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.
EMBODIED AGENCY 45<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves. Des Pres goes on to say that <strong>the</strong> position of outside<br />
observer is <strong>the</strong> same position most readers occupy as distant from<br />
disaster “but well with<strong>in</strong> reach of its shock waves” (23). K<strong>in</strong>nell’s<br />
speaker struggles to give voice to <strong>the</strong> event, its aftermath, and his<br />
experiences of <strong>the</strong>m. He makes clear that he is both apart from and a<br />
part of <strong>the</strong> scene, both an <strong>in</strong>sider and outsider.<br />
When <strong>the</strong> poem opens with <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e “From our high w<strong>in</strong>dow we<br />
saw <strong>the</strong> towers / with <strong>the</strong>ir bands and blocks of light,” <strong>the</strong> speaker<br />
immediately establishes his role as a witness, and thus an outside<br />
observer. But he also <strong>in</strong>scribes <strong>the</strong> experience as collective (“our high<br />
w<strong>in</strong>dow” and “we saw”), so <strong>in</strong> some ways he is an <strong>in</strong>side observer as<br />
well. Though it is possible that K<strong>in</strong>nell refers to himself and his<br />
partner/wife <strong>in</strong> this l<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>the</strong>re is no question that millions of<br />
New Yorkers could view <strong>the</strong> towers from <strong>the</strong>ir w<strong>in</strong>dows. Yet this lofty<br />
vantage po<strong>in</strong>t also gives <strong>the</strong> poem a stigma of wealth. Despite <strong>the</strong> fact<br />
that many hous<strong>in</strong>g project apartments had views of <strong>the</strong> towers,<br />
K<strong>in</strong>nell’s speaker’s view seems from <strong>the</strong> penthouse. He attempts to<br />
reconcile—with mixed results—this vantage po<strong>in</strong>t with populist pr<strong>in</strong>ciples<br />
later <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> poem. After sett<strong>in</strong>g up <strong>the</strong> towers as a visible entity,<br />
he suggests <strong>the</strong> haunt<strong>in</strong>g surreality of <strong>the</strong>ir loss, of <strong>the</strong> observer’s<br />
<strong>in</strong>ability to see <strong>the</strong>m aga<strong>in</strong>: “we grew so used to <strong>the</strong>m / often we<br />
didn’t see <strong>the</strong>m, and now, / not see<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m, we see <strong>the</strong>m.”<br />
These l<strong>in</strong>es construct a world <strong>in</strong> which disorder reigns and <strong>the</strong> senses<br />
are unreliable perceptors of experience. The loss of <strong>the</strong> towers, <strong>the</strong><br />
open<strong>in</strong>g stanza implies, challenges our ways of experienc<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> world, especially our ways of see<strong>in</strong>g it.<br />
After <strong>the</strong> open<strong>in</strong>g ten-l<strong>in</strong>e stanza <strong>in</strong> which <strong>the</strong> speaker sets up <strong>the</strong><br />
vantage po<strong>in</strong>t of his experience, <strong>the</strong> second stanza takes two strange<br />
turns. It shows a poet struggl<strong>in</strong>g with, and succumb<strong>in</strong>g to, <strong>the</strong> difficulty<br />
of writ<strong>in</strong>g about a widely viewed event. The speaker contends<br />
with questions that challenge <strong>the</strong> existential status of an artist faced<br />
with disaster. What does a poet do when his experience is so drastically<br />
different from <strong>the</strong> experiences of New Yorkers who lost loved ones?<br />
Especially now that occasional <strong>poetry</strong> is an artifact of <strong>the</strong> past, how<br />
does a poet respond to such a tragic public event? Maurice Blanchot<br />
suggests that disaster makes writ<strong>in</strong>g a difficult if not impossible<br />
enterprise. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Blanchot, <strong>the</strong> disaster is an experience of<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g rendered completely passive. The disaster, moreover, is a pervasive<br />
and general experience of calamity that redef<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> limits of<br />
human experience and what are signified as “disasters”:<br />
“disaster . . . does not have <strong>the</strong> ultimate for a limit: it bears <strong>the</strong> ultimate<br />
away” (28). K<strong>in</strong>nell’s response to <strong>the</strong> terrorist attacks reveals