Thursday, January 29, 2009

It's hard for me to get excited about "plug in" poetry.

Maybe it's wrong that I don't get impressed with form. Guess I've always liked poetry for the main reason that I think everyone accidently does it. My psychology professor once related memory to the ability of, "pinning butter to a clothesline" and I've always remembered and loved that. He's a very mathematical dude and yet he said something that just really resounded in me. I hate the fact that some poems could be written so much better as free verse, and yet the writer feels like that doesn't make it as good. "Because a sonnet is more difficult." But it's my opinion that the most difficult poem is getting a reader to have a personal connection to it. I did "First Fight. Then Fiddle" for my poetry response and I just got so burned out on the poem. Fitting 10 syllables to a line is cool, having every other line rhyme is cool. But I think images are the strongest thing about the poem and spending all that time on form just seems like a waste. We like the "a-hah!" moment on other people's faces. We like getting them ourselves too. I didn't get any a-hahs from it. Nothing actually reached any of my emotions. There are cool words, yeah, and I really liked the alliteration. But I read the poem and I thought it was pretty dull which hurt because Gwendolyn Brooks is such a great poet and I had such a hard time writing a 2 page analysis and I've never really had difficult writing papers on poetry before.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

A nice view of cultured hell

I have always been more interested in the context than the style or form of whatever I’m reading. With poetry it’s the same way, although a poem, by the sometimes vagueness of the lines, gives a bit more room for personal interpretation than a story does. Sometimes poetry has a bit too much vagueness for my liking. But “America” by Claude McKay definitely has a message and sticks to it so well that even on the first reading, it’s clear the image he is trying to present. This is exactly what I like to see in a poem. His title gives the reader the necessary starting place from which to view the poem. He is talking about America. About how being here (he moved from Jamaica) is both trial and reward; ‘bitterness’ and ‘cultured hell.’ But it doesn't bother him. He loves it. And it’s plain to see. He doesn't try to hide it with a bunch of flowery language or make everything a vague undercurrent. It’s simple and straightforward and I can’t reiterate how much I like that in a poem. Plus the subject matter is pleasant. So many poems I’ve read are politically aimed or are filled with distress at the way things are going. I was once told that the reason few ‘happy’ poems are found is because happy people are out being happy and not inside writing poetry. But I would say that this poem does have a happier feel to it. There is definitely suffering in this poem. But despite that McKay loves America, even if it is a love / hate relationship, and the poem really works for me.

Raw Material + Genuinity (just made that up) = "Poetry"

Marianne Moore uses her poem "Poetry," as a device to tell her readers what she feels is wrong with poetry. What follows is a basic formula for what a keen interest in poetry should be composed of according to Moore. She feels as though poetry has become "so derivative as to become unintelligible" (3) due to most poets praising things for impossible reasons. For example, "her eyes shine like the sun," describes a praise that Moore would find absurd. She believes that things should be praised for their usefulness and their genuineness. For her, an eye is beautiful and deserves praise because it has the ability to "dilate" (5). She then lists off some examples of things that deserve praise because of their natural qualities, such as a horse taking a "roll," which means rolling through the dirt in order to get rid of lice.
She concludes the poem with a simple formula for the reader to follow if interested in true poetry. She claims that "raw materials," which one can assume refers to a poem in it's raw form, much like this one; void of any true syllabic form or meter. She states that in combination to this, one must have an interest in the genuine, also something that Moore praises throughout her poem. She claims that when these two things are combined the result is "poetry," which ironically enough is the name of the poem. This is poetry in it's most true and interesting form.

Resonating Questions

At first I found “next to of course god america i” hard to understand. It seemed a jumbled mess of common nationalistic dialog. He quotes “The Star Spangled Banner” and other political songs and phrases. It required some reading and rereading to realize that that was the point. Cumming’s character – a political or religious leader of some sort making a speech – says the things that we as American citizens have all heard before: politicians playing off of our national pride to put themselves in office. I felt as though Cummings was suggesting that people should not necessarily believe everything that they hear, that, in fact, they should second-guess everything and draw their own conclusions.

The part that is most interesting to me, however, is the segment that talks about our troops (lines 9-13). Here, Cumming’s tone becomes sarcastic in a sense. It’s almost as if he is mocking these politicians for exploiting our troops for their personal gain by being “supportive” of them. This segment also made me (and I believe this is the point) question my beliefs about the conditioning of our troops. Should they really “rush like lions to the roaring slaughter… [without] stop[ping] to think”? Should they do exactly what they are told without thinking about the effects of simply following orders? And by us speaking of them in the way that Cummings’s character does, do we support such actions? I don’t necessarily know the right answers to those questions but I appreciate the fact that Cummings is asking his readers to face those questions. Again, I felt as though he was asking them to draw their own conclusions.

That is another thing I appreciate about this poem: its themes continue to resonate today. The poem was originally published in 1926, just after the conclusion of World War II. (There are a few moments in the poem, in fact, that reflect the time in which it was written. For example, I read that the syntax in line 11 is supposedly meant to reflect the “inverted thinking” of the time.) However with the United States in the middle of two wars, these are issues that we need to think about and address.
The poem America by Claude McKay is a regular sonnet. It contains three quatrains and one couplet at the end. McKay does not break the normal sonnet format, which might contribute to the actual poem. McKay might have chose to follow the sonnet format to show America has order and structure. The only thing different about the format is the last two lines (the couplet) are not indented. Usually the couplet on a sonnet is indented a little bit to show the end of the poem. A possible reason McKay did not choose to do include the indent was to show America as one whole unit or unseparated.
The rhyme scheme of this poem is as follows: ABAB CDCD EFEF GG. The rhyme pattern of this poem is similar to other sonnets. The rhyme scheme allows the reader to flow through the poem without hesitation. Another poetic tool McKay uses is personification. McKay personifies America as a woman and refers to America as "she" or "her" throughout the poem. This personification shows America's importance to the speaker.
McKay also personifies America by having the speaker refer to her "tiger's tooth." By saying America has a tiger's tooth, the speaker show is showing America's strength and power. A tiger's tooth can rip any piece of meat to shreds, and by giving America that characteristic, McKay is therefore revealing America's strength.
In my opinion, the most interesting part of the poem is when the speaker refers to America as a "cultured hell." This seems ironic because the two words could be considered opposites. Cultured often has positive connotations and means to be well educated, while hell on the other hand has a negative connotation. The image of hell is often scary and not wanted. America, then, is both a positive place and a negative place, according to McKay.

Poetry is where we are ourselves.

For some reason at first I did not comprehend that Elizabeth Alexander wrote the poem, Ars Poetica #100:  I Believe.  There is a sense of everyday life in this poem, which was also evident in the poem Praise Song for the Day.  For instance, Alexander compares poetry to dirt in the corner, or what you overhear on a bus.  This means that poetry is everywhere, and is just waiting for someone to be inspired.  She uses parenthesis to channel thoughts, or to simply commentate specific ideas.  In these parentheses, Alexander mentions Sterling Brown, who was a black poet during the Harlem Renaissance.  Jazz and blues influenced Brown, and his poetry, like most poems of that time period, reflected racial issues.  The poem can either be read with the content in the parenthesis or without, and the poem makes sense.  However, with the parenthesis, the reader is given an insight to the speaker’s thoughts for their work.  They help to enforce the motives and artistic choice of the author.

Now for the form, Alexander uses enjambment and couplets to push the boundaries of this poem.  She uses multi-syllabic words together in one line, after a simple line with few syllables.  This creates an offset flow, making it seem somewhat like a tongue twister when alliteration is used.  As previously stated, enjambment is used frequently throughout this poem.  Usually the words of enjambment start with the last word in one stanza, and continue in the next couplet.  This serves a purpose because it helps to connect everything together, for example in the third and fourth couplet, the poem shifts from the image of “clam flats” to “the proverbial pocket book.”  If someone asked me to draw a connection between these two things, I’m not sure I could accomplish it as smoothly as Alexander did.  I enjoyed this poem more than Praise Song for the Day because the shifting enjambment keeps the reader on his or her toes, and each stanza has a different message about the meaning of poetry, and in the end these all come together to form one giant image.   The poem evolves full circle from the lines, “Poetry/ is where we are ourselves,” to “Poetry (here I hear myself loudest)/ is the human voice,/and are we not of interest to each other?”  To me, this is saying that poetry is in everyone and everything; we just need to look around every once in a while and notice the beauty.

Poetry About Poetry

When I read a poem, I always consider is the dramatic situation first. In Elizabeth Alexander’s poem, “Ars Poetica #100: I Believe,” I imagine my tenth grade English teacher standing in the front of the room, trying to convince my skeptical classmates and me that poetry is more than professions of love and nonsensical ramblings of eighteenth century playwrights. The phrases in parentheses (lines 14 and 17) convey the feeling of a passionate teacher lecturing about the importance of poetry. The power of this poem comes from its technical elements. With her only form being two-line stanzas, Elizabeth Alexander uses interesting poetic elements to highlight the many different impacts a poem can have on a reader.

The first stanza begins and ends with the same word, “Poetry.” Repetition of this word follows throughout the entire poem. This word is probably the most important one in the entire piece of literature. Writing a poem about poetry is a difficult task. The voice of the speaker helps convince the audience of the accessibility poetry can have. The speaker avoids extravagant language or straining metaphors. This poem can be read and understood by a class full of high school students. The speaker emphasizes the infinite places poetry can be found. In the fifth stanza, poetry is oddly described as “what you find / in the dirt in the corner” (lines 9 and 10). I take this to mean that anything in the world can inspire great poetry.

The enjambment that continues throughout the poem, such as “God, / in the details” (lines 11 and 12) keeps a reader’s attention. This is important for a poem trying to convince people to read poetry. Simply by keeping a reader’s eyes moving from one line to the next provides an example of how captivating poetry can be. Times the poet pays close attention to sound enhance the work as well. The use of alliteration in “proverbial pocketbooks” (line 8) directs attention to the image.

The final two stanzas seem to embody the idea behind this poem that poetry comes from the minds of other people and provides a way for human beings to relate to one another. The simple metaphor that poetry “is the human voice” (line 18) provides a comparison between the written word and the spoken word. The final line, “and are we not of interest to each other?” (line 19) is a simple question working to prove that our interest in one another is fuel for our interest in poetry.

Claude Mckay=Stephen Colbert?

Yes, before you all read this and judge me, I realize that the two are different in many ways. But these two both play one of the most important roles in American society. They both criticize the norm, which encourages others to help them change the norm and bring it closer to the ideal norm. I'm not here to argue that Claude Mckay is criticizing America, anyone who can speak English can see that for themselves. However, I can argue that a very important role of poetry is to challenge. Just as Shakespeare's "Sonnet 130" criticized the normal love poem or Gwendolyn Brooks' "We Real Cool" criticized the general attitude of black youth toward school, poets who choose to write these sorts of poems have an important job: inducing change in society.

One thing that I noticed in many (note: many, not all) critical poems is that they contain a certain degree of love for the very thing they seek to criticize. After all, if their poems were all criticism, people would be tempted to leave ideas as obsolete (which is occasionally the goal of the poet) , but instilling some love into their poems tells readers that there is hope for whatever they're criticizing.

they died instead

When I first read the E. E. Cummings poem, I was intrigued by the appearance and sound of the words as they tumbled across the page in no apparent order. Unfortunately, I was so caught up in the absurd look and feel of the poem, that I had difficulty finding its meaning. After breaking it up into fragments and inserting various punctuation marks of my own, I was able to see a kind of path through the poem. I love how it begins with well-known patriotic phrases (“land of the pilgrims’,” “oh say can you see,” etc.) that become more and more interwoven with some interjections of the speaker, until finally the speaker forgets about pretending to be patriotic, and he instead focuses on saying what’s on his mind (instead of what most people expect to hear in a poem about America). This defiance of tradition and expectation is mirrored in the poem’s structure, which begins with the typically-rhymed quatrains of an English Sonnet, and ends in a sestet of the Italian Sonnet type. However, this last sestet does not seem to follow the usual rhyme scheme, and instead runs: FGFEG. This unusual and abrupt break with traditional form catches the reader off guard (especially if they, like myself, let the first eight lines kind of run together as just so many incongruous sounds), and thus forces them to pay more attention to these last six lines.

I also love how saucy the speaker is – it makes him seem more human to me. His interjections (“of course,” “and so forth,” “what of it,” etc.) are welcome interruptions in the monotonous drone of cliché nationalistic phrases (and who doesn’t enjoy the cheekiness of Cumming’s insertion of his own initials into the center of such a controversial poem?). The very last line (“He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water”) adds to the speaker’s humanness. I picture his gulp of water as an embarrassed sort of action: a last refuge before the meaning of his unpatriotic outburst sinks in. His string of euphemisms (“by gorry… by gum” – which are all more polite substitutes for “by God”), which follow his initial and ironic praise of America and her patriots, leads perfectly into the “turn” of the poem: where he finally dispenses with all patriotic pretense and rails against the injustice of the system (of the government and perhaps even the blind patriotism so prevalent throughout the United States). “why talk of beauty,” indeed – how can we possibly know, or possibly dare to presume, that the dead are happy? The “voice of liberty” shall certainly be mute until we can speak for our dead, our lions that were dragged like lambs into the hellish chaos of our wars.

America-- Claude McKay

 

In the Poem, “America”, written by Claude McKay, the speaker exerts his passionate feelings both positively and negatively toward America. The 1920s were a time of excitement, but also a time of struggle. This poem clearly shows both sides during the Harlem Renaissance.

“America” meets the standard of an original sonnet form. It contains three quatrains with a concluding couplet and a perfect rhyming scheme. However, he incorporates a mixture of personification with figurative language to paint a more diverse picture. The poem is also a perfect example of Iambic Parameter, every other syllable holds emphasis making the poem read smoothly.

The poem is split into two main stanzas. The beginning of the poem seems to be accusing “America” due to the harsh and negative choice in diction: “she feeds me bread of bitterness” and “Stealing my breath of life.” Stealing and bitterness give off a vibe of disgust and painfulness. However, at the same time the speaker seems to appreciate America too. “I love this culture hell that tests my youth!” My interpretation of this line is that although all these things come toward America, it is just another battle it must face. To me, everything America has to deal with can be seen as negative, but deserves credit for how it handles itself in the end.

This poem has an amazing use of personification because the entire time the subject represents and plays America. America is described in a big metaphor. If you take the first 4 lines, “Although she feeds me bread of bitterness, And sinks into my throat her tiger’s tooth, Stealing my breath of life, I will confess, I love this cultured hell that tests my youth,” you can see that these are all feelings evoked from motherly characteristics. Not only does comparing America to a mother help the reader relate better to the speaker, but it shows what America is and how it appears.

The end of the poem further shows that the future of America may be dark, “Darly I gaze into the days ahead”, but yet has an appreciation for all that “America” truly is. It closes, “Like priceless treasures sinking in the sand.” 

America- Claude McKay

E.E. Cummings spoke

E.E. Cummings poem "next to of course god america i," is a very interesting one indeed. There are many interesting things that are going on within this poem. The one thing that stood out to me the most was the way in which it was written. Cummings uses terrible grammar throughout the entire poem, until the last line, but still if make one wonder why. The lack or any capitalization was an interesting move by Cummings, it makes his poem seem very informal and alot less mature. I myself believe that he did it in a satire to America and his feelings about the country. He seems to be mocking America and it's values which explains the informality of the poem. He uses no punctuation either which makes the whole poem seem like a big run-on sentance. One part that I found particularly pleasing was, "languagE. E.ven". I liked how he capitalized the E's to form his name and it also makes that part of the poem stand out since no other letters are capitalized in the main section. Looking again I just noticed that the whole poem is in quotes. This along with the correct grammar of the last line leads to think that the whole poem is supposed to look like it is being said by someone. Cummings wrote it in a way so that it would look like it was transcribed directly from the speaker to the paper. The was this whole poem is written confuses and interests me. I always like it when things are written outside the norms that they should be written in and this poem is a good example. In only 14 lines, Cummings acomplishes so much with his language and paints an interesting picture about America and it's values.

next to of course god america i

I found Cumming’s poem rather interesting around this time in our nation; the words seem so contradictory to what we as Americans are beginning to believe in again and building as one, and it’s hard to decipher whether this is what Cummings’ believes or if this is just the story of a character he created. I felt that the first line of the poem already sounded like a mockery. Normally Cummings’ writing style does not consist of capitalization and some formal grammar, so at first it seems like it would be normal for America not to be capitalized in the first line. However, later in the poem Cummings’ uses capitalization after the quotation ends. This could bring up an argument that perhaps Cummings did not capitalize America to signify that he may not respect what it is we have been supporting as Americans when he wrote this. Perhaps that he’s trying to say that America is not as great as we make it out to be, hence the seemingly mocking tone that I believe is heard when reading the poem. The second and third lines further support the idea of mockery in the introduction of the National Anthem and “My Country Tis of Thee.” This may suggest that the songs that we associate most with America are silly, or an unnecessary boost to the ego of America. Cummings continues after “My Country” to state“tis of centuries come and go and are no more what of it we should worry” (4-5) which seems to mean that the past is the past of what happened in our country, and that we no longer should worry about it. Cummings continues in the poem to add in his first initials in “languagE. E.ven” (6) and then mocks the way that God is praised by repeating different ways of saying “by God” without specifically stating God in lines seven and eight. Cummings then talks of the “heroic happy dead who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter” (11-12) which suggests that these “happy dead” are those soldiers who gave their lives in battle. It seems to be that these soldiers foolishly sacrificed themselves as quick as a lion to a slaughter, as the metaphor states. This also shows that our nation through the eyes of the speaker is a foolish one in the way we rush into battle and sing praise of our great nation. The last line of the poem shows that there is a change in speaker, that one has been listening to another’s seemingly ramblings of America. The lines is very simple; “He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water” (14). It is the only line to use capitalization, and leaves the reader wondering who this narrator is that feels so strongly about America the way that they do.

I Believe, Too

Ars Poetica #100: I Believe

Poetry, I tell my students,
is idiosyncratic. Poetry
is where we are ourselves,
(though Sterling Brown said
“Every ‘I’ is a dramatic ‘I’”)
digging in the clam flats
for the shell that snaps,
emptying the proverbial pocketbook.
Poetry is what you find
in the dirt in the corner,
overhear on the bus, God
in the details, the only way
to get from here to there.
Poetry (and now my voice is rising)
is not all love, love, love,
and I’m sorry the dog died.
Poetry (here I hear myself loudest)
is the human voice,
and are we not of interest to each other?

Elizabeth Alexander’s poem “Ars Poetica #100: I Believe” touches on a point, or to use another word, criticism, that I have encountered myself time and time again. That is, what is the purpose of poetry? What good does it do for the ordinary man? People will say that poetry is overly sophisticated, or at least attempts to be so, too high-browed, pretentious, and ultimately impractical in today’s world. Don’t need it; don’t care about it. And this does ring true in a way. It seems to me that a whole lot of poetry falls very much in line with such criticism. I myself could not begin to argue against such claims, for how can you explain the value or goal of poetry to someone? But Alexander does, and it is only through the medium of a poem - a self-referential meta-poem - that her words ring genuine.

The speaker in “I Believe” has to be Elizabeth Alexander herself, since there are references to teaching poetry to students, which she did, as well as a quote from Sterling Brown, A black poet and man of letters with whom Alexander most certainly was acquainted. The speaker and Alexander in this text are one.

Alexander compares finding the perfect words to the “digging in the clam flats/ for the shell that snaps”. She uses a great metaphor - “emptying the proverbial pocketbook” – for the transformation of ideas from the mind and committing them to paper. And it is an “emptying” of sorts but an emptying that comes with a relief that resets the process and starts it anew. To me, this first section is more on the craft of writing, the strain of formulating ideas and emotions into words, the search for the perfect constructions in which to transmit an emotion. But where do those ideas come from to begin with?

“Poetry is what you find/ in the dirt in the corner,” she writes. Poetry is about the insignificant, because it is the insignificant, day in day out activities that define our multifaceted lives. The poet searches for the moment when true emotions are on display, those sorts of moments that will never manifest themselves, posing in front of a camera lens. That is why the poet is looking at the “dirt in the corner”; that is why the poet sits on the bus with an open ear and finds “God” in the “details”. They search for those decisive moments that speak volumes about our lives, whether sad, ugly, happy, beautiful, negative or positive. It is a search for the ultimately genuine and revealing.

And the last line puts the icing on the cake: “and are we not of interest to each other?”

communication in poetry

E. E. Cummings’ poem is both complicated and confusing. Of course, I think that he meant for his first thirteen lines to be gibberish. In fact, he continues to use words relating to communication while simultaneously running sentences and ideas together. First of all, I noticed the lack of punctuation or perhaps the ironic placement of punctuation in unusual positions. The only period in the poem is a caesura, breaking up the very last line of the poem. However, the phrase that follows: “And drank rapidly a glass of water” is not a complete sentence. I would say that this phrase is more comprehensible than any other part of the poem and puts a stop to the gibberish in the previous lines. Ironically, the last phrase in the poem, which is still not punctuated, calls for an end to the poem.
The speaker also uses songs lyrics to comment on the topic of patriotism. But, going along with this theme of confusion and gibberish, the speaker mashes up two patriotic songs: “The Star Spangled Banner” and “My Country ‘Tis of Thee,” thus not fully completing one particular idea. However, by not completing each lyric of each song, or even continuing the theme of song lyrics, the speaker adds to the chaos in the first lines of the poem. The speaker may be trying to argue that ideas can be misinterpreted or only partially communicated through song or even poetry.
The speaker of this poem also seems to be using quite a bit of sarcasm. I felt that the speaker is being very sarcastic in the first line “next to of course god america/ i love you…” Both nouns “god” and “america” are, ironically, not capitalized. I think that if the speaker wanted his audience to take this line literally he would have capitalized the proper nouns which he so loves. He also uses the words “of course” which adds to the sarcasm of the line. The fact that the speaker places America next to God is very important. It is quite daring for a religious person (if the speaker is a religious person) to compare anything with the Almighty, let alone a nation. The use of sarcasm in this poem further emphasizes the idea that not all communication is concrete, that ideas can be taken seriously, literally, or as a joke. I think that is why most of this poem is a collaboration of unpunctuated phrases and ideas. I believe in the gibberish the speaker critizes all forms of communication.

