Her poem posted on June 6 continued a theme that made me extremely uncomfortable.
Perhaps because it has a grain of truth.
In this poem, she uses a very familiar metaphor of food. At first glance, a reader knowing her might mistake the subject as part of her eating disorder. But after close reading it clearly is not.
It is about obsession, and while it could be directed at her New York stalker, it seems more likely targeting me.
Paraphrased, the poem suggests something, or someone seems better when you desire it, and that desire is fulfilled. But there are people who are not satisfied with just that, and want much more, going behind reasonable and into the realm of perverse, hyping up the thing into something it never was and never could be, mangling what had been something pure into something ugly, a deluded lust that eventually destroys itself, as well as the object of his affections.
I use the word “he” and “she”, but the poem does not, using “one” and “it” instead, thus avoiding making this poem seem like merely a personal attack, when it is something much, much more.
He blames her for the loss, but it was his arrogance that destroyed it (love, lust, affection whatever.)
He is unable to distinguish between his obsessive desire for what was innocent and without fault and maintains a perverted version of that lust inside his head that is “criminal” and obsessed with getting “more and more” which really cannot exist. In the end, he destroys what might have been possible.
This is one of her longer poems and it displays her brilliance at being able to maintain an extended metaphor, relating all of the elements to food to make a powerful and painful point.
Food tastes better, some people say, when you’re hungry. But some people starve themselves in anticipation of even greater pleasure.
Food here could stand for love, or lust, sex or even companionship, but serves as a symbol for something more significant, power maybe, control perhaps.
The villain is greedy, seeking a greater kick, so what once might have been pure becomes perverse. Whereas he could have enjoyed simple pleasure, he ruins it by seeking something more, “forcing gross want in its place.”
This is kind of saying “You could have had something good, but you pushed it all too far” and in fact, he is seeking something he’s fooled himself into thinking he wants. And then, he resorts to “violent pretense.” Something that consumes him and the object of his affections.
She claims he is so out of touch with reality (nature) that even his own body rejects it and when he can’t get what he wants he gets angry, and the destruction comes from what she calls “misplaced vengeance.”
He blames her even though it is “wrapped up in his own arrogance,” and is consumed with destroying it, including himself.
He can no longer distinguish himself and the delusion of want he has created. And he keeps escalating to the point where he can no longer distinguish between innocence and the “criminal path” he is on.
At this point, she broadens the scope of the poem to make an even larger judgement about his character, and his obsession over something that could have been purse, but has been tainted his obsession, killed off by a “societal, disturbed perverse incline” which seeks to destroy something that could have existed, as a opposed to his fancy, inevitably destroying good with the bad.
As with some of her previous poems, this poem is an indictment, accusing him of destroying a good thing with his obsessed need to turn it into something else, something that could not possibly exist except in his convoluted brain, and he’s blaming her for its dying.
The food metaphor is nearly flawless, because it reflects the concept of consumption, gluttony that is easily transferable to lust, love or any other passion.
Although she does not use pronouns like “he” or “she”, she does create characters defined as good or evil.
By the use of words like “greed” and phrases like “forcing gross want,” the poem sets up the contrast between “he” and the more innocent “she” and what she has to offer in phrases like “savoring the privileged taste,” “humble honest need,” or later, “the original thing gently desired without fault.”
The use of “privileged” harkens back to a previous poem when she talks about the privileged few she invited to her apartment.
He comes off as “arrogant” and “criminal” with “misplaced vengeance,” seeking to destroy” the sense of balance. He is engaged in “violent pretense” and “consumes unmercifully.”
She seems to paint him as an aggressor who wants more than the innocent relationship she offered, some twisted vision in his head it is impossible to give him even had she wanted to. And when he can’t get it, he blames her and destroys what might have been possible in the first place.
It is his own lust that is responsible for the demise, and he wants something that cannot possibly exist except in his own perverse thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment