Entitled Trout Fishing in America, Brautigan never clarifies exactly who or what "Trout Fishing in America" is. At times the phrase is personified as in "Another Method of Making Walnut Catsup": "And Trout Fishing in America said, "The moon's coming out."" (12). The phrase is capitalized, like a proper name, when Brautigan personifies the term, giving "Trout Fishing in America" human emotions and body descriptions as well as the ability to speak such as in "The Last Mention of Trout Fishing in America Shorty": "Trout Fishing in America Shorty was instantly alerted, then he saw it was a baby and relaxed. He tried to coax her to come over and sit on his legless lap. [...] "Come here, kid,"he said. "Come over and see old Trout Fishing in America Shorty."" (96-97). Brautigan grants "Trout Fishing" the ability to feel emotions ("alerted") when he sees the child as well as uses the pronoun "he" numerous times when referring to the phrase. Based on such descriptions, and because of the fact that Brautigan never clarifies who or what "Trout Fishing in America" is, the reader may assume that the phrase is in fact the name for a person. As joked about in class, the book is not a handbook or how-to guide on to fish for trout; however, Brautigan never makes it definitely clear what he means by 'trout fishing in America'. He does write about incidents as well as experiences that happen to occur while fishing for trout. However, following the counter-culture style of the 1950s and 60s, Brautigan twists the stories out of the norm and personifies the phrase in a persistent attempt to deny the reader satisfaction of understanding who and/or what "Trout Fishing in America" is.
Question: Can Brautigan's "short" poems really be considered poems?
5 comments:
I like to think of Trout Fishing in America personification as an allegory for the real personalities, identities, and concepts that Brautigan has come across which for him represent what America's soul looks like. Trout fishing brings to mind a pastoral landscape which sets the tone for all things American Dream, then he brings this concept home with all his different representations of what that means. I think of it as a portrait of the multiplicity of what it means to be American for Brautigan.
Brautigan's short poems can definitely be considered poetry. That's the great thing about poetry, the ability to morph it to whatever you want. Like the Beats before him, Brautigan does not strictly adhere to standard literary procedure. As we talked about in class, he produced "Brautigans". Sometimes it may not seem like he is even saying anything, except for a pure expression of himself, but it's still poetry.
I honestly thought the same thing when I read Pill vs. Springhill. Brautigan's poetry always challenges me to define what poetry is for myself. Is it really poetry just because it's in a poetry book and it was considered a 'cult classic'? I'm not sure. In Brautigan's case, I think some of the poems are so inaccessible and the shell is so hard to crack that I wouldn't consider it poetry. However, if you think poetry is just meant to be raw expression, no matter how strange or closed off it is, then I suppose you could consider Brautigan's work poetry. I feel like it is a completely subjective topic.
As to the question of whether or not Brautigan's short poems count as poetry, the answer is clear: Yes. What is debatable is whether or not it is good poetry. The debate over whether something is poetry or literature or art is, in my mind, masturbatory and ridiculous. What "does it" for you may not for someone else, and what you may think is utter shit, someone may think is a work of greatness. Personally, I think Brautigan is either terrible or amazing. Some poems stuck out as gems, while others were like something written by Bukowski's lame twin.
Ooh, tough questions going on here, which is fantastic. I hope folks don't feel the need to "solve" the poetry-not-poetry puzzle... Maybe we don't need to. Opinions, of course, are valid, as Eli says, but what's equally, if not more important, is looking at the collection and asking HOW it does what it does. I like what you say Riaaaaaa..., for instance, about RB's resistance to defining TFA, and "denying the reader satisfaction." It's an unconventional move, not usually found in most popular novels, but does that mean it's not a novel? Does it matter? If so, when does it matter?
Post a Comment