He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water

In his poem “next to of course god America i,” E.E. Cummings parodies the jingoism and patriotism of American glory. The poem begins with an unnamed speaker quoting lines of American patriotic songs. The speaker pulls lyrics from “My Country ‘Tis of Thee ” and “The Star-Spangled Banner ” and strings them together. The speaker runs the words of both the lyrics and his own words together to a point where all becomes a verbal mush and the patriotism conveyed by the song lyrics are lost in the muddle. The line, “love you land of the pilgrim’s and so forth oh,” exemplifies the very unpatriotic tone of the speaker’s words (line 2). At the beginning the speaker is talking about his “love” for America, the “land of the pilgrims,” but then attaches the words, “and so forth oh.” The phrase, “and so forth oh,” conveys the speaker’s boredom with American patriotism and nationalistic love. The speaker does not “love” America and finds patriotism boring and trivial. The words in the line, “country ‘tis of centuries come and go,” further compound the sense of complete boredom and lack of interest of the speaker (line 4). The speaker does not find in any way love of one’s country particularly rousing. The words “come and go” are indicative of something that is always there, of something that is stable and unchanging. In reference to America, the speaker is implying that the country will never change, its problems will always be there, and thus, love of America, particularly extreme patriotism, is both futile and contrite. Nationalism is not something worth noting or glorifying. The speaker continues with the lines, “in every languagE. E.ven deafanddumb/they sons acclaim your glorious name by gory/by jingo by gee by gosh by gum,” (lines 6-8). He mentions that even the “deaf and dumb” people of America proclaim the country’s glory without question. The speaker again mocks patriotism, by saying that even those who are “deaf and dumb” love America. People who are “deaf and dumb” are generally considered inferior, so inferior people are praising and glorifying America, thus tarnishing American patriotism. The speaker mentions that “thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry/by jingo by gee by gosh by gum,” further satirizing patriotism. “Gorry” sounds and looks like gory, which references America’s bloody past and son’s refers to not only American citizens, but also soldiers at war, fighting for American “glory.” “Gee,” “gosh,” and “gum,” are words much like “um,” in that they are not real words, but rather fillers and verbal pauses. People hail America with “gee, gosh, and gum.” In lines 9 and 10, the word “beautiful,” is split in half with a hyphen. The word connects the two lines but also tears the word in half, while bringing emphasis to the split. In patriotic songs or words, America is often referred to as beautiful, yet in the poem, beautiful is broken up, symbolizing the ugliness, rather than beauty, of the country. In the lines, “than these heroic happy dead/ who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter/they did not stop to think they died instead,” is representative of American citizens who are happy to rally together against an “enemy” and go to war without thinking through the consequences and the impending death toll (lines 10-12). Extreme patriotism blots out the instinct for self-preservation and people become blood thirsty, rush into war, and die. Just like in Iraq, one of the current American wars, the consequences were not thought out. The supposed purpose of modern day American war is to “liberate” the people, yet if we have dead soldiers, “then shall the voice of liberty be mute?” (line 13). How can war bring liberty and freedom? Patriotism leads to war not to glory and peace. The speaker ends with a pause between line 13 and the last line. Cummings’ ends his poem with “He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water,” (line 14). There is a period after spoke, creating a pause. Then the speaker drinks water rapidly, as if to get off stage quickly. The reader’s attention is distracted from the rest of the poem, American glory and whatnot, and is focused on water. American patriotism is reduced to the incredibly ordinary action of drinking a glass of water. Cummings is very clever in distracting the reader and succeeds in mocking nationalism. (It can even be argued that the speaker is Cummings himself, because in line 6, the words language and even are connected with two capital “E’s,” which are Cummings’ initials.)

E.E. Cummings

In the poem, “next to of course god america I,” by E.E. Cummings, the hidden, ugly reality of war is expressed through the ignorance of patriotism. Throughout this poem, Cummings gives examples of patriotism early, but quickly fades to the reality of what war is; violent and horrible. Cummings uses no punctuation in the first thirteen lines of this poem and his word placement gives more support to his purpose of composition. Cummings knows the rules of a poem and he breaks it to try to express a point. He wrote this poem the way he did to signify that in life, sometimes honesty is hidden by fear, and one must always be willing to be honest, regardless of the danger.
The first thing I noticed that separates Cummings poem from the popular form of poetry, is the way in which he structures this poem. He uses no punctuation or capitalization until his last line. I believe he does this to give the idea that the speaker is rushing his speech and saying everything that’s on his mind as fast has he can as to get it out before he is stopped by the listener. Then in the last line, “He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water.”(14) he uses punctuation to show a restoration of order. The speaker has finished his speech and nervously drinks a glass of water as he waits for his listener’s response.
The words in this poem begin as cut-outs from the national anthem and other patriotic songs. Cummings speaks of the pilgrims and the diversity of America, stating that these things compose America and in our defense, this is what we praise about ourselves. The reality, however, is that this country is exaggerating its pride to hide the death and gore of which this country is truly composed. Proud Americans shout about their heritage and cheer about the ‘beauty’ of the American life, but what Cummings points out is that the reality of America’s beauty is the “heroic happy dead/who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter…”(10-11).
Cummings tackles a controversial topic and states his opinion through his form and his use of word placement. Cummings ironically uses free verse, in the respect that this poem has neither form nor rhyme scheme. He uses his right of free speech to talk out against his country that grants him this right. Everything about this poem has a purpose, which makes it incredibly creative and oozes originality.

America the ridiculous?

  E.E. Cummings' "next to of course god America i" utilizes enjambment, an interesting play on words and form, and allusions to historical, American symbols to mock American patriotism, painting it as ridiculous and unintelligent quality to possess.
Upon first read, Cummings' poem is difficult to piece together. Lack of punctuation and capitalization throughout the poem portray the speaker as unintelligent and lazy, thus creating a similar tone. Further, Cummings plays with the Shakespearean sonnet format. The first two quatrains follow the format perfectly; however, the first line of the ending couplet is sandwiched in the middle of the third quatrain, and the couplet's second line is far separated from the rest of the poem. Considering the poem appears to be a dictation of a man's ridiculous declaration of his patriotism, this play with form seems to further emphasize the jumbled tone created by the excessive enjambment and lack of punctuation. Consequently, the sonnet reads less seriously than what would normally be expected. It is as though the person recording the man's declaration is mocking him by not giving him the benefit of the doubt that is correctly punctuating his testament.
Continuing to support this mockery are allusions to historical American symbols. A great example of this is when the speaker says, "love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh say can you see by the dawn's early my country 'tis of" (2-4). "land of the pilgrims'" alludes to the early North American settlers who traveled to American from Europe, something many Americans are proud of and celebrate during Thanksgiving. However, following such a sentiment with "and so forth" seems to push aside its significance in a rush to move on to more important things. "oh say can you see by the dawn's early" alludes to America's national anthem, the "star Spangled Banner," and "my country 'tis of" alludes to the famous patriotic song, "America." All of these things are important symbols of American nationalism that are quickly mentioned and passed up in the jumble of the sonnet. Further, when the speaker says, "in every languagE. E.evn deafanddumb thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gory by jingo by gee by gosh by gum" (6-8), he's making a mocking exaggeration of varying phrases used as exclamations, helping to paint an image of a frazzled man, almost goofy, rambling on. This creates a sense that these things are pretty silly, ridiculous even. 

Enjambment and Allusions make a Mockery of Patriotism

In e.e. cummings' poem "next to of course god america i," one can clearly see the structure of a sonnet though cummings plays with the different styles of a sonnet, resting somewhere between Shakespearean form and Italian form. The organization and structure of next to of course god america i" and the religious, political, and cultural allusions all demonstrate the mockery that cummings is making of patriotism.
cummings uses this sonnet to splice together many different words and phrases that commonly represent America's history. He does this in a way that makes the entire sonnet a run-on sentence. His speaker is saying all of these things and then drinking "rapidly from a glass of water" (14). I believe this signifies how he seems to be going on and on and jumbling the words and not really having any meaning in what he is saying. There is included an entire line of what appears to be jibberish, "by jingo by gee by gosh by gum" (8) that also might indicate to the reader that the sonnet is written in a way that is suggesting that these patriotic words have little meaning and often run together. Line eight is also full of alliteration, creating a nice sound within the line. The rhyming scheme used by cummings seems to be divided into two quatrains with an abab cdcd rhyme scheme and a sestet of efgfeg. This is a mixture of both the Shakespearean and Italian form of sonnet with an individualistic twist.
Another point of interest might be the use of "deafanddumb" (6). I took this to also play into the idea that the patriotic speakers are just rambling on and no one really hears or understands. I also wonder, in the last few lines, if cummings is making the point that war is stupid and unnecessary. Is he saying, perhaps, that dying for liberty is unnecessary? For example, he asks "what could be more beaut-/iful than these heroic happy dead" (9-10) which seems like a mockery of war and dying for a heroic cause. cummings could also make the point that a lot of people have died for this country, which we refer to in many songs and cultural contexts as "America the Beautiful."
While incomprehensible superficially, "next to of course god america i" is actually quite a poignant stance against war and a satirical glance at this country's view of heroes and culture. He uses the allusions as a run-on sentence to set up the reader, making a joke out of how people might sound when talking about this country.

A Contradiction of Form and Feeling

Claude Mckay’s “America” follows almost every rule of the traditional English sonnet perfectly. It contains three quatrains with a couplet that follow the proper rhyme scheme (ababcdcdefefgg). Also, the poem is written in perfect iambic pentameter. However, upon looking at the poem closely, one can find that there are several differences defying traditional form.

