Linear vs Relational Narratives and Revisionist History in Susan Howe and Alistair Reid

In the Susan Howe poem there seems to be a specific division of labor between the two paragraphs. The first paragraph actually resembles an airplane changing direction with its nose slightly up, suggesting that it is leaving or moving away from the ground, which here we can think of as the second paragraph which looks similar to a pile of rubble or a structure collapsed in on itself. The first paragraph consists of a sequence of words that suggest a rigid procession: “in mum/in arm/in at/ in ale as in tone.” The words overlap occasionally, such as “in arm” crossing over “in mum” and “in at” in the opposite direction, which to me suggested a system of silence and domination that both kept people collectively powerless (arms locked together) and was enforced through the barrel of guns, or arms. Below that, the word “open” literally opens the form of the poem for a moment, and then the words “peon vies company” flows upward, with the word “fluent” transposed over it, suggesting a conflict between an indigenous and an imperialist culture in which the indigenous people are fighting. Furthermore, the word “wedged” suggests something in a difficult position between two things, followed by “destiny shed,” which reflects possibly a dream broken. “[Cancel whole]” seems to confirm this idea of an indigenous culture’s destiny not being fulfilled because of cultural interference, especially if we look at it as the cancellation of a holistic way of living, such as what western culture has largely done to indigenous people around the world. The paragraph ends with squall extending out into the abyss between the two, like an actual wild cry.


In the next paragraph, Howe discusses history as a record of survivors, introducing the idea of revision. In this stanza the phrase “They cumbered the ground,” shoots out of the word “[authoritative];” this, (along with “Human [authoritative] human!”) is a rare instance of adherence to typical grammatical structures in the piece, suggesting the authoritativeness of the “human” in question.

It makes sense to use a non-traditional structure for this poem because the emphasis of the poem seems to be on the revisionist properties of history. The idea of re-doing or un-doing works well for her purpose of capturing the complex smattering of ideas and feelings the dominant cultural narrative leaves out or glosses over; the outburst(s) she is trying to give voice to require an experimental form. Reading the author commentary was very intrinsic to my eventually forging a meaningful relationship with this text. Without some background on the author, I think it would be hard to interpret this poem without feeling that you were totally going out on a limb, but I do think that the second paragraph functions as a directional signal back to the first in some way and that applying clues in the second half to the first would be of assistance in breaking it down. Additionally, it works in two main contexts; the form represents a product (war) of the topic (conquest), and the words imply a historical counter-narrative through the use of words such as “revision,” “record,” and “cumber” to describe the “authoritative” humans taking up space (potentially in regard to clearing green space to pursue agriculture/industry beyond initial settlements). What I want to retain from this piece is the application of form and use it in the process of thinking about making a visual out of words that communicates something about the subject that contributes to the overall meaning a reader takes from it, or that assists in the reading process.

Comparatively, Alastair Reid’s “Mandala: Dilemma” has a similar application of form to create meaning. In this piece there are only four words: “mightier than the penis.” This would be hard to contribute if it were written in a line like a typical poem, however Reid places his words in a circle with equivalent space between each character and no definition between the individual words. Thus, the words in this piece are completely dependent on the shape that they make. Reid is at a literal level making a comparison between the genitals specific to each sex. We see that comparison through the words which describe the relative power of the male sex organs, versus the shape, which represents in a figurative kind of way the female opening, or “hole from where it all arrives.” I offer the “hole from where it all arrives” idea because Reid seems to be pitting male sex organs against female sex organs as a metaphor for the conflict between linear and relational – the penis representing more of a line, with a beginning and an end, and vaginas representing a circle, life, and all of the deep, dark mysteries patriarchal culture has affiliated with the female sex organs throughout much of history. Reid seems to be saying “[this circle is] mightier than the penis,” and to me what this means is that Reid is saying a relational way of thinking and living is mightier (and perhaps less destructive) than the linear fashion so prominent in the progress narrative.

In conclusion, I see these poems relating in two very important ways. Both of them contain meanings that rely heavily (in the case of Howe) or solely (in the case of Reid) on the formatting of the words themselves. Furthermore, both seem to be discussing a conflict between the linear and the relational, in Howe’s poem this is just demonstrated specifically through the lens of history. We can view the conflict between the “peon” and the “authoritative human” as a conflict between linear and relational ways of life, and linear versus relational means of conveying a people’s history, specifically.