american political poetry in the 21st century - STIBA Malang
american political poetry in the 21st century - STIBA Malang
american political poetry in the 21st century - STIBA Malang
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
EQUIVOCAL AGENCY 95<br />
out, Palmer is “<strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> way politics might <strong>in</strong>habit <strong>poetry</strong> as<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g more than subject matter, particularly when by ‘politics’ we<br />
mean someth<strong>in</strong>g like ‘atrocity’ ” (7; my emphasis). All of this suggests<br />
that if politics are to enter Palmer’s work, it will be <strong>in</strong> an equivocal,<br />
shift<strong>in</strong>g, and <strong>in</strong>direct manner, all of which are characteristic of equivocal<br />
agency. Palmer’s <strong>poetry</strong>, though, stretches <strong>the</strong> limits of this type<br />
of poetic agency, <strong>the</strong>reby test<strong>in</strong>g its effectiveness.<br />
Palmer’s comments about how narrative works <strong>in</strong> his <strong>poetry</strong>—it<br />
“shimmers at <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong> page” <strong>in</strong> “scraps” (Bartlett 132)—can be<br />
applied to his <strong>poetry</strong>’s <strong>political</strong> voice. It too is elusive, appear<strong>in</strong>g only<br />
<strong>in</strong> “scraps.” Even so, “Sun” is one of his most obviously <strong>political</strong><br />
poems, but it is not immediately obvious how it is <strong>political</strong> because<br />
Palmer wants to frustrate any simple correlation between <strong>poetry</strong> and<br />
politics. More so, he wants to avoid romanticiz<strong>in</strong>g any artistic or <strong>political</strong><br />
representation of atrocity. As po<strong>in</strong>ted out <strong>in</strong> chapter 1, <strong>the</strong>re is an<br />
<strong>in</strong>herent risk <strong>in</strong> foreground<strong>in</strong>g one’s witness to and experience of<br />
extremity. Palmer has derided “poets’ shuttle down to Nicaragua<br />
and so on to get material,” which he says is “a betrayal of what is to<br />
be meant by <strong>the</strong> <strong>political</strong>.” One of <strong>the</strong> many problems with <strong>the</strong>se<br />
“shuttles,” he says, is that poets “appropriate” what <strong>the</strong>y have<br />
witnessed as subject matter to proclaim “<strong>in</strong> stale poetic language”<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g that implies “ ‘Look how much human feel<strong>in</strong>g and fellow<br />
feel<strong>in</strong>g I have.’ ” For Palmer, such <strong>poetry</strong> is “self-congratulatory”<br />
(“Dear” 12, 26), a criticism that echoes those cataloged at <strong>the</strong> end of<br />
chapter 1. Sel<strong>in</strong>ger suggests that Palmer’s Sun can <strong>the</strong>n be understood<br />
as a “counterpo<strong>in</strong>t” to Forché’s The Country Between Us, which he<br />
says “soo<strong>the</strong>s” readers with its “familiar grammar, forms of reference,<br />
and moral compass” (7). Putt<strong>in</strong>g aside <strong>the</strong> specious claim that<br />
Forché’s Salvador poems are comfort<strong>in</strong>g (which belies any engaged<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong>m), it is clear that “Sun” is nei<strong>the</strong>r sooth<strong>in</strong>g nor familiar,<br />
and that its rhetorical strategy, poetic agency, and figures of voice<br />
diverge dramatically from Forché’s “Return.”<br />
“Sun” beg<strong>in</strong>s with four statements that foreground <strong>the</strong> acts of writ<strong>in</strong>g<br />
about and represent<strong>in</strong>g atrocity. Each beg<strong>in</strong>s with a command:<br />
“Write this.” In <strong>the</strong> first two l<strong>in</strong>es, brief phrases depict<strong>in</strong>g<br />
military/imperial violence follow <strong>the</strong> command to record: “We have<br />
burned all <strong>the</strong>ir villages” and “We have burned all <strong>the</strong> villages and <strong>the</strong><br />
people <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>m” (233–235). The rema<strong>in</strong>der of <strong>the</strong> poem frustrates<br />
any attempt to summarize its <strong>political</strong> voice/perspective. It is dotted<br />
with “scraps” of references to state-sanctioned violence <strong>in</strong> WWII<br />
Germany and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Vietnam War: “Darmstadt,” “Pla<strong>in</strong> of Jars,”<br />
“Pla<strong>in</strong> of Reeds,” “Neak Luong,” and “Goebbels.” These allusions,