I immediately noticed that the “concluding couplet” provided no real resolution at all. The poem as a whole is describing the speaker’s feelings toward America as both love and hate. As an African American surviving the Harlem Renaissance, America feeds the speaker “bread of bitterness” and “sinks into” his “throat her tiger’s tooth”. However, America also provides the speaker with “vigor” and gives “strength against her hate”. Though the speaker is being oppressed on all sides by America’s racism, even stealing his “breath of life”, he is still strengthened by America’s fast-paced energy and “bigness”. Perhaps the poem is accurately describing the life of an African American citizen in the 1920’s. Many most likely experienced contradicting feelings of love and pride in their country, but hate in their constant oppression. The final couplet ends as, “Beneath the touch of Time’s unerring hand / Like priceless treasures sinking in the sand”. This is a prophetic vision of America’s future rise and decline. It does not clearly conclude or provide resolutions to the speaker’s troubles. Also, the first line of the couplet is merely a continuation of the above lines. It could not be a statement by itself.

Another defiance of traditional form is found in the major turning point of the poem. It occurs in the last line of the second quatrain. It is easy to see that though Mckay’s quatrains may be connected by rhyme scheme, his ideas are somewhat strewn throughout the poem. The first quatrain discusses the speaker’s hate of America, and the first three lines of the second quatrain voices the speaker’s love for America. The fourth line of the second quatrain begins an entirely new subject of protest. The speaker compares himself to a “rebel” who “fronts a king in state”. The speaker is “with not a shred/ Of terror” to stand up for his rights. This only seems to further contradict the feelings of the speaker.

I believe the poem’s defiance of traditional sonnet form and contradicting tones are used purposely to express the feelings of African Americans during a time of both freedom and oppression. Mckay’s consistent use of personification and successive similes and metaphors contribute to both the beauty and ugliness associated with the time. Overall, I think Mckay’s “America” is a beautifully written poem of imagery that captures the confused feelings of the speaker perfectly.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Personifications Purpose in Poetry

In Claude McKay’s “America”, McKay chooses to personify two main things. First, and most adamantly, he personifies America. Second, he personifies time. He uses personification to help the reader see how he views these two extremely broad concepts.

The first thing he personifies is America. He describes it as having many different qualities of humanity that he believes will allow him to relay his feelings towards America in a much more understandable way. He also has to use personification to get all his feelings across in the constraints of a poem. He must relay everything he is feeling in a relatively few number of lines. Personification allows him to do this. Lines 1-3 illustrate this point. Although she feeds me bread of bitterness, / And sinks into my throat her tiger's tooth.” McKay he gets across a plethora of ideas in three small lines. He states that she feeds me bread of bitterness to tell that America much like a parent provides for him, but at the same time does not give him everything that he desires. McKay, as a child, does not always understand the actions of America, but at the same time the parent is well intended. The next line he reveals more to the reader by saying that America sometimes feels like a tiger clamping down on his throat. He is most certainly talking about the oppression of his race. By personifying America McKay can relay his message in a much more visual way than prose. “Sinks into my throat her tiger’s tooth” is a much more visual way to express the oppression he is feel than simply stating, “I feel oppressed.”

McKay also personifies time. Here he does it for a different reason. Time is a very ambiguous notion and it is not easy in writing to grasp the concept. This is especially true of a poem where the poet has to work within a narrow window of words. McKay’s solution is to personify time as a never unmovable hand that once set into motion can never be stopped.

So personification is used by McKay to both make the poem more visual, and to help him to relay the ambiguity of time in a single poem.

Close Reading, Part I

Ellena Kruse
Tuesday January 27, 2009
Eng. L202 Denise Cruz

First Fight. Then Fiddle.

First fight. Then fiddle. Ply1 the slipping string2
With feathery sorcery; muzzle the note
With hurting love the music that they wrote3
Bewitch, bewilder. Qualify to sing4
Threadwise. Devise no salt, no hempen5 thing
For the dear6 instrument to bear. Devote
The bow to silks and honey. Be remote
A while from malice and from murdering. 7
But first to arms, to armor. Carry hate
In front of you and harmony behind.8
Be deaf to music and to beauty blind. 9
Win War. Rise bloody, maybe not too late
For having first to civilize10 a space
Wherein to play your violin with grace11

1. Ply: To bend, bow
2. Slippery String: verb choice of slipping string implies the string is a symbol of music, which is slipping form order of importance within this context.
3. "Muzzle...wrote" implies that it hurts the person to "muzzle" playing, with the oxymoron "hurting love" emphasizing this idea.
6. Hempen: made of hemp; of or pertaining to hemp. hempen homespun, cloth made of hemp; hen; one clad in such clothe or rustic and course manners.
5. Hempen, as a word choice, in contrast with the words "dear instrument" gives a contrast to fighting, which is crude, and the personified fiddle as dear, with only so many difficulties it can "bear".
4. Qualify: to make less wrong or reprehensible, to justify. This word choice implies that somehow that player must justify their music.
7. Words such as "malice" and murdering" are the opposites of fiddling.
8. The Idea of hate and music cannot co-exist are introduced here.
9. Comparing music to beauty reflects the idea that music is inherently good, romanticized, and idealized.
10. The word "civilize" is connected with the word "bloody", reflecting the idea of civilization as stripping the natural beauty from a land.
11. The word "grace" has connotations to a common saying in the 18th and 19th century, "arts for arts sake", later used in Latin by MGM studios. This saying reflects the idea of Brooks poem, that art in congruent to beauty, solely due to it's artistic value.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

a rough night before a reassuring dawn

I must say that, while I was very impressed with the inaugural events overall, I was rather disappointed with the presentation of the inaugural poem. The rigid, halting reading notwithstanding (due presumably – and understandably – to the enormous pressure Elizabeth Alexander must have been feeling), the first half (approximately) of the poem felt nauseatingly trite. Phrases like “All about us is noise” and “repairing the things in need of repair” fairly screamed out their cheapness to me (and their redundancy, in the latter). I kept thinking, well, yes, our troubled world is often described as noisy and chaotic – I cannot really think of an era that has not considered itself to be on the brink of Armageddon, surrounded by discord and dispute. And it seems to me as though all politicians feel themselves duty-bound to promise their constituency that they will repair anything and everything that they believe needs to be repaired (regardless of whether or not it is possible to keep such a promise). The mundanity of her imagery, although seemingly fitting for a man thought of as a people’s president, cast a pall of vapid mawkishness over the entire composition. Her mention of teachers and kitchen tables and crossing roads sounded very cliché to me – almost quaint, which I feel was not quite fitting for such a historic moment.

In spite of my overall dislike for the poem, I found that few phrases struck me as being somewhat more worthy of the occasion. Her imagery, specifically in her comparison of darkness/uncertainty (“that which we cannot yet see”) and light/illumination, was poignant and timeless. I thought it tied in well with President Obama’s reference to the “gathering clouds and raging storms.” Her question “what if the mightiest word is love” was, despite being a little trite, an important one that needed to be asked, if for no other reason than to balance out the negativity of the earlier stanzas (who wants an inaugural poem to end on a pessimistic note?). This query transitioned well, I thought, into her repetition of the image of impending change: “on the brink, on the brim, on the cusp.” Thus a stale beginning evolved into a decently inspirational finale, which I can only hope will be recognized in years to come as a good omen for Obama’s administration – a telling sign that an era of change for the better is indeed upon us.

Praise Song for the Day by Elizabeth Alexander

   “Praise Song for the Day,” by Elizabeth Alexander, used a lot of imagery that unified the population of the United States.  The succession of images like someone “trying to make music,” “a woman and her son wait for the bus / a farmer considers the changing sky; / a teacher says, ‘Take out your pencils. Begin’” really stresses that we are not all so different from each other.  We all are “going about our business,” if you will, going through the motions and getting through the day.  In this way she makes this historic event, the first African-American president, mean more than just an achievement for African-Americans.  It is an achievement for the entire country to celebrate how far our society has come.

            The line, “I need to see what’s on the other side; I know there’s something better down the road” is a clear reference to everyone who has worked so hard for African-Americans to get to this point.  Members of every race have worked for the further acceptance of African-Americans, and research shows that the more time passes, the more accepting American society becomes of others.  This is also a special reference because the inauguration was on the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the most famous advocates of the Civil Rights Movement.

            Overall, I was unimpressed with the inaugural poem.  While I saw how it connected to the momentous occasion, and I could appreciate the message, I thought it was a little simple.  For some reason it sounded to me like I could have written it, which is not saying much.  I expected something deeper or more complex.  However, I did like the last line:  On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp — praise song for walking forward in that light.  It represents the precarious position our country is in, both economically and socially.  The hope Obama has instilled in the American citizens has presented that light into which we are ready to “walk forward.”  We truly are on the “brink.”  If we teeter or hesitate, we fall.  If we press on with a strong plan and a strong attitude, things can really change for the better.

A Nation's Change

In Elizabeth Alexander’s Poem, “Praise song for the day”, Alexander connects the meaning of words with their usage and to what extent words can shape our interactions with the human existence. With this poem is the connection with elevated and intentional language with proportional actions.
In this first stanza, Alexander expresses the meaningless routine of human interaction worded with the banality of routine, much like a social commentary. “Each day we go about our business…catching each other’s eyes or not,”, and “about to speak or speaking” express the unintentional an sporadic manner of interactions, described by strong connotative words such as “bramble”, “thorn”, and “din”. Alexander Intentionally uses these emotionally charged words, for on writing this poem, she has been quoted, “I don’t think themes, I begin with language..but I don’t start with one idea that I wish to express in poetry”.
To contrast the din” of language, Alexander introduces the concept of music, with the line “someone is trying to make music somewhere”, a type of solution to the problem of a meaningless humanity. Introducing the concept of “music”, Alexander reveals insight into the title of the poem “Praise song for the day”. Throughout this poem, Alexander again and again connects the intentional usage of words with a new change, using allusions to struggles throughout history, such as migrants who “picked the…lettuce” and the people in the past who have laid the foundation for our existence, who have “laid the train tracks, raised the bridges”. The new change, or the “music” that Alexander refers to in this poem, appears to be a reference to Obama, the new president, who is defined as a great orator who chooses words intentionally and for a certain connotation. In a seemingly direct reference to Obama’s change to a greater system of governing, Alexander’s closing line “On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp—praise song for waling forward in that light”, is a comment on the positive change Obama will bring to America.

The Impact of Words

I have read enough to know that the images a passage of words invokes in my mind can vary wildly from how others perceive them. This had been proved to me many times, and it often turns out to be a good thing. I get to keep my original mental picture and, after listening to other’s assessments, can improve upon that image. Although I didn’t watch the election live, I did see a number of videos after the fact and sadly feel like I missed a great opportunity. When it came time for me to read Elizabeth Alexander’s poem I chose to listen to it while I read through it for the first time. Big mistake. Over the years I have come to understand poetry from the viewpoint of someone who can appreciate it while not really enjoying it.
As I have seen, poetry comes from many different inspirations, but there is always some sort of emotion and feeling behind it. Even with my own pathetic attempts there was a passion of sorts that simmered beneath the surface. When I heard Alexander reading her poem I was struck by the lack of fire in her voice. As I read along with her I realized just how powerful she could have made her words. With just the slightest bit of spirit she could have turned the poem into something that could move people. The words would have been the same, their meaning unchanged but the effect so much more powerful. But she simply plodded through the poem. She may have been trying for stately but it came off as detached, indifferent. The most annoying thing to my way of thinking is that she had everything she needed right there. The poem in itself isn’t bad. But the presentation made it seem so in my mind. Sadly this appears to be an opinion many share. Many people I have spoken to have expressed their disappointment with the reading. It would be interesting to hear if Alexander ever read the poem again, this time not in front of thousands of people.

A Sharp Sparkle

January 20th will live as a day to be remembered, regardless of anyone’s political standing, and I will not easily forget just how I spent it.

Obama was sworn in and gave a great speech. Yo Yo Ma was amazing, too. But it was almost painful to see old G-dubya up there with all the rest of them, though - painful if viewing him as a human being, a difficult task for many to do. All those people assembled there not for him, not to cheer him on, but to let him go. All of their fervor was directed at Obama and their negativity at Bush. What could possibly have been going through his mind when he heard the boos, which he did, from the audience? He made no speech, he needed nothing to prepare, just donned a smile and waved his hand for the last time, which is exactly what he did. When the ceremony was finished I saw the man ascend the stairs next to the Obamas with his head heavy on his shoulders, and with one last wave to the hundreds of thousands of people assembled in the National Mall, he was in the White House and out of sight. What a strange history!

Elizabeth Alexander’s poem was, indeed, enjoyable but I had an issue with its delivery. She did seem to me very composed when she approached the podium, as well as throughout her time before the audience but the poem she recited felt a bit flat, I thought. I could not help but chuckle at a comment I read while looking for the transcript.


On the Baltimoresun.com, a certain woman in response to the poem compared the delivery of Alexander to “William Shatner’s rendition of ‘Rocket Man’ – but a lot less enjoyable”. This did ring true to me for there definitely were many Shatner-like pauses between the words that took away from its message. Elizabeth Alexander was very forceful with each utterance, making sure to enunciate each syllable as clearly as possible, while my own ear wanted a more organic reading. I wanted to hear her speak naturally. During all this I was more distracted, my mind focused on the delivery, rather than absorbed in the message behind the words.

Aside from the flawed delivery, there were several enjoyable moments from this that I walked away with. However, I have to be honest: I did not ‘get it’ while watching the first time through Tuesday morning. Only after finding the transcript and absorbing her delivery a second time that evening did the message sink in, though I can say that several words stuck out the first time through. Alexander referred to that particular cold morning as a “sharp sparkle” and this drew my attention immediately, actually standing out above all else she said.

It is a great little piece of imagery, and I am surprised it has never been used before. Poetry has a great way of concentrating emotion, memory, and feeling into a very few words, and these two simple words were very evocative and indicative of that morning. This “sharp sparkle” is an excellent way to describe the cold and what people were willing to endure that morning for their new president - the sharp, biting wind that burned the throats of the hundreds of thousands stretching to the horizon before the white house, stinging nostrils and watering eyes. I don’t believe I have ever seen such a crowd!

All these associations with the cold perhaps evoke discomfort, and are maybe even indicative of the frost left behind by Bush, but it is air that is also charged with a certain magic, an expectation, a sparkle for the new administration. Now if that isn’t poetry, I do not know what is. It will be even more interesting to see if the administration sparkles in four years after getting their hands dirty.


Does America still want to be a "Melting Pot"?

Racism is an important issue in my life, so I am very exited that America has finally made the decision to elect a minority President. I was however, a bit disappointed in the comments of race President Obama mentioned in his Inaugural Address –perhaps more confused than disappointed. Elizabeth Alexander seems to agree with Obama’s comments about race for the most part, but her opinions also confuse me.
In his inaugural address President Obama continues to speak of unity. This makes sense since we are the United States of America. But he goes so far as to unify all of our backgrounds even though we all may not share the same history. While remembering those that shaped America into the country it is today, President Obama announces that “For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.” In these words Obama acknowledges that we are a people who have benefited from these endeavors whether we are decedents of slaves or immigrants. He acknowledges the immigrants who broke their backs working and eventually moves westward to and through America. With this statement President Obama announces that we all share this background whether we come from people who moved to this land willingly or as slaves. However, President Obama fails to mention those people who have remained on this land for centuries. Native Americans, who do not come from across oceans and have remained on this land for a considerably longer time than the first Americans, do not share these same backgrounds. Their struggles were quite different than the struggles of immigrants and slaves. To say that every American has a common background is false, yet President Obama fails to include all types of ancestry in his speech. It seems that Obama’s view of unity seems to involve uniting our backgrounds even though they are different, perhaps even polar opposites.
Elizabeth Alexander’s view, as expressed in her poem “Praise Song for the Day” seems to view American ancestry in a slightly different scope. At the beginning of her poem, Alexander mentions noise and din. She describes a compilation of spiritual and emotional sounds that we human beings hear everyday. She explains that this noise is the jumble of influences of “each one of our ancestors.” At this point in the poem, Alexander notes that we all have ancestors, but she doesn’t assume that our ancestors come from one source or another, or even both. She does, however, follow the same pattern as President Obama, by listing characteristics of the ancestors of some Americans while forgetting others’ ancestors.
Both Alexander, in her poem, and Obama, in his inaugural speech, emphasize the importance of unity within America and even throughout the world. To complicate this idea of unity, Obama recites “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.” While our differences are a horrible sound to Alexander, our “patchwork heritage” is music to President Obama’s ears even though he has not expressed all aspects of American history and ancestry. Basically I found aspects of both Alexander’s poem, and Obama’s speech contradictory, and confusing. The common method of unity seems to be a unification of history and ancestry, even though this hodgepodge of ethnicity and social background make America a celebrated “Melting Pot.” The fact that America has voted black man into the presidency reflects more than just the racism or lack of racism in America. It also reveals that America’s concept of race is changing. But does this concept include the race of our ancestors? Obama’s speech as well as Alexander’s poem seem to lack the importance of racial differences when referring to ancestors. Our ancestors made us who we are today. Obama recognizes this, but he doesn’t mention the importance of these differences among our ancestors. But instead of forgetting or ignoring the differences of our backgrounds, I propose we acknowledge, embrace, and share these differences as well as the similarities.

