, or what it would be like to have faith in God.
but anticlimactic is a pseudonym that claims to be more religious than kierkegaard would like to claim. Kierkegaard was very hesitant to claim authority for himself as someone who had it all figured out, who knew what it meant to be a human being, who actually possessed faith, and who had a relationship with God. When he wants to explore the question of living in relationship with God, he uses a pseudonym with more authority on that question than he himself wanted to assert.
In a way, he saw himself as a reader of this book rather than the author. he didn’t want to rise above his readers and preach to them, but still he wanted to explore an issue that required a more religious point of view than the one he wanted to adopt as an author.
Do you think it’s in dialogue with other books?
connects to a famous book by kierkegaard called the concept of anxiety. In the concept of anxiety, Kierkegaard identifies anxiety as a fundamental human experience. again, it has the meaning of a diagnosis of anxiety as part of the human condition. It is not a psychological phenomenon for Kierkegaard, but something that belongs to the very structure of the human being. it is in our constitution as human beings, he argues, to be anxious, and this has to do with our awareness of our freedom and our mortality, etc.
The disease of death follows this, because his diagnosis of despair is quite similar. it is not a psychological state, it is not about feeling miserable or unhappy or hopeless, but it has to do with the fact that we have a certain constitution as spiritual beings, and that we are somehow incomplete unless we really live in god . he also thought that actually living in god was extremely difficult to do, maybe impossible. then again we have this feeling that everyone is, to one degree or another, desperate.
You mentioned that he was religious in this particular way, but it’s probably worth mentioning that he distanced himself a lot from organized religion.
yes, definitely. he became an increasingly anti-institutional and anti-establishment figure, and the two establishments with which he had complicated and ambivalent relations were the university, the entire academic institution, and the Danish state church. he was a student at the university of copenhagen for ten years, so that was the world he was in, and yet he was very critical of it. he was the same with the church.
Like almost all of his Danish contemporaries, he was baptized in the Danish state church, grew up in the church, and was almost ordained in the church. but she had a very ambivalent relationship with him from her childhood onwards. Over time, this ambivalence actually morphed into outright opposition, and he became highly controversial and launched a public attack on the church in the last year of his life.
“Kierkegaard is a very undogmatic writer. he is not telling readers what to believe; he is not expounding a doctrine”
In his time, his writings tended to appeal to people who felt they didn’t necessarily fit in with organized religion. for example, there are some surviving letters from a couple of women who read his books, describing how whenever they went to church, they found it difficult to concentrate on the sermon. they were looking for some kind of guidance, ethical or spiritual, but they just didn’t connect with what they heard. Then they found Kierkegaard’s books and in them they discovered something that really connected to whatever it was they were looking for.
Over the last century and a half, Kierkegaard’s appeal has continued. it is often read by people who are part of organized religion, and is now a core part of the undergraduate philosophy and theology curriculum. but it also continues to appeal to people who are unsure of their religious identity, but are interested in exploring those questions. he is a very undogmatic writer. he’s not telling readers what to believe; he is not expounding a doctrine. he is much more interested in what we might call spiritual issues than defending religious identity and beliefs in a more conventional way.
what about your third option, stages in the path of life?
this is not one of kierkegaard’s most widely read works. he wrote a few very long books, starting with one or the other, which is an eight hundred page book; after publishing this in 1843, he wrote several short books. In 1845, he decided to write another really long book, and that was Stages on the Path of Life.
this is a complicated work from a literary point of view, because kierkegaard takes some of the pseudonyms and characters from his previous books and brings them together here. The book opens with a dinner that echoes Plato’s dinner at the symposium, where a group of men stay up all night drinking and talking about love. Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms meet for dinner and stay up all night talking about women. this is the first scene of the book.
but the book is interestingly autobiographical, which is one of the reasons I chose it. my biography of kierkegaard explores his relationship with his ex-fiancée regine olsen, a relationship that truly marked his life. At stages in life’s journey, Kierkegaard seems to be compulsively returning to the experience of his broken relationship with Regine and trying to retell and work through the story. the book is about marriage, about romantic love.
kierkegaard writes about the breakup of the engagement and even reproduces verbatim the note he sent regine when he returned her ring. So, it’s very autobiographical. the prose is also beautiful: it is the work of an experienced writer. it has been left aside, partly because of the difficulty of it, but it is worth making an effort with it.
do you think he had more relationships with women after regine?
