Jane Freilicher: Early New York Evening, 51 1/2 x 31 3/4 inches, 1954

The Still Life and the Landscape: It’s right there as simple as pie, but there is so much to it. The more you gaze the more you see. Delicate irises on a windowsill overlooking brick buildings, windows, more buildings, vivid colors and then, swoosh, you are in the gray with four delicate smokestacks pumping blue smoke into purple haze canopied by a gorgeous blue sky.

Poetry is exciting to me. When I write and the creative juices are flowing, I feel vibrant with energy. This scene is lively; it has energy. There is repetition: the windows, bright in the lighter red building but few in number as opposed to the windows beyond the sill that flow in a diagonal across the lower half of the painting. Each one of these windows is dressed differently just as a poem has repetition that is distinctly unique. I like a poem that has a rhythm flowing through it, and I sense a rhythm in the painting as it cascades across the canvas.

I like an abstract thought or theme – something that is not obvious at first in my poetry. I really want to engage my reader, challenge my reader, and Freilicher has done this with her precision, her attention to detail, her ability to take industrialism and give it beauty. Art stimulates. A reaction or response is the result. Subtly we are changed some “nth” of a degree. That is art.

Skunk Hour: Voyeur and Varmint

Lowell takes a long, cold look at himself, his art, his life, and his longing to break free of the chains that bind him to the past, and then reveals himself in "Skunk Hour." If we look for Lowell in every stanza, we see that he has immortalized himself in this confessional poem he chose to place at the end of his Life Studies. Does it provide a satisfactory resolution to the poems of the book? I believe that it does when you see that this poem is the most candid revelation of Lowell's life in the series.

In the first stanza Lowell writes of an aristocratic, possibly crazy with old age, lonely woman who lives in her "Spartan cottage" on Nautilus Island. Lowell is an aristocrat: he's very familiar with being an island-type figure in the world of poetry and in society as well. Throughout Life Studies he has shown us the details of being from a very well known family, the lonliness he felt when his uncle was dying, the embarrassment his father caused him, and the difficult assessment in "Waking in the Blue" of having a mental disorder. All these aspects of his life have a degree of isolation involved.

The details of the woman that follow in the second stanza speaks of one who "thirsts" for the old days, the past, the "has-beens". Lowell fears that this describes him as a poet in his earlier years, and attempts to break away from meter and rime, although in "Skunk Hour" we find he is still riming some of his lines; however, these are not conventional rimes. It is more open-verse compared to his earlier writings. The yawl that he references was auctioned off could represent that spiffy, harmonious and sharp style that he is giving up now in order to embrace the poetry that the Beat poets were writing. The red fox stain, perhaps "blood," is the residue remaining of killing off of poetry as he knew it.

The "fairy decorator" refers to the changes that are being made to his place of comfort. The gaudy orange represents the "in your face" style of Ginsberg and his peers, and their lack of reverence for artistic poetry material. Lowell is telling us about his work, his shop, the sharp awl that is used to place holes in a material. Lowell's style is becoming like the awl: he is writing personal information for the world to read, and in doing so he is puncturing himself to allow the real Lowell to flow.

The next stanza, "One dark night," is about voyeurism. As he describes spying on lovers making out in their cars, he is really talking about his own voyeurism realized as he writes of his family in the previous poems. He doesn't just look at them, though, he writes about them. One could argue that he has taken a voyeurs approach to looking at himself and writing what he sees. He concludes "My mind's not right." This is definitely true for Lowell.

In the following stanza what stands out is his statement: "I myself am hell." Another confessional statement about Lowell himself - his life is hell. Hell is a place of punishment and Lowell struggled with feelings of guilt and inadequacy as he tries to live up to the standards of the family legacy.

At last! The varmint. Skunks marching up Main Street with their white stripes and red eyes underneath the church. Lowell, as skunk, dares to take up the sacred hymnal of the church (poetry) and defile it by writing against the standards, against conventional poetry, no longer respecting the poets of years gone by. He thinks he stinks as a poet with his new style, but march on to the new, contemporary swell of the poetry of his peers.

The last stanza he stands on the back steps, his own backyard and breathes the rich air. Is it rich with skunk stench? The skunk goes about her business oblivious of the voyeur and standing her ground - "will not scare." The skunk/the poet will not be frightened away by the onlooker. She remains strong in her survival. Lowell is attempting to survive; he will not give in to those who criticize his work. He will continue to look through his own life, his garbage can, for sustenance.

