[Edits below.]
[Addendum: The Academy of American Poets website has Elizabeth Alexander's inaugural poem, "Praise Song for the Day," with its proper line breaks. The poem is 14 tercets and one final single-line stanza here.]
Goodness, if any of us poets actually envy Ms. Alexander for the task of writing and delivering the inaugural poem for President Obama (!!), then we is fuckin nuts. That said, I don’t think I can respond substantially to her poem until I read an actual printed out copy of it, as I am really more of a visual learner. But some immediate thoughts:
In choosing a rather plainspoken register, and in her deliberately even toned, almost restrained delivery, the end result was just OK, if not a little underwhelming, but not disappointing. From what I can remember of the poem, I feel like it must’ve been the opposite of Maya Angelou’s what I imagine as booming inspirational verse with winged beasts in flight and all. I could be wrong about Angelou.
Alexander doesn’t boom; at least I don’t think she does. As well, the nation really wasn’t anticipating (1) images of themselves as everyday people, teachers, farmers, working mothers, etc. quietly going about their everyday lives as momentous occasions are happening, but rather the momentous occasion itself, in all its revelry and glory, and (2) a poet who doesn’t orate with flair, charisma, and passion. In fact, I think Rick Warren’s invocation and his sweeping rhetoric of inclusion, delivered with a Christian sermon’s dramatic touches, was really the more anticipated type of “verse” for the occasion.
[After Alexander's poem, I had to get back to my desk (as I'd just spent too much time watching the break room's TV), so I don't really know what's happened since. I've just read on Dean Rader's blog that Rev. James Lowery's benediction included the final stanza of a poem by James Weldon Johnson, and was thus very "poetic" in his delivery.]
Still, this is not to say there is no value to Alexander’s poem; I very much appreciate her calling our collective attention to the everyday Americans who are going about our lives as this grand thing called “history” is happening. It’s unpopular and unglamorous, and in this way, it isn’t the safest thing a poet could do.
Again I refer to Dean Rader whose assessment of Elizabeth Alexander’s inaugural poem is here, in which he says, her poem was just fine.
A couple more thoughts:
(1) Let me reiterate what I think I am trying to say in my first paragraph — imagine trying to read a poem, your own poem, in that kind of venue. What would you do to be heard, what would you write to be heard, how would you hope to affect an audience that massive and expansive?
(2) I also had this dreadful feeling that poets and poetry in the USA really have bought some real estate on the margins of mainstream societies, and are invested in maintaining if not improving its equity.
Then again, I think of all of the community events, political rallies and demonstrations, and cultural events, I have attended and in which I’ve participated over the years; poets have always been so integral to these. In my community, poets are cultural heroes. In places outside of the USA, we see plainly how poets are highly regarded. think about Mahmoud Darwish’s deep importance to his people, how the people of Palestine mourned his passing as they mourned Yassir Arafat’s passing. Think of all the cab drivers and farmers who could recite Darwish’s lines from memory. Certainly, he was speaking to their plight, i.e. he wrote poems which were relevant to them. In the meantime, we complain that no one buys or reads poetry in this country.
Alexander’s inaugural poem, which the NY Times has just printed here, is a “We” poem which is very relevant to our nation and our American lives, and she tells us that our everyday lives and work, all of these individual deeds are great and necessary ones (and imagine how great they are when considered all together), but this seems not to be what it is we as a nation want from our poets, but rather, a romanticized version of ourselves, or just an erasure of ourselves.
I’ve got the transcript on my blog.
I think it’s an actually good poem, esp. for one written to order. Alexander was obviously nervous, lost her place. Upon reading it, I’m struck by the images. Some of the are actually quite lovely.
Hi Barbara,
You’re right about the difficulty of reading in front of all those people (2 million, I think). In addition to that, she had to follow President Obama. Even before she spoke, it felt anticlimactic. She was in a difficult position. She should be proud. Thanks for your thoughts.
I was underwhelmed by the poem, but I think I would have been more moved by it had she used a different style of delivery. She seemed a bit stage struck. The poem itself is nice, however I do not believe it fit the majesty of the occasion. That doesn’t mean her message was inappropriate; I just think it needed a different forum. Her delivery may have even worked in a different forum.
The poem read was less than great, maybe good but it did not draw me to inspiration or tears, it did not make me think deeply about much. I personaly found it quite shallow without delivery to enhance its potential. Barak could have made a much better choice.
I thought the poem was good, a daunting task for anyone to have to write to order. I am pleased that poetry was included in the Inauguration and enjoyed the entire program.
Thanks all for your comments. I think it’s interesting that responses (elsewhere in e-world, not here) to Alexander’s poem range from “vapid” (really, this is a bit unkind) to esoteric and inaccessible.
Again, I think the poem is perfectly fine, especially now that I have been able to read it in its proper format (see the Academy of American Poets link above). It’s well measured, and, and in response to Tom McMahon’s comment, as I have written above, it isn’t meant to be booming inspirational verse. I disagree with your assessment of the poem as “shallow”; I believe Alexander makes it a point to use very familiar concrete everyday images. In other words: the very point of the poem is just that, as I have stated in my blog post twice: we everyday folk go about our daily lives of working, going to school, taking care of our families, as grand “historical” events are happening.
So I am quite glad to be having a conversation about poetry in this massive forum of BARACK (note the spelling) Obama’s inauguration. I appreciate that people are being very thoughtful about this: poetry and what it means to do and say, how it does or does not hold relevance in our American lives. I hope this is a step away from the anti-intellectualism that marked the era of George W. Bush’s administration.
Whoever called the poem “inaccessible” is a total moron. And you can quote me.
OK, and I thought we were having a critical conversation over here about poetry and its relevance to our everyday American lives. I’ll give you a chance to say something substantial here because most of the time you do. But honestly, Collin, I don’t need this kind of energy here. Respectfully, BJR
I also have the poem on my blog. Along with some comments.
I was especially struck by the line “Say it plain: that many have died for this day.” She follows this with a litany of things that people have done historically: “laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, // picked the cotton and the lettuce, built / brick by brick the glittering edifices / they would then keep clean and work inside of.” She refers to Chinese Americans here, and Irish Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans. Very cool.
It was very tough to follow Obama’s speech. They should have had Alexander read her poem in the Aretha slot, because Aretha could quite easily have followed Obama. There are probably not many people who could make an impact after Obama’s speech, but Aretha could have. Oh well.
I’m with you on this Vince. Her form appears to be very finely considered, and the form really makes a difference in my reading of it. As well, the poem’s message is inclusive and concrete. Anyone directly following Obama’s speech would have had a hell of a time speaking there, but you know, (and Oscar says this on his blog), how fitting it is for the poet to follow Obama; the first thing that happens after Obama is officially our president, is poetry. Post-post-9/11 poetry?
Anyway, I am still feeling a bit of this unease about how Americans perceive poetry, but as a general rule, critical reading is not a popular thing.
aside from her extremely weak delivery, my main issue with the poem is that it feels like an early draft. It feels like she’s still feeling around for her main images, her main point. It’s not focused enough.
the first few “everyday acts” stanzas are alright, but she needed to generate more and pick the hotter images and sharpen and hone it.
then the transition into the opening out, which comes among the three stanzas that begin with these lines — “we cross dirt roads” “I know there’s something better” “say it plain” — is just a soupy mess. This poem was written to be read aloud to millions of people on radio and tv, so it needed to have a simple structure and an simple opening out. the transition could have been long, but it needed to be in one direction.
instead, here we get her being tentative. in each of these three stanzas she starts a thought and then changes her mind in the next stanza to start a new thought. it’s hesitant, stuttering. there’s no authority in her voice here, at a point when her voice should slow down to gather authority.
“say it plain” finally gets her somewhere. it drops her into a groove and a thought and she rides it for two stanzas … and then stops again. why?
then she plows directly into “praise song for the day” without transition, which is jarring. “praise song for the day” is benediction; this is the hands opening out to bless the crowd. but she hasn’t earned it. she hasn’t ramped us up to it yet. we need to break into “praise song” when our emotions are approaching a peak.
so the phrase “praise song for the day” needed to come nearer the end, at a point when she can repeat “praise” two or three times because we’re there already, in the praise. instead, she goes back DOWn into explanation in the next stanza, back to the original rhythm of everyday.
the line “what if the mightiest word is love?” should have been the transition into the opening out. and it isn’t even earned here. where is love discussed previously?
“praise song for walking forward in that light” would be a great closer if she had talked about “light” AT ALL in the preceding poem.
no, this is a very rough draft.
The Baltimore Sun’s Read book blog (www.baltimoresun.com/readstreet) and yesterday interviewed Elizabeth Alexander about her inauguration day poem, which generated a lot of discussion on the blog. She spoke about her preparation, her reading and the reaction. I posted excerpts on the blog, as well as a link to audion of the full 15-minute interview. Hope you enjoy it.