“First Fight. Then Fiddle” (1949) - Gwendolyn Brooks
“First fight. Then fiddle. Ply the slipping string
With feathery sorcery; muzzle the note
With hurting love; the music that they wrote
Bewitch, bewilder. Qualify to sing
Threadwise. Devise no salt, no hempen thing
For the dear instrument to bear. Devote
The bow to silks and honey. Be remote
A while from malice and from murdering.
But first to arms, to armor. Carry hate
In front of you and harmony behind.
Be deaf to music and to beauty blind.
Win war. Rise bloody, maybe not too late
For having first to civilize a space
Wherein to play your violin with grace.”
Brooks speaks to the towering contradictions of the proponents of war. Seeming “Renaissance” men who have not only a fine skill for violent tactics, but surprising the violin as well. In many ways this poem connects to the archetype of Mr. Kurtz within Heart of Darkness. Within this respected man lies various talents for painting, playing a musical instrument, writing, and perhaps above all the aptitude for speaking. The golden standard for Imperialist Europe, Kurtz then deteriorates into an unwholesome shadow that whispers foul tidings from the inner sanctums of a symbolic hell. This metamorphosis, or rather devolution, parallels that in Brooks' poem. Those with a sensitive attraction towards music and art, abandon their high ideals with a vicious blood lust. The civilized manners of class and society crumble against testosterone-fueled crusades. In a dissimilar perspective, Brooks could also be addressing the foolhardiness of young warmongers with an impatience to prove themselves to the world. As a result the consuming hate leaves only a murmuring mold of a man, who desperately attempts to forget his past naivety through a love of music. However perceived, Brooks injects an equal amount of passion in the descriptions of both pastimes, insuring that the reader understands the brutal irony of the poem's subject. In either case the poem still leaves a didactic and rather poignant theme.
Brooks combines both the structures of the traditional Shakespearean sonnet, and the Italian sonnet to create a fresh rhyme scheme that still neatly encases her work in an organized manner (at least more so than the free verse). “First Fight. Then Fiddle” incorporates the rhyming pattern "abbaabbacddcee." This rhyme scheme compares to that of the Italian, except for the last two verses which adhere to the Shakespearean standard. Brooks also utilizes iambic pentameter which is also typical in Shakespearean sonnets. This format maintains a sense of originality, but not at the expense of losing familiarity and structure. I find it all too easy to disregard formalism within poetry (especially while I'm writing it). Free verse generally reigns supreme with most undeveloped creative writers, because it is much easier. As we discussed in class, rhyming is difficult, and adhering to a set number of syllables can be taxing. Without structure the work somehow becomes less admirable, or, in some cases, less coherent and palatable. It obviously requires more time, but I think the idea of engineering a new version to an old classical structure, such as within Brooks' poem, can help to make the process more fun, and allow more room for creativity, while improving overall technique.
Brooks combines both the structures of the traditional Shakespearean sonnet, and the Italian sonnet to create a fresh rhyme scheme that still neatly encases her work in an organized manner (at least more so than the free verse). “First Fight. Then Fiddle” incorporates the rhyming pattern "abbaabbacddcee." This rhyme scheme compares to that of the Italian, except for the last two verses which adhere to the Shakespearean standard. Brooks also utilizes iambic pentameter which is also typical in Shakespearean sonnets. This format maintains a sense of originality, but not at the expense of losing familiarity and structure. I find it all too easy to disregard formalism within poetry (especially while I'm writing it). Free verse generally reigns supreme with most undeveloped creative writers, because it is much easier. As we discussed in class, rhyming is difficult, and adhering to a set number of syllables can be taxing. Without structure the work somehow becomes less admirable, or, in some cases, less coherent and palatable. It obviously requires more time, but I think the idea of engineering a new version to an old classical structure, such as within Brooks' poem, can help to make the process more fun, and allow more room for creativity, while improving overall technique.
No comments:
Post a Comment