Daniel Klotz: Meaning of Elizabeth Alexander’s Inaugural Poem
Gav
· 11 months ago
I thought it was a buzz kill. Her delivery of the poem was awful and following the orator that is Obama, it was a terrible choice.
Guthrie Ramsey
· 11 months ago
The poem absolutely captured the gravity, celebration, and the reflection of the moment. Your exegesis shows that it is even more rewarding on the page.
misgatos
· 11 months ago
Thanks so much for the detailed breakdown. Insightful and informative!
Christopher Joiner
· 11 months ago
I agree with the exegesis provided, and would also point out that the delivery itself, which has been frequently criticized, seems intentional. The pauses between words creates the effect of snapshots taken as we walk slowly, relfectively, together. The reading style is counterpoint to "noise and bramble, thorn and din." The fact that so many have judged the reading so harshly shows either an inability to appreciate the affect she is trying to create, or is further evidence of the way modern media has deadened us to nuance.
Daniel Klotz
· 11 months ago
That's a very good point, Christopher, to bring in the performance in addition to the text. One thing that I appreciate in her reading was that her intonation didn't give any clues as to how to solve the puzzle about whether "praise song" is verb-noun or adjective-noun.
I'm not sure what it was that caused so many of us (myself included) to dislike the delivery initially. Public poems in antiquity were not always greeted well, and were often harshly criticized, so I'm reticent to blame it on the "modern media." I do think her reading style was in line with her thinking of this being a moment to "pause and shift." The pauses and negative space in this poem, as you and others are pointing out, does seem to have a good deal of significance. There are certainly points in the poem when a great deal happens in the negative space between stanzas.
Thanks for great comments and insights.
Guthrie Ramsey
· 11 months ago
I've heard Alexander deliver poems before, and I can attest that the mechanics of delivery is something that she obviously thinks deeply about. I agree with Daniel Klotz's observation about the media's impatience with nuance. The much more effusive performance/rhetorical styles that we experienced in both the prayers, the speech, and even the song dramatically set the poem's performance apart from the expected, the norm. Remember when the President had to work out the practice of his performed "self" when he was a candidate? It was amazing to see him calibrate it with media expectations, audience impatience. I hope we let the poets do their thing without the pressures of "immediate emotional impact," if you will.
Thanks for the opportunity to meditate on all this.
Wendy Edsall-Kerwin
· 11 months ago
This was a great lesson on how to interpret the nuances in a particular poem. I'm serious. About the "praise song," I saw Alexander on the Colbert Report ( http://www.urlzoom.org/24c ) and she explained that it is a West African form of poetry used to "name something that we take joy in."
Becky Litteken
· 11 months ago
While I find the meaning, intent, and word choice (for the most part) well-selected and inspiring, her delivery was a distraction.
I understand and am glad that, as a poet, Alexander makes a point to specifically choose the way she delivers the words - Delivery is everything when you are reading a poem no one has heard and does not see written for themselves.
However, I think she crossed the line from clearly-spoken and well-timed into overly enunciated and almost monotone. I really believe that a poet can articulate clearly and do her words justice while still reading in a way that makes tonal and rhythmic sence. The exaggerated articulation of the consonants between words (particularly the long pauses between every.............single...............word...............) really seemed to take away from a more conversational tone that speaks to an audience as large and wide as was present at the Inauguration.
Alexander made a comment in an interview about poets not typically reading to such a large audience, and perhaps the tone and articulation errors were a result of over-preparing and practicing before the big day. As an audience, we could have sacrificed some of the consonant sounds for an intelligible speaking style.
Daniel Klotz
· 11 months ago
Good points, Becky. Everyone understood Barrack Obama, and he didn't have to speak so unnaturally. The delivery did cause me to feel that Ms. Alexander spent more attention on making every word count, at the expense of every phrase. I can tell you, though, from looking at my blog stats, that a lot of people are in fact following up on the poem. They want to see it in type, want to learn more about what it meant, and want to know why she read it the way she did. (I'm not sure I'm any help on that last one.) That is encouraging.
Wendy, thanks for the link to the Colbert show. I heard she was on the show but haven't watched the interview yet. I researched enough on African praise songs to get a vague sense of what they are all about and to discover that this poem doesn't fall strictly into that form, but I really didn't feel knowledgeable enough to discuss that angle at any length. Thanks for making sure we don't ignore it. Thank you also for the encouragement; I'm glad you found it insightful. I heard a lot of people saying things like, "I'm no expert," or "I don't really know how to understand poetry," even as they clearly wanted to know more and appreciate it more deeply. I thought I would take a shot at showing how an appreciative close reading is done.
Patrick Gillespie
· 11 months ago
Your analysis outshines the poem.
Which is to say: I didn't like the poem at all but your analysis was virtuosic. I'll bet you could make the ingredients list on a box of Frosted Flakes sound like masterpiece ;-) .
My own analysis is more in line with Margaret's. I cited your blog as providing a favorable and top-notch analysis nonetheless. Rather than post it at my Poetry Blog (just to shake things up) I posted my own response over at:
I have a question regarding your structural analysis: do you really think a nine-chapter, two-part structure is tenable for such a short poem? It seems to me that this is a lot of ideas for one small poem. I always thought that poets, particularly contemporary poets, practice economy when choosing their words because focus and brevity help them uncover the true essences of experiences, emotions, and images. I'm not even talking about experimental poetry, here...I mean poetry that's meant to be heard and read on a grand scale.
My other note is that I think that the "kitchen tables" thing was also a veiled dig at McCain/homage to Biden...which I find entertaining, but possibly not what the occasion called for.
Thanks for keeping the dialogue open...a comment that I've heard quite frequently is that, love it or hate it, this poem has gotten people talking about poetry.
Patrick Gillespie
· 11 months ago
Hi Daniel,
Over at my own post, you wrote:
//I feel like our two entries are a sort of conversation--one that is honest, respectful, and passionate.//
Um... which one is the honest, respectful and passionate one?
Just kidding.
But seriously... I agree with you. I think there are any number of good commentaries on this poem - for and against. Our two make a good pair, though yours is more thorough and patient.
Sharon
· 11 months ago
My English as a Second Language group is reading the poem, so I was getting some help from you in order to have a better informed discussion with them. The immediate reaction I had to the "picked the cotton and the lettuce" was different - a presumed a reference to blacks with cotton and hispanics with the lettuce - Cesar Chavez and the organization of workers in California. I know that "black" would inform most of the work, but perhaps a nod to other minorites who have struggled as well.
Thanks for the help.
Daniel Klotz
· 11 months ago
I'm glad that my exploration of the poem was useful to you, Sharon. I think you're right about the lettuce being a reference to Latino workers, just as laying train tracks is likely a reference to Chinese immigrants. McCain's remark about lettuce-picking had to do with the issue of immigration from Mexico, which is one more instance of lettuce being a reference to Latino workers.
huxley
· 11 months ago
Daniel -- Thanks for delving into the meaning of this poem. Far too much of the discussion I have seen remains focused on how the listener/reader felt in response (usually positive) or how the poet/critic dissected the mechanics of Alexander's writing or delivery (usually negative). For this is a poem that was written to mean something on a historic occasion.
I wish you had dealt more with the lines about love, the climax of the poem. It seems to me that you're erring on the side of the love you hope that Alexander intends, a pure love beyond expectations.
However, the context of this poem, befitting a professor of African-American Studies, is a straightforward leftist appeal, which addresses the working class and people of color on the event of Obama's inauguration. The love Alexander delineates may be beyond the conventional American loves of spouse, family and nation (the poem does not even mention America), but it certainly does not go beyond the categories of class and color.
And where does Alexander's "mightiest love" land? Not a love involving God, forgiveness, sacrifice, all sentient beings, life or other notions of pure love we've heard before--no, just a love that does not pre-empt grievance. That's it.
Surely you've heard of the politics of grievance, very much at the heart of what concerns professors of African-American Studies these days? Grievance is the transactional coin between the oppressed and the oppressor. It's not something I would recognize as pure love.
I don't object to "Praise Song" as a leftist, color and class based poem. I do object to the pretense that it is a transcendent, inclusive poem of a glittering new post-racial America that Obama spoke of at times and many Americans thought they were voting for.
Susan Donnelly
· 11 months ago
A generous and careful reading of this quiet, careful and generous poem. As a poet who gives readings I found Alexander's reading clear and appropriate. There is a quality of humility to this work which suits its subject and doesn't bring outsized ego to the occasion. Your explication will help the poem because it wasn't the dazzling kind and it may reach more people on the page.
The placement of the poet on the program was difficult. Obama is a tough act to follow.
I liked the figuring out at kitchen tables phrase, which really fits our worried times. As an Irish-American I gave my ancestors a role in her list of those who have built our country. Finally, I loved the turn in "Say it plain." That is exactly what Alexander is doing and most effectively in this poem.
All Comments
I'm not sure what it was that caused so many of us (myself included) to dislike the delivery initially. Public poems in antiquity were not always greeted well, and were often harshly criticized, so I'm reticent to blame it on the "modern media." I do think her reading style was in line with her thinking of this being a moment to "pause and shift." The pauses and negative space in this poem, as you and others are pointing out, does seem to have a good deal of significance. There are certainly points in the poem when a great deal happens in the negative space between stanzas.
Thanks for great comments and insights.
Thanks for the opportunity to meditate on all this.
About the "praise song," I saw Alexander on the Colbert Report ( http://www.urlzoom.org/24c ) and she explained that it is a West African form of poetry used to "name something that we take joy in."
I understand and am glad that, as a poet, Alexander makes a point to specifically choose the way she delivers the words - Delivery is everything when you are reading a poem no one has heard and does not see written for themselves.
However, I think she crossed the line from clearly-spoken and well-timed into overly enunciated and almost monotone. I really believe that a poet can articulate clearly and do her words justice while still reading in a way that makes tonal and rhythmic sence. The exaggerated articulation of the consonants between words (particularly the long pauses between every.............single...............word...............) really seemed to take away from a more conversational tone that speaks to an audience as large and wide as was present at the Inauguration.
Alexander made a comment in an interview about poets not typically reading to such a large audience, and perhaps the tone and articulation errors were a result of over-preparing and practicing before the big day. As an audience, we could have sacrificed some of the consonant sounds for an intelligible speaking style.
Wendy, thanks for the link to the Colbert show. I heard she was on the show but haven't watched the interview yet. I researched enough on African praise songs to get a vague sense of what they are all about and to discover that this poem doesn't fall strictly into that form, but I really didn't feel knowledgeable enough to discuss that angle at any length. Thanks for making sure we don't ignore it. Thank you also for the encouragement; I'm glad you found it insightful. I heard a lot of people saying things like, "I'm no expert," or "I don't really know how to understand poetry," even as they clearly wanted to know more and appreciate it more deeply. I thought I would take a shot at showing how an appreciative close reading is done.
Which is to say: I didn't like the poem at all but your analysis was virtuosic. I'll bet you could make the ingredients list on a box of Frosted Flakes sound like masterpiece ;-) .
Interesting to compare your response to Margaret Soltan's over at: http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=8237
My own analysis is more in line with Margaret's. I cited your blog as providing a favorable and top-notch analysis nonetheless. Rather than post it at my Poetry Blog (just to shake things up) I posted my own response over at:
http://duplicitous46xyprimate.blogspot.com/2009...
If you're curious.
Thanks again for commenting on my blog.
I have a question regarding your structural analysis: do you really think a nine-chapter, two-part structure is tenable for such a short poem? It seems to me that this is a lot of ideas for one small poem. I always thought that poets, particularly contemporary poets, practice economy when choosing their words because focus and brevity help them uncover the true essences of experiences, emotions, and images. I'm not even talking about experimental poetry, here...I mean poetry that's meant to be heard and read on a grand scale.
My other note is that I think that the "kitchen tables" thing was also a veiled dig at McCain/homage to Biden...which I find entertaining, but possibly not what the occasion called for.
Thanks for keeping the dialogue open...a comment that I've heard quite frequently is that, love it or hate it, this poem has gotten people talking about poetry.
Over at my own post, you wrote:
//I feel like our two entries are a sort of conversation--one that is honest, respectful, and passionate.//
Um... which one is the honest, respectful and passionate one?
Just kidding.
But seriously... I agree with you. I think there are any number of good commentaries on this poem - for and against. Our two make a good pair, though yours is more thorough and patient.
Thanks for the help.
I wish you had dealt more with the lines about love, the climax of the poem. It seems to me that you're erring on the side of the love you hope that Alexander intends, a pure love beyond expectations.
However, the context of this poem, befitting a professor of African-American Studies, is a straightforward leftist appeal, which addresses the working class and people of color on the event of Obama's inauguration. The love Alexander delineates may be beyond the conventional American loves of spouse, family and nation (the poem does not even mention America), but it certainly does not go beyond the categories of class and color.
And where does Alexander's "mightiest love" land? Not a love involving God, forgiveness, sacrifice, all sentient beings, life or other notions of pure love we've heard before--no, just a love that does not pre-empt grievance. That's it.
Surely you've heard of the politics of grievance, very much at the heart of what concerns professors of African-American Studies these days? Grievance is the transactional coin between the oppressed and the oppressor. It's not something I would recognize as pure love.
I don't object to "Praise Song" as a leftist, color and class based poem. I do object to the pretense that it is a transcendent, inclusive poem of a glittering new post-racial America that Obama spoke of at times and many Americans thought they were voting for.
The placement of the poet on the program was difficult. Obama is a tough act to follow.
I liked the figuring out at kitchen tables phrase, which really fits our worried times. As an Irish-American I gave my ancestors a role in her list of those who have built our country. Finally, I loved the turn in "Say it plain." That is exactly what Alexander is doing and most effectively in this poem.