Howling against the Machine

Picture a lone wolf on a mountain peak at dawn's break with a few Fading Stars applauding the howling creature. Alone, yet in time and space. Crying out to whomever will listen. A soul-piercing howl that continues.

"Howl" is Allen Ginsberg as "Wolf on a Mountaintop." It is a celebration of his life as well as the lives of his contemporaries whose lifestyles were non-conventional and controversial. It is a poem written to be read aloud; Ginsberg uses base words such as "who," "Moloch," and "I'm with you in Rockland" repetitively which provide cohesiveness, rhythm, and style to "Howl." The first section is a lengthy assertion of a life that has traveled many places, with many people, in altered states of consciousness - exalting heterosexual and homosexual experiences with a frankness that was considered by some obscene. The second and third section name the enemy and provide insight into madness.

Ginsberg gives voice to those "best minds of my generation" as he profusely elaborates on their collective experiences as they traveled all over the world, seeking transcendence spiritually and via illegal drugs, all the while suffering from the oppression of life. Ginsberg is painstaking in his deliberate effusion of strings of words depicting horrific injustices, disturbing existences, and struggles that pull at the nerves of the audience as they try to grasp the magnitude of aversion expressed by the speaker. In this section it is the WHO that Ginsberg is focused on; the majority of the stanzas begin with "who." He also details "where" with so many differing places listed. This sets up the narrative and tone of the poem.

Ginsberg wrote the third section after the first, and then followed with the second stanza. Consider how smooth the transition is from the end of section one to the salutation: "Carl Solomon!" Here he expounds on madness which he claims in the opening line of the poem destroyed the best minds of his generation. Ginsberg continues to live at Rockland even though now it is only in his mind. Solomon is the vehicle/machine/device that allows this possibility for Ginsberg while maintaining some form of respectability while he lives in San Francisco. Ginsberg longs for the freedom the mental institution provided for total unrestricted expression of madness without judgement. His descriptions of Solomon are likely autobiographical (some of these like playing the piano are documented as Ginsberg's actions) and exaggerated. The expressions of section three are his definitions of madness which has claimed victims in Ginsberg's life from childhood until his late twenties, not excluding himself. It could be said that Ginsberg exalts the condition of madness here.

In section two Ginsberg names the enemy: Moloch. Moloch is responsible for all he deems wrong for society, for his generation, for his country. Moloch as capitalism, as sacrifice, as machine, as industrialism, as government, as heartless judge of man: Moloch is the epitome of evil. Why is this necessary for the poem? As a poet Ginsberg must name the demon that haunts him or else his poetry fails. By naming Moloch the killer of souls, imagination, and generations, Ginsberg assumes power over it. His revelation to society will raise their awareness and give them an opportunity to save themselves. Therefore, in section three Ginsberg gives the anticipation of freedom to the lost. It is the lost whom he writes about: the rest have a Savior.

English 4620 Contemporary Poets

Welcome to my world!!!

Free your mind and free yourself.

