Overall I felt like I understood Armantrout the best out of the poets we have read so far. There was something about her writing that allowed my mind to wander and go in so many different directions. She allows so many different interpretations for her poems. Her poetry is the most “poem-like,” meaning it’s style and flow is the most open and the least constrictive. Because of it’s “emptiness” meaning can be found. Each poem can mean something different to individuals.
Previously we discussed that Armantrout uses poems to point back to language, she develops this through her scarcity of words. Also, by not creating a clear scene or picture of what is going on, it allows the reader to explore the language itself. The reader must be actively involved in searching for meaning and understanding the truth of the meaning.
I like how she uses the truths of day-to-day stuff to show an analogy to life and language. Her belief about and use of language seems fairly clear in “a resemblance” when she mentions how “a word is mostly connotation, matter is mostly auras… look a-likes (pg 10.)” Her writing definitely appeals to the mind in an abstract way. I think that this type of poetry gives the most opportunity for interpretation and understanding of language in addition to the world itself, and what is described through the language.
Another thing I noticed was Armantrout’s focus on vanity and culture. She mentions this throughout the book both through ideals and specific pop culture references. “Outer” on page 11, she speaks about how everything is about representation rather than the real thing. She states that “to see yourself as if from the outside-though not as others see you.” This is her understanding of the world and how language can coincide with it.
I have to agree with you here; I, too, felt like it was pretty easy to understand Armantrout’s poetry. I think part of that might have had to do with the fact that we just came from reading Levis (I saw Versed as somewhat of a break, to tell the truth), but you are also right with the fact that her poems are the most stereotypically “poem-like” that we’ve read in class so far. When most people think of a poem, they probably think of one that has a form similar to Armantrout’s.
ReplyDeleteYou had another very good point: her scarcity of words really does help the reader to explore the language. None of her poems have an explicit meaning; it takes some work to discover what she’s trying to say. This way, I think, each reader can take something different out of the poems. The poems may take more work to interpret, and may frustrate many readers, but I think that in the end the reward is greater. Along with being easier to understand, Armantrout’s poetry also seems easier to relate to; everyone can find something within the poems that resonates with their lives. And with Armantrout’s use of popular culture references that a lot of people get (unlike Levis’ use of literary references), she writes poetry that is more down-to-earth for the modern reader.