10-12-2013, 08:04 AM
Hey Dest,
So, before I write a critique I want to say that I like a lot what the poem is about. These poems are really important - it takes me back to like, Négritude poetry, and it's a really important thing. I have comrades who are into this type of thing (my appreciation for it is somewhat lessened by my inability to understand it, being a white girl and all [snicker]) - but, no, I have seen a wonderful thing with these poems, reading and writing them, they rebuild the adytum of black consciousness which has been wounded by colonialism and that is very important. So, I immediately like the poem!
Onto the critique: the form is really poor. It doesn't have to be, but it is. And, I really think it would benefit from coupleting. Like so:
And it works so well because you're already writing in couplets, you're doing [predicate], [conclusion]. and it's couplets, but they have not been coupleted. So I am saying: take it to its formulaic conclusion. It emphasis the meaning, too, especially when you come to later lines that are more emotional, they would benefit from this kind of tying up of the lines.
Aside from that, aside from couplets, it's free verse, so there isn't much to be said for form. The rhythm is very sparse and all over the place, though, there isn't much rhythm to it at all. And that isn't a bad thing! In fact, I like it - its prosaic, yes, and it's a proclamation! Each couplet is a loud proclamation to a crowd on Harlem and it's great, so I do like this style, it is an aphoristic style. You aren't building an argument, you're proclaiming various facts. "Is it not so that... But yet..." In fact, you're preaching, actually - you do this very well, actually, you have linked yourself very closely with King, because you are writing it as though you are a preacher, and that's a very nice touch.
I get the feeling you haven't put much thought into the language. I get the feeling, even, that you are struggling. You are trying to say what you want to say and you don't have enough in you to be poetic about it, which is okay, but I feel like you would benefit from writing more concentrated, shorter poetry, and exploring language. Have you read much poetry? Langstone Hughes, Aimé Césaire, Richard Wright, etc., do this kind of poetry, not quite this but you know, this kind of thing, I think if you haven't read them yet it'd be well, well worth your while. If you have read them, pay attention to the language they use.
So, the form is fine, it'd be better if you coupleted it properly - the aphoristic style is great and that's the poems main strength, but the language is strained and quite dry and I don't think that's something you can really improve in this poem but just work on in your general poetry - get comfortable with English, if you are to write in English. [And, there were some wonderful poems a while back I read, proper post-colonial poems, by a couple of colonised women (Indian I think), talking about how their mother tongue was stolen from them (which they dramatised, beautifully, as their 'tongues [being] cut out') and being made to speak English, but finding, English resonated them not as a forced language but as their own language, feeling that they had taken back English as their own language, and they could express this through poetry, and that's a really beautiful thing. Mastery of English as individual reclaimation! So, maybe, go at it with that spirit, if you want.]
What I like about this poem is it has nothing we usually think of about poetry. There are not metaphors, no techniques, nothing. That's a strength, here - like I said before, it's not like a poem, it's like a speech, or like preaching, and that's really fitting for the subject matter.
There is some symbolism, though - God and the bible come into it at some point. And they go straight out, unfortunately. I would have liked more of God in this, more invocation of God. Or else, there is no use in mentioning him. If you are deferring to the supreme authority, you have to treat it like such. It is strange, to say, 'Well, God says blah blah... - but you listen to me!' I'd structure it as: SPEAKER, GOD, DENOUEMENT. The denouement being the triumphant last couplet, which I want to address later. The other symbol, though - the contrast between White Oppressor and Black Oppressed, Coloniser and Colonised, etc., is really good. It matches up with the 'The world has become colour blind' thing. You start off with - THE WORLD IS ONLY BLACK AND WHITE, and you discuss how that is, and that's really good.
As for the topic: I addressed it earlier, it's a négritude poem, a blackness poem, a post-colonial poem. It is an African-American reclaiming his - I'm assuming - identity, and loudly chronologing his oppression, in poetry, and that's really good. These kinds of poems are important. And I hope you continue to write on these themes, because not enough poetry has been written about it.
I was concerned, when I first started reading it, though, I admit - when I saw the title I was a little worried because you know how often MLK is co-opted by white liberals who are secretly racist - the 'white moderate' as King called them, himself - and then I saw the first line and it talks about being colour blind which is like, augh... Oh god. Because that is a term so many white liberals use, to say 'Oh, I'm not racist - I don't see race, I'm colourblind!' and I was worried. And then we got to the line, and I was still a little confused, and you say 'White man inferior' and I thought - oh god! Now we're talking about oppressed whitey! But, luckily I was corrected by the rest of the poem. So, it's a new spin on colour blind rhetoric, I'll give it that. And I'm sure it was a mistake where you say the white man is inferior. (Unless you mean morally inferior or whatever - in which case, it didn't come across.)
The poem does fail at presenting the matter for much of the poem, though. I must say this - yes, I know exactly what it is about, I know what you are saying. But if I was unaware of the black struggle, if I was unaware of racism, if I was unaware of colonialism, and so on, I wouldn't really know what you were talking about. 'What's all this?' I'd say. And, really, that's a problem for you - it really is a 101 type poem, it's a very simple poem, in its meaning. You are saying, 'There is racism.' But in order for me to really get anything out of this poem, I have to know that there is racism already. Basically: anyone who is going to have any connection to the poem doesn't need to read the poem. Which is unfortunate.
This goes back to your problem with language, in my view. You've struggled to express it. And I think it's good for where you are as a poet, and more experience with poetry will make you a better poet, obviously. And it's a good place to start, with this poem. But it is not great at doing what it hopes to do.
The last couplet though; oh! Wow! What a beautiful couplet! I love this sort of climactic 'I AM MARTIN LUTHER KING, I AM A NEGRO.' You are not writing as him, I do not think, or at least you're doing it tongue-in-cheek. You're aware it's you writing it. But you identify yourself with him triumphantly - and actually, after the climax. 'We ARE this, we CAN do this', kind of like, 'WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!' And then finally, in the sigh afterwards, 'I am King, I am a negro.' It's glorious. And the relationship between the climax and the assumption of King - WE can do this, I am this. That's really important. You cement yourself firmly inside the black struggle, and it's beautiful.
So, there are elements of shining power in this poetry, and there are good mechanics, but it has its weaknesses, is what I'm saying.
So, before I write a critique I want to say that I like a lot what the poem is about. These poems are really important - it takes me back to like, Négritude poetry, and it's a really important thing. I have comrades who are into this type of thing (my appreciation for it is somewhat lessened by my inability to understand it, being a white girl and all [snicker]) - but, no, I have seen a wonderful thing with these poems, reading and writing them, they rebuild the adytum of black consciousness which has been wounded by colonialism and that is very important. So, I immediately like the poem!
Onto the critique: the form is really poor. It doesn't have to be, but it is. And, I really think it would benefit from coupleting. Like so:
Quote:Call me colour-blind, all I see is black and white.
A humanity based on a colourless sight.
White man inferior, strong and free,
black man subjacent, lesser, minority.
White men whip black men right into shape,
no equal rights, cannot escape.
And it works so well because you're already writing in couplets, you're doing [predicate], [conclusion]. and it's couplets, but they have not been coupleted. So I am saying: take it to its formulaic conclusion. It emphasis the meaning, too, especially when you come to later lines that are more emotional, they would benefit from this kind of tying up of the lines.
Aside from that, aside from couplets, it's free verse, so there isn't much to be said for form. The rhythm is very sparse and all over the place, though, there isn't much rhythm to it at all. And that isn't a bad thing! In fact, I like it - its prosaic, yes, and it's a proclamation! Each couplet is a loud proclamation to a crowd on Harlem and it's great, so I do like this style, it is an aphoristic style. You aren't building an argument, you're proclaiming various facts. "Is it not so that... But yet..." In fact, you're preaching, actually - you do this very well, actually, you have linked yourself very closely with King, because you are writing it as though you are a preacher, and that's a very nice touch.
I get the feeling you haven't put much thought into the language. I get the feeling, even, that you are struggling. You are trying to say what you want to say and you don't have enough in you to be poetic about it, which is okay, but I feel like you would benefit from writing more concentrated, shorter poetry, and exploring language. Have you read much poetry? Langstone Hughes, Aimé Césaire, Richard Wright, etc., do this kind of poetry, not quite this but you know, this kind of thing, I think if you haven't read them yet it'd be well, well worth your while. If you have read them, pay attention to the language they use.
So, the form is fine, it'd be better if you coupleted it properly - the aphoristic style is great and that's the poems main strength, but the language is strained and quite dry and I don't think that's something you can really improve in this poem but just work on in your general poetry - get comfortable with English, if you are to write in English. [And, there were some wonderful poems a while back I read, proper post-colonial poems, by a couple of colonised women (Indian I think), talking about how their mother tongue was stolen from them (which they dramatised, beautifully, as their 'tongues [being] cut out') and being made to speak English, but finding, English resonated them not as a forced language but as their own language, feeling that they had taken back English as their own language, and they could express this through poetry, and that's a really beautiful thing. Mastery of English as individual reclaimation! So, maybe, go at it with that spirit, if you want.]
What I like about this poem is it has nothing we usually think of about poetry. There are not metaphors, no techniques, nothing. That's a strength, here - like I said before, it's not like a poem, it's like a speech, or like preaching, and that's really fitting for the subject matter.
There is some symbolism, though - God and the bible come into it at some point. And they go straight out, unfortunately. I would have liked more of God in this, more invocation of God. Or else, there is no use in mentioning him. If you are deferring to the supreme authority, you have to treat it like such. It is strange, to say, 'Well, God says blah blah... - but you listen to me!' I'd structure it as: SPEAKER, GOD, DENOUEMENT. The denouement being the triumphant last couplet, which I want to address later. The other symbol, though - the contrast between White Oppressor and Black Oppressed, Coloniser and Colonised, etc., is really good. It matches up with the 'The world has become colour blind' thing. You start off with - THE WORLD IS ONLY BLACK AND WHITE, and you discuss how that is, and that's really good.
As for the topic: I addressed it earlier, it's a négritude poem, a blackness poem, a post-colonial poem. It is an African-American reclaiming his - I'm assuming - identity, and loudly chronologing his oppression, in poetry, and that's really good. These kinds of poems are important. And I hope you continue to write on these themes, because not enough poetry has been written about it.
I was concerned, when I first started reading it, though, I admit - when I saw the title I was a little worried because you know how often MLK is co-opted by white liberals who are secretly racist - the 'white moderate' as King called them, himself - and then I saw the first line and it talks about being colour blind which is like, augh... Oh god. Because that is a term so many white liberals use, to say 'Oh, I'm not racist - I don't see race, I'm colourblind!' and I was worried. And then we got to the line, and I was still a little confused, and you say 'White man inferior' and I thought - oh god! Now we're talking about oppressed whitey! But, luckily I was corrected by the rest of the poem. So, it's a new spin on colour blind rhetoric, I'll give it that. And I'm sure it was a mistake where you say the white man is inferior. (Unless you mean morally inferior or whatever - in which case, it didn't come across.)
The poem does fail at presenting the matter for much of the poem, though. I must say this - yes, I know exactly what it is about, I know what you are saying. But if I was unaware of the black struggle, if I was unaware of racism, if I was unaware of colonialism, and so on, I wouldn't really know what you were talking about. 'What's all this?' I'd say. And, really, that's a problem for you - it really is a 101 type poem, it's a very simple poem, in its meaning. You are saying, 'There is racism.' But in order for me to really get anything out of this poem, I have to know that there is racism already. Basically: anyone who is going to have any connection to the poem doesn't need to read the poem. Which is unfortunate.
This goes back to your problem with language, in my view. You've struggled to express it. And I think it's good for where you are as a poet, and more experience with poetry will make you a better poet, obviously. And it's a good place to start, with this poem. But it is not great at doing what it hopes to do.
The last couplet though; oh! Wow! What a beautiful couplet! I love this sort of climactic 'I AM MARTIN LUTHER KING, I AM A NEGRO.' You are not writing as him, I do not think, or at least you're doing it tongue-in-cheek. You're aware it's you writing it. But you identify yourself with him triumphantly - and actually, after the climax. 'We ARE this, we CAN do this', kind of like, 'WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!' And then finally, in the sigh afterwards, 'I am King, I am a negro.' It's glorious. And the relationship between the climax and the assumption of King - WE can do this, I am this. That's really important. You cement yourself firmly inside the black struggle, and it's beautiful.
So, there are elements of shining power in this poetry, and there are good mechanics, but it has its weaknesses, is what I'm saying.