No, I don’t think so. he felt that, in a sense, he remained faithful to regine even though he broke her promise to marry her. Fortunately for her, he married someone else, but for Kierkegaard she remained the only woman in her life. though he didn’t live with her in a physical or mundane sense, she was the woman he was writing about in her books. it’s almost as if he transposed her relationship with her into her writing. the story of their romance and her engagement is repeated in several of his books.
“even though he didn’t live with her in a physical or mundane sense, she was the woman he was writing about in his books”
then, towards the end of his life, he wrote a will in which he dedicated all his authorship to regine and left what was left of his estate to her. in this will, he wrote, “for me an engagement was and is as binding as a marriage, and therefore my estate belongs to her, exactly as if I had been married to her.” strangely, the relationship was still a reality for him, if not a reality in the world. he saw himself tied to her somehow.
but when he found her on the street, he was in trouble. It’s not like she felt like she made a mistake by turning her down.
No, I think he felt, for some reason, that he couldn’t marry her. I don’t think he regretted the decision. he had a strong sense of vocation: this was part of his religious self-understanding. It wasn’t just a question of what he wanted, it was a question of what he was destined to do in life, what God wanted him to do, what was his task.
he understood his decision not to marry and become an author in terms of a religious vocation, even though it led him to do something that seemed unethical and immoral and drew criticism from others. he still saw it as a religious decision. that is why the figure of abraham was so important to him, because abraham also had a religious vocation that seemed very unethical to him, because it led him to sacrifice isaac, his son. this could not be fully understood by other people, but nevertheless it seemed to be something he had to do. So, Kierkegaard saw parallels between his own situation and Abraham’s.
when kierkegaard and regine met on the streets of copenhagen, they never spoke, but i think they were very aware of each other as they passed. It actually seems as if Regine is looking for encounters with him; she would deliberately walk near his house. there was a sense of magnetism that united them, although they could not be together. there was a mutual energy, a bond between them that survived.
in fact, when regine was an old woman, just after her husband died, she started talking about her relationship with kierkegaard. It wasn’t just in her head that it was something special. I think for her it was also a very important part of her life with which she never lost touch. But she didn’t talk about it, nor did she talk to Kierkegaard, while she was married to someone else.
what’s your fourth choice?
my fourth choice is a book by christopher barnett called kierkegaard: pietism and holiness. when i read it i thought how could i have been thinking and writing about kierkegaard without actually knowing about it? This book focuses on a key aspect of the intellectual context and background of Kierkegaard’s thought: Pietism.
See Also: 13 Best Preschool & Pre-K Curriculum: A Complete Guide for Home & School
pietism is a movement within Lutheran Christianity, which was to focus on living a holy life. in a sense, it anticipates existentialism, as this saintly ideal was less about belief in certain doctrines and more about a religion of the heart. it was a devotional movement that prioritized feeling and emotion over belief and reason. This was really an important part of the culture that Kierkegaard grew up in. in fact, many nineteenth-century German and Danish thinkers had Pietist backgrounds, for example most of the leading German Romantics. so the romantic emphasis on sentiment actually grew out of the pietistic tradition, which emphasized religious sentiment. it is a very important cultural and intellectual force that shaped kierkegaard’s authorship.
this book gives a very good history of pietism, explains what the problems were and then shows how kierkegaard’s thinking was shaped by that pietistic heritage. To me, it made sense a lot of Kierkegaard’s thinking to see it from this perspective. pietism is not much discussed these days: a movement like romanticism is more recognizable and has more of a place, perhaps, in our contemporary culture—we recognize romantic art, etc.—whereas pietism is something that specialists know about. but beyond this, it tends to be a neglected aspect of the cultural heritage of the modern world.
Did Pietism have a confessional element? It strikes me that much of what Kierkegaard writes is in the first person, albeit disguised in various ways, and he tells you things about himself that other people may hide. it is very open. he is opening his heart in a way that is very un-English, shall we say.
