“Do You Have Any Advice For Those of Us Just Starting Out?"

“Do You Have Any Advice For Those of Us Just Starting Out?"

 By Ron Koertge

http://www.loc.gov/poetry/180/007.html

            The title of this poem was what first caught my eye.  Who titles their poem with quotes?  It wasn’t until I read the poem that I understood the title is a question asked by someone to the speaker (hence the quotes!), and the speaker actually answers the question with this poem.  This poem reminds me of the one we read in class, Did I Miss Anything.  

            In this poem, the speaker (whom I am assuming is the author, Ron Koertge) explains a specific situation in which a young or new writer can start writing.  The first suggestion the author makes is to leave the desk and “go out into the world.”  The next suggestion the author makes is to use a cheap notebook.  I think by this, he means that you don’t need expensive items to write a good piece of work.  The brain has the most value in this equation.

             The third stanza confused me at first, because the speaker tells the reader not to go anywhere “where more than three people are wearing turtlenecks.”  I had an epiphany while writing this analysis, though.  I figured that the speaker is trying to tell the reader not to go anywhere that has too much blandness or similarity.  Writers should go somewhere that can allow the imagination to take over.  I’m really not sure, but I think the last part of this stanza – about the deer tracks on “muffled tennis courts” – is a metaphor for something that is not original or unique, like a cliché.   It’s hard to explain (I have trouble wrapping my head around it myself), but I think the speaker wants writers to come up with something original; and, by emphasizing readers to avoid the deer tracks is him trying to tell the reader not to write like others or follow in others’ footsteps.  The speaker is generally suggesting originality, he just explains in a creative and illustrative (imagery?) way.

            The rest of the poem is the speaker explaining to the audience how to observe.  He wants writers to grasp this concept of observation and to use that to write creatively.  Also, the speaker doesn’t want writers to follow the rules.  He commands, “Laugh so loud everybody in the world frowns and says, ‘Shhhh.’”  The speaker wants writers to go against what the world wants.   Going against the norm is the very essence of creativity.

            This poem really reminded me of second person.  It was a lot like the how -to guides we read in class: it explained a specific explanation, but really had a deeper meaning underneath.  This poem makes the reader feel like they are the ones that asked the speaker how to write, and he is answering directly to them. 

Thanks For Remembering Us.

Thanks for Remembering Us

By Dana Gioia

            Suspecting, suspicious, accusing.  Those were my first thoughts on the poem Thanks for Remembering Us.  How can such a lovely and thoughtful gift end up producing such guilt in a person? 

            The title is sarcastic.  At first, it might trick you, much like it did me.  I thought this poem would be happy and full of reflection.   As it turns out, this poem is about a couple who received a bunch of flowers on their doorstep.  The problem is that they don’t know who sent the flowers and start to become suspicious of each other.  Each one becomes guilty, in a sense, and all the flowers do is bring about silent accusations.  

In the first stanza, the speaker thinks the flowers were “sent here by mistake.”  At first, the speaker thinks the flowers are perhaps the neighbor’s, but the neighbor confirms they are not hers.   The speaker knows that there isn’t a birthday for anyone they know coming up, so that can’t be why the flowers have shown up.  So why have the flowers decided to show presence at the doorstep of the speaker’s house?  I wondered.  

The speaker of this poem is a spouse.  (S)he tells us this when they say, “Is one of us having an affair?  At first we laugh, and then we wonder.”   Not only does this line tell us that the flowers were sent to a couple, but it also tells us that the flowers could be an indication of one of the spouses cheating on the other. :O  The flowers are at first just a joke to the couple, something spontaneously sent to their house by mistake.  But then, the flowers become a possible act of betrayal.  Could one of them have a secret lover? It seems as if this is the very question the audience should be asking.  

By the second (and final) stanza of the poem, the speaker describes the flowers slowly dying.  (S)he refers to the room smelling “like a funeral” as all the flowers rot.  But, the speaker can’t seem to find a way to throw the flowers away.  I think this is because (s)he wants to know the truth.  Is his/her spouse having an affair, or is there some other explanation for the mysterious flowers?

I think the poem’s main purpose if to illustrate the tension that can be so easily created when between two people in a relationship.  While at first the flowers were just something sweet to the couple, they soon gave each spouse reason to doubt the dedication of the other.  I believe the theme of this poem is accusatory and slightly ridiculing.  While the speaker and his/her spouse don’t outright accuse one another of cheating, the tension of the possibility that they are cheating creates an invisible tension.  This poem is also slightly ridiculing because it is written in somewhat of a lyrical way.  There is no set rhyming structure, but some lines rhyme at different times.  I think this makes it seem like banter, like the author, Gioia, is making fun of the way a couple acts.  Paired with the sarcastic title, the Gioia seems to have written this poem with some humor. 

