Pronouns
by Dunya Mikhail
He plays a train.
She plays a whistle.
They move away.
He plays a rope.
She plays a tree.
They swing.
He plays a dream.
She plays a feather.
They fly.
He plays a general.
She plays people.
They declare war.
The progression of each strophe is dialectical. While the first two lines of each strophe are not in opposition to each other (as would be a thesis/antithesis), there is a tension or incompatibility evident in their relationship that is ultimately resolved by the final line of each strophe (synthesis). The last line of each stanza depends upon the first two: e.g., without a rope and a tree they could not swing, without a feather and a dream they could not fly.
I love the formula of this poem:
He plays ________.
She plays _______.
They ___________.
The synthesis occurs not only in the material that fills in the blanks, but also most explicitly in the pronouns. The pronouns follow a much more conventional dialectic: "he" and "she" are in opposition, and "they" appropriately synthesizes the two preserving the plurality while negating the gender and individuality of "he" and "she".
Four strophes is convincing without being overly repetitive. If the poem were to continue with this pattern for much longer, its point would become belabored and less compelling. As is, the poem progresses in its verbs from "move away" to "swing" to "fly" to "declare war". The poem itself moves from the whimsical and lighthearted world of whistles, trains, and swings to the resolute declaration of war. The quick progression mirrors the haste that often dictates war.
The repetitive pronoun/verb construction demonstrates the routinization of warfare and the ease of warfare to exist simultaneously against banal, innocent activities of play.
Finally, the choice of the verb "play" as the consistent verb throughout is a distinct determinant of the poem's meaning. The OED lists thirty two distinct (with subpointed variants) definitions of the verb play. It is defined by everything from movement ("move away") to fly, and is definitionally interpreted in a way that warrants each of the poems' unique uses.
Evoking the imagery of "play" in relation to warfare, makes an interesting argument about war as a game or a simulation. The relationship between a general and the people demonstrates the capacity of one man to mobilize an entire people toward warfare on a whim. This poem expresses the injustice that war is instigated under seemingly capricious, playful behavior yet exacts consequences incompatible with "play" -- death, destruction, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment