After hearing the poem in its entirety, I think the “poetry” is in how something is illustrated; how a point gets across, or communicated, without necessarily using words. There is a sharp contrast between how technical the author chooses to use language, and how abstract the definition of poetry can be, but she blends the two in a way that is almost impossible to distinguish without reading until the very end.
The main difference between this poem and all the other poems I’v ever read is that this one starts off seemingly about grammar. Then, it goes into a history lecture. There are no easily identifiable poetry traits that we usually see, such as rhymes, strophes or metaphors.
“Everything is in the language that we use.”
Here, the poet uses language to the fullest. She used words to write the poem. She used pronunciation to highlight the importance of certain words. She used intonation to denote a certain feeling throughout the reading, and she read out loud the grammar used in the written work to enhance certain ideas.
Using all the language tools at her disposal, she then goes into what the poem is really about. It’s about a messaged conveyed without using words. It describes a message that was so well-put and fitting of the situation, that in a sense, it becomes poetic.
I admire how you made that distinction between technicality and abstractiveness because I made a similar point in my response. I noticed you also referenced the ending phrase to be a chance for readers to distinguish between the two, which I completely missed in my analysis. I am though a little bit confused about “It’s a message conveyed without using words”; I am uncertain of what you meant.
I like that you acknowledged both that her message was meant to be about how anything can be poem, as well as how parts of the Dakota’s story is poetic, and how her telling of the story was in and of itself poetic. I also like the way you connected all of this to the “everything is in the language we use” phrase and how strongly it related to her message and her presentation of that message.
I agree with you that poetry is designed to convey a message and while this poem is not structured in the same format it contains the general theme of a poem. Additionally, I believe that those distinct grammatical choices emphasize the message and the history of the hanging. As a result, the emphasized message provides the fundamentals needed to call this literary piece a poem.
I also think that “Everything is in the language that we use” is trying to show us another side to it. That by going over the top and drawing abstract connections, and vocabulary, and sentence structure will deter other groups from being able to understand this poem. I think the author’s main goal is to shed light on the Sioux. In order to do that, she wants the largest audience. While other poets, will use the quote “everything is in the language that we use” to exclude certain groups from being able to experience their thoughts. This author wants learning about the Sioux to be an experience that every reader goes on with her, and I think she accomplished that. Looking at everyone’s responses, it’s as though we all just sat through a 1 on 1 class with the author and we both (audience and author) just learned something new.
The way this piece of poetry was written truly redefined what poetry means to me. Similar to you, I realized that poetry is “how something is illustrated; how a point gets across, or communicated, without necessarily using words”. My idea of poetry used to be that it was filled with confusing metaphors and rhymes, so I was unattracted to it.
I totally agree! I admire you for pointing out something I was struggling to put into words: “Here, the poet uses language to the fullest.” It’s so true; the author seems to be so straightforward in her writing, yet it’s a powerful contrast to the typically confusing and difficult-to-understand poetry.