It was mainly a reaction against a rationalizing shift within Lutheranism. Pietism reacted against that, just as Romanticism reacted against Enlightenment rationalism. it is part of a broader resistance to rationalist ways of thinking.
another important aspect of pietism, which is also very important for kierkegaard, is the critique of organized religion. some influential Pietists were quite anti-clerical and anti-establishment. That is another important theme that Kierkegaard takes from Pietism: being critical of the establishment, being critical of institutional religion, and elevating the individual experience of God above these hierarchical ecclesial structures, and prioritizing the individual’s heartfelt, inner relationship with God.
but it is not about the isolated individual but about the individual in community, because the Pietists were often socialists and communitarians, as well as anti-system. they had communes, for example, where they had their own laws, more or less separate from the state. Thus, various elements of this pietistic culture found their way into Kierkegaard’s thought and his critique of conventional institutional religion.
Kierkegaard used “Christianity” almost as an insulting term. Christianity was the organized church’s bourgeois attempt to represent religion to the masses, but in reality it was full of hypocrisy and failure.
In a way, Kierkegaard’s whole project as a writer was to challenge what he called Christianity, the established, institutional, social religion, and search within it for a more authentic kind of faith. Or maybe not even faith, but a more authentic search for truth and meaning.
“that’s a crucial part of kierkegaard’s emphasis on seeking, pursuing and desiring: this sense of the erotic search for truth”
“faith” is a word thrown around a lot when talking about kierkegaard, as if his philosophy is about believing in god without any evidence or reason. but i think what is most fundamental to kierkegaard is the desire and longing for god, a kind of spiritual quest. faith can sometimes give the impression of something you possess, a kind of certainty of belief; Whereas for Kierkegaard, it is much more about desire and longing and finding ways to pursue that longing. find ways to express an inarticulate desire for god in your life, even though you may not really know what god is or what it would be like to find god. it is a feeling of being drawn to a spiritual path without necessarily knowing what the destination is.
That’s quite different from a lot of institutional religions, which present doctrines as prefabricated religious teachings: truths that are non-negotiable, that you just subscribe to, rather than this more open-seeking relationship with religion, which actually echoes Socratic philosophy. . Socrates’ life was spent in a quest for knowledge that was somewhat elusive. he saw the philosophical life as open. That’s a crucial part of Kierkegaard’s emphasis on seeking, seeking, and wishing: this sense of the erotic quest for truth. you really don’t know what it will look like when you find it.
this also fits with existential authenticity, but what is interesting to me is the degree to which people who talk about kierkegaard from an existentialist point of view tend to remove the religious element because it is inconvenient.
yes, definitely. Many of the thinkers who identified themselves as existentialists in the twentieth century—Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir would be the most famous examples—were explicitly atheists. existentialism can have connotations of a humanistic and individualistic quest to find or create meaning for yourself, and even create yourself, become a certain type of person through your choices and decisions; while for kierkegaard —and this is the central point of the disease of death— human beings do not make themselves, and we are always dependent because we are created. we are in search of the foundation of our being, which is not ourselves.
this is one of the reasons why it is really important to understand kierkegaard’s roots in pietism, for example, connecting him to an older catholic devotion, the mystical tradition of christianity. that is also in the background of much existentialist thought, but when we look at existentialism from a secular point of view, this background is overlooked. It is impossible for me to read Kierkegaard in a secular light. he was not a dogmatic Christian, but he was concerned with the question of how to live religiously. what would it mean to live in relationship with god?
what about your choice of fifth book?
To alleviate some of the philosophical intensity of Kierkegaard’s thought, the fifth book is a visually appealing book called Written Images. It is really a book about Kierkegaard’s writing practices. It has numerous excellent photographs of his notebooks and his manuscripts, along with a narrative detailing Kierkegaard’s own habits as a writer: the type of pens and paper he used, his interest in typography, the place where he made his binding. It really gives insight into the materiality of Kierkegaard’s writing and his love of books, and brings it to life in a way that tells us a lot about him as a person and what his writing meant to him. p>
also tells the story of what happened to the vast amounts of kierkegaard’s papers after his death, and how all of those papers ended up being classified, edited and published. is a fascinating biographical and bibliographical book written by two of denmark’s leading kierkegaard scholars: niels jørgen cappelørn and joakim garff, together with johnny kondrup, a literary scholar. It’s a beautiful book with wonderful photographs, and it gives a sense of both Kierkegaard alive and the body of writing we find today if we go into a bookstore or library and see Kierkegaard’s works on the shelves. this book tells the story of how they came to be written and published.
kierkegaard reminds me of nietzsche in his ability to produce original and highly creative books in an extremely short period of time, fueled by incredible frenetic energy and, in kierkegaard’s case, very strong coffee.
yes. the subtitle of my biography is “the restless life of soren kierkegaard”: this restlessness was partly existential and spiritual, this search for self-understanding and the search for god, but it is also the more mundane restlessness of his frenetic writing activity , your insomnia, your coffee. -drinking, his pipe smoking. no wonder he died at forty-two, because he tirelessly burned himself out, relentlessly pursuing this question of how to be a human being. it is as if he poured all of his resources, both physical and financial, into this quest. he spent his entire large inheritance producing this body of work and stayed up all night writing it. he devoted himself, in a religious sense, to his life as a writer. By the time he reached middle age, he was completely exhausted and collapsed.
