Louise Gluck

This is the first time I read Louise Gluck and I loved her poems! They were really beautiful. I like how she recounts the Odyssey tale in such simple language. The MAP site contains this quote from Gluck: “It seemed to me that simple language best suited this enterprise; such language, in being generic, is likely to contain the greatest and most dramatic variety of meaning within individual words.” It was also interesting how she varied the line lengths, point of view, etc. and each poem reads differently. “Circe’s Power” and “C’s Grief” are both told from the first person, with Circe as the narrator. All the other poems are third person. I like the last lines of both of the “Circe” poems, in which she reveals her longing for Odysseus. “If I wanted only to hold you/ I could hold you prisoner.” And “…if I am in her head forever/ I am in your life forever.”

Sherman Alexie

Alexie’s works seem to combat stereotypes about Native Americans with their sarcastic wit. In “How to write a great American Indian novel” he uses some of this sarcasm to describe stereotypes that are often portrayed of Native Americans. The last line of this poem is the most effective to me: “In the Great American Indian Novel, when it is finally written, all of the write people will be Indians and all of the Indians will be ghosts.” In my opinion, this line depicts what really happened between whites and Native Americans. Whites wanted land so bad, they killed for it. Alexie’s line reminds us of our greed toward the Native Americans and our desire to have what is really theirs.

T.C. Boyle

I read and loved Boyle’s book “Tortilla Curtain.” I would recommend it to anyone. This short story didn’t disappoint me either. So, I’m ready to read more by Boyle. I found an interview w/ Boyle (and also he reads some of his other stories aloud) online. Here’s the link if you’re interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLnthcN7jmU&feature=related At some point in the clip he says: “A great work of art, can appeal to everybody.” He believes that literature should have the ability to be readable to people from all walks of life.


In “Chicxulub” Boyle relates the disaster of losing a child to a natural disaster, that of a meteor hitting the earth. The impact the loss of a child has on a person hits them like the impact of the meteor. It could leave a massive crater in a parent’s heart. He mixes the 2 storylines back and forth so well, they tie together easily. “…the chances that a disaster of this magnitude will occur during any individual’s lifetime at roughly one in ten thousand, the same odds as dying in an auto accident in the next six months…” He notes how death is the thing that makes us equal. “…we, and all our works and worries and attachments, are so utterly inconsequential. Death cancels our individuality….” And, later he reflects on how powerless we are as humans to stop the meteor (or death of a loved one). In the end, the couple realizes it’s not their daughter after all. They are relieved, but the narrator realizes “…The rock is coming”…and sympathizes “For the Cherwins, it’s already here.”

Philip Levine

Levine’s poetry was interesting. I really had a hard time reading “Animals are Passing from Our Lives” and“ They Feed Lion,” the animal slaughter references are a little too much for me.

However, I loved reading “Fear and Fame!” The text notes that Levine: “took a number of working-class jobs; those, and the ruined industrial landscape of Detroit, helped shape the settings and political loyalties of his poems (925).” The job described in this poem seems extremely difficult and dangerous. “Then to arise and dress again in the costume of my trade for the second time that night, stiffened by the knowledge that to descend and rise up from the other world merely once in eight hours is half what it takes to be known among women and men (932).” It seems like no one really appreciated the hard job he had. “Oddly enough no one welcomed me back…” He couldn’t be known or acknowledged for what he did.

Ashbery

I have a difficult time wrapping my mind around Ashbery’s poems. And, my research on him didn’t clear things up. “In the New Criterion, William Logan noted: "Few poets have so cleverly manipulated, or just plain tortured, our soiled desire for meaning. [Ashbery] reminds us that most poets who give us meaning don't know what they're talking about." (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poet.html?id=233)”. So, I guess the point is we aren’t supposed to be able to find the meaning in his poems. But, it’s so hard to resist isn’t it? I mean, are they literally just a clutter of words with no purpose? Or, maybe like Ginsberg the meanings are mainly known only to the poet or those close to him. But, even with this piece of info. about the poet, I still wanted to dig deeper and see what I could glean from these poems.

One analysis for “They Dream Only of America” on the website by Shoptaw states: “The romantic secrecy of the fugitive gay lovers is parallel here to the French Resistance (Martory fought in its ranks, after his escape to Algeria) waiting for America’s liberation. Though the term "gay liberation" had not yet been coined, this poem seems tow ait for its minting. The utopian "American dream" here fantasizes a time and a place where gay lovers could come out of their lilac cubes. (http://www.english.illinois.edu/Maps/poets/a_f/ashbery/dream.htm).

I think others (immigrants) dreaming of an escape in America could also relate to the poem. “To be lost among the 13 million pillars of grass…” I also liked the lines at the end: “There is nothing to do For our liberation; except wait in the horror of it.” It’s odd that one would desire liberation, then wait in horror of it. Unless, the liberation he’s talking about is death (??).

The poem “Street Musicians” was also interesting. I just don’t know what to make of it. I like the first line: “One died, and the soul was wrenched out/Of the other in life, who, walking the streets…” and “Glimpses of what the other was up to: Revelations at last. So they grew to hate and forget each other.” These lines in the first stanza seem to be talking about other person, removed from the narrator “they, the other.” I get the sense that these people are lovers grown apart, and then one dies. Interestingly, in the 2nd stanza the voice changes to “I, our.” I was wondering why he does this.

Adrienne Rich

I first read Adrienne Rich in a Women's Studies class @ UGA. Like the essays I read, her poems offer insight into Womens issues. According to the website, Rich faced similar struggles to many of the other women we have studied (i.e. Conflicting roles as mother vs. artist). Later, she became a leader in the Womens rights movement. I found this interesting: “In 1956, she began dating her poems to underscore their existence within a context, and to argue against the idea that poetry existed separately from the poet's life.” (http://www.english.illinois.edu/Maps/poets/m_r/rich/bio.htm). Rich wrote about legitimate experiences, not just her own, but of other women.

I especially like “Power”. The last line is the most telling for me: “her wounds came from the same source as her power.” Marie Curie’s experience is related to that of women everywhere who are deprived from power (or if they have power, they often become “wounded” from it) in a male dominated society. I love that she chose to write about a historical figure, a woman, who like many of the women poets we’ve studied, wasn’t given the recognition she deserved in her lifetime.

Raymond Carver and Margaret Atwood: What is Love??

I loved reading, “What We Talk about When We Talk about Love and Happy Endings.” How appropriate this week’s readings were in light of V-day. I found it fascinating (as I do every year) how everyone becomes so caught up in love and its meanings this time of year. Everywhere I start seeing references to 1 Corinthians 13: “Love is patient, love is kind….”; love songs; and of course, poetry. Do we love on the other 365 days of the year?

Coincidentally, when we tried to sort the short stories last week in class, our group briefly discussed the categories of love. It had been years since I had thought about the philosophy of love (i.e. eros, agape, philia). So, recalling these actually required some research for me to refresh my memory. Here’s a good link I found: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/
I must have studied these a million times in some of my undergrad psychology, sociology, and other courses. In Women’s Studies and Social Work we certainly discussed love in relation to domestic violence.

In “What We Talk about When We Talk about Love” Mel argues at length his opinion on love. He insists that what Terri and Ed had was not real love. And, I would totally agree with him (having witnessed some very awful, toxic relationships among clients and friends). However, I find it interesting how patronizing his tone is throughout this story, toward all of the characters, but especially Terri. “My God, don’t be silly. That’s not love, and you know it.” Nick credits his tone to Mel’s status in his career: “Mel McGinnis is a cardiologist, and sometimes that gives him the right.”

Laura’s view on love seems to be that it depends on the individual(s) involved. She even states she can’t judge Ed and Terri’s relationship because she never knew him or saw them together. Laura and Nick will only focus on what love means in the context of their own relationship.

Also, Mel makes another point about the inconsistency of love. Individuals can love more than one person in their lifetime. He relates how he loved his ex-wife at one time. But, now he hates her so bad he would be happy if she were dead! This example stands in stark contrast to his definition of love. If “real love is nothing less than spiritual love” (agape) as he asserts in the beginning of the story, did he ever really love his first wife? Does he love Terri in this sense, or does their love fall into one of the other categories (eros, philia)?

Atwood’s “Happy Endings” presents a very pessimistic view of love and relationships with her many scenarios. “You'll still end up with A, though in between you may get a lustful brawling saga of passionate involvement, a chronicle of our times, sort of. You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, either deliberately fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die. “

So, what is love? It’s one of the most complicated human emotions, one that philosophers, writers, musicians, and others have tried to define for centuries. I’m not sure love is something that can be easily defined. I may be more with Nick and Laura on this one…