Consumed with passion? June 6, 2012
Her poem posted on June 6 continued a theme that made me
extremely uncomfortable.
Perhaps because it has a grain of truth.
In this poem, she uses a very familiar metaphor of food. At
first glance, a reader knowing her might mistake the subject as part of her
eating disorder. But after close reading it clearly is not.
It is about obsession, and while it could be directed at her
New York stalker, it seems more likely targeting me.
Paraphrased, the poem suggests something, or someone seems
better when you desire it, and that desire is fulfilled. But there are people
who are not satisfied with just that, and want much more, going behind
reasonable and into the realm of perverse, hyping up the thing into something it
never was and never could be, mangling what had been something pure into
something ugly, a deluded lust that eventually destroys itself, as well as the
object of his affections.
I use the word “he” and “she”, but the poem does not, using “one”
and “it” instead, thus avoiding making this poem seem like merely a personal
attack, when it is something much, much more.
He blames her for the loss, but it was his arrogance that
destroyed it (love, lust, affection whatever.)
He is unable to distinguish between his obsessive desire for
what was innocent and without fault and maintains a perverted version of that
lust inside his head that is “criminal” and obsessed with getting “more and
more” which really cannot exist. In the end, he destroys what might have been
possible.
This is one of her longer poems and it displays her
brilliance at being able to maintain an extended metaphor, relating all of the
elements to food to make a powerful and painful point.
Food tastes better, some people say, when you’re hungry. But
some people starve themselves in anticipation of even greater pleasure.
Food here could stand for love, or lust, sex or even
companionship, but serves as a symbol for something more significant, power
maybe, control perhaps.
The villain is greedy, seeking a greater kick, so what once
might have been pure becomes perverse. Whereas he could have enjoyed simple pleasure,
he ruins it by seeking something more, “forcing gross want in its place.”
This is kind of saying “You could have had something good,
but you pushed it all too far” and in fact, he is seeking something he’s fooled
himself into thinking he wants. And then, he resorts to “violent pretense.” Something
that consumes him and the object of his affections.
She claims he is so out of touch with reality (nature) that
even his own body rejects it and when he can’t get what he wants he gets angry,
and the destruction comes from what she calls “misplaced vengeance.”
He blames her even though it is “wrapped up in his own
arrogance,” and is consumed with destroying it, including himself.
He can no longer distinguish himself and the delusion of
want he has created. And he keeps escalating to the point where he can no
longer distinguish between innocence and the “criminal path” he is on.
At this point, she broadens the scope of the poem to make an
even larger judgement about his character, and his obsession over something
that could have been purse, but has been tainted his obsession, killed off by a
“societal, disturbed perverse incline” which seeks to destroy something that
could have existed, as a opposed to his fancy, inevitably destroying good with
the bad.
As with some of her previous poems, this poem is an
indictment, accusing him of destroying a good thing with his obsessed need to
turn it into something else, something that could not possibly exist except in
his convoluted brain, and he’s blaming her for its dying.
The food metaphor is nearly flawless, because it reflects
the concept of consumption, gluttony that is easily transferable to lust, love
or any other passion.
Although she does not use pronouns like “he” or “she”, she
does create characters defined as good or evil.
By the use of words like “greed” and phrases like “forcing
gross want,” the poem sets up the contrast between “he” and the more innocent “she”
and what she has to offer in phrases like “savoring the privileged taste,” “humble
honest need,” or later, “the original thing gently desired without fault.”
The use of “privileged” harkens back to a previous poem when
she talks about the privileged few she invited to her apartment.
He comes off as “arrogant” and “criminal” with “misplaced
vengeance,” seeking to destroy” the sense of balance. He is engaged in “violent
pretense” and “consumes unmercifully.”
She seems to paint him as an aggressor who wants more than
the innocent relationship she offered, some twisted vision in his head it is
impossible to give him even had she wanted to. And when he can’t get it, he
blames her and destroys what might have been possible in the first place.
It is his own lust that is responsible for the demise, and he
wants something that cannot possibly exist except in his own perverse thinking.
Comments
Post a Comment