Tuesday 9:00am.

Tuesday 9:00am

By Denver Butson

http://www.loc.gov/poetry/180/147.html

            The title of this poem seems to describe what each Tuesday is like for someone(s).  After reading the poem, I found that the title describes the day and time at which a particularly curious event takes place affecting four or so people at a bus stop. 

I know that the speaker of the poem has some kind of third person view, but I don’t know who the person actually is.  I think (s)he is trying to explain or demonstrate the way people are lost in their own problems. 

In this poem, each person at the bus stop is theoretically going through some kind of pain: the man is on fire, the woman is freezing, and the other woman is drowning.  Even the bus driver is “tortured by visions”.  The setting is at a bus stop, and I believe it is crucial to the poem because it shows that the people probably are strangers and probably are metaphorically caught up in their own lives and worries.

            There isn’t any rhyme to this poem.  It is simply a free verse, and is has quite a lot of the characteristics of a narrative poem.  I really like how the poem has such a nonchalant tone.  The speaker is almost apathetic as (s)he describes the horrifying scene taking place.  Maybe the speaker is using an apathetic tone to show that (s)he is in their own little world, as well.  This would contribute to the overarching theme throughout the poem. 

            I also have another theory about the poem’s meaning.  (This poem was a very tough one to actually find meaning to).  The speaker might be trying to show the way people block each other out.  For example, the second stanza says, “wants to mention it to him/that he is burning/but she is drowning,” and the third stanza says, “She tries to stand near the man/who is on fire…but the woman who is freezing to death/has trouble moving/with blocks of ice on her feet.”  Both of these lines in the poem show how the three people at the bus stop are trying to interact, but can’t.  I think the speaker is maybe trying to exemplify the tenseness or awkwardness between strangers. 

            This poem was so interesting to me.  I think the fact that the poem was written so nonchalantly about frightening things really got my attention.  It’s a very interesting poem, indeed.  I still have absolutely no idea what the theme is – I only have my two theories, which I’m still questioning myself. 

Hate Poem.

Hate Poem

By Julie Sheehan

http://www.loc.gov/poetry/180/127.html

I chose this poem because I like the way it sounds.  I like the way it flows in a free-verse.  I like the way the author, Sheehan, is so specific in describing how much hate she holds. I think, though, that the main reason I like this poem so much is because it made me laugh out loud (literally!) the first time I read it.  Not many poems are can be silly like this one.

            Getting down to poetic devices, this poem has some alliteration – mainly in the third stanza.  Examples include, “the goldfish of my genius,” and “aorta….ancestors”.  There is only one simile that I could find, and that was the last sentence of the poem: “Breathlessly, likes two idealists in a broken submarine.”  The speaker uses this simile to compare her need for whoever “you” is to the need of her lungs for air and the way an idealist would be optimistic in a fatal situation. 

I found there to be two tones to this poem: choleric and forthright. The speaker seems to be extremely angry at whoever she is speaking to, exemplifying an angry mood and choleric tone.  I feel like the speaker is also very forthright, as well.  She doesn’t hesitate to express just how much hate she has.   

The first stanza of the poem is much like an introduction.  The speaker starts off by bluntly declaring her hate for “you.”  Followed by this are descriptions of her specific body parts that demonstrate her hate to “you” even more.  I believe the speaker uses minuscule movements as descriptions (such as the flick of a wrist and the sound of bones – things you wouldn’t think about) to emphasize the point that she hates “you.”  The repetition in this poem is obviously the words “hate(s) you,” which occur in almost every line.

My favorite part of the poem is the second stanza that says, “Look out! Fore! I hate you!”  As if the author didn’t already mention her hate enough in the first stanza!   I think this line was meant to be funny, but I’m not sure….

The third stanza gives the reader more of an insight as to who “you” is.  When I read the line, “My sigh in the background as you explain relational databases hates you,” I thought maybe “you” is a teacher or professor of some sort, and the speaker is a student. 

The fourth stanza reminds me of a poem we read in class, called Introduction to Poetry by Billy Collins.  In Collins’ poem, the main point was that readers look too deep into poetry and miss the obvious meaning.  In this one-line stanza, I feel like the speaker is saying that like a closed window is just a closed window, nothing more, there is no deeper feeling beyond hate for “you”.  In other words, the speaker is trying very hard to get the point across that her only feeling towards “you” is hate. 

The fifth and last stanza of the poem made me change my whole perspective of the entire poem.  The situations the speaker describes as being hateful seem more like loving to me.  For example, the speaker describes her snuggling with “you” as hate and her pleasant morning greeting to “you” as hate.  The last line (which I described before as a simile) portrays a type of love that the speaker is portraying towards “you”, when the speaker says her hate, “can never have enough of you.” 

I think this poem is about a husband and wife relationship.  The wife really loves the husband, but he is also the most irritating thing in the world.  Deep down, the wife loves the husband a LOT.  She’s just covering it up with all this ‘hate’ nonsense.  J

Peace of the Wild Things

Peace of the Wild Things

By Wendell Berry

Before reading the poem, Peace of the Wild Things, I figured it would be about being with or in nature.  I thought it might even be about the peacefulness of nature, nature’s characteristics.  After reading the poem, I generally felt the same as I did before reading it.  I think the speaker of the poem is the one becoming peaceful and one with nature, and is describing that sensation in this poem.

Since the poem is in first person, I am assuming that the speaker is the also the author of the poem, Wendell Berry.  I know, from his writing in this poem, that Berry has kids and a family (because he says so in line two).  I know that his life can be stressed at times, especially when he describes waking up at night from fear, and explains how the wild things in nature “do not tax their lives with forethought of grief.”  I believe Berry is talking to those who are/were stressed or grieving or bogged down from the despair of life like he was.  It’s almost like Berry is using this poem to describe a remedy for depression and anxiety.  Sort of.

In the poem, Berry basically compares the life of animals and things in nature to his own life.  He explains that when, “despair for the world grows in me [him]”, he can simply sit in nature and, “come into the peace of wild things… rest in the grace of the world.”

And Wendell Berry seems to love nature.   I mean, compared to the world he describes (which sounds so sorrowful), Berry finds nature both endearing and calming.  I can tell that berry really loves nature because of the way he describes each little thing in it: from the “day-blind stars” to the heron and wood drake.  When talking about his life, Berry just uses negative and depressing words.  It can also be explained from the poem that Berry doesn’t have anything to fear about when he is one with nature; he doesn’t have to fear what will happen to his life or his family’s lives.  Nature is like a type of meditation for him. 

This poem follows an organic form.  I think this poem is both a type of free verse and lyric.  It’s definitely part lyric because the speaker expresses his personal feelings about nature and life.  But it’s also free verse because there isn’t a particular lyrical rhythm to it – it’s a lot like a paragraph that had its sentences split in half.  Lines four and eight contain anaphora when Berry says, “I come…” in each.  I’m not positive, but I feel like this poem is an extended metaphor, comparing Berry’s life to nature. 

The tone of the poem is reverent.  Although Berry reflects on his own life and world in a negative way for a part of the poem, a positive vibe about nature is still the most prevalent feeling the reader gets from the poem (or, at least me).  I can understand that Berry is honoring nature in some sort of way.  He has a very high respect for it and the peace it can bring to him. 

Cartoon Physics, Part 1

Cartoon Physics, Part 1

By Nick Flynn

            In this poem, the speaker compares the real world of physics and science to the cartoon animation world that children see.   The speaker uses his opinion as the augmenting fact that children should be focused more on the fun, cartoon way of life than what’s actually going on in the real world.  I think the speaker’s tone in this poem is a mix of things, from whimsical and contemplative to possible hints of sarcasm and satire.  You can tell that the speaker knows the carefree imagination of cartoons; however, the speaker also brings the reader to think more about his point.

But what is his point?

For the first twelve stanzas of this poem, I thought the speaker was being sarcastic.  He pointed out that children shouldn’t have to burden themselves with the fact that the world is out all alone in a black space.  But then he goes on to list all of the things children should be focused on in cartoons: things that are “earthbound disasters” and influence the heroic effect on children.  I fell like the speaker is trying to satirize the way society raises their kids, saying that society hides the bad things in life, yet portrays violence through ‘harmless’ cartoons.

But then I reread the poem, and a different point of view came into my perspective.  Maybe, I thought, the author is trying to show how children are not influenced by the dark things in life, like the “galaxies swallowed by galaxies, whole solar systems collapsing”.  Rather, the speaker is demonstrating the way kids think, the way ten year-olds can feel special and great about themselves, and the way they can become confident heroes because of their imaginative outlook on life.

