Emily Cushing's Armantrout Response

Let me begin by stating that at first I was hesitant about Armantrout's poetry. It seemed scattered and complex which was frustrating because of the lack of words. However, after our first class discussion I learned to appreciate what she writes. We spent some time in class discussion what Armantrout isn't doing in the text. I think this is an interesting approach in reading poetry. We picked apart what isn't happening such as closure, overall theme, narrative, emotion, center, etc. However I would like to argue that while some of these aspects still seem missing, there are a few that appeared to me while reading. Armantrout doesn't provide a central voice or experience and in doing so she allows the reader to construct the story and meaning themselves (as we discussed in class). This changes the reader's relationship to the meaning of the text for we have to take what we are provided and create something else. There are no windows or paths to other objects and meanings, but what is being represented on the page allows us to look at the poem and interpret it in a different way.

One poem that demonstrates this is "A Resemblance." Armantrout writes "matter is mostly/ aura?" Right away this can be read in different ways. One could take it as a question that she is asking the reader, or a definite statement. How the reader chooses to read it is their decision. A few lines down she writes "Quiet, ragged/ skirt of dust/ encircling a ceramic gourd." The first line consists of adjectives followed by an image performing an action around another object. The images are objects that would "normally" be placed together so the reader can interpret them in many ways. I picture myself sitting at a wheel making pottery. I see the skirt of dust around the ceramic gourd as an image of matter, which composes everything, surrounding our every day life in nature and objects but also making up everything that we create. However someone else could have a completely different interpretation of it and Armantrout provides no concrete evidence of what she intended it to mean.

What's interesting about the language in her poetry is that she doesn't necessarily construct her text with complex words or difficult imagery. It is more that she gives you just enough so you think you know what she is getting at, but she leaves you hanging and having to do your own work to finish the thought. In her poem titled "Hey" she writes "(1) Sound/ may be addressed/ to you/ or it may not./ (2) A receipt,/ blown crazily/ across the parking lot,/ was, perhaps,/ a moth". She clearly separates the two "stanzas" with numbers and provides no ending punctuation. Therefore the reader needs to decide whether to connect the two stanzas in meaning, or to try and create something different out of them. Was the receipt addressed to you? What is the significance of the moth? Where does sound come in? These are all questions that can appear and frustrate someone reading because there is not enough substance to create an answer. I think this is the brilliance of Armantrout. Even when the readers create their own meaning they can drive themselves crazy wondering if it's the "right" one. I thoroughly enjoyed Armantrout and think it'd be interesting to read some of her work in few months or even in a year to see how my interpretation changes.