|
|
Post by Jamie on Jan 20, 2009 14:46:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by johninil on Jan 20, 2009 19:44:06 GMT -5
You're a poetry guy, What did you think of the Poet Laureate today?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Jan 20, 2009 21:22:41 GMT -5
Honestly, I was not impressed. She was kinda whiny and unoriginal. Free verse has to be imbued with some driving emotion that I thought the Laureate completely lacked. It was totally un-moving. This lady was no Maya Angelou, that's for sure. Not that I'm opinionated or anything.  |
|
|
|
Post by johninil on Jan 20, 2009 21:34:09 GMT -5
I wasn't either but I thought maybe I was missing something. Rush Limbaugh said her speaking style sounded like the voice on his GPS system. I had to agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by quakerjono on Feb 1, 2009 11:16:30 GMT -5
This lady was no Maya Angelou
No, she's not, but then, Maya Angelou is no Tennyson or Yeats. Poets are different and have different strengths. Alexander is far more cerebral and sere than Angelou's vaguely inspiring, slighly hackneyed, emotional impressionism.
I think, however, that while the choice of Alexander was a difficult one as she's not known for her pageantry like Angelou, she was also saddled with a difficult task. Angelou was a fine choice for Clinton because, let's face it, while things weren't great, they weren't terribly bad, either. It was easier to inspire and, thus, Angelou could do what she does best: Get all flouncy and lay claim that her verbal flounce somehow encapsulates the whole of human experience while making everyone feel unspecifiedly 'good'.
Alexander, however, would have looked like an utter fool had she tried to do something like this not only because it's not where her talents lie, but because it wouldn't be appropriate. The situation we face now is far more profound than that faced by Clinton and summing it up with Angelou-type washes of emotional color is not doing justice to it.
"praise song" is not an easy piece, although it is deceptively simple. It drills down to a fine grain of U.S. experience, asks tough questions and then builds back up to the delivery level. It's not designed to make us feel "good" necessarily, but to acknowledge that in pursuit of our own individuality, we've forgotten what it can mean, should mean, to be bound together by ties of country. It also acknowledges, though, that we're not a lost cause. It will take struggle and work, but be thankful for that which we have, be cognizant of the struggle which faces us and be aware that we have the innate desire to face it.
Maybe Alexander wasn't a good choice for an inaugural address specifically because she doesn't deal in Hallmark-emotional blandishments and Hotel Art Poetry. I do think maybe she erred a bit and tried to be something she really isn't, which is a shame as she's a powerful modern poet with a devastating ability to look into the human soul without pretense and that's perhaps the last thing many want to hear at an inauguration.
At the same time, I salute her choice. What we face isn't going to be overcome by easy generalities. It's going to take a high-caliber of thought and consideration. In that, the choice of Alexander is portentous and argues Obama understands that, in all aspects, something deeper is required.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Feb 1, 2009 20:20:09 GMT -5
Well, we hope it's portentous in that vein, at any rate. However I didn't feel inspired or moved at all, and though she did lend some insight, however uncomfortable, she should have been moving. Especially if she is meant to reflect President Obama, who has been so moving and inspiring to so many. It should've been understood that her message would be compared to his, and while it may have been substantively sound, his own oratory has usually been far more poetic in nature than what Alexander delivered, and she paled in the comparison.
Good poetry should be moving while it reveals something, in my book.
|
|
