Comparative Commentary on “Muliebrity” by Sujata Bhatt
and “Carpet-weavers, Morocco” by Carol Rumens
T
|
he poems “Muliebrity” and
“Carpet-weavers, Morocco” strike me as very similar. As these poems place
emphasis on talking about children and culture, they both concentrate on hard
work and pride the children take in their work. Also, a major point is that the
children build their own future and their own culture if they are not oppressed
by other cultures or their own.
In “Muliebrity” by Sujata
Bhatt – an Indian poet that wrote numerous poems about language, culture,
society and her own memories in English, as she was educated there – writes
about a girl she saw every day from the window in her home, that gathered
cow-dung to use fuel n her own house. Bhatt was amazed by how much pride the
girl could take in that task. Almost the same can be said about the poem
“Carpet-weavers”. Here, the children are referred to in the plural, without
expressing their individual being (“their”). They all work as carpet-weavers
from a very small age and for very little money. They are used a as a metaphor
– “melodious chime”, which indicates their varying age groups and heights. The
theme of the poem is tangled deeply with the oppression undergone by some
cultures and how this all affects the children of a country. Specifically two
countries are described in these two poems – India (“Muliebrity”) and Morocco
(“Carpet-weavers”)
It can be seen throughout
the poem that Morocco has a specifically oppressive cultural structure. This
can be seen mostly in the first and third stanzas of the “Carpet-weavers,
Morocco”. The repetition of the word “they” and “their” shows that the children
are not seen as individuals, but as simple machines. The word “oiled” also can
be referred back to machines, though it is true that children in Morocco really
oil their hair.
India can be shown as a
“broken up” country, where the rich and the poor are divided severely. It has
quite dirty and nasty rural areas, but out in town there are clean, rich houses.
This is presented in the phrase – “monkey breath and freshly washed clothes”.
The clothes symbolize the house and all its neatness, while the “monkey breath”
refers to the dusty streets and the animals and beasts in the woods.
In these two poems, layout
and form play a great role. In “Carpet-weavers” the orderly lines ended by a
full stop symbolize the lines on a “loom” (instrument used for weaving, can
also mean ‘threatening’). They are all three lines per stanza, which is also a
connection to the children’s’ job. In the last stanza though, there is an
enjambment, because it is their childhood slipping away from them.
In “Muliebrity”, many of
the lines are unfinished and do not have punctuation to symbolize pauses. This
gives the poem a ‘continuous’ feeling to it and we can almost feel that it is a
memory. It is also represents us with the messy and disorganized lifestyle
there.
In both poems, one of the
main factors is the pride that the children take in their work and how
“entertaining” and “important” they find it. In the “Carpet-weavers” there are
phrases showing how engulfed they are in their work (“like television”,
“flickering”) and also the major difference in class between “western”
civilizations and the poorer ones. In “Muliebrity”, words like “greatness” and
“power” are used to emphasize the mastery and strength of women.
A great role is played by
the verb tenses in both poems. I the “Carpet-weavers” the only tenses used are
the future and present one, symbolizing that these youths must strive forward
and not look back at the awful days that are now behind them.
“Muliebrity” is written
in the past tense, showing that these all are Bhatt’s memories of her childhood
and her viewpoint of the past. It is a memory that is taken into the future without
being altered and it “lives” with her in her heart. Also, in the last line of
“Carpet-weavers” there is a very interesting phrase – “freeze in to the frame
of all-that-was”. This is a reference to film, where you can freeze-frame –
stop the film at a particular position. The same is shown here, when you as if
want to stop and edit their childhood so they didn’t have to work and so on.
Between these poems there
are many similarities, as well as differences – in style, theme, layout, etc.
In my opinion the most standing-out difference is the style of writing. Bhatt
writes it a commentary on something that already exists, with her own emotions
shown in the choice of words. Rumens, on the other hand, wants to show this
point in time as a bystander, with almost no hints on his own emotion on the
topic. Though there are many a similarity, the theme and viewpoint of these
writers stay the same, as they talk about how great these children are and how
they cope with their life.
These are truly amazing
poems, which touch the soul and heart with their outstanding explicit
perspective on childhood and culture.
By Valentina
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий