Yet once more, I vow to keep free of overt editorializing since I have in the many other hundreds of pages of this journal, more than enough space to tell my side of the story. All that represents her side in these pages comes from my interpretating her poems as honestly as possible, trying to convey what she is trying to say in order to create some kind of balance.
Besides, she is not completely wrong in some of her claims.
What stands out most immediately is her use of the pronoun “they” instead of “you,” expanding the scope of the poem beyond one villain, although it is clear from the litany of lines the poem is aimed at me and is in reaction to things that have gone on beyond our literary exchange, most notably my talk about her with our former temporary boss.
The other oddity is her use of rime, giving the poem a military cadence, hammering in each point she is trying to make, claiming “we” or “they” have caused her heart to pound (no doubt in fear or panic) which drains her energy as if “we” or “they” want to steal it.
In this poem, she is defying her attacker, saying he can cause her heart to beat harder, drain her energy, cause her to lose sleep, cause her to distrust people she previously trusted and reek other havoc on her, try to shut her down, and beat her until she bleeds, misread her honesty, dismantle her sanity, spread gossip about her till “we” or “they” chokes ourselves to death with the hope someone will believe them, spin tales and pout when life deceives us, yet “we” or “they” cannot reach her soul or “even come near it.”
She warns that there will be a reckoning although “we” or “they” won’t heard it as “we” or “they” pretend righteousness “we” or “they” don’t have a right to claim.
Then she alludes to the old children’s rhyme about sticks and stone never hurting her, claiming “we” or “they” won’t hurt her with a stone. This is also an allusion to the Biblical verse about “he who is without sin cast the first stone,” a stone thrown, she claims in anger or fear or a “narcissistic act of self-deception.”
Still more defiantly, she points out that when salvation comes “we” or “they” will be too deaf (perhaps deaf, dumb and blind) to be aware of it.
Then, in a gesture that hints of kindness, but also still bitter, she wishes me, we or they luck in that we or they might find redemption.
There is nothing subtle in this poem, despite her great ability at using language. This is pure reaction, pure rage, mingled with a lot of pain, and an intense sense of betrayal – she is clearly uncertain yet who to blame (thus the plural pronouns) or who to trust.
Taken in context with some of her previously posted poem, this poem shows real shock at the events that occurred, considering her previous poems had become more reflective, with a more peaceful and thoughtful frame of mind, from which she got jolted. This poem is both a reflection of her anguish and rage, but more importantly and expression of her defiance. She will not let these things destroy her and will not give the culprit the satisfaction of knowing just how deeply she has been hurt. She will retain her soul and her dignity.
No comments:
Post a Comment