Presidential poetry

January 20, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
For only the fourth time in history, poetry was officially a part of the U.S. Presidential inauguration.

So did the piece work for you? (You can find the text of Elizabeth Alexander's poem here.) How did it hold up to Maya Angelou's 1993 piece (remember "A rock, a river, a tree..."?) Or Robert Frost's piece-- actually two poems, one he meant to read, the other he switched to when he lost the first in the sun?

And then there was also Miller Williams' poem at the second Clinton bash.

Your thoughts on how Alexander's stacked up?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • All I could say was huh? It was so mundane and pedestrian for the Pres' inaug.
  • stimple
  • Anticlimactic at best. Delivered with the inflection of an automated voicemail.
  • Lackluster. The preacher who followed her conveyed much more emotion, import, and humanity with his folksy rhymes, impassioned delivery, and sense of humor. The official poem was just over-thought, reaching for both the appropriate tone for the historical situation and some kind of intellectual-academic cred, and failed at both.
  • This just reinforces my belief that poetry is irrelevant to contemporary mainstream culture. It's like harpsichord music- it had its time, but there are more relevant ways to communicate ideas to a large audience. Poetry has become esoteric.

    That said, she could've cut the beginning of the poem and just started with the Say it plain... line. That had some power and relevance.

    I guess it was a tall order to try to encompass or express the significance of the inauguration.
  • I sat there befuddled wondering who on earth deemed this woman a poet! I actually commented at the time to someone, why couldn't get Maya Angelou? She certainly has better delivery and her words are more powerful and evocative.
  • I was actually entranced by the piece.

    I'm not sure if her delivery style was done in that particular way in order to reninforce the simplicity of what she was saying, but for some reason it worked for me.

    And I think it worked for me because I had to think about her word choice and not get caught in the poetry of her voice.

    I found it interesting.
  • I did not hear Ms. Alexander's delivery, but having just read it, I have to say I disagree with the other comments. I think it speaks to our common experiences, our shared humanity. It certainly conveys optimism for the fresh start we all want right now. I encourage you to reread it.
  • Maybe it was because of the simple language and delivery that it reminded me of beat poets like Allen Ginsberg.
  • The poem completely sucked all the momentum out of the event. It was written like 30 bad Haiku's combined together.

    Very disappointed considering the power of Obama's speech.
  • A bit of a disappointment in the presentation. I thought the poem was okay, though the poet was probably trying too hard and could have used an editor. It's a shame, because it was a great opportunity for poetry.
  • The simplicity of the poem is what made it so powerful. Each one-syllable word became more powerful and important because of her slow, careful enunciation. The word choice was interesting, and sort of gathered energy as she worked through the imagery and the scenes of ordinary America. Sometimes, I could hear echoes of other voices in the cadence of her delivery. At other times, her words combined to remind me of other poems, other speeches. I thought she did a nice job of reflecting the common man quality that Obama wants for his administration. I really liked it.
  • I disagree with StutzArtist that poetry is irrevelant. The right words arranged the right way can cause you to see things differently and think about them.
    I agree with StutzArtist that the poem should have started with Say it plain. That is when she talked about the significance of the occasion.
    The beginning was like- we are all standing around and we got bored so let's go hang out at the Washington Mall.

    Not purposely picking on you Stutz Artist :)
  • Poem?? That was another speech! I bet it lasted five minutes! Did anyone think to tell this woman they were on a tight schedule?? Far too long and prosaic.
  • Just because someone can write poetry, doesn't mean they should try to read it aloud. I like the poem - it's just that the delivery was tedious and detracted from the written word.
  • I thought the reading by the poet was uninspired and uninspiring. Too bad they wasted that block of time, with the new president and the audience forced to witness it in the freezing cold. They could have made better use of those minutes or, perhaps, just had a shorter ceremony.
  • I must agree with cindy (#8) and Andrea Fagen (#12) above. I have read it several times since yesterday and I find it more interesting each time. As Alexander says in her first line Praise song for the day. This is written for this one day, this one important day. I don't read poetry on a regular basis but I enjoyed this as part of my memory of the inauguration.
  • I was impressed they found the female version of William Shatner.

    I thought it was terrible. No wonder they've only done it four times in the past.
  • As someone who was there and is just now reading this, I have to say many people standing near me left as soon as Obama's speech was over -- walking away during the poem. May have been more meaningful to people who were there if it was somehow done before the speech, but I'm not really sure how it works... glad I can read it here because it was hard to pay attention when herds of people were walking toward me.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Socialized medicine works great for white people in Scandanavia. It works well in Costa Rica for a population that is partly white and partly mestizo. I don't really see Obamacare as something aimed against whites. I think that is a Republican canard designed to elicit support from white people for republican candidates who don't care about them any more than democrats care about the non-whites they pander to with their phony maneuvers. But what is different between Costa Rica nd the Scandanavian nations on one hand and the US on the other? SIZE. Maybe the US is just too damn big. Maybe it just needs to be divided into smaller self governing pieces like when the old Holy Roman Empire was dismantled. Maybe we are always trying the same set of solutions for different kinds of people as if we were all the same. Oh-- I know-- that is liberal dogma, that we are all the same. Which is the most idiotic American notion going right back to the propaganda of 1776. All men are different and their differences are myriad and that which is different is not equal. The state which pretends men are all the same is going to force men to be the same. That is what America does here, that is what we do in our stupid overseas wars, that is how we destroy true diversity and true difference, and we are all as different groups of folks, feeling the pains of how capitalism is grinding us down into equally insignificant proletarian microconsumers with no other identity whether we like it or not. And the Marxists had this much right about the War of Independence: it was fundamentally a war of capitalist against feudal systems. America has been about big money since day one and whatever gets in the way is crushed. Health care is just another market and Obamacare, to the extent that it Rationalizes and makes more uniform a market which should actually be really different in nature and delivery from place to place-- well that will serve the interests of the biggest capitalist stakeholders in health care which is not Walmart for Gosh Sakes it is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. CUI BONO Obamacare? The insurance industry. So republicans drop the delusion pro capitalist scales from your eyes this has almost nothing to do with race or "socialism" it has to do mostly with what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY wants to have happen in order to make their lives and profits easier.

  2. Read the article - the reason they can't justify staying is they have too many medicare/medicaid patients and the re-imbursements for transporting these patient is so low.

  3. I would not vote for Bayh if he did run. I also wouldn't vote for Pence. My guess is that Bayh does not have the stomach to oppose persons on the far left or far right. Also, outside of capitalizing on his time as U. S. Senator (and his wife's time as a board member to several companies) I don't know if he is willing to fight for anything. If people who claim to be in the middle walk away from fights with the right and left wing, what are we left with? Extremes. It's probably best for Bayh if he does not have the stomach for the fight but the result is no middle ground.

  4. JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.

  5. Probably a good idea he doesn't run. I for one do not want someone who lives in VIRGINIA to be the governor. He gave it some thought, but he likes Virginia too much. What a name I cannot say on this site! The way these people think and operate amuses me.

ADVERTISEMENT