All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace
Richard Brautigan (1968)
I'd like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.
I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.
I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back in nature,
returned to our mammal brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.
The kids thought it was crap. Those who weren't overly confused by it read it at a dull surface level, believing Brautigan was crazy and that he thought it'd be cool to have a forest of trees and technology like some kind of computer nerd. Beneath the text, there was a blurb about how Brautigan was a prominent figure for the hippie generation. Whereas I have been labeled a hippie before and see it as a positive thing, my students have exclusively negative connotations with the word. Any weirdness in the poem was because "he's a hippie!"
I, too, find the poem ridiculous, but believe that to be the beauty of the poem. Maybe it's my natural sense of sarcasm, but I find it impossible to read these lines and not laugh along with its sarcastic tone. Imagery, by definition, is supposed to help paint clear pictures in the reader's mind; though the images in this poem are strong, they are nearly impossible to actually picture because the idea is so ludicrous. Mammals and computers in "mutually programming harmony"? "Deer stroll peacefully past computers"? Such ideas are said in a positive voice as if to indicate their goodness, but it actually repulses me. Furthermore, when these notions are compared to more standard images of natural beauty through simile, "like pure water touching pure sky" and "flowers with spinning blossoms," it adds to the idea that a "cybernetic meadow" would not be so swell, no matter how you shake it.
I find the parts written in parentheses, complete with exaggerated exclamation points, to be the most sarcastic parts of the poem. These words are the typical commentary by the technology-loving populace: "right now, please!" being our urgency to have these advancements made before their proper time and "it has to be!" indicating the inevitability of it all.
When I gave my interpretation to my students, they agreed with me in a "the teacher's always right" kind of sense, but not to my satisfaction. Thereafter, I went to the internet to see what others said about the poem for some kind of affirmation to my own reading. Alas, each and every bit of commentary I've located on the poem has indicated a literal reading, wherein they believe Brautigan is either as a wacky as the narrator indicates or they agree that this vision would be utopia.
That can't be, though, can it? The concept of omnipresent machines monitoring our every step is not comforting, but frightening, even if they are said to be "of loving grace." I realize that a poem can express a point of view that I do not agree with, but this poem seems like such an over the top farce that I have difficulty reading it any other way.
Ultimately, I suppose my question is one about tone. And so I ask you, friends, English majors, compatriots, how you interpret this poem. Is it a critique on technological advancements? A sincere goal for the future? Certainly, I've taken enough classes to know that literature can hold different meanings for different people, but I'm not willing to settle for that school of thought right now. Since graduating I crave intellectual conversation/debate/discussion about literature, and I ask that you indulge me with your thoughts on this piece. The more pretentious you sound, the more I'll hug you.
5 comments:
Gonna have to agree with your reading. I initially read it as being sarcastic, even beyond the parts in paranthesis ( "programming harmony," ha!) and the language itself juxtaposes the two different worlds, the linguistical awkwardness demonstrates how the two will inherently clash.
Yeah, I think it's a humorous commentary on modern technology worship. It critiques modern fascination with technology as well as our behaviors as they are shaped by our relationship to technology (the demands the sooner the better! right now please!)--but playfully. And yeah, the parenthetical statements signal that the poem should not be read literally.
The nature imagery is pretty conventional. The poet seems to have taken the framework of a cliche Romantic/ pastoral poem and juxtaposed modern imagery and language with the romanticized conventional natural imagery. The results are playful and surprising. Do the technology referenes empty the poem of meaning? Or is the conventional framework already empty of meaning? I think the triteness of the nature imagery ridicules the contemporary relationship with technology even further. The poem, in a way, is cliche love song to machines.
I would also tend to agree with you, but as we seem to share a common sense of humor (the meth song and "Jinger Bells") I do not know how much credibility this lends you. I do not know if I like this poem or not. My undergrad major was anthropology but I did survive Mrs. Miller’s class and even now I feel that must count for something. I do not think that the sarcasm is just silly superfluous hippie bullshit. This poem points out the absurdity of combining the natural and technical world. A “cybernetic meadow” does not sound like a positive image to me. I am also surprised at the negative connotation associated with the term “hippie” especially with high school kids.
Apparently,these days all the hip philosophers and scientists think that your thoughts and your brain are the same thing. So, admittedly this is hard for me to grasp, but if I've got it right, that means the noise of a door closing and the part of my brain that heard or constructed that noise are the same thing.
This idea of thoughts and brains being the same thing is the most amazingly literal way to interpret consciousness. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just the best way to explain how much I am wowed by this idea, and have a really hard time understanding it.
I believe part of the reason I have a hard time with this is that I am an English major, and have spent a hell of a lot of time looking for meaning beyond the surface of things. So I'm giving literalness a chance, and saying this poem means what it says. And I think it's pretty that way, too.
I started to read it as possibly a geunine desire for coexistence of nature and technology, but the language was just too earnest and the parentheticals too exclamatory for me to take it at face value. I also voted on the side of sarcasm and was hoping that's what you were going to mention in the rest of the post.
Additionally, I've heard more and more people referring to hippies in a derogatory sense. I think it has a lot to do with where you grew up and your values. But I guess that's par for the course with conflicting connotations.
Post a Comment