The links below are both a recording of Maya Angelou's reading of the inaugural poem and the etext. I want you to read the poem and watch the video. Then in your blog posting comment on what you think is her intent and her effectivness in capturing the moment (i.e. mimesis). Then I want you to compare her reading to Elizabeth Alexander's inaugural poem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDtw62Ah2zY
http://poetry.eserver.org/angelou.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Mr. Land,
I tried to finish my blog entry but i don't think i have time to before the bell and i've been absent for three days and need to talk to teachers about making up work.
I just wanted to post this to show that i atleast tried to complete this
I'll do it whenever i get home.
same here, the poem video is too long to ba able to have a good response, i need to have time to process the information.
I had little time to finish this. I can say in a broad comment though, that the poem tried to relay a sense of change from ignorance and war to a new age, a new "good morning". Maya uses pauses to emphasize certain things like mentionings of the rock, the river and the tree to make the things she says that pertain to change stand out. I will write in more detail when I get home
Same Here...Sorry
The poem was given during a time of economic depression, so i think her intent was to bring the citizens of the united states together so they could work together as one to improve the economy and work towards common goals. I think she was more effective in delivering her poem than Alexander, but not completely effective.
ran out of time-
will finish post later
quick summary because of time shortage:
Maya Angelou was much better than Elizabeth Alexander!
Maya Angelou seemed to have a better understanding of her own material than the latter did, and this was demonstrated in the way that Maya put more of an emotional connotation to the words said.
Time's Out.
Mr. Land Christian and I ran out of time in the morning to post out blog but it will be done this afternoon.
Well then you will all have to work on it this weekend.
Love,
Mr. Land
The poem was written with the intent of acknowledging man's advance from primitivity to modernism and how we still have much farther to go, using the rock, river and tree as monuments that have stood through time and watch humans grow.
She is somewhat effective at relaying her intent to the audience. She uses pauses to emphasize the opinions and judgements of the rock, the river and the tree, bringing more attention to what we have done and what we have yet to do. However, any other form of auditory rhetoric, like tone change or word-stress variance is subtle, if present at all.
In contrast to the above statement, Angelou still presented her poem more effectively than Elizabeth Alexander there. While Angelou used mostly pauses to emphasize her words, Alexander used no discernible rhetoric in her speech at all. She read it as though she had just seen it and was unsure of the intent, while Angelou understood her intent and how to relay it, but did not incorporate a variety of rhetorical dveices to do so.
I believe Maya Angelou's intent was to show a hope for peace. She has statements of peace such as, "I call you to my riverside. If you will study war no more," and, "plant yourself beside me, here beside the river," which shows friendship, basically peace. Angelou attempts and succeeds in bringing different races and ethnicities together in the poem, and I'm not going to quote the long quote, we all know where it is. She mentions change, or references it throughout the poem, mainly near the middle-end segment. Therefore, I thought it was very successful in capturing the moment b/c the nation just got over with the Gulf War and the economy wasn't in the best shape, so this poem brought a lot of hope to the people, and the economy actually improved during the Clinton administration.
Angelou had a better reading than Alexander in many ways. For one, Angelou's poem was a lot more dynamic than Alexander's poem, and we can probably all agree to that. Alexander also spoke r e a l l y s l o w, so it was bordering on the point of boring and repulsively annoying. Angelou, compared to Alexander, spoke relatively fast, so it was easier to listen to, and kept my attention. Plus, I don't think Obama necessarily needed a poet during his celebration because I believe it ruined the excitement by having a boring poet read a moderately mediocre poem during an EXTREMELY crucial event in history. But hey, that's just my opinion.
I think that right from the start, Maya Angelou says "You,created only a little lower than The angels, have crouched too long in
The bruising darkness,Have lain too long Face down in ignorance" bascially stating that we cannot hid from war, or otehr countries. We need to comeout and show ourselves. It was beneficial that Angelou did not just talk about that day in particular in order to "capture the moment," she referenced the problems in our world and what would be the utopian way to fix them when she says "Yet, today I call you to my riverside,If you will study war no more." So in all, i believe that her intent was not to "capture the moment" i believe that it was to tell the world that we have problems, but then counter it with what to do to fix it, which probabaly effected Clinton most, but also others, she had people in the front crying! Her intent then transformed into capturing the moment. Her effectivness is almost flawless because it got into everyones mind that we need to change, encourage peace, and not hide from our porblems. Im comparison, Elizabeth Alexander intent was mainly to capture the moment, which she failed miserabley because she tried too hard. She paused too much, tried to make it dramatic, but nothing. Angelou successfully delivered her poem "from the heart" and got a much better reaction from it.
I think Maya Angelou's and Elizabeth Alexander's poems had extremely similar intent. When you compare the actual written poems, i believe both focus on acknowledging the past while striving for a better future and progress, written down both poems have almost the same same effect on me and give me the same impression, however when performed by their writers the effectiveness changes. In Maya Angelou's performance i found it a little difficult to understand every single word she was saying, but i understood the overall message. The way she presented the poem with pauses and emphasis really helped display the meaning of the poem effectively, even the tone of her voice seemed to epitomize the poem and seemed to capture the moment. Elizabeth Alexander's presentation was much different however, even though he poem was somewhat similar. She didn't have the same power in her voice that Angelou had in her presentation, she didn't really have the same confidence, not to mention i don't think she used her pauses or emphasis ect. to show the meaning behind the poem the way Angelou did. Overall i understood basically every word she said, but not the overall meaning.
I agree with the 3 previous posts.
As they all basically said, I think we can agree that Alexander's delivery of her speech altered the effectiveness of it for the worse. Her pauses didn't seem to have much meaning, at least not to me, and spoke too slowly for my taste. It really didn't flow, which caused me to focus on the negatives of her speech instead of the overall meaning/intent.
I found that Angelou's speech didn't completely flow either, but as I said before, it was a better delivery than Alexanders, making it more effective in my opinion. She seemed to be more "into" her poem than Alexander was. Alexander was more like a robot reading someone else's work while you could tell Angelou had more of an emotional connection to her work which had an effect on the audience's reaction. She wass more relatable to the audience than Alexander was, which made her more effective in capturing the moment.
Overall, I'd say they both had the same intent: to give the country hope for progress and change and usher in a new beginning . However, Angelou was more effective in capturing the moment.
Maya Angelou's intent with her inaugural poem is to address the American people, to let them know that even though there are "collars of waste" left behind from the previous presidential term, this swearing in of the new president means that it is time for a new beginning. She uses "your country" to correspond with "the Rock, the River, the Tree" to show that the country will support the American people in this time of change, but that they as a society, will no longer hide behind the past mistakes made. Rather, they will have to face the future together, taking it upon themselves to work collectively as a nation, regardless or race and ancestry, including those who have been hurt by others in the past (i.e. Native American tribes).
Her reading was effective in this address to people, done mostly by her pausing throughout the poem, which added an emphasis on many different subjects. For example, the action of pausing adds emphasis on the dialogue given by "the Rock", creating a type of personification to this and the other natural elements mentioned. Also, the pausing she does while listing different societal groups (i.e. Jews, Gays, homeless, etc) is effective, in that it adds emphasis on how the differences of the groups do not impact the fact that they are all in the need of the same help to repair damages done to the nation, while simultaneously keeping the attention of the audience. Lastly, the change in tone of voice adds more of an emotional impact, especially at the ending paragraph. While earlier she does so as well, adding stress to the dialogue of the natural elements, the concluding paragraph becomes particularly emotional, ending on a hopeful note. This effectiveness is shown in audience's response to the reading- a standing ovation right after the conclusion of the presentation.
On the other hand, Elizabeth Alexander's attempt at reading a poem for an inauguration was as a pleasant as listening to Ben Stein for a lengthy period of time. Her monotonous voice, saying words sharply and detached, do in no way radiate any sense of emotion. A piece that is more emotional and effective on paper than in reading, was read with pauses that did not add emphasis like it should or could have. Rather, the pauses were like knives, making the reading seem choppy and butchering it beyond enjoyment that could have other been experienced. The piece, that seems full of hope and of a new beginning, does not come across as such as a result of the lack of emotion presented, with words being crisp and sharp rather than forceful or hopeful. This ineffectiveness is demonstrated by the lack of initial audience response, with the audience being unsure of whether or not the poem was over and a gradual applause. Unlike Angleou's ending, which ended in a change in tone that gave a hint to an ending, Alexander's ended in the same monotone voice she used throughout the entire reading.
Maya Angelou's intent I believe, was to instill a sense of peace, hope, and progress towards brighter days ahead for the people (the American people, as well as the people of the World) who were listening. She approaches the poem somewhat as if she were the planet Earth speaking to the people, or at least personifies the Earth in the poem. This is seen when she says
"But today, the Rock cries out to us, clearly, forcefully,
Come, you may stand upon my
Back and face your distant destiny,
But seek no haven in my shadow."
She is calling upon humanity to to stand up and look towards our own future, "but seek no haven in my shadow", in other words, do not go backwards in our adventure towards our "destiny".
She brings this back up again when she says:
"You, created only a little lower than
The angels, have crouched too long in
The bruising darkness,
Have lain too long
Face down in ignorance."
She brings up again the idea that humanity (were the ones created a little lower than angels :P ) has "crouched too long in the darkness", or shadow that she said earlier. This backs up her previous statement.
She suggests that in order to move forward, we must become one nation. She talks about the divided nations who have looked for gain instead of peace on the planet. She then goes on to say that once unified, that she will "sing the songs The Creator gave me" to signify that we will be one group of people united in a state of peace, which is symbolized by the songs.
This is when she goes on to call upon the nations and cultures of the world by listing off all the different heritages, to show us all of the different people that there are and the unification we can achieve.
Once that is achieved, she comes to a new antithesis in the poem at the end, saying:
"Here on the pulse of this new day
You may have the grace to look up and out
And into your sister's eyes, into
Your brother's face, your country
And say simply
Very simply
With hope
Good morning. "
She says that, figuratively, now that we have achieved this new day, we can look upon our fellow man (who before this new antithesis were considered rivals or enemies) and bid them "Good Morning", or in other words, bid them good will on this new stage of human endeavor. She did superbly well in capturing the moment for the people listening, because many people felt Clinton would be a big step forward and that is what her poem was all about.
She did a much better job than Elizabeth Alexander did at Obama's inauguration. Alexander's words in the poem were somewhat similar to Angelou's, in the literary significance of it, but the speech that Angelou gave was much better. Alexander's speech was too long and drawn out, and didn't burn on the quickburn of emotion that the audience was riding on. Angelou on the other hand was able to deliver her poem in a little more up beat tone and build her own little narrative of a poem that people were hanging on her every word.
I agree with MJ here, the poem was meant to rouse us to reach our full potential. The things Angelou said were meant to convince people that war must be eliminated in order to live in an ideal world. Also, I agree with MJ in that Elizabeth Alexander failed to infuse the "pathos" tone that a poem like hers would need, whereas Angelou used her rhetoric to convey the necessary emotion.
Reiley has a point in saying that the poems had the same basic intent, as they criticized the past and voiced hope for the future, the future here representing their respective president. I, personally, didn't have trouble understanding the words Angelou was saying, but I do agree that there was a significant difference in the style and effectiveness of her and Alexander. Angelou incorporated much spoken rhetoric that made the poem more emotionally powerful, an important quality considering it's intent. Alexander read her poem like one would read something out of a math textbook. It was dry static and unappealing. Because of this a definite differnece in quality was noticed.
I agree with mjs general idea that Maya Angelou was much better in capturing the moment. She was able to expand on the troubles and sufferings that everyone was going through and understood. She recognized that change needed to happen and that they must all do something. Elizabeth Alexander attempted to capture the moment but went overboard with and failed.
Angelou's intent was simply to relate the past events of our country's history, despite the painful and difficult events it may have sometimes included, and then relate it to somewhat of a culmination of a new beginning, a "good morning." This relates directly to President Clinton's inauguration, as her purpose as a speaker and as a poet was to instill in the American people a sense of hope and aspiration for future prosperity that may come with a new administration. Through the way she speaks and says her words, the audience is captivated and is therefore able to catch her intent a lot better; this proves her effectiveness a lot better. The reception of the audience at the end of the video confirms this.
I believe that Angelou was without a doubt much more effective at reciting her poem than Alexander was with hers. Angelou had the ability to put meanings behind the words that she spoke; they were filled with emotion, hope, and the idea that everything would be alright. Although her poem is equally well-written, Alexander falls short of what one would expect a speaker at an inauguration to be. She read her poem as if she did not have much confidence in her words. The tone of her voice was filled with neither hope or confidence, which is something that is expected to be spoken about when it comes to a time of long-awaited change.
I agree with Winter in that Angelou and Alexander both had the same intent, both had well-written poems, and both had the same intent to shoot for while reciting their poems. However, Angelou does convey the idea that she had more confidence in her words and had, as Winter said, more of an "emotional connection" to the words she was reading. For Alexander, her otherwise poignant poem is overshadowed by her rough delivery that misses the intent to instill hope for progress.
Maya Angelou had a good poem. She did a much beter job at getting the meaning across. She definitely didn't pause for half a minute between each line. In fact sometimes, it sounded like she was rushing. I suppose that was to buiild suspense, but to me, she also looked like she just wanted to get the hell outta there, ya know, like an old black lady that's just gettin pissed off. Sorry if you thing that seems a bit racist but that's what I saw. But don't get me wrong. It was a good poem, well delivered, and her intent and effectivness on capturing the moment was succcessful. Compared to Elizabeth, Alexander, she delivered it much better. And the audience responded almost immediately, rather than 10 seconds after Liz finished.
I agree with Ethan's agreement with MJ. And Vince's agreement with MJ. Liz just failed. She tried hard, but failed. Angelou put a better image in people's minds that was easier to comprehend.
Maya Angelou, I believe, did a very good job at capturing the moment. She addressed every type of person specifically, uniting a people under one poem. Her intent was to bring a nation together and be ready to take a step forwards. She used repetition but in a fashion that was not too complicated for people to follow, using smooth language to use the best of her time and emphasis on certain words over others. I believe it was a great, strong poem for the moment, captured well.
On the other hand, I don't think Alexander did that well. The poem is really good, but for the moment? Maybe, but even if it was, the presentation was too distracting to appreciate it. Not only that, but Elizabeth Alexander's presentation was almost horrific. It was too choppy. Choppy, sometimes, can be a good thing, but not in this case and not for four minutes long.
In a nutshell? Way to fail, Alexander: Angelou owned you.
But nice try.
I agree with Reiley. I think both poems were pretty suited for the moment, but the presentation was what differed Angelou from Alexander. Alexander seemed as if she'd just jumped up there and read it for the first time, while Angelou seemed well-rehearsed and confident for the moment. This was the main thing that differed the two women, and put them on separate levels. It all, in this case, came in delivery. They both had a good general poem, but the delivering quality was much different.
I agree with MJ on Maya's intent with the poem. By telling the public that they can counter-act these problems and resolve the issues, she is indirectly instilling them with a sense of hope that many came to feel very powerfully. And yes, I do think Alexander tried too hard as well.
I have to disagree with Cooper- I didn't see the intent of peace in Maya Angelou's poem. Granted, she did mention earthly elements, perhaps to make the poem seem more calming, but I don't think it was an actual intent. Perhaps it was merely a byproduct.
I disagree with areas of Zach's post. First off, I was skeptical from the start when he spelled, "beter," wrong. Second off, I believe Angelou was not rushing, but rather going at a regular speed rather than Alexander's extremely slow reading. If we hadn't watched Alexander's reading of the poem, we would've never said Angelou's was too fast, if not actually too slow, depending on if you enjoy poetry or not. But I agree when he said Angelou's poem and speed was "beter"than Alexander's.
I disagree with cooper as well,
i don't think there was a real message of peace in Angelou's poem either. I think there were some hints possibly, but it was more about future progress, not necessarily full on peace.
I agree with Reiley that the intent was similar but delivery was different. As she said, Alexander's pauses and emphasis on words really had no relevance and didn't add positively to her poem. Angelou presented herself with much more confidence and was well rehearsed, which therefore made her poem more effective.
i agree with jessica, i think Angelou was much more effective in capturing the moment then Alexander. I just think that there were such i expectations for Alexander to perform well because the importance of that day that anything besides a spectacular performance was going to be a disappointment.
I disagree with Cooper and Zach.
As for Cooper, I didn't think that the overall message of Angelou's poem was peace. As I said earlier, I think she more intended to usher in a new beginning, so to speak, and tried to establish unity among US citizens.
As for Zach, I didn't think that Angelou was speaking fast and if she was, I don't think it was intended. Compared to Alexander's glacial pace, sure it was fast. But compared to a regular paced conversation or something, I'd say it might be a little above normal, but that was probably just due to nerves.
Maya Angelou's intent of the poem was unity, and evolution. That we have evolved from the past we are no longer primative animals who resolve everything by war (hopefully). Her intent was effective in the presentation of her poem and the actual text of the poem, thus her effectiveness was very effective as well. She gave gtrat emotion on her presentation of th poem, pauses that had good intent that was understandable to the popular culture unlike the inaugural poem of Barack Obama. Elizabeth had too many pauses in her poem which made many people who did not have a great interest in poems an akward interpretation of it, thus it was less effective. Elizabeth did however most likely appeal to the poets of the world instead of the masses, but the intent was for the masses. While both may have had the same intent in both poems the presentation of it varied greatly, making Maya's much more effective.
I agree with Patricia that Maya was much more effective than Elizabeth in the presentation of her poem. She had placed much more emotion behind her words and was able to present in a way that much more appealed to the masses. Which was the part that I don't agree with Patricia's statement that "She read her poem as if she did not have much confidence in her words." that was the intent that Elizabeth had on the poem, but its effectiveness towards the wide masses instead of a certain small group of people was what she had not considered, thus lacked.
Post a Comment