The physical process of writing was not a comfortable process for him. he had desks made that allowed him to stand while he wrote.
He suffered a lot physically, and that suffering is something he wrote about as another part of being human, both physical and psychological suffering. she writes a lot about suffering but, to me, not in a depressing or dark way. I think it’s much more a case of very brave and honest confrontation with the full range of human experience, from suffering to joy.
“It’s no wonder he died at forty-two, because he burned tirelessly, relentlessly pursuing this question of how to be a human being.”
a close friend of kierkegaard’s, hans brøchner, described how if you were hurting or in trouble, kierkegaard had a unique ability to comfort you. brøchner said that he did this by bringing your suffering to light and seeing it with total clarity. it seemed that this way of acknowledging and accepting suffering was therapeutic. it is not wallowing in misery: it is something more positive than that. People sometimes have this experience reading Kierkegaard too: it brings their own suffering to light, but it does so in a way that can be transformative and healing.
another element that intrigues me is that although kierkegaard was in a sense very public about his own experiences and was confessional about his emotions, despite all that publicity, he had a lot of secrets. there is a theme of concealment that is also repeated in the writing.
completely, yes. Again, it is an aspect of his ambivalence and of Kierkegaard’s paradox. On the one hand, he was criticized for showing his personal life in his writing, but at the same time, he was extremely secretive and often wrote about the hidden corners of the human heart.
There is a strong sense in your work that no human being can truly see and understand another. he saw this as part of our experience of being human: whether we like it or not, we are exposed in the world, we are conspicuous and open to view, whether we are on the street or just in our lives in general: we look at each other and we make judgments about others.
but on the other hand, there is something completely personal and private about the experience of being human. No one else knows what it’s like to be me. it is that idea of inner life and interiority as something that can never be fully expressed, communicated or translated into the public domain. For Kierkegaard, this was one of several tensions about the human condition: we are both visible and hidden.
Where does that leave you as a biographer? what were you trying to do with your biography? have you revealed the secret kierkegaard?
I’ve revealed quite a bit about at least my understanding of Kierkegaard’s inner life. it’s a pretty intimate biography that explores his inner life along with obviously his public life and his writing. I have tried to convey the emotional truth of Kierkegaard’s experience and to delve into some of the things he wrote about himself and other people (people who hurt him, people he envied, or people he loved) to understand what what did he say. he was feeling. this requires empathy, but of course working at the level of the texts rather than being in the physical presence of the other person means that this always involves interpretation and reconstruction on my part.
to me, it feels pretty true and authentic, but who knows? I’ve tried to explore Kierkegaard’s inner life, partly by reading his diaries and spending a lot of time with him reading and thinking and walking through his life, in a sense. as a biographer, I have felt as if I traveled alongside him. There are other biographies that speculate on Kierkegaard’s motivations for doing various things and on his secrets. Kierkegaard spoke about the secrets of his own life and suggested that when people read his books, no one would really discover the secret. There is something quite tantalizing about this, and many people have tried to find out what the secrets of his life were, what really made him break off his engagement to Regine, and why he felt so uncomfortable with himself. /p>
but I have avoided this type of speculation. I want to leave the secrets and the mystery intact, and keep the questions open. this is partly out of respect for kierkegaard, but it’s also to allow the reader to wonder, and i feel that interposing my own opinions between kierkegaard and the reader would interfere with that. I feel like this is more truthful, in a way, because any speculation I do is just that: informed speculation, an outsider’s view. I agree with Kierkegaard that a human being can never finally know the truth of another human being’s life. that’s an interesting view to take as a biographer, but I share that view. Ultimately, it’s between Kierkegaard and his god, and I haven’t tried to get into that space either.
See Also: 10 POETRY BOOKS TO READ THIS MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS WEEK – The Poetry Book Society