Here I will post answers to the questions as they come in, but I will not include names, just in case that makes anyone uncomfortable. We will hopefully be able to use answers from the class to generate discussion about Ross Gay. 

 

 

QUESTION #1: The American Poetry Review received both versions of Ross Gay's poem involving the dog but chose to only publish the one in which the dog isn't killed. Why do you think they chose that poem over the other?

 

•  I think the American Poetry Review chose the version where the dog is not killed because the narrator becomes someone who the reader can empathize with better than if he chose to kill the dog. Anger and hate are hard emotions for people to grapple with sometimes, especially if they don't experience hate in the way the speaker is feeling it. Empathizing with someone who just lost their mother, or someone that is going through a mental crisis is more relatable, but someone that kills a dog in expression of their anger and hate, even if they don't truly mean it and feel remorse after doing so, is harder to understand. Especially considering the fact that he is able to go and pick raspberries and try to show compassion toward his love after killing his dog. If a main point from the poem is to emphasize compassion, and how compassion can be transformed or changed from hate, than the speaker seeing a change with a visual connection with the dog is more telling of that theme and it more strongly reveals how compassion is possible and that is what is needed more in the world.

•  A good friend once asked me why it seems so often that a story with a happy ending is regarded as trash but then the same story, if it ends in tragedy, is compelling and deep. True or not, it sometimes feels like there’s a real aversion to hope and happiness in writing. Even one of our Great American Novels ends with Jay Gatsby’s extraordinary gift for hope dying with him. That said, between “Bringing the Shovel Down” and “Again,” I vastly prefer the latter. There’s enough tragedy out there, I think. Additionally, to me, I feel that the dog getting killed runs counter to Gay’s common themes and his own extraordinary gift: compassion and a sort of levity. Although the dog-killer isn’t wholly an evil child, the fact that he is a dog-killer still sours the rest of the reading. Having read some of Gay’s other stuff on this website (and his interviews), it seems a bit unlike him. I feel like this line of thinking may be similar to why the American Poetry Review published only the one in which the dog was spared: I’m not sure of the chronology of when this poem was written and published as opposed to his other work, but it runs counter to what I might be misidentifying as his usual message: we might be in a violent time, but you can’t lose sight of compassion. I might be typecasting him a little bit, though.

• The American Poetry Review definitely took a stand when they chose a singular permutation of Gay's poem. This choice was likely contingent on the rest of the published issue and how Gay's piece would color and be colored by surrounding poems. I think the full publication would have to be considered before we can consider it further. Regardless, looking at the poem in seclusion definitely presents a different world view than examining the poems in tandem; they were crafted in a dialogue, and ultimately should be read as such. Together, the two poems offer a much more comprehensive and dynamic insight into the human experience. We are both kind and killers.

•  I enjoyed reading both versions of Ross Gay’s poem. The language he uses is detailed and innovative, very different from anything I’ve read before. The American Poetry Review chose to publish the second version of the poem, the one where the dog does not die in the end, but makes peace with the boy. They most likely chose to publish this poem for one clear reason, the emotional impact of the poem. The ending to the second is generally more pleasurable to read. Most people are more sensitive to reading about or seeing animals die in any kind of media. We may not feel a connection to a character in a poem right away, but we’ve all had a pet or known a cute animal that will force us to sympathize with an innocent creature, like a dog, immediately. The American Poetry review would be taking a huge risk publishing a poem about an innocent dog dying. The second version of the poem is just as powerful, if not more, without being harsh or displeasing to read.

 

My answer: I think Ross Gay gets into the harshness and grossness of human fear in a way that hits too close to home. Many readers might have felt ashamed reading Bringing the Shovel Down, in a way that didn't feel entirely removed from themselves. We all probably have a story that shameful from our youth, or maybe even our adulthood. Everyone has to actively practice compassion and understanding to avoid violent situations like that, and maybe while reading Ross Gay's poem, some readers felt pressured or worried about a world in which fear trumps love. Also, in general what I am about to say is true but it is especially true in American culture: people love a story in which a character enters uncharted territory of some kind and triumphs. This character was defeated,  which is something many might reject as unAmerican, especially since he was defeated by an unseen enemy (himself and his own fear). 

 

 

QUESTION #2: Which version of the poem do you like better? Why?

 

•  I find it particularly difficult to respond to this question because both of the versions of the poem function differently to achieve differing affects on the reader. The main aspect of the version of the poem where the dog lives that I admire is the poet’s unconventional use of line break in constructing the closing stanzas as compared to the more established use of line break displayed within the version of the poem in which the dog dies. However, what I believe to be the original, in which the dog dies, is more concise or succinct and more clearly demonstrates the metaphor of the poem as being that misconceptions cause violence and the case of the Max and the unnamed boy might stand for any militarized conflict.

•  I obviously like "again" version better- because the dog doesn't get killed, but at the same time, I think the poems actually work better, and are more poignant as a pair than individually. I think it was pretty wise to lay out the two poems side by side as you did, because it makes comparing and contrasting a very natural process, and allows the reader to really see what stands out about each poem. In 'Bringing the Shovel Down,' the experience of killing the dog is a bit underwhelming, because as the reader, we kind of know that it's not the right thing to do, and our own sort of pious moral judgments take hold. However, in the 'Again' section, when the dog doesn't die, it is also a bit underwhelming because a part of me didn't think he had the audacity to do it in the first place (if that makes sense). Both versions are easy to identify with, and I think when they are together, they become more interesting because you can kind of pick out the human nature you want to see, or think is more accurate. The American Poetry Review probably chose to publish the version where the dog isn't killed, because it's more of an easy-read, nothing is too hard to swallow or imagine. Nothing is too graphic, like in the original version. Readers (probably) like reading happy endings more than not, especially when it comes to animals dying (people seem to have a harder time reading or watching animals die than people). I'm not sure though, it'll be interesting to see what other people have to say. 

 

My answer: I actually prefer the one where he kills the dog, just because I like things a little murkier morality wise. I don't typically read stories with clear moral messages for enjoyment. I really have enjoyed Ross Gay's poetry despite the obvious morality. It may seem like I'm making a case against being moral, but that isn't what I mean at all. I like ethical poetry, but I just like it to be less obvious. Like the first poem still clearly was not advocating to kill dogs, but it wasn't directly righting that wrong within the poem. It felt more emotionally impactful because I was left to sort through the emotions in the poem and come to some sort of conclusion on my own. One might argue that it was more effective in promoting awareness of the problem (fear and ignorance resulting in violence) as it forced readers to engage with the wrong and come up with their own right. 

 

 

QUESTION #3: What type of textual mapping do you find most interesting? Political, physical, emotional?

 

•  I truly do not intend this to sound like a cop out response - but I really like when there are intersections (political, physical, emotional) within a poem instead of just one. This is what stood out to me about "Two Bikers Embrace on Broad Street." There is a physical mapping of the city, placing the bikers on Broad in front of a hospital - meaning there are a finite number of places they could be. There is also the physicality of their embrace. But there are also the political undertones about our expectations related to biker gangs and homosexuality and PDA. And all of those themes are ensconced within this incredibly emotional scene. It’s this “untranslatable” sharing of grief (or joy, who knows) that humans inherently relate to that ties it together and makes it important.

• All of the works we have looked at thus far have approached mapping in a different way. From Jacobs and Decerteau to Wilde and Blake. A we survey different types of textual mapping I have found the most interesting style to be the physical. The physical often mentions specific locations and their surroundings, normally for an intended purpose of mapping the are. For example is Blake's Holy Thursday St. Paul's is used as a symbol of political and religious oppression but by simply centering the poem around the physical building and how people interact with it he is able to paint a multi layered portrait of an area that has many different associations. What I find most interesting in textual mapping is how it paints a picture of a public area that is often in real time, outlining an area by it's actual happenings. Elijah Anderson's Code of the Street skillfully treks down Germantown Avenue and maps the area through observation and the borders created between differing communities. While Anderson doesn't write in verse, those poems that are based in the physical form of mapping often turn into the poems I enjoy most and I find to be most intriguing. When each of us enters an area we are interacting with the physical and our impression of the area is almost entirely dependent upon how we interact with the physical world. The emotional and political responses often stem from the physical interaction, like in Frank O'Hara's lunch poems. Textually mapping an area through the physical environment first often grounds and poem and allows for it to extend to the other textual forms of mapping such as political and emotional.

• While I think the best poets hit on more than one type of mapping, I would have say to emotional mapping is the most interesting to me. Physical and political mappings definitely have the potential to connect with readers, but as you pointed out, when “poetry [is] more dependent upon physical mapping, readers unfamiliar with the [place]…find themselves left out and they [are not] able to understand”. I think the same thread of thought could be said about political mapping-if the readers are unaware or uninterested in the politics behind a poem, a lot of meaning is lost. I do agree that Gay is effective with his hints of physical mapping, as I definitely felt more of a connection to his works since I am familiar with Philadelphia. This being said, Gay’s emotional mapping still remains more interesting to me. Gay is able to create emotional connections with readers in multiple ways, but one that stood out to me is his colloquial word choice. In “To the Fig Tree on 9th and Christian”, Gay creates a conversation tone with simple, casual phrases. I specifically noted his choice to say “yes” three times, as if responding to someone, as well as the lines that include “I mean” and “goddammit”. Although it might be stretch to say these phrases are universally recognized, I do think they are much more relatable than physical places or politics. Gay’s emotional mapping interests me because his poems are written to connect on both broad and individual levels.

