I have to agree with Dr. Griffith’s post about these 2 writers. “that gives the reader the sense s/he isn't privy to the poem's world.” These 2 poets both write about personal experience without clueing us in completely. The phrase: “I guess you had to be there” comes to mind. But, I think that’s what’s so interesting about their poetry. Isn’t it kind of fun as a reader to guess what Ginsberg or O’Hara were referring to when you read: “kangaroos, sequins, chocolate sodas!” or, “who burned cigarette holes in their arms protesting the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism”? One critic says about O’Hara: "Today" exerts no demonstrative control over readers' interpretations of the sequence of objects. In relinquishing the will to power” (http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/ohara/today.htm).
For example, a friend of mine posted on his Facebook status “finished song #3 called Dr. Pepper and 100-Proof SoCo.” Now, I find that hilarious because I was at that particular event and I get the joke. Everyone else could only imagine what meaning is behind those words. I know we all have these types of anecdotes about friends, family that we couldn’t really explain to anyone else. But, instead of explaining one drops little tidbits like this and lets the reader imagine anything they want.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you think it's the footnotes that make us feel locked out, or would you feel left out no matter what? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteNot sure. Honestly, I wish I would have started reading it w/o the footnotes right away but, I didn't. So, I don't feel like I really got to have my own interpretation of it from the beginning. I do think had I read w/o the footnotes I would have known he was referring to personal experiences (or those of people he knew). But, I could have also seen how some of the lines could be applicable to my life or people I knew.
ReplyDelete