Poetry response dump 2

Unfortunately I feel the same way about X.J. Kennedy’s piece as I do about Hirsch’s. Except this time its worse. The piece is much shorter but also much more convoluted. The words are so roundabout that the image offers a restful alternative. And unlike the previous poem, there is no obvious insight about the painter and his relation. It is purely imagistic which almost seems like a redundancy when there is an actual image not two inches from the words. The immediate context is too much a competitor for the poem because after reading it a second time while covering the image, I find it quite nice. The title alone is enough to provide the context.

My favorite part about Robert Kelly’s Love Songs was the way he expressed a penchant for the ordinary. I find the counterintuitive nature of it to be appealing. The ordinary is overlooked, but Kelly calls us to revisit and even rediscover that which we take for granted. I could have done without the first two lines though. Not knowing at first what grunions are, I read on to find the poem open to interpretation. However after looking this word up the poem dulled ever so slightly and I moved on to “Love Song 2.” I didn’t like it as much as the first sans the grunions, but it was the same idea expressed in a more familiar way; more easily identifiable.

I’m at a loss for Wallace Stevens’ poem. I have no idea what its about and find nothing particularly interesting about it save the tigers and baboons. The accompanying video, although I do not like supplemental stimuli in addition to poetry, does shed some light on it, suggesting the piece is about dreaming. However this is only a suggestion and a slight one at that. Because even if this were the case that would lead me to assume that the title is implying disappointment that people are all the same in their dreams and only this one old drunk guy has interesting dreams or ideas about his head. I don’t feel like them poem stands on its own.

I feel like I should apologize to Mr. Williams, as I lost interest after the first line. His poem offered nothing the painting did not already have. It seemed more like a literary exercise for himself than an actual poem. I wish he had given his own parable of the blind for us readers to take something new from. The poem directly references the painting more so that the other poems and without the painting there you don’t know what he’s talking about but tragically with the painting there, you have no use for the poem. All his words have already been composed into brush strokes. I would normally expect words to overpower an image but this case is the opposite.

The thing that struck me first about “Ghost in the Land of Skeletons” was that it had structure like prose yet was wholly poetic. Although its imagery was not too enticing, the insight and train of thought were beautiful. I am immediately grabbed by the description in the first phrase; “flesh’s pretty paint.” It lends itself to the other ideas in the poem making it seem as if bones are what make us human and the skin is like a vinyl decal. Through the middle of the poem, we stroll through the poet’s thoughts as he leads us to a conclusion that is truly like a punch line. Not so much in that it’s almost like a dark joke but more in the sense that it really has an impact and leaves an impression