Why “Praise Song for the Day?”

Elizabeth Alexander’s poem, “Praise Song for the Day” was chosen to be read for the inauguration of President Barack Obama because her poem encompassed this abstract idea of “hope” and brought it to the forefront with imagery we can all relate to in one form or another. The first stanza emphasized our daily lives, walking by one another without recognition, going “about our business” and never truly knowing another individual we pass on our way. It reminded me so much of my daily trek around campus. Perhaps this is the first stanza in the poem because it represents how we can be closed off and interpersonal before something comes along to unify us.

In the second stanza, the speaker mentions the constant noise that surrounds us. The line, “each one of our ancestors on our tongues” seems to say that we all have a story to tell about who we are and how we came to be. Most of our beliefs and values come from our parents, our “ancestors,” who have instilled in us the things they find to be most important. The first two stanzas seem to represent our individuality.

Next, the speaker portrays different people all working to fix something. While each task mentioned belongs to someone completely different from the next, the task is this: “repairing the things in need of repair.” This line makes me think of the many times a day we find ourselves fixing something. The act of repairing something is never finite. Things constantly need repair, and just when one problem has been resolved, another one arises. To me, this is the line that relates to the inauguration the most. Every president sworn in on the day of inauguration has stood before the American people with an idea to repair something. For many of us today, our hope for the country is what needs to be restored.

The next stanza refers to the music people try to make. I find it interesting that in the second stanza the poem refers to the constant chaotic noise surrounding us, and then shifts to the creation of music in the fourth stanza, possibly symbolizing the act of coming together from our differences to make something happen. This is similar to my definition of music—different sounds coming together to produce an organized pattern of sound in time.

The speaker also emphasizes the different words we use each day, describing them as “spiny or smooth” and “whispered or declaimed.” She speaks of the words people live by, quoting scripture and the Hippocratic Oath. In the end, she raises the question of “love” being the “mightiest word.” The poem is concluded by expressing that new things are always possible. They simply begin with a new idea and a new word. The repetition of the phrase “Praise song” ties together the theme of hard work and determination constantly pushing us forward toward a better tomorrow.

Who Can You Trust?

How could anyone ever put so much trust into one man? I understand wanting to stick behind the candidate of your respective party, but what party do some of these Obama supporters truly belong to? When I use the term "Obama supporters" I'm referring to those of my age group; the age group that showed up in record numbers for this year's election. But why did they show up in record numbers? I asked myself this question, being the curious person I am, and developed a hypothesis. We want to be the generation to finally put racism aside and accept a person regardless of their skin color. People of my generation do not necessarily support the Democratic party, they support Obama the man. In fact, whenever I ask an Obama supporter why they stand behind him, a majority of responses include something about his race and how it's time to elect an African American to show that we are beyond racism. Very noble. But wait a second, I ask, what about his political policies? Then a majority of the time I receive no answer (at least not a correct one). There are several online videos that began to circulate during the debate that addressed this concern. When Obama supporters on the street were asked about his policy the interviewer would substitute in McCain's policy, asking questions such as, "How do you feel about Obama wanting to keep our troops over in Iraq and continue the war on terror?" To which most would reply, "I support whatever he does."

Why put so much blind trust in a man just to make a statement that we come from an embracing generation? I had never seen anything like the atmosphere at the inauguration (at least for a President). People cheered "Obama! Obama!" at the top of their lungs, as if he were their champion. He makes promises, like all politicians, and these people eat every word he feeds them. I don't trust any politician that much. I believe they speak in riddles, are incredibly vague, and are trying to please too many people with conflicting views (which inevitably leads to someone not getting their way). Obama does not only lead the United States and the Democratic party, he also leads his own cult of Obama supporters that simply support him for what he is; the first African American president, representative of our generation's willingness to change.

It's this desire to change that bothers me, because even though we have just elected the first black President, it seems that discussions about racism are higher than ever. I feel that we are separated more now than in a long time. Moments after Obama won his election for instance, dozens of African Americans were videotaped claiming that they had finally won and this was a great victory. I thought electing Obama was supposed to strengthen the equality of men, I didn't realize it meant a loss for the whites and a win for the blacks. Even in the poem before his oath of office, while beautifully written, I still felt a sense of separation. For example, while reading "Praise Song for the Day," by Elizabeth Alexander, I originally thought she was using the term "we" to describe the United States as a whole. However, after reading over the poem several times, I found that "we" was really being used to group African Americans together. She even states "that many have died for this day, sing the names of the dead who brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, picked the cotton and the lettuce," describing some of the hardship that her race had to endure for this victory. It seems as though every issue has become a race issue. While discussing politics with some, if I disagree with Obama’s plan I have been called a racist (from less intellectually sound individuals). This shouldn’t be considered a victory for minorities, but a for America as a whole.

The point is, he is our president, and yes things have changed, but he is still both a politician and a man. Both notoriously have their faults. Don’t follow him blindly just because of what you think he represents; your willingness to embrace change. That’s how Nazism was started.

America: A Rejuvenated Nation

       Finally having had a chance to watch President Obama's inauguration on DVR, I am finding myself at a loss for how to begin wrapping my mind around the historical significance of the occasion. First and foremost, I am brought to recognize the greatness of the event itself. Aside from the actual swearing in of America's first African American President, my immediate focus lies on what a media frenzy surrounds such an ordeal. The ABC newscaster just mentioned that this inauguration is the largest security-detailed event in U.S. history. I would dare to say it, too, is the largest media-detailed event in American history. Regular programing on television news stations has ceased regular scheduling for the day, and my DVR timeline for the inauguration caps out at seven hours and thirty minutes. All the while, the world has been watching - from the west front of the Capitol to Kogelo, Kenya. The ABC broadcast frames the world and its nations at a standstill - swarming websites to catch a glimpse of live streams, dancing their fingers across keyboards to express their feelings on blog sites, even taking time out from school curriculum, eyes glued to the television, in awe of the spectacle. 
       And here I sit, more than twenty-four hours post-inauguration, feeling those same feelings of amazement and pride. Aretha Franklin belting out "My Country, 'Tis of The" nearly brought me to tears in recognition of how blessed I am to be an American- a moment experienced too seldom by so many Americans. Watching the camera pan the sea of flag-waving citizens in front of the Lincoln Memorial gives me chills.
       Above all, the theme of the event is 'moving forward.' 'Change.''Joining together.' The concept of Americans as 'we.' Of course, this may have very well been concluded prior to watching the inauguration; however, in broadcast, it is more evident than ever. As Senator Dianne Feinstein proclaimed, "We gather to etch another line in the solid stone of history... Future generations will mark this morning as the turning point for real and necessary change in our nation." Reverend Lowery went on to propose, "May all people of good will today join together to work for a.... more peaceful planet."
       When President Obama finally took to the podium, ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson pronounced, "What a moment for the man. What a moment for the country." How profound. The parallels between the rhetoric of this event and remarkable, historical moments of the past are quite striking. I found this particular quote to be reminiscent of Neil Armstrong's "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" statement. 
       Obama's speech was awesome. Although a great few would disagree, I felt it humbling. So wrapped-up are we in a sense that everything is going to be, for lack of a better word, perfect now that Mr. Obama has taken office. In reality, however, there are countless challenges to be met and obstacles to conquer. I took the President's message as a sign that he recognizes the possibility of, what I like to call, the "what now" effect. Obama's president. We've been looking forward to this moment for quite some time. The world is watching. "What now?" Those familiar with Arthur O'Shaughnessy's 'Ode' may find parallels linking it's tone with that of Obama's inauguration speech - a tone of balance, sending the message that we can change the world, yet history has proven we also have the power to destroy it. It is now our task to decide which road we will choose and, in doing so, make the changes and compromises necessary to come out the other end as nation "that is coming to birth." 
       Briefly, Elizabeth Alexander's "Praise Song for the Day" is beautiful. However, her delivery was not so. I was able to grasp more meaning and feeling from a printed version of her work than I was her robotic interpretation. In tune with the days theme, "Praise Song" lends to the message of  America as a 'we' 'moving forward' while touching on Obama's tone of a hopefully optimistic, yet slightly uncertain future. She wrote, "I know there's something better down the road... We walk into that which we cannot yet see." 
       Overall, I feel Americans have been granted a "fresh slate" (Obama) to paint their feelings of rejuvenation and pride in Democracy. I am proud to be an American.
       


