Quick Thoughts on the Readings for Tuesday...

If you look at the time and the day of the week that this is posted, you will probably think I am a huge nerd. And maybe you are right. But really, I am just a runner/jumper who has a track meet all day long tomorrow and who needs to get a little ahead on Friday nights. That being said…

I have a few thoughts about the readings we have to do for Tuesday (yes, I already did the reading… I have a busy weekend ahead!). Firstly, I think that the Shumway reading was kind of helpful in developing some idea of what the “Candy and Medicine” assignment is all about. I thought it was interesting and it kind of got some ideas flowing in my head about what I should write for a poem. I think one of the most interesting ideas in the article was the fact that “All pleasures are learned, and all may be increased by further learning” (p. 107). I guess I never really thought about the fact that the idea of what is pleasurable or satisfying to an individual is not an inherent trait, but more of an acquired taste. I don’t really know that this idea will necessarily show up in my poem, but I did think it was interesting.

Also, I thought that the three poetic works in the assignment were very different—there didn’t seem to be a blatant common thread between them, which I kind of liked. Each had a different format, a unique theme and a very different style. I liked the variety. Though the poems are starkly different, I still found after reading them that they shared a certain characteristic: each seemed to develop a sense of privacy that I felt was being invaded by reading the poem. I have read Stevens’ “The Snow Man” before; I like the silent, peaceful, empty scene created by the imagery in the poem. It’s a scene that could be easily disturbed, like newly fallen snow disrupted by the messy footprints of kids playing and sledding. Reading it along with the other two poems (Mullen’s “Between” and Gerstler’s “Dear Boy George”) kind of highlighted this aspect of the poem—the idea that we as readers are interrupting something or possibly invading something that is not our own. Mullen’s poem seems so sensual and somewhat erotic, a very personal reflection on an interaction between two people. As a reader, I felt that I was invading the intimacy shared by the two people. I felt almost awkward reading it. Gerstler’s poem had the feeling of a personal love note. Addressed to Boy George, it implies that the reader is not necessarily the intended audience. This creates a sense that by reading the poem and learning the very personal information within it, privacy is being invaded. We are meddling in something that does not involve us. I found it really interesting that each of these poems, though so different, shared this element.

These are just some thoughts for now… See you all on Tuesday!