[Glