The text, while worth reading, is "incomplete" without her delivery. If you've not seen her speaking it I highly encourage you to do so -- her delivery was absolutely amazing.
As an aside, she apparently has a speech impediment, so had to rehearse the delivery quite a bit. There was a quote from her about how hard it was to rehearse that much while not sounding robotic.
> We, the successors of a country and a time where a skinny Black girl descended from slaves and raised by a single mother can dream of becoming president, only to find herself reciting for one.
It doesn't make sense. (You can't be the successor of a country, you even more can't be the successor of the present instant happening right now.)
It's content-free, like a bad political speech. "We are striving to forge our union with purpose." As opposed to striving to forge it accidentally?
It's clichéd: "We close the divide because we know to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside.... while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us." Honestly, this reads like something GPT-3 might come up with.
It uses rhyme for cheap effect: "We seek harm to none and harmony for all."
I expected something as bad as Maya Angelou (brutally reviewed by Paul Beatty at https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/books/review/black-humor....). This is worse. It is a shame, when there are black poets like Derek Walcott out there. People get exposed to this kind of "uplifting" stuff and will think that's all there is.
And yet, without any analysis, anyone I've talked to was moved by the poem, and thought it was the best part of the inauguration. I think the moment, the black young girl standing at the pulpit of power, the collective relief, the joy of seeing a female (black/asian) as VP, culminated in an emotional uplifting, which the words did not capture at 100%. It had meaning in the context of 4 years of trump, of 400 years of oppression, of a summer of outcry for justice. Reading later will leave you flat I think. I thought it was perfect for the moment.
What I find fascinating is how people so often have this impulse to tear down things that others hold in high regard. Impulse might even be an understatement - it's almost a need. I wonder why that is.
Ex:
- "vim sucks! why don't people use emacs instead?"
- "katy perry's music sucks!"
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Many liked it. Many did not - yourself included. That's okay. Art does not evoke the same response from everyone and we should not expect it to.
It's fine for people to disagree, sure, and I certainly don't expect to convince everyone. You're also absolutely right that disagreements can engage the emotions in the way you describe.
But consider your example, software. People have strong emotions about, say, Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux as a platform. This isn't just about the feels. Real issues are at stake. The Unix-hater's handbook points out how "root" was a terrible security model. Similar comments might apply to Windows.
Well, I think art matters too. There's no bright line between "art" and the other ways people have of expressing ideas (political speeches, say). If our art is clichéd, it means our ideas are clichéd. At worst, it means we are hiding from reality in a bubble of uplift and togetherness. At present (in my view as an outsider) Americans really need to come together as a nation - but that will require more than repeating the clichés of one's own political tribe. So in that sense, I think this poem is a bad omen.
There is a contradiction in what you’re saying here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion unless it is a critical opinion.
The comment gives sound reasons for not liking the poem, it does not resort to the kind of cheap shots you describe. (Which by the way don’t really qualify as criticism)
Without critical perspective there would be no such thing as great art. We need more critical thinking, not less.
I think people are tired of the same politically-motivated dog and pony show every time inventing a new totem. Like WaPo/NYT-fabricated "pop icon" Ruth Bader Ginsberg last year. It's the same chorus of vapid praise each time, neatly confined to a news cycle.
Mmm. Consider it possible that I'm right? Not everything that sounds good stands up in the cold harsh light of criticism. Or as a great poet once put it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6hzkBihaew): "Do you remember Rick Astley? He had a big fat hit, it was ghastly."
Update: heh, my fastest-downvoted comment. Yup, I'm definitely right.
Oh, woah, just cool it krapp! Your last tape wasn't such hot stuff!
Seriously, sure, this isn't like a maths problem. But we can have reasoned opinions about art, just as we can have reasoned opinions about whether, say, a piece of software is well or badly written, given that it does what it's technically supposed to. I'm not just saying it's bad because it gave me a nasty feeling in my tummy.
In particular, poetry and art contain ideas. They express ideas powerfully and viscerally. It matters whether we have good or bad ideas, thinking or hot air, new understanding or stale clichés. In this sense, art isn't just like a bag of cheetos. It has consequences. That's why dictatorships have often censored good art, and supported bad art. Good art can express new thoughts. I think the US will need a lot of new thoughts in the next four years.
You've repeatedly broken the site guidelines in this thread by calling names, among other things. That's not cool—not in this comment, nor in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25862065, nor in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25862047. We ban accounts that post repeatedly like that. Fortunately, your comment history doesn't have much of it (in fact, I didn't see any other cases when I skimmed back a ways) and contains many good comments. Please stick to that kind of comment and drop this kind. The commons is vulnerable and fragile and we need everyone to help protect it.
I'm not sure what techbro-ism means. I don't work in tech. Do you mean that as a man, I ought not to criticize a black woman's poetry? I don't accept that.
It's inappropriate to make a pass at autism as the reason why the person may be responding in a manner one disagrees with towards a piece of art. For one thing, autistic poets and authors exist and can exist successfully, often with their neurodiversity actively enriching their art.
(Especially given the poet in question has a disability herself, I am criticizing the assuming a disability as a way to to criticize someone's response to art.)
I'm with you. I saw the delivery, and at the time thought it so much easy bromide, soporific treacle. It's even worse now seeing the words on a page. I have an innate distrust of 22-year-old poets. What do they know of pain, loss, irrevocable breaking of things, and the compounding interests of their tolls over a longer span of life. Pretty sentiments, the simiplistic rhymes, and I could not even find a meter. Yesterday I was thinking of W. S. Merwin.
" ... it was then that you
saw him in his own exile and you
paid for him and kept him until he
could fly again and you let him go
but then where could he go in the world
of your time with its wars everywhere
and the soldiers hungry the fires lit
the knives out twelve hundred years ago."
Paul Beatty's essay was actually about his inability to appreciate Maya Angelou, and subsequently his inability to appreciate Black literature the way it's been framed in the white educational system.
"My journey to black literary insobriety isn't so different from how I came to appreciate free jazz after growing up in a house that contained two records, the soundtrack to "Enter the Dragon" and "Rufus Featuring Chaka Khan." It turns out that I enjoy never fully understanding what's in front of me, and I masochistically relish being offended while thinking about why I feel offended and if I should feel offended. I also live in Manhattan's East Village."
Maybe so (I can't access the NYT article right now) but here's a quote from elsewhere:
“I made it through the first couple of pages or so before a strong sense of doom overwhelmed me and I began to get very suspicious. I ventured another paragraph, growing ever-more oppressed with each maudlin passage. My lips thickened … For a black child like myself who was impoverished every other week while waiting for his mother’s bimonthly paydays, giving me a copy of that book was the educational equivalent of giving the prairie Indians blankets laced with smallpox or putting saltpeter in a sailor’s soup.”
You're right. Reading this text without having heard it, it reads like a speech. The only thing that gives it the poetry sheen is the same tired slam poetry delivery that you can't escape now.
I never saw the delivery and it may have been awesome. (There were a couple of good lines that I can imagine sounding great - "It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit./It’s the past we step into and how we repair it." Punchy, to the point, and a nice, surprising rhyme.)
Speech can change things. I once heard a brilliant reading of someone's translations of Mickiewicz (Poland's national poet). I bought the book and it was disappointing how the stuff didn't stand up on the page. Really good work - at least in poetry - should be able to cope with being read as well as being listened to.
Your claim about successor fails, because, even ignoring the variance of meaning of the word successor, ‘of a country’ can simply be the implication that you are part of that country.
The union being forged with purpose seems more about there being a purpose instilled in the union and also ‘purpose’ as the raw material being forged.
The part you call cliché is perhaps not that deep, but fits within the expected patriotic idealism the poem invokes. It’s also good sonically.
The ‘cheap effect’ is just more concentrated youthful idealism, of the sort encoded in our founding documents and pledges.
Look, no offenses, but that's terrible and shallow criticism:
> You can't be the successor of a country,
The we to whom it is addressed constitute a country, and can certainly be collectively successors to the past state of that country
> you even more can't be the successor of the present instant happening right now
But the time it referenced began in the (close, but still) past from the time it was recited, and the emphasis on that as already a past that we are already successors to when we contemplate it fits quite well with the theme of continuous progress of the poem.
> It's content-free, like a bad political speech. "We are striving to forge our union with purpose." As opposed to striving to forge it accidentally?
No, striving for common direction instead of perfection (though putting it that way in a poem would be inexcusable); you need to stop reading sentences alone out of context: “...that doesn’t mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect. We are striving to forge our union with purpose.”
> It's clichéd: "We close the divide because we know to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside.... while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us."
That’s a fairly specific reference, not cliché.
> It uses rhyme for cheap effect: "We seek harm to none and harmony for all."
That's...not using rhyme for cheap effect.
> It is a shame, when there are black poets like Derek Walcott out there
Kind of an odd alternative to hold out to a US inaugural poet, as Walcott is, while certainly Black (as now an absolute majority of such poets have been) both not-American and dead.
> I expected something as bad as Maya Angelou
Pretty much all the negative criticism of “On the Pulse of Morning" is of it as a decontextualized text, rather than in its actual role. And it take someone taking the same approach to Gorman’s work and blindly expecting everyone else to do the same to even begin to think the sentence the phrase “as bad as Maya Angelou” is something that could even sensibly be used, non-ironically, in this context.
> brutally reviewed by Paul Beatty
That isn't a review, of a throw away statement of distaste for a work. Which isn't the same thing.
> People get exposed to this kind of "uplifting" stuff and will think that's all there is.
While it is certainly not a requirement for poetry to be either targeted at a broad audience or uplifting, any art has a context and intended audience, and inaugural poetry is a pretty specialized niche where both breadth of appeal and uplifting character are, usually, things that makes sense. Having more depth than just that is, of courses, to be hoped for, but Gorman’s piece did.
Agreed that Walcott, as a non-US corpse, would not make a great choice for an inaugural. How about Ocean Vuong? (I am looking, in an admittedly very superficial way, for a poet who ticks some appropriate diversity boxes - I take no position on whether that is the right thing to do - is AFAIK American, and is alive. He just comes to mind as someone who is also, you know, a rather good poet.)
I have written a commentary on this poem, that critiques it several lines at a time. I wrote this before knowing about this web site or this thread, so I may repeat some of the criticism provided here. The critique is 9 pages long, although this exaggerates its true length. There is plenty of white space in the document. Because it is so long, I assume it would be inappropriate for me to dump it into a thread entry, so I am providing a link to a PDF file on my Google Drive account. I hope this does not contravene any rules of the web site (I looked, but could not find any guidance on this). I would welcome any feedback you have to give. The link is: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18vVqYMs3dj6jMhAn1r7zmElly1B....
You can likely tweet or email her directly to request a merchandise store. She may already be close to opening one and can share the good news with you!
It's close, not trying to be perfect and not striving to be perfect, I'd think the former is a foregone conclusion of unattainable goal. However the later seems appropriate more as an attitude towards work. Kind of subtle "to try to be something" this sort of carries notes of fabrication and possibly hubris? Alternatively, "to strive to be something" carries a degree of humility of knowing you may not attain it, but recognizing it's the process of convergence that matters not the ultimate end state. I may be reading too much into this but those are the thoughts that cone to mind.
For one, it's a reference to the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
Second, it's a much weaker statement. Compare "we are [imperfect], but that doesn’t mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect." with "we are [imperfect], but that doesn’t mean we aren't striving to form a union that is perfect." The former can be reshaped to we are imperfect, therefore we are trying to form a union that is imperfect---it leaves open the possibility that you wish to make the union worse. The latter becomes we are imperfect but we are trying to form a union that is perfect.
When you do something that is important to you, do you try to do the best you can, try to make it perfect? (Perhaps with the realization that it cannot be perfect.) Or do you think, "Eh, imperfect is good enough?"
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
To other answers here: the phrase in the poem "we're not trying to be perfect" seems contradicting the goal "to form a more perfect Union", unless you think that "let's be perfect" and "less be more perfect" are different enough. I think the road to perfection shares parts with the road to more perfection - often.
I think that it is intentional to underscore that "more perfect" != "perfect". The founders that wrote that document did not believe the Constitution was perfect, they knew it a part of process towards perfect, while it might imply perfect is an end goal it also doesn't necessarily say that.
Listening to her recitation at [1] she does appear to say "we are striving". It might be a simple slip, or she could be saying that the objective is purpose not perfection. I tend to think it's the latter.
You started a wretched flamewar with this comment, which broke the site guidelines badly and predictably led to worse. Then you perpetuated it. This is criminal negligence if not arson, and we ban accounts for this kind of thing—especially now, after the hellfires this site went through in the last couple of weeks. We've raised the bar and are banning more accounts for abusing the site this way. I'm not going to ban you because your comment history shows that you've mostly been commenting about other things. But please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, keep the intended spirit of the site in mind, and don't do it again.
Yea fair enough. My main point is that the media will now cover it as everything Biden says being "unifying" rather than every word Trump ever uttered, which was "divisive". Even when they say the same thing.
I think a lot of people are more interesting in helping the half of the country that supported Trump and QAnon walk itself back from the crazy positions they've talked themselves into so we can sit back down at the table and get through dinner.
> I think a lot of people are more interesting in helping the half of the country that supported Trump and QAnon walk itself back from the crazy positions they've talked themselves into
It's not just the right that has walked itself into crazy positions. The country is in need of some serious regression to the mean on both sides.
"Both sides" nonsense. Show me anything from the left that begins to approach believing that there's a secret cabal of baby-eating satan worshippers running a pedophile ring from the basement of a pizza joint.
Critical Race Theory has its problems but it's not an elaborate conspiracy theory clutching at random tidbits of news and numerology and obscure messageboard posting and constructing a massive, world-ending conspiracy out of them.
I mean, it's a cute comparison if you squint, but there's far less craziness to describing the reality of racism than describing all of the political class as baby-eating vampires.
The only place I've ever heard of CRT is from Trump and from Fox News. In the rest of America, we're trying to teach people to be sensitive to their unconscious racial biases, and to be aware of how race affects people's opportunities. This simple and rational thinking was seized upon by the far right as an example of hating whites.
With all due respect, I'm not a Trump supporter but I am the most conservative person in my family, and I'm not the one who was talking about guillotining people I don't like at the dinner table last year.
I would prefer the left wing people in my family not be enabled to shift the blame for all their shitty behavior the last 4 years onto Trump thanks.
> Seems like a pretty thinly veiled swipe at Trump to be honest.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But if you don't think that guy (not even gonna use his name) deserves some serious criticism after the last 4 years and especially after the events of 1/6/2021... well, I'm just not sure here's any way to reach you.
The left spent four years focusing on the absolute worst aspects of a man, and refusing to give him credit for the several things he accomplished that were actually worthwhile.
That's a recipe for an unhealthy relationship, and it's also something you only get better at with practice.
I think they did more psychological harm to themselves over it than he ever could have.
You can't post like this to HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We're trying to have a forum that doesn't burn itself to a hellfire crisp. Scorched earth is not interesting.
This place is fragile and vulnerable. Please contribute to protecting it, not destroying it. I'm sure you wouldn't dump motor oil in a mountain lake or something like that, so please don't do the equivalent here.
> What's wrong did someone possibly criticize your dear leader? Wouldn't want that now, would we?
Objectively Trump is not a good person. That doesn't mean he wasn't a useful blunt instrument.
Many people on the right gave him far more credit than he deserved. But a lot of that was reaction to nearly everyone on the left spewing nothing but hate about him his entire term.
He's done and gone and won't be coming back.
The thing the left should actually be worried about is what happens when the next person comes along that also has the right song and dance to get elected, but once there actually knows how to govern?
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, and don't post personal attacks. These rules apply regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
Politely, who the heck would write, much less put in the practice of reciting, a several minutes-long poem for a thinly veiled swipe at a political figure? Amanda could've just spat out a hot take on twitter if she wanted that, same as everyone else who wants to make swipes.
And I think presuming it's nothing more than a swipe makes no sense, occam's razor style. There's no reason why she would put that much effort (a several minutes long poem, plus the practice of recital).
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological warfare and flamewar hell. Tossing in a Molotov cocktail of nationalistic flamebait is also seriously not cool.
Edit: you've done this kind of thing more than once lately. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're battling for or against—we have to, because it destroys what this site is supposed to exist for. I'm not going to ban you because your account has mostly been posting good comments. On the other hand, mostly-not-exploding-bombs is not sufficient. If you'd please review the site guidelines and be more mindful of the intended spirit of the site going forward, we'd be grateful. Perhaps you don't owe your enemies better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
This is the sort of comment I'm talking about upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25862817) when I say that you perpetuated a wretched flamewar. Seriously not cool. Please stop and don't restart.
