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.
70 AMERICAN POLITICAL POETRY<br />
Despite <strong>the</strong> speaker-poet’s <strong>in</strong>ability to talk to o<strong>the</strong>r North<br />
Americans, <strong>the</strong> poem speaks when <strong>the</strong> poet cannot. The speakerpoet’s<br />
<strong>in</strong>ability to speak belies <strong>the</strong> material reality of <strong>the</strong> poem itself<br />
because <strong>the</strong> poet’s personal experience <strong>in</strong> both worlds forms a bridge<br />
between <strong>the</strong> people of El Salvador and <strong>the</strong> people of <strong>the</strong> United<br />
States. Like <strong>the</strong> oppressed Salvadorans, <strong>the</strong> “remnants” of <strong>the</strong><br />
speaker’s life “cont<strong>in</strong>ue onward” despite her <strong>in</strong>ability to give sufficient<br />
voice to her experiences. In associat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> speaker-poet’s plight with<br />
that of Salvadorans, <strong>the</strong> poem collapses <strong>the</strong> gap between two worlds.<br />
Poetry, <strong>the</strong>n, creates The Country Between Us—<strong>the</strong> poem as bridge<br />
br<strong>in</strong>gs toge<strong>the</strong>r two countries, two friends, and two divergent<br />
experiences. I expand implicitly on this notion of jo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g different<br />
Americas—south and north, poor and rich, Spanish-speak<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
English-speak<strong>in</strong>g—<strong>in</strong> chapter 3.<br />
Whereas <strong>the</strong> speaker-poet’s voice is uncerta<strong>in</strong> and timid,<br />
Joseph<strong>in</strong>e’s is authoritative. She speaks directly of <strong>the</strong> brutal events <strong>in</strong><br />
Salvador that <strong>the</strong> speaker-poet witnessed but largely refra<strong>in</strong>s from<br />
speak<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>in</strong> “Return.” Joseph<strong>in</strong>e mediates between <strong>the</strong> poet’s experience<br />
and <strong>the</strong> audience. She speaks of two irreconcilable worlds, not<br />
between <strong>the</strong> United States and El Salvador, but with<strong>in</strong> El Salvador<br />
that <strong>the</strong> poet saw first-hand: “<strong>the</strong> pits where men and women / are<br />
kept <strong>the</strong> few days it takes without / food and water” and <strong>the</strong> “cocktail /<br />
conversations on which <strong>the</strong>ir release depends.” These contrast<strong>in</strong>g<br />
experiences reveal <strong>the</strong> violent detachment of those <strong>in</strong> power from <strong>the</strong><br />
people who are <strong>the</strong> subjects of “torture reports.” The conspicuous<br />
repetition of “men and women”—once <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> body pits and once <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> position of detached observers who “read / torture reports with<br />
fasc<strong>in</strong>ation”—makes explicit <strong>the</strong> connection between <strong>the</strong> suffer<strong>in</strong>g<br />
and <strong>the</strong> comfortable, even while those <strong>in</strong> power imag<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong>mselves as<br />
apart. This strategy makes read<strong>in</strong>g “torture reports with fasc<strong>in</strong>ation”<br />
grotesque, as if <strong>the</strong> “men and women” were read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir own torture<br />
reports.<br />
Here <strong>the</strong> poem explores what Greer calls “<strong>the</strong> re-representation of<br />
world as spectacle” <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> American media. He argues that images of<br />
violence from distant places allow viewers to rema<strong>in</strong> detached from<br />
<strong>in</strong>justices. Joseph<strong>in</strong>e’s later l<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong>terrogate what Greer calls <strong>the</strong><br />
“conversion of history <strong>in</strong>to a domestic spectacle” (175). When<br />
Joseph<strong>in</strong>e addresses <strong>the</strong> speaker-poet about North Americans’ taste<br />
for violence, she says to her: “Go try on / Americans your long, dull<br />
story / of corruption, but better to give / <strong>the</strong>m what <strong>the</strong>y want.”<br />
Joseph<strong>in</strong>e does not hesitate to tell <strong>the</strong> speaker-poet <strong>in</strong> harsh detail<br />
what Americans want, sensational stories and images: “Lil Milagro