And as I was writing those first two theories of the speaker’s point, I came up with a third.  What if the speaker wrote this poem to compare the differences between the way a child will deal with a problem and an adult will deal with a problem?  In other words, maybe the speaker is showing the real life problems of a conscious adult’s world, while also showing the way children deal with those same circumstances.  Take the stanzas six to ten, for example:

“Ten-year-olds

 should stick with burning houses, car wrecks,  

ships going down—earthbound, tangible

disasters, arenas

where they can be heroes. You can run

back into a burning house, sinking ships

have lifeboats, the trucks will come

with their ladders, if you jump

you will be saved.”

It characterizes the same things adults deal with every day, but it uses different (more imaginative?) actions to solve the problems.

So does that mean the speaker’s point is to encourage children?   To encourage society to look from a child’s point of view at what the world is?

I’m still not sure.  Honestly, the mixed tones I got from the poem continue to throw me off as to what the speaker is exactly trying to say.  My opinion leans more toward the fact that the speaker is comparing the two worlds. I think he wants others to see the relatability both of the worlds have.  Like the poems’ title, maybe the speaker is trying to connect a child’s cartoon world to the real life world, combining them into some new form.  

I Am Offering This Poem

Jimmy Santiago Baca's poem "I Am Offering This Poem" demonstrates the truly difficult life he had.  The poem is full of similes and metaphors, most of which are related to staying warm when you have nothing else. 

In the first stanza, Baca is saying how he has nothing to give the one he loves except his words, his poem.  He uses a metaphor to compare his poem to a warm coat or thick socks.  I think he is trying to get across the point that love can make you feel warm.

  The third stanza, again, reiterates the fact the he has nothing else to give his love except the poems he writes.  Baca's metaphors and similes in this stanza are also related to warm things, this time just corn and a scarf.   I think the constant relations to warmth are from the coldness of the world that Baca suffered at such a young age.  From being abandoned, to being an orphan, to living on the streets, Baca probably always felt unloved or unwanted.  Not to mention the isolation he suffered in jail for three years, and the scars left on his soul from being on death row for a time.  I feel like Baca was never given love from the world (from anyone, really), and describes that in his poem.   He describes his love as warmth because he never had either of those (love or warmth). 

If you want to take the poem literally, maybe Baca’s homelessness caused him to understand the need for warmth just as one needs love.  I think that the words literally express Baca’s experiences of being on his own.  For example, he mention uses the metaphor “a pot full of yellow corn to warm your belly in the winter,” which was probably an experience he had as a man living on the streets (maybe in a soup kitchen or something?). 

I don't really understand the fifth stanza.  It seems as if Baca is trying to say that he'll help others in need because he knows what it is like to not be helped.  Or maybe he is referring to the way he got his big break in poetry: the woman that helped him publish his first book. The seventh stanza uses his repetition (anaphora?) again: "I have nothing else to give".  In this stanza, he is saying that if you at least know that one person loves you, you’ll have all the strength you need to feel good about yourself in your heart no matter how other people feel about you. 

In all, I see this poem as a way of Baca to offer others (or his love) everything that no one gave him.  He wants to give warmth and love and safety so that others don't have to go through his pain I believe that Baca’s attitude toward poetry is very grateful.  It helped him get out of a slump that was his life. He probably looks towards poetry as his way to escape from the harsh world and experience a world that has love. .  That's just my interpretation, though, after reading his life story.

Poetry isn't dead. That should be a fact.

           http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2003/05/05/poetry-is-dead-does-anybody-really-care.html
 Bruce Wexler has such a contradicting view on poetry.  In the beginning if his article, he seems to almost complain how no one cares about poetry anymore, how poetry is dead and forgotten.  But then, Wexler goes on to say how he was part of the reason it is now ‘dead’.   His “interest waned” when it came to the subject, he claims.  Wexler even goes as far as to make an excuse for the reason society ‘killed’ poetry, saying that the “intensely prosaic” 70s and 80s caused interest in it to decline.  He blames Reagan, senators, and the new generation as destroyers of poetry.  “People don't possess the patience to read a poem 20 times before the sound and sense of it takes hold,” he says.  Is this Wexler’s way of saying that society isn’t intelligent anymore?  That we’ve become dumb?  This is where its gets ironic.  Wexler is claiming that the decreased interest in poetic literature is due to the laziness of America; but then he also blames himself for the poetry’s ‘death’.  I’m getting a vibe that maybe Wexler is calling himself lazy and stupid.

 Personally, I don’t think poetry is dead - and there are plenty of live poets that are famous today (Billy Collins!).   I agree with Wexler that poetry isn’t America’s top priority.  However, I don’t think he should use such a drastic term as ‘dead’ to describe this decrease in poetic interests.  And he shouldn’t use the fact that other people in society are lazy as his excuse for not liking or wanting to read it himself.