Rear Window: A Revelation re: Relationships

Can a voyeur see his own life experience while watching the lives of others? In Rear Window, Alfred Hitchcock sets out to prove that L.B. Jeffries (Jimmy Stewart) does indeed peer into his own relationship with girlfriend/fiance socialite Lisa Carol Freemont(Grace Kelly) as he watches the lives of his neighbors through his rear window.
We see the ballerina as she practices her dance steps around her rooms which parallels with Jeffries own dancing around he does with Lisa as she tries to talk seriously to him about their relationship. He doesn't want to commit to marriage, and with a witty dialogue he outmaneuvers Lisa in the conversation. The ballerina entertains several men at once, the same as Jeffries work as photographer entertains many different subjects. He uses his line of work as an excuse for not being able to marry Lisa. She is not suitable for the rough environments that his work takes him. Although Ms. Torso entertains quite a bit, a soldier "comes home" and she greets him. He may represent the war that is going on between Jeffries and Lisa regarding marriage.
Then there is Ms. Lonelyheart who attempts to entertain an imaginary guest for dinner; this occurs at the same time Lisa is preparing dinner and wine for Jeffries but he is absorbed with his neighbor, and lifts a toast with Ms. Lonelyheart while ignoring Lisa. Ms. Lonelyheart eventually collapses in dismay at her failure to enjoy the evening. Jeffries and Lisa argue about their future or lack thereof. Later on in the film, Ms. Lonelyheart goes to dinner and brings home a young man. But when he tries to get fresh with her, she slaps him and makes him leave, collapsing again in tears. There is a sexual energy at play there across the terrace. There is distance between Jeffries and Lisa created by their different lifestyles, and each display a somewhat lonely appearance. Lisa shows frustration with Jeffries because their relationship is stagnant and not going anywhere. Jeffries is immobile and impotent. Lisa is all over New York City and and a whirlpool of sexual energy.
Now consider Mr. Composer. He composes a sad tune that reflects the sadness in the stalemate of the Jeffries/Lisa relationship. Then he entertains and the music is livlier and more festive. As Lisa joins Jeffries in solving the murder mystery they are more involved with each other; she becomes the sleuth that Jeffries needs, and their energy stimulates each other. There is excitement in the air!
The newlyweds enter their apartment in love as can be expected and close their blinds as they consummate the marriage. Eventually we see them quarrelling representing the future of marriage as Jeffries pictures it to be. Status Quo. So this may be a possibility for him and Lisa, but given her personality and character, highly unlikely. She's not your average woman.
The Thorwalds are the epitomy of the ruined marriage. The sickly, nagging wife, suspicious of the unfaithful husband, he carries out her murder and hides the body under the guise of sending her on a trip. Their relationship parallels with Jeffries pessimistic and unhealthy views of marriage. Lisa, on the other hand, confronts Mr. Thorwald, indicating that she holds the power in the relationship, and can outsmart the villian. Unlike the sickly Mrs. Thorwald, Lisa has personal power; by solving the murder mystery she shows Jeffries she has all the qualities of the woman he is searching for.
By allowing the viewer to see into the lives of the other apartment dwellers, Hitchcock reveals a number of possible relationship problems. When these issues are acted out openly, we can compare what is happening behind the rear window to the activity beyond it. Hitchcock puts in on the table in full view for Jeffries and Lisa to see and either relate to or resist what is being acted out. Hitchcock also plays upon the notion that what is obvious is not always what is readily seen. Does he turn it around to the notion that what is seen is not always what is obvious? You tell me.

Glengarry Glen Ross - Where ARE the Women?

So we're asked the question: "How are we to deal with the presence/absence of women in Glengarry Glen Ross?" My question to you is: "What women?" Yes, there are maybe 20 lines in the whole play that mention two women. That's about it. Okay, let's talk about why so little references to women in this play about real estate salesmen in the very early eighties.
Glengarry was probably written in 1980 or 1981, as we see it was published in 1982. At that time, few women were in marketing, as we call it now. Your average woman in the sixties was a housewife, and this changed very little in the seventies. But, in the seventies you have a movement called Woman's Liberation. There were women protesting the oppressive roles that they were stuck in. They were burning their bras in mass assemblies, and carrying signs that spoke their mind of their social prohibitions that were prominent then. All this to say, the Glengarry Glen Ross play did not have female sales representatives because that is the way our society was back then.
Like it or not, there are only references to women in this play. But the references to one Jinny Lingk indicate that she is a powerful woman who wears the pants in her family. Her husband, James, tells Moss that "She wants her money back" (90). She has given James strict instructions regarding what he is to do. James Lingk is obviously a husband who is used to his wife telling him what to do. Apparently, he is not bright enough to see through the con game that Moss played with him, and he admits he does not have the power to negotiate with Moss (or with his wife). Moss suggests that Mrs. Lingk has prudence. This is actually a compliment to her. It suggests that she is wise and is frugal in her affairs. This is unfortunate to Moss, who loses a sale based on this quality she has. But she is looking out for the family nest egg, and is aware of the steps to take if James is unable to get the check back. She is a woman of action. This is in contrast to the men in the play who are all men of talk, and very little action.
Given the signs of the times in the eighties, Mamet has not included women in his sales force at Premier Properties. The language that the men use amongst themselves is masculine, raw, and rough. Endless references to male and female sexual organs portray a battery of dialogue that is intended to intimidate each other, and attempts to diminish each other's manhood. This serves to perpetuate the crudeness with which men will talk to one another in the work place. Actually, the conversations of Glengarry Glen Ross could easily be overheard in a locker room or a pool hall. It's macho talk by men who think of themselves as macho men. But is this big talk just a coverup for their insecurities about their own manhood? Providing for a family is one way in which men exert their masculine abilities. But several of the guys at this particular office are struggling to make any money. This is no secret: the board displays whose closing the deals and who isn't.
Williams is the character who is emasculated by almost everyone on the sales force. More references are made to his manhood (and lack thereof) than anyone else in this drama. He seems somewhat weak when he doesn't defend himself against the ruthless attacks. But what could be seen as weakness could also be revealed as strength. The power of words can make or break a man, but these words hurled at him by the frustrated men who report to him do not appear to bother him; rather, they roll off him like water on a duck's back. In the end, Williams prevails by solving the robbery mystery. He shows that he has been listening to Levine who slips up and gives away the fact that he saw Moss' contract on William's desk during the robbery. Even though he is severely attacked, he maintains his position as the man in charge, and singlehandedly traps Levine into admitting his crime.
Simply presenting a cast of men, with limited references to women, does not make Mamet a misogynist. For God sake, freedom of speech should allow someone to have an all male cast without the verdict being "Mamet hates women." I believe he just gave the world a glimpse into a predominantly male environment. It's okay, everybody! Lay off the man! There are plenty enough literary pieces that are about women only that are not equally criticized, aren't there? That's my point. Enough said.

