I'd like to start by saying a few things:
1) I only read this book once upon writing this.
2) My taste in poetry tends to lean toward the heavy narrative, accessible - think Bukowski, Hoagland (Here is where Bill might say, "leave your personal bias out of this".
3) I am really trying to write/read out of my comfort zone- so this might have been the best book for me to read to get into that zone.
While reading this book my body ran the gamut of emotions. I was first confused trying very hard to pluck out a connective thread - to the point of almost giving myself a headache. I became relieved as (it seems to me) things became a little more fluid as the book went on. I started to wonder, is this book making more sense, or is my brain adaptively embracing the language of Ceravalo? Is it safe to assume that as the book aged (Part I, Part II, Part III) that it also evolved... as a Bushman evolves into modern day human? Are humans writing the same poems over and over again, the general feeling is the same- but the words, phrasing and languages differ?
Here are my thoughts:
Any book that makes one think so much about language has value. There is no doubt in my mind that this man has lots of talent, it was just lost on me. I was forced out of my box because he was constantly switching language, ideas, and making up his own words. This does two things for reader Katie Radd, 1) confuses the hell out of me and makes me angry. 2) makes me rethink the way I'm reading and take each word as it is. Eventually I had to surrender (I assume this is the best way to read this) and just allow myself to listen to the words, the very apparent rhythm and allow myself to enjoy the ride. It's a lesson one learns when doing shrooms the first time- the more you fight it... the harder it is on you. There were even a line I really liked. May I?
"Forgot myself and then you could become"
I may be way off on this bushman thing- but its just what kept popping in my head. Is anyone else with me on this?? I'd like to discuss more.
I think "aged" and bushman-to-human is an apropos description of the way the collection progresses. To use a terrible analogy, when I wake up, I'm quite incoherant, but then as the day progresses I become more "with it." But the more I think of it, given the title, that might be more appropriate than I initially intended. The incoherance of waking eventually becoming transcended?
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this post!
Kirk- you brought that thing full f-in circle! Fits of Dawn = waking up. you might be onto something, and if not- i still like it.
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoy the title in general, Fits of Dawn. Maybe I hadn't thought too much about how the title fits into the overall tone of the collection, I was too stuck on my bushman thing. Interesting.
Final thing, the first time I read Catcher in the Rye (age 12?) I didn't "get it". By no means does my "getting something" have anything to do with it's overall quality, or even, its impact on my life. Just wanted to throw that in there.