Inauguration Day and Elizabeth Alexander’s Poem

January 20, 2009 marked the day in history that most people sixty years ago would have never dreamed possible. It marked the inauguration of the first president of African descent. Obama, as all presidents before him, gave a speech after he was sworn in. The major difference between this inauguration and any inauguration of the past was that this particular one had roughly 2 million people present. This was by far the largest turn out in the history of America.

The speech was delivered in Obama’s typical flawless fashion. He spoke the words of his speech with astounding conviction. There was however a major flaw in this speech. There appeared to be far too many literary clichés. At the beginning of his speech he stated “…the rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace.” Then he goes on to say “Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.” These appear to me to be extremely cliché words for such a unique moment. It was astounding to me that on such a memorable first for America, Obama and his speech writers chose to use extremely over used wording. I was also expecting a line so memorable that it would live on for hundreds of years. Such as in Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” or FDR’s “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.” There was nothing in my opinion that even approached such a line during the entirety of Obama’s speech. Overall, I believed that Obama’s speech was good I was just expecting more.

The poem that Elizabeth Alexander gave in commemoration of this great moment in American History was “Praise Song for the Day”. I thought the delivery of this poem was very sub-par for such a unique and special moment in America’s history. People were so bored listening to this poem that literally left before the inauguration was over. The poem itself I thought was great I just didn’t understand the manner in which it was delivered. There was no enthusiasm in her voice and certainly nowhere near the conviction present in Obama’s speech. The best part of the poem was when she talked about love as being of supreme importance in the world today. “What if the mightiest word is love / love beyond marital, filial, national / love that casts a widening pool of light / love with no need to preempt grievance”. This was a great message and the only part of the poem that I felt wasn’t redundant after Obama’s speech.

As the Crowd Walked Away

When I reread Elizabeth Alexander's inaugural poem, its meaning struck me. She painted a picture of all different aspects of American life and brought it together with love. Her poem was meaningful to the situation and well thought out. It was also evident she paid tribute to Slam Poetry with her presentation and vague rhythm. The poem worked with the themes of the inauguration and President Obama's speech. From those standards, the poem was both successful and well done.

However, when the poem was read; I cringed. The presentation by Elizabeth Alexander was dreadful and seemed to speak to no one. The very slow and spread out rhythm of the poem did not translate well to spoken word. The way words and phrases were frequently broken made the theme hard to follow. This lead to the poem seeming overly artistic, and did not present its message at all. At the end of the poem it was obvious that most people were left dumb-founded; those that were left. So as the crowd walked away and Elizabeth Alexander was left on that podium speaking to no one, it was obvious that the poem did not work. Her poem was a failure because it did not speak to its audience. A poem that cannot convey meaning to its audience misses the point.

of the people, by the people, for the people

Yesterday saw the swearing in of America's forty-fourth president. Tuesday morning was a landmark inaugural not only for cementing into history (with Lincoln’s bible no less) of the first black US president, but also, and more so, for the new era of hope that was sworn in as Obama took the oath of office.

Hearing Obama’s words yesterday truly inspired me and I felt uplifted by his speech. I began to see his words clearer than ever, sitting at my desk watching the live feed from CNN. His words brought a sense of hope, something so desperately needed in times like these. And more than the feeling of hope, Obama lends the impression to the public that he is more than a face and a puppet, but rather an honest-to-goodness man of his word. Or so I hope. Regardless of whether or not Obama will succeed, the fact that he inspired the American populace and resurrected belief in the US government, is a feat that should be applauded in itself.

Obama as a candidate and now our forty-fourth president conveys the old-time ideals of a “man of the people.” He recalls the very ideals and characteristics of our Founding Fathers so long ago. I cannot help but feel that perhaps, this time, a politician is really someone of the people and really has all of our best interests at heart. Obama in so many ways is unlike the typical run-of-the-mill D.C. suit. For one, his youth and charisma have caught the hearts of so many American citizens, pulling people together from various backgrounds. In a word, Obama is down-to-earth. And by extension, his wife and the First Lady, Michelle Obama, is a woman of common sense and not someone I would want to get on the wrong side of. That cannot be a bad start to a new administration with those two leading the White House helm. In many ways, Obama is unlike most politicians, in that he is “normal.” He is just like us, one of the people.

Elizabeth Alexander, a Yale professor, was chosen to read at the inauguration and commissioned a poem for the event titled, “Praise Song for the Day.” Her poem simultaneously celebrates Obama’s inauguration and provides a glimpse of the everyday American life, of which Obama is a part of. Hearing her read her poem aloud, in front of millions of people on Washington Mall and to so many more watching via satellite, lent life to her words. The slow paced rhythm with which she read allowed her audience to take in her words and gave time enough for images of daily life to form. In particular, the third, fourth, and fifth stanzas of the poem create the images of actual people moving about. She mentions “someone…stitching up a hem/darning a hole in a uniform/ patching a tire/ repairing the things in need of repair.” The simple motions of repairing worn objects, such as clothing and tires, are actions all of us do and thus, can relate to. All of the uplifting motifs and messages of love and hope throughout the poem are made more relatable by the mention of simple actions we all do. In the poem, there is “a woman and her son wait[ing] for the bus/ a farmer consider[ing] the changing sky/ a teacher say[ing] ‘take out your pencils, begin.’” In the morning people waiting for a bus is a common sight which adds to the poem’s reliability and the bond of mother and son emphasizes the message of love and bonds between people. The mention of a farmer recalls the image of America’s roots as a farming country. Farmers are also thought of as the common people, of whom throughout the 2008 campaign, all candidates claimed to be from. Farmers also provide the food that ends up on most, if not all, American tables. This further connects all people, since everyone has to eat. The inclusion of the teacher and the test beginning in a classroom somewhere is familiar to everyone. At some point or another we have heard that, most especially those of us who are still students (who had a huge hand in Obama’s overwhelming victory. The 2008 election had a high percentage of young voters.) All in all, Alexander’s poem is a lyrical tribute to all of what Obama has already accomplished and all of what he will. Obama has inspired so many people from all levels and backgrounds. He has inspired such a moving poem from an established artist, has united a much divided country, and has started the new year on the tone of hope. Yesterday was truly a shining day, a ray of light in the cold.

Obama will hopefully continue to widen the pool of light in this country. And yet, on a side note, this man still manages to remain level headed, untouched by the glamour of president-elect, and keep things cool (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30-lYueJivk). From hand bumps with his wife, to appearances in epic comic books, to continuing to go to his local barber (before the move to Washington), Obama is indeed a man of the people, for the people, and by the people.