King Lear completes a transformation in the play King Lear that is powerful and noteworthy. As the play progresses, he embraces his emotions and becomes willing and able to shed tears. In the beginning, he tells his daughters that they must confess their love for him in order to receive their portion of the kingdom upon his retirement. This indicates that love, being an emotion, is something of great importance to him, even utmost importance. Coppelia Kahn, on the other hand, would have us believe that Lear is a power wielding, oppressive father that lacks emotion as a result of his patriarchal world. Is this a fair assessment? Or is it an attempt to further a feminist agenda that places all men in a class of unfeeling, uncaring, cold-hearted bastards?
King Lear was responsible to provide for their basic needs, educate his daughters, and see that they married well. He may very well have been affectionate towards them. However, each child is born with her own personality. It’s possible the three daughters were spoiled. The fact that they all grew up in the same environment cannot account for the greed the older two power-hungry sisters exhibited, compared to the apparent humility, honesty and love that the youngest daughter was endowed with. Is the king responsible for their behavior? No, these women are adults and must take responsibility for what they say, think, and do.
For Kahn to infer that the absence of the mother “points to her hidden existence” is farfetched. The late Queen is not mentioned in the play. It is possible that the king played a larger than normal role in nurturing his daughters. The fact that Goneril and Regan have less than desirable character traits, and play the antagonist roles, doesn’t constitute a flattering tribute to a mother figure that didn’t exist in their life.
Kahn is quoted as saying, “He learns to weep and, though his tears scald and burn like molten lead, they are no longer ‘women’s weapons’ against which he must defend himself.” This quote can be taken several different ways. I believe Kahn would have us believe that Lear opposed the shedding of his own tears, and felt that he must have a defensive strategy to keep them at bay. However, consider that women will use crying as a way of appearing hurt, defenseless, vulnerable, weak, etc. in order to manipulate the men in their company to take a certain action, make a certain decision, and such as that. Could Lear have meant that women used their tears as a tool or weapon to try to overcome the opposite sex, and, subsequently, put the male counterpart on defense? The audience must draw its own conclusion to these questions.
Lear is an old man who becomes emotional in his last days. I would dare say that as king, he did not allow himself to cry in front of others. So, naturally, he prefers a noble anger instead of shedding tears from the hurt inflicted by his daughter, when he speaks so eloquently:
“I have full cause of weeping; but this heart
Shall break into a hundred thousand flaws,
Or ere I’ll weep. O fool, I shall go mad!”
Later, when he is at last reunited with Cordelia, he is overwhelmed with emotion, and says:
“ …but I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like molten lead.”
He is finally crying, and without shame or difficulty. As Lear undergoes an emotional transformation, he truly begins to know himself better than in any other time of his life. I believe he comes to complete acceptance of his true humanity.