Notes on Patterns in Poetry and the Lack Thereof

I dwell in Possibility-

I dwell in Possibility – 8

A fairer House than Prose – 6

More numerous of Windows – 7

Superior – for Doors – 6

Of Chambers as the Cedars – 7

Impregnable of eye – 6

And for an everlasting Roof 8

The Gambrels of the Sky – 6

Of Visitors – the fairest – 7

For Occupation – This – 6

The spreading wide my narrow Hands -7

To gather Paradise –6

Notes:

• The first two stanzas have an ABCB pattern. The first is a slant rhyme, but the rhythm is there. Eye and sky are a more direct rhyme.
• Breaking of rhyme scheme in final stanza is significant- keeping pattern to break it- blissful/euphoric
• Meter is steady- flows well even though it doesn’t rhyme- numbers correspond to syllables
• Something not real given structure
• Lines end in dashes- no other punctuation- lines don’t end- corresponding to unreachable, intangible ‘house
• Capitalization- Possibility
• Pauses with dashes- sighs

Arabic Coffee

It was never too strong for us: 8

make it blacker, Papa, 6

thick in the bottom, 5

tell again how the years will gather 8

in small white cups, 4

how luck lives in a spot of grounds. 8

Leaning over the stove, he let it 8

boil to the top, and down again. 7

Two times. No sugar in his pot.8

And the place where men and women 8

break off from one another 6

was not present in that room. 7

The hundred disappointments, 7

fire swallowing olive-wood beads 7

at the warehouse, and the dreams 7

tucked like pocket handkerchiefs 7

into each day, took their places 8

on the table, near the half-empty 9

dish of corn. And none was 6

more important than the others, 8

and all were guests. When 5

he carried the tray into the room, 9

high and balanced in his hands, 7

it was an offering to all of them, 10

stay, be seated, follow the talk 8

wherever it goes. The coffee was 8

the center of the flower.7

Like clothes on a line saying 7

you will live long enough to wear me, 9

a motion of faith. There is this, 8

and there is more. 4

Notes:

• Almost all of her sentences take up multiple lines and not in the sense that her sentences are segmented, but that they are separated and spread up among several lines.
• It’s very prose-like. Reminiscent of an open letter.
• Two stanzas, but not pattern. Separate thoughts. The first stanza sets up the act of making coffee as something significant, which is why I think it’s separated from the rest of the poem. The second stanza is a reflection on  second specific event.
• It’s similar to how the lack of the pattern in the last stanza of Dickinson’s says more than if there was one in the first place.
• The line ends cause pauses and the promise of a follow through keeps you reading.
• The end is just this reinforcement of faith. Coffee is the center of the flower, like clothes on a line, a motion of faith, and a proclamation that there is this and this is more. It reinforces a very similar theme by carrying it throughout so many lines.
• Repetition of ideals through multiple examples is a common pattern, even if it isn’t a very structured one.
• The rhythm changes. There are points where the meter is very steady, but there are times when it jumps up or down. I can’t recognize any consistent rhyme scheme.

Open- Ended Questions and Inescapable Ambiguity

A recurring theme in Dickinson’s writing is ambiguity and the often contrasting interpretations that can be born from one work. Some of her poems are more straightforward, but others, like I Dwell in Possibility, are not as such. Upon my initial reading, I believed the poem to be a critique of prose and structured writing. I interpreted “a fairer house than prose” in the sense that the house was just being used as a metaphor for the structure of prose and that possibility or poetry was a second “house.” After finishing the second line, I took to the interpretation that possibility was a representation of poetry, and her use of the word was to suggest the openness and unrestricted nature of poetry and also establish the author’s or that of the character the author had created, love and respect for poetry. I believed the numerous windows and chambers “impregnable of eye” were both metaphors for the openness of poetry and also its abstractness. The “this” is the final stanza spoke of poetry and this whole poem was Dickinson’s nod to her favorite pastime and her rejection of conventions, which was reinforced by her capitalization of improper nouns and frequent use of dashes which were not common or considered acceptable according to the customs of the time. But upon a second and third and then fourth reading, this poem becomes less about poetry vs. prose and more generally about openness vs. traditions and conventions. Her rejection of a steady rhyme scheme and common meter is to make a broader statement about an unrestricted open state of mind that reaches infinitely into the sky. Or at least that it is what is can be seen as. This is not just a critique on prose or just a rejection of tradition or just a combination of only those two. There is an openness in her writing. She doesn’t over explain, and infact, does quite the opposite, which leaves us, the readers, to try to interpret what she means.

The overall message of the poem is not the only thing up to interpretation. There are many individual word choices that I believe were purposefully left ambiguous. There is a lot more “room” in poetry to leave things open. Take the last line of stanza one for example: “Superior-for Doors-.” I know it was not just me who wondered what in the world she was talking about. Was the house superior for having doors? Does this mean that the house/ possibility/open-mindedness/poetry has restrictions and that not everyone can get in? Or are the doors themselves superior and if so, why? Is it because they hold possibility? Is it because they are strong enough to withstand prose/restrictions/ conventions/ tradition? These are questions that Dickinson left unanswered. We have to figure them out for ourselves. We can look at the context they were written in or we can just interpret them as we see them, which is perfectly legitimate because this poetry is now for us and serves no other purpose than to be read. There are several other phrases in the poem that cause a torrent of questions when it comes to their interpretation, like “Visitors-the fairest-” and “For Occupation-This-.” What is “this”? Are the visitors fair or is the entry process for them what’s fair? These small questions,depending  on your answer,  can make the “house” seem more elitist or very open, consequently changing the poem’s tone.

Dickinson’s I Dwell in Possibility, cheesy as it is, is chock full of possibility, which I think is kind of the whole point. Emily Dickinson could have meant it as a criticism of prose or conventions in general, but why it is still regarded as a work of art is because it continues to be applicable and not to just those interpretations. The ambiguity in her writing can go beyond general message or individual line interpretations and into applications.  “Paradise” is relative and so is the meaning of the poem. We can all see that it is about rejecting something more ordered for possibility, but that’s more open than some might believe. Possibility can be seen as a new job or a new relationship or a new way of thinking and prose can be interpreted as any opposing force to that new thing. These visitors can be seen as people who agree with and support your decisions or as all of the people who are rejected by this new thing out of “fairness” to its greatness. The “this” that you spread out your hands for, the “paradise” you wish to hold,” can be any of these new things. This ambiguity in application, defining lines and stanzas, and interpreting tone and overall message leads me to strongly agree with the idea that “poets often withhold certitude” because uncertainty is what allows- “empowers”- creative thinking in their audience. Poets are more open by definition and having restrictive interpretations contradicts their craft in some- but not all- cases.  I think, Dickinson especially, would find any other way restrictive- that house of thinking, to her, would have no “everlasting Roof” reaching to the “Gambrels of the Sky,” or any of whatever than means because after all, who really knows?

Ingenious Yet Insensitive

Let me just start this off with the obvious drawback of the Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime viewing experience: we arrived really late. I don’t know if we really missed all that much in reality, but the show felt short without having experienced t from the beginning. Also, when you miss a show like this one where the stage set up is a little unexpected, it takes a little bit to figure out what’s going on. Once I got it though, I liked it. I thought the set design was ingenious. I really enjoyed the book and the play when reading them, and though I had some ideas of how I’d stage it, there weren’t any that I was overly in love with. I struggled with imagining a way to show how Christopher thought that didn’t seem overly contrived. I think the creators of this show did that very well. They put his brain on stage and it was beautiful.

I was a little concerned when I first sat down. Why were the other actors just sitting there? Why was there no actual set? Why was there this massive grid on the floor? The grid became clear after a few minutes (I thought it really emphasized the way Christopher thought of things mathematically and clearcut with defined lines. It made me imagine him seeing life like that,) but the sparse amount of props and the ‘benched’ actors took me awhile to appreciate. I think the use of lighting in the boxes and the hidden functions (i.e. suitcase handle) was clever. The show covers a lot of ground, physically and mentally. Using few multi-functional pieces was helpful in terms of practicality, as well as creating this illusion if different spaces. The lighting and sound were well done, as well. From what I understand, light and sound is heightened for autistic people. The train station scene worked well to show what was going inside of Christopher’s head. The loud noise made you want to cover your ears and the flashing lights hurt your eyes. It was like being assaulted and making the audience see the situation from that point of view really helped the story be seen through Christopher’s.

Most of my problems with the show aren’t necessarily just about the show.They might, in fact, only concern that performance, but I just don’t know. The way the performance was delivered made me a little uncomfortable. I thought it was too funny and no amount of cool tech could distract me from the laughs erupting from Christopher acting like Christopher. It’s like no one knew what the show was about. It is about telling the story from the point of view of an autistic person and the representations of how and what he thinks and the actions performed by the man playing Christopher were meant to reflect that fact. But people kept laughing. I don’t think it was meant to be malicious, but that kind of just made it worse. Christopher became a kid who was acting out a schtick. He was a goofball that had a penchant for one liners; he was an entitled brat who threw his books on the ground and made his parents undress him. But he isn’t that-he isn’t that at all. I was really disappointed in the audience for acting as if it was when they knew he was playing an autistic child and I place a little of that blame on the actors themselves who I think were playing it up for the audience. The script I feel also had one too many funny moments. Maybe they were meant to lighten the what was supposed to be serious rest of the show, but with all of this other laughter, the teacher and her single lines and Mr. Shears’ over-acting and goofiness was too much and unappreciated.

To leave my review on a relatively high note, there were some moments I did like. My favorite moment was when Christopher was opening his mother’s letters. I liked how Siobhan and the mother’s voice intermingled. Giving Siobhan a larger narrative role was smart for stage adaptation and in the play she became Christopher’s translated voice. It was his voice through someone we could understand. She articulated the thoughts that ran through Christopher’s head because, as we know, Christopher can’t always do that. So she read aloud what Christopher couldn’t. She became the voice in his head because she was the person he trusted and felt knew him- the only one now that he felt he couldn’t trust his parents. I think this whole scene was done very well. All this is going on in his head and Christopher is just building his train, rushing to put something together until the lights come up and he’s done for the count, utterly exhausted.

The play had its moments. The point of view changes were well done and the tech work ingenious. The acting and delivery was, at times, a little insensitive, but the play was good nonetheless. I wish I could see it again because I have a feeling that it wasn’t meant to be exactly like that. Maybe another time, I could also see that beginning.

Side Note- I was going to end the post here, but I just can’t go without getting made about the whole puppy thing. I was super disappointed in the people I was sitting with during that final scene. I mean, grow up, it’s a dog. In love puppies as much as the next person, but your cooing is completely undermining the utterly awful thing that Christopher’s father is doing in that moment. He murdered a dog, lied about Christopher’s mother being dead, and is not buying back his affection. He’s not a good guy and that puppy was not cute enough to just absolve him of that.

Side-side note- Again, sorry, but all that talk of how well trained that puppy is is nonsense. He ran toward the kid, who probably had treats, and then was held using a leash. It wasn’t a great feat of animal training; it was a puppy being a puppy, so just stop with all of the ‘ohh, look at the puppy’ nonsense.

Dickinson's "Nature is what we see" Analysis

This poem is just one stanza. There are few sentences and the poem is, at times, more of a list. The tone of the poet seems that she is in awe. The way it's formatted makes me think that she was trying to get everything out at once- incensed by the perceived greatness of the world around her. There's a lot of repetitiveness that follows a pattern. It almost feels as if there are places that it should be broken up. Every fourth line, beginning with the first, begins with the word nature. It's repetition  emphasizes the importance of the word to the poem. The fourth line of the poem begins with Nay, which happens after the next set of four lines. This word choice precedes another description of nature and its glory. I think it makes her seem as if she can't get the right words to encapsulate the greatness of her subject- that she needs more, she needs something greater, to say about something that, it's clear from the emotion infused in the piece, is something very important to her and a subject she greatly admires. There is not a consistent rhyme scheme, but multiple words do rhyme which suggests that they are important to each other. The words see, bee, sea, harmony, and simplicity were all used in the poem. I think it's cool that they form their own kind of rudimentary poem if you add a couple of words. See a bee and the sea. Recognize harmony and simplicity. I think using short words- one representing something terribly insignificant in size but crucially important to life and the wide open seemingly endless sea and pairing those with harmony and simplicity was very smart and that it helps the reader to "see" the poet's appreciation for the world, as well as maybe spark their own.

I like Dickinson's use of dashes because it gives the appearance of her tripping over her words in excitement or wonder. But this poem does not just talk about her love for nature or the vast wonder of the entire natural world, but it also kind of puts humanity in its place, or well the place where I think the author or the character the author is writing as,  thinks they belong. I think the capitalization of Our Wisdom preceded by the word impotent kind of belittles humanity. It's like look at our oh-so great wisdom, so insignificant compared to nature. This happy feeling while bringing up something critical and a little darker is very Emily Dickinson, or at least what I've come to know of her. I think the poem is saying that the world is so vast and we know so little compared to it. Even though the majority of the poem is just the author singing the praises of nature, I think that the underlying message- or one of maybe a few underlying messages- is one of less wonder and more realism.  

Poetry Themes in Set One

One theme, in the first poem especially, was waiting- waiting for something, in this case, that you blindly believe will come. This brings up a second theme of faith. The first poem says, "It's a figtree song!" he said,/ plucking his fruits like ripe tokens,/ emblems, assurance/ of a world that was always his own." He believed that the fig was going to come and in the poem didn't search one out because his faith in its eventual arrival was strong. It's arrival finally validated his belief. 

Another theme is remembrance. In the third poem, it says, "Our hearts,those dogged mirrors,/ keep flashing us /moons before we are ready for them." She keeps seeing her grandmother, memories "flashing" in front  of her before she was "ready for them." This idea of her popping up when she doesn't expect it or isn't actively thinking of her comes up throughout the stanzas and established remembrance as a theme and a main intention of the work. 

In the second poem, the last few lines say, "Like clothes on a line saying/you will live  long enough to wear me,/a motion of faith. There is this,/and there is more." This poem was about putting aside differences and seeing things as a bigger picture. This theme of recognizing more, of seeing other, is important to the message of the poem. The last line especially alludes to this idea of a community bigger than oneself. 

Set Design and Scene Proposal

       There's nothing that happens inside in my adaptation. I wanted to highlight the Maori people's connection to the ocean and just to nature in general. I tried to keep the set minimalistic because a lot of my adaptation calls for digital projection, and even though this story is magical realism, I didn't want the effect to be ruined. The main set pieces- i.e. the meeting house and Koro's place- move to the sides so that they aren't in the way of any action that happens on the beach. The meeting house moves  to the black line shown in the picture during Koro's classes and Kahu's presentation. It should just be an archway, so everything is really outside, but the cultural piece will be a reminder of tradition. 
        Koro's house should just be the front of it. It's not actually anywhere that people can go. During the beginning scenes or whenever they need to be in the house, it moves to its labeled back line and the meeting house is pushed back. This story is so focused on the Maori people’s connection to nature, to their gods and, consequently, the ocean, that putting more action indoors restricts the conclusions the audience can draw about the very real kinship these people have with the water. Conflict between Nanny Flowers and Koro would take place on the front porch and he would stalk off stage. Nanny Flowers’ flower beds would be directly at the front of the porch. I think I would choose to focus on this area because it would serve to ground Nanny and Kahu’s relationship. They would have this tangible proof of their growth together that would serve to show that they have a lasting relationship. I think this is where I would have Nanny bury Kahu’s umbilical cord in the beginning of the play. I think it’s important to keep that scene in the adaptation to show that there is this tie between Kahu and the land.
        Digital projection is really important to show the connection to the whales. We can't see actual whales because that would be distracting, labor intensive, and kind of ridiculous. The lighting would be dark, but the ocean would be projected on the stage as well as the outlines of the whales. The score during this time would need to reflect the mood of the situation. It would be mysterious, but strong during the beginning, happy when Kahu visits the dolphin, and devastating, but triumphant when she heads with the whales into the sea. Someone would play Kahutia in the beginning but then when the show began and the lights came up they would first shine on only the Kahutia statue. When this projection occurs and they are "underwater" both the meeting house and Koro's place should be pushed at to leave room.  At all times, the focus should be on the beach, so the line is blurred between these people and their lives and the ocean and the whales. 

Blurring the Lines Between Land and Sea

Performing The Whale Rider on stage presents some issues. The plotline revolves so much around being able to show this whale storyline alongside Kahu’s, or at least acknowledge that they are going on their own journey as Kahu is growing up. I think I would have to make some changes to the narrative, including the point of view. Rawiri acting as the narrator is an interesting perspective for the novel, but not anything that’s really applicable to the stage. I would choose to have Kahu more of the main focus in terms of narrative. The story would be hers instead of someone watching her. This means that gone would be the trip to Papua New Guinea and Sydney. I don’t think I’d even include the motorcycle gang. When I read the synopsis for the movie, there was very little mention of Rawiri (I still haven’t seen the movie. The clips on Youtube didn’t line up in some places, so I gave up.) I was surprised because he seemed so important to the story, but it’s easy to leave him out or to minimize his character. The same can be done for Kahu’s mother, step mother, and sister. Their roles are insignificant, which in the book highlights the perceived inferiority of females, but in a stage adaptation would just add unnecessary characters and make the story feel cluttered.

For staging, I would have a house front, upstage and to the left( stage right). This would be Koro’s house and for my purposes, the only house worth mentioning. This story is so focused on the Maori people’s connection to nature, to their gods and, consequently, the ocean, that putting more action indoors restricts the conclusions the audience can draw about the very real kinship these people have with the water. Conflict between Nanny Flowers and Koro would take place on the front porch and he would stalk off stage. Nanny Flowers’ flower beds would be directly at the front of the porch. I think I would choose to focus on this area because it would serve to ground Nanny and Kahu’s relationship. They would have this tangible proof of their growth together that would serve to show that they have a lasting relationship. I think this is where I would have Nanny bury Kahu’s umbilical cord in the beginning of the play. I think it’s important to keep that scene in the adaptation to show that there is this tie between Kahu and the land. If I understand what digital projection is correctly, to encapsulate the magical realism element that exists from Kahu’s birth, I would project that spear onto the stage and show it flying into that flower patch. For the audience to understand this, I’d have to give some background.

It’s crucial to the storyline to establish the role of the whales from the get go and to do that, the gods and Kahutia Te Rangi would need to make an appearance. The lighting would have to be dark, but the ocean should be projected on the stage. Kahutia would have to be standing center stage as the lights come up. His movements must be fluid and his costuming should immediately relay that he is a native. I do not know what the Maori people wear traditionally, but whatever they do is what Kahutia should be wearing. His spear should be in hand and whales should begin swimming behind him. Of course, this is not completely accurate, but short of building a whale, which would look odd, this is the best I could think to do that would relay what was happening- that Kahutia was swimming with the whales. There would need to be some speech in which he paid homage to the god of the water and then to the whales in general. He would need to dedicate himself to maintaining their relationship and then promise that in a time of need, a new leader would arise. Then the spear would be thrown, the lights would drop, and the stage would open on the house front with Nanny and Koro yelling.

The house front should be able to be pushed back, so the beach would take up most of the stage at any given time. This is where Koro would hold lessons, this is where Kahu’s concert would be held, this is where Kahu should hear the whales for the first time. The projection of the blue water and the whales is critical to relaying their importance to Kahu’s story. The score would also be something that would need to reflect the mood of the situation. It would be mysterious, but strong during the beginning, happy when Kahu visits the dolphin, and devastating, but triumphant when she heads with the whales into the sea. I think I would remove the hospital from the equation and have her return to the beach. Hopefully the lack of scene and set changes wouldn’t be too monochromatic, but I think it’s a good idea. Keeping minimalistic in terms of props and keeping the costumes simple, but reflective and respectful of cultural traditions, I think, is the way to go. The Whale Rider is an odd book to put on stage just because the story is very fantastical, so I think reigning it in and then having these scenes with a powerful score, wavelike lighting, and fluidity in motion will help show this contrast between the ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ without appearing contrived or overdone.