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.
62 AMERICAN POLITICAL POETRY<br />
readers to act by refus<strong>in</strong>g to ignore suffer<strong>in</strong>g. This command reaches<br />
its p<strong>in</strong>nacle <strong>in</strong> Rich’s use of apostrophe (“you”), which is <strong>the</strong> crucial cog<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> poem’s rhetorical strategy even though it does not appear until<br />
<strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al l<strong>in</strong>e. Two critics help to understand how apostrophe operates<br />
<strong>in</strong> Rich’s work. For Terrence Des Pres, Rich uses apostrophe to subvert<br />
<strong>the</strong> humanistic “we,” which he says has been “one of <strong>the</strong> more<br />
successful illusions of high culture” when used to refer to “all of us or<br />
‘man’ <strong>in</strong> general.” He po<strong>in</strong>ts out that this “ ‘we’ has always been <strong>the</strong><br />
property of an educated elite, male, white, and eurocentric”<br />
(357–358). Unlike Snyder, who uses “we” <strong>in</strong> “Front L<strong>in</strong>es” even<br />
though <strong>the</strong> poem works aga<strong>in</strong>st “man’s” destruction of <strong>the</strong> environment,<br />
Rich uses “you” as a direct <strong>in</strong>junction to readers and to<br />
challenge <strong>the</strong> ways we speak of <strong>the</strong> collective and of community. For<br />
Alicia Ostriker, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, fem<strong>in</strong>ist poets use apostrophe “to<br />
challenge <strong>the</strong> neutrality of <strong>the</strong> reader” and to address “a ‘you’ who is<br />
perceived as an antagonist” (“Danc<strong>in</strong>g” 215). In “For <strong>the</strong> Record,”<br />
Rich claims that no <strong>in</strong>dividual is neutral <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> suffer<strong>in</strong>g of o<strong>the</strong>rs;<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r, “you” are an antagonist if you do not act aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>in</strong>justice.<br />
By group<strong>in</strong>g “you,” <strong>the</strong> reader, 14 with <strong>the</strong> marg<strong>in</strong>alized and stereotypically<br />
destructive elements of society, <strong>the</strong> poem styles all people as<br />
responsible for fight<strong>in</strong>g social ills. As such, <strong>the</strong> poem attempts to<br />
create feel<strong>in</strong>gs of guilt. Herzog suggests that “For <strong>the</strong> Record” evokes<br />
shame and guilt <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> last seven l<strong>in</strong>es, but not <strong>in</strong> a “self-righteously<br />
accusatory or self-flagellat<strong>in</strong>g” manner. Instead, she claims that “<strong>the</strong>y<br />
are spoken <strong>in</strong> a communal context” (267). Though <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al l<strong>in</strong>es are<br />
a communal call to action by means of an <strong>in</strong>dividual recognition of<br />
complicity, <strong>the</strong>y are undoubtedly accusatory and self-righteous. The<br />
speaker does not ask herself where was I? and thus rema<strong>in</strong>s above<br />
contempt. Nick Halpern expla<strong>in</strong>s that Rich’s “prophetic mission”<br />
places her <strong>in</strong> but mostly above her poems: “She writes poems <strong>in</strong> which<br />
she imag<strong>in</strong>es herself as a solitary figure <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sky.” Though she does<br />
write poems <strong>in</strong> which she “represents herself as a figure <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> city, <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> streets,” Halpern notes, “too often” she is “not like someone who<br />
is lead<strong>in</strong>g an everyday life but someone who is walk<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> earth”<br />
(184–185). This seems to me exactly <strong>the</strong> dynamics of “For <strong>the</strong><br />
Record.” The speaker-poet simultaneously walks <strong>the</strong> earth and hovers<br />
above it <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sky, see<strong>in</strong>g all and demand<strong>in</strong>g that those who lead<br />
“everyday” lives take responsibility for what <strong>the</strong>y do. Her blister<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
authoritative tone attempts to spur readers to forgo <strong>in</strong>difference for<br />
socially motivated action. This didactic voice is present <strong>in</strong> many poems<br />
of authoritative agency and may seem heavy-handed to some readers.<br />
Yet Rich’s strategy makes it difficult for even <strong>the</strong>se readers to extricate