•  I tend to be drawn to emotional textual mapping more than physical or political. Aside from the fact that I’m simply not concerned with politics, I find it easier to detect and relate to emotions via writing or other outlets. Overall, I’m sure that many others would agree, seeing that showing and interpreting emotions are attributes that humans strongly possess, and they seem to set us apart from other animals, especially since we can use language to relay our emotions. Everyone can attest to emotions such as happiness, sadness, and feeling loved (or at least reciprocating that same action). That being said, even if one has never directly experienced loss or grief, such as in Gay’s “Bringing Down the Shovel”, it’s possible that that person can still draw upon other related experiences or emotions in order to feel sympathy for the speaker.

• As considering myself to be a more rather visually-inclined person, I actually find the physical to be the most interesting. This is especially the case with RG's poetry as I am also a Philadelphian and I know the locations very clearly as I have spent most of my life passing by these locations, even indistinctly described ones, so that is to say that I know these ares quite well by visual memory. Having said that I believe that physical mapping is the most essential in the same way that one might interpret a painting and assert emotional content and context, I think that RG does so in his poetry. He is able to take a landscape that i know quite well and paint a picture for me that establishes context. He captures a moment quite elegantly whether a group under a tree on a familiar and friendly corner, or on a stretch of highly trafficked of Broad st. where a good deal of people may share in a moment's embrace. The emotional content to me is very close to the physical and RG does a lot for me without actually saying much here. I get the pictures he paints in my eyes as I have had those kinds of moment of living and bearing witness to life and all its subtleties in this literal locations. I think RG accomplishes a great deal in a minimal and honest style that I feel I can actually see.

•  I personally find the emotional realm of textual mapping to be the most interesting, because I think that from an emotional perspective, so much other commentary has the opportunity to spring forth. If a poem or text garners an emotional or sensory response in the reader, I feel like him or her is more motivated to look into the meaning further. I have been interested recently in the movement in literature labeled "sentimentalism." It usually comes with bad connotations, linked to women writers who are deemed too emotional and not logical enough. This is clearly a very dismissive remark as many male artists are hailed for their emotive works, and I personally think some of Ross Gay's poems are very emotional. I rarely believe the personal and political can be separated, and I think using those conventions as an advantage is very beneficial to the author and reader alike. I get impressions of this through Gay's poetry, which is autobiographical at times but provides commentary on political and social issues.

 

My answer: I prefer the emotional. Political can be great too, if I am aware of the people and situations being discussed. In Sanchez's elegy, if someone didn't know about the MOVE bombing they would not have understood what was going on. They could have still appreciated the intensity of the language and the accusations about Philadelphia/public officials in general, but they wouldn't have gotten the same depth as someone familiar with the MOVE organization. Physical mappings can also be interesting, but again only if the reader is familiar with what is being discussed. I found much of the older British poetry or prose mentioning physical locations to be boring, because I didn't know those places and therefore the implications in the poetry for those places and the people who frequent them. I found the reading mapping Germantown Ave to be interesting though, because I know the area generally and can appreciate the insights and description.

 

 

 

QUESTION #4: What text from the syllabus does Ross Gay's poetry remind you of? Compare or contrast.

 

• “To the Fig Tree on Ninth and Christian” starts out much like Swift's “City Shower” in that it takes readers to the street level of a women sweeping and gives insight into the backgrounds of individuals on the street at a particular moment. Also like Swift, Gay incorporates a social commentary in this poem, but in a very different way. There is no irony or sarcasm with Gay. This poem is choppy and disjointed creating a stream of conscious effect. This use of free verse draws attention to the fact that the people of the city are similarly disjointed, except in this instance at the fig tree. I think the fig tree in this poem represents the importance of community coming together to appreciate the little things. I think it could also be read as a social critique on diversity and immigration as the fig tree is not native to Philadelphia and is not expected to thrive out of the Mediterranean, but it does, producing plentiful fruit for the community, much like an immigrant does. He also makes sure to acknowledge the hardships of the immigrants with whom he shares a figs with: “from the hand of a man who escaped his country by swimming through the night.” Also there is a clear message about respecting the elderly or more broadly any type of diversity in the city. Gay presents the city as violent as it has "murdered its own people,” offering a social commentary, but also offers a sense of hope with the depiction of the gathering at the fig tree. He moves in an out of the individual and the group, alluding to discomfort that may come with being in both positions.