Analysis of “Hitler Skeleton Goldplated (From Treasures of the C.I.A. Museum, Edited by Hilton Kramer, with an Introduction by Jerzy Kosinski. Random House/IBM, 1984)

I have no idea what this poem is about.  I’ve read this many times, and laughed many times.  But if this poem is a commentary on anything, then it’s the seriousness we take history.

Automatically though, there are so many allusions in the title so I feel like I’m missing a lot that the internet cannot provide.  Is Treasures of the CIA Museum a book which I cannot find.  Why the mention of Hitler Kramer, someone who wrote about the Avant-Garde, and/or Jerszy Kosinski?  Also when did Random House/IBM merge together and what is the significance in 1984.

Welp, this is what we get with the first stanza:

What falls from the drunken pliers of my nose
President-pit pope-rind police-bone
Is all they got on this fucking menu
Always the pure provend of more more more

Surreal images along with alliterative play with an angry tone?  Also the subject is centered around the play and there’s no singular direction.  I find this funny.

This piss tease of masterpiece ass
The missionary position is there to catch you
If you drip off that mosquito plaque I guess
Gumming a gift horse’s defectual innocence

I think for me, the tone is what changes most in this poem, as well as some focus.  The tone turns with “I guess” in the middle of such surreal lines.  Just as a note — each line has a surreal image or play with an individual make up.  Furthermore, with no punctuation in this poem, this feels more like a found poem than anything to elucidate the strength and disparity in the connective tissues.  Where else would someone find “Piss tease of masterpiece ass”?

The gunfire in the hills is old and I
am one pile of shit which will never excrete a human
Hey Parliament Congress Politburo

I was surprised that “Politburo” is an actual word.  But now we get into the political with the last line.  The previous two lines though…that image is burned into my mind which can never perish.

My cock/my KGB has it on lasertape
The moon posing between the horns of a bull
Two hymens touching through milk.

I had to double check my definition of hymen again.  Yup, it’s what I remembered.  The only connective thread I can make is, well, the sexual allusions that are more talk than action — a sort of play — then the undertone of something political that seems suppressed.   The gold plating — the play, the skeleton (or frame) apparent but not truly seen underneath?  Yeah, my analysis is not so good for this poem.

Analysis of “Unspeakable” and “Romance (Hendecasyllabics)”

 

“Unspeakable”

Well, this one line poem is more of a craft and visual play.  Visual because, yes, the comma does indeed look like a period which leaks “,” but also there are some situations in which the sentence should end with a period, but a comma keeps the idea and the momentum moving — a leak of sorts (see this sentence as an example).

 

“Romance (Hendecasyllabic)”

My knowledge of form is not that strong, hence, wikipedia link to Hendecasyllabics.  I tried to scan the poem based on long and short syllables and I’m pretty horrible at it (everything came up as short syllables “u” which I’m pretty sure is not right).  However, the eleven syllables are there.

Why? To emulate Frost, Catullus, or Swinburne?  Not sure.  Probably there isn’t an answer, but the poem does announce its form in the title.

Anyway, the poem starts out with with “Romance” as the object in which “But when it had engulfed them two by two, / The Ark itself became a greater creature,”  Yes, I know the “two by two” can be a reference to animals, but what “Romance” in the title does is  paint any coupled situation in the poem in its direction.  “an omni animal.  And yet Noah knew, / surely this new behemoth shall also pair / and mate now,”

The forced coupling, or the divine knowledge that everything should be a couple.  In either case the ideal becomes more explained through the persona of Noah:

[…] and that unlike the beasts before
this one is destined then to find true marriage,
because as soon as he keel breaks the water,
born beneath it will be that surface image.

What’s brought to light is the reflection of the ark in the water which not only is a mimicked pair, but a pair that can’t leave if there’s always water surrounding the boat.  “none of us desires to engage in divorce– / Natural nuptial partner, mirrored other,”  Here is the key line that passes from persona play to something more.  These lines is more of a commentary of having another.

“none of us desires to engage in divorce” seems like a long line, but there’s the play in ideas through language — engage and divorce; furthermore the word “Natural” has more weight in this poem than “The Ark” since everything coupled is simulated.  The speaker betrays the persona only a little bit here to bring insight.

But then we’re back, “the Ark’s clone would emerge from nowhere out there / in the waves. ”  As I stated before, an object surrounded by a reflection.  But then, “And upside down hold bound the course, / faithfully accompany her spouse across / any world to reach at last their offspring shore.”

The poem is saved from sentimentality because the re-engagement of the persona.  It is the persona that is “faithful”  and it is the personal that would travel with a spouse (regardless of fabrication) to “their offspring shore.”

 

Analysis of “Operation Crosszero”

I didn’t realize this poem alludes heavily to Jesus until the last line of the first stanza.  What I imagined with the title was something more war-like, and, to a certain extent, something of an militaristic. In any case, the poem plays with the mixture of religion and militaristic.

The form of the poem is an abab rhyme scheme that indicates more of a separation of the same ideals or at least the struggle between two.  Furthermore, each stanza is end-stopped as though to encapsulate an idea.

     Sunny or storm the clouds always once
Will form some sudden shape which appears
Unique, though my that same shadowstance
Recur each thirty three point three years?

So here there’s a discussion about the setting and how something “Unique” comes about.  Note the idea of the “shadowstance” which has metaphorical Jungian weight since the previous two lines appear to be exposition to strengthen the importance of the years “thirty three point three years?”  Two things about the last line.  How does the last line form into a question?  and why is “point” “point”?  I think the last line adds humor to the allusion as though to write — yes, this is what I’m writing about  — specifically — now try to take the allusion away when you continue reading.

     Shall heaven’s cycles of beginnings
and ends hover concealed from the eye:
What blitzkrieg visits have its big bangs
Planned; whose planet-kill queue that blue sky.

So the first two lines focuses on cyclical concealment, and what’s being hidden from view?  A blitzkrieg.  A destruction.  A violence.  Remember this is not seen which with follow through with the next stanza but negates the idea of the shadow and something appearing as foretold in the first stanza.

     Their blast orbits blind deciphersight–
Or can reconnaissance flights thrust up
Agents to infiltrate that great height,
Stealth probes properly trained to snoop deep.

Here is complete military language.   And at this point I forget about the Jesus allusion, but not the divine one with “great height.”  But still, note how blind not is only taking away the visual, but also taking away the ability to decipher.  Why do this?  Why stealth probes in an obvious situation?  To know what can’t be known — the divine, perhaps?  Maybe the idea of who is unique?

     On Earth secrets beget enemies . . .
Clandestine torture, covert sortie
Let’s intell-strip bare those countries.

Yes, I only put three lines when I shouldn’t have.  Why?  This introduces the we speaker who the speaker appropriates his opinion on.  “Intell-strip” borders on crossing the line, but the line reminds me back to the thirty three point three years and how — now — we’re going to see another version of the crucifixion in which we need to do to show something.

     A third of the way through his thirty

Third year we hoisted up our best black
Op to spydrop us down more data;
The turncout never reported back,
(Codename: Christ) the dirty traitor.

So Christ as a black op.  I think the parenthetical lays on the allusion a little too thick but I also think it’s necessary as well — it’s the part where I have the most interest.  Why?  The parenthetical plays with the concept of the poem of hidden and seen.  What’s hidden is the we and the divine, and by specifically calling out the codename as a secret which “Beget enemies” the allusion to Jesus feels more of a supplement.

We want to know what’s up there, and Jesus, who said he’d return, never did — well maybe.  I don’t think this poem is heavily religious criticism.  But more points out the nature of “we” and figuring out how one way we figure out the unknown — through violent espionage and flurried militarism.

Analysis of “The Golden Age”

When I first read this poem, the first thing I wrote on the top was “a won confession”    The poem starts out with the comparative allegory of The Golden age as a confession, something built up to open out.  So then the question becomes, “by endless torture, but which our interrogators must / hat to record.”  Does a golden age happen without being chronicled?  “all those old code names, dates, / the standard narrative of sandpaper / throats even their remorse, fall ignored.”  This sequence goes from chronology to interpretation to emotion.  By creating the sequence this way, the poem opens up to more than just a commentary on a time frame.

The shift then occurs with a more personal scene with:

[…]Far

away, a late (not lost) messenger stares,
struck by window bargains or is it the gift
of a sudden solicitude:

Here, there is the either/or condition.  The beginning gambit is the initial onset of window bargains; however, upon closer inspection there’s self awareness of “concern, anxiety” (which the speaker plays on language here).  And from this self recognition, the messenger goes further in, “is she going to / lift up her shadow’s weight, shift hers / onto it?”  These lines are forcing the metaphor not only from the speaker’s point of view, but also the subjects.  This is the start where I lose focus just because I was mostly interested in the play of surreal play in the first stanza.

I think it’s the start of the third stanza where I lose some interest in the poem, “that momentary museum where memory occurs, / more accrues of those torturer’s pincers”  It’s the alliteration that forces the language and the poem, just as the previous stanza with forced shadow metaphor.  I think this poem would’ve been stronger without the second stanza and then the focus is on the “fall” rather than focusing on the character of the messenger or the alliteration.  In this way there is a focus on the reader’s voyeurism versus reader’s interpretation, “lessened fingernails, eyes teased to a pulp, / we beg for closeups.”

“Ormolus, objets d’art!” I don’t know what this means?  Should I?  I feel the last image is strong though, “A satyr drains an hourglass with one gulp.” Even though this image is a bit out there, I feel this image fits more with the way the first and third stanzas are structured a real intense surreal play and then something lighthearted as a break which refers back to time in some way.

Analysis of “Goodbye”, “Example”, “To A Dead Friend”, “[Untitled]”

When I was asked to be a contributor to this blog, I said sure with no hesitation.  During my MFA days, one of my teachers, Samuel Maio, once told his students that they should study one poet: life and work, to see what can be gained.  And ever since I was introduced to Bill Knott by my mentor, Alan Soldofsky, I’ve been trying to read as much of Bill Knott’s work as possible.  Recently, I was sent Bill Knott’s “Collected Poetry” — a 456 page massive collection with multiple poems on a page.  I haven’t counted out how many poems are in the collected.

Well, let’s just start one page at a time.

“Goodbye”

There’s one poem I thought about when rereading this poem — “When You Grow Old” by William Butler Yeats.  Maybe this poem is a response to the Yeat’s poem, maybe not.  But now that I have this knowledge, I can only see these poems connected.  In Yeats poem there is a separation.  The speaker leaves a poem for someone to read which creates a different world for a reader where the reader is loved, “But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,” which eventually leaves in one form, “how Love fled”.

Now with “Goodbye” there’s the same premise of, “If you are still alive when you read this,” but the change is to stop reading, “close your eyes.”  Why is this important.  Yeat’s poem is that the words are a trigger of an experience.  But with this poem the trigger here is when the reader is devoid of senses.

“I am / under their lids, growing black.” In comparison, Yeat’s black is the devoid of emotion and the reiteration of the loss; meanwhile, in this poem, the “black” has more of a contemporary twist to me — devoid, not so much.  The shadow, the subconscious, hate, emotions, whatever.  This is what this in which the Yeat’s poem doesn’t — there’s more of an open interpretation to the reader.  Yeat’s poem, based around love, uses the emotion as a base — remember my love through my words.  This poem is more of “remember me through interpretation,”  Whatever a reader wants to believe, just believe.

“Example”

This poem plays with humor and is dependent on the fluctuating line length.  The opening line is the conceit, “All my thoughts are the same” and then there’s the question of “same” in what terms, but the humor (the perpendicular approach of what is wanted and what is there) happens with the confirmation of what same refers to, “length–they’re lines.” And here the poem feels like it’s mocking the reader into trying to figure out more, but at the same time, this mock is more of a light jab when the speaker refers to the speaker, “you may protest”

And what is the reader protesting? “that on the page they seem dissimilar / in their duration”  again a play on lengths that continue on with the poem, but then the speaker tries to recapitulate and turn the reader’s perspective, “but I swear to all you / unregulated readers-of-prose.”  Here is where the speaker slightly brings up the debate that poetry can be “prose just chopped up” and up until this point, the poem does feel too linear, too didactic.

“that in their passage / through my mind / each of these took an equal amount of time.”  Selfish.  I mean this in the most endearing way.  The funny thing of this poem is that the speaker refers to the readers thoughts and structure by being linear as though to backtrack on the initial statement– you think this way, let me tell you reader why it is not what you think — butt the mind of the speaker isn’t so much here.  it’s as though the speaker surprises himself through trying to explain himself.  So there is a reason after all.

“To a Dead Friend”

This poem is based on seeing things on the other side.  The first image is, “mourning clothes worn / inside out / would be white.”  The color is arbitrary here — rather the play.  What are mourning clothes?  Suits, black cloth?  When reversed they are the same cloth with this exception — lining.  The lining, here, is white which contrasts the exterior.  The idea of contrasts is further delved into through the repetition of the “if” question.  “if thing were right / if opposites ruled / if truth prevailed”  Here this list of if are full of generalities, idealistic ones, or rather the idea of the positive non-descript.

 then me and you
would be two
instead of the one
we’ve become

contrasts of expectation.  Two seems more of a separation and one is more feels more of a combination in elegiac poem.  But here’s the rub, the “two” refers to “me and you” concepts based on existence.  But the one here and the other there.  It’s a contrast like concepts versus the actual

“[Untitled]”

Here is more of a humorous logical puzzle.

“after the carnival suddenly / mysteriously burnt down they / stirred the fortunteller’s ashes”  Wasn’t it Stephen King who wrote, “The road to hell is paved with adverbs.”  Well, I guess the burning down of a carnival is a sort of special hell which needs two adverbs to describe it”suddenly” and “mysteriously.”  However, these adverbs will add a sense of irony with the last three lines/

“to try to find the reason why / but sadly it seems prophecy / does not work in reversus” hindsight or the more humorous finding the reasons of a past event through a fortune teller.  But the core of the poem is the idea that prophecy, if wrong, cannot be explained why its wrong.  Or rather, if there’s a concept like a divined plan — why would a fortune teller know the “result” but not the “process”