“Instead, they talked about poetry that they liked, the sort that
stretches language to reveal its potential for ambiguity, fragmentation, and
self-assertion within chaos, the sort that uses open forms and cross-cultural
content, the sort that appropriates images from popular culture and the media
and refashions them, even if they often also talked about their frustrations
with and limitations of these kinds of poetries that they nonetheless liked”
(Spahr and Buuck, 12).
This passage stuck out to me because it sums up how I felt about An Army of Lovers. I appreciate the
gritty, imprecise realism of the “novel,” but feel as if some of their choices didn’t
necessarily add any nuanced commentary. Specifically, I am referring to the chapter
entitled “What We Talk About When We Talk About Poetry.” The chapter was a
re-working of the Raymond Carver short story called “What We Talk About When We
Talk About Love.” As Rob Wilson mentioned, this is the same story that figures
prominently in the film Birdman;
Michael Keaton’s character aims to adapt the short story into a play.
Spahr and Buuck transport the location of the original story from Albuquerque to San Francisco and make Mel a poet instead of a cardiologist. In the Carver story, Mel becomes a figure in touch with the mechanics of the heart, but not the emotional aspects of it. Casting Mel as a poet suggests Spahr and Buuck intended to reappropriate Mel as a character with emotional intelligence, but they do not change his approach to the subject. He remains the mechanical observer of poetry. They trade “love” for “politics” and Mel still understands neither. Carver’s story dealt solely with love whereas Spahr and Buuck conflate poetry with politics, suggesting poetry is always political and those politics displace the “love” from the original story.
Spahr and Buuck transport the location of the original story from Albuquerque to San Francisco and make Mel a poet instead of a cardiologist. In the Carver story, Mel becomes a figure in touch with the mechanics of the heart, but not the emotional aspects of it. Casting Mel as a poet suggests Spahr and Buuck intended to reappropriate Mel as a character with emotional intelligence, but they do not change his approach to the subject. He remains the mechanical observer of poetry. They trade “love” for “politics” and Mel still understands neither. Carver’s story dealt solely with love whereas Spahr and Buuck conflate poetry with politics, suggesting poetry is always political and those politics displace the “love” from the original story.
By talking about the different types of poets in this story (the difference between Mel and Ed), Sphar and Buuck invoke the sentiments discussed by Demented Panda and Koki from the quote I included at the beginning of this post. They talk about poetry they like or dislike and why, but the essence of this retelling holds a violent undercurrent. Mel means to harm the poetry Ed creates and detract from Terri's affinity with it. Is this retelling a warning to poets not to discount types of poetry?
Spahr and Buuck associate capitalism with violence when they replace Mel’s line regarding Terri’s affinity for violence in romantic relationships with one saying she likes the “‘‘Give-me-a-bunch-of-lines-about-capitalism-so-I’ll-know-it’s-serious’ school’” (Spahr and Buck, 71).
An Army of Lovers, therefore, suggests that poetry is inherently political and capitalism is the violence in poetry and politics. Using Carver’s story to illustrate this seems like an enticing way to convey such a message, but, ultimately, came off to me as heavy-handed and out of place. By inserting a political message about poetry into a story about the nuance and inexplicable weight of an intangible, complex, and often misunderstood emotion, Saphr and Buuck attempt to place politics and love on the same level of complexity (hence the title of the “novel” itself). However, it comes across as insincere and inorganic. Was this intentional or an oversight in effectively altering the metaphor?
Spahr and Buuck associate capitalism with violence when they replace Mel’s line regarding Terri’s affinity for violence in romantic relationships with one saying she likes the “‘‘Give-me-a-bunch-of-lines-about-capitalism-so-I’ll-know-it’s-serious’ school’” (Spahr and Buck, 71).
An Army of Lovers, therefore, suggests that poetry is inherently political and capitalism is the violence in poetry and politics. Using Carver’s story to illustrate this seems like an enticing way to convey such a message, but, ultimately, came off to me as heavy-handed and out of place. By inserting a political message about poetry into a story about the nuance and inexplicable weight of an intangible, complex, and often misunderstood emotion, Saphr and Buuck attempt to place politics and love on the same level of complexity (hence the title of the “novel” itself). However, it comes across as insincere and inorganic. Was this intentional or an oversight in effectively altering the metaphor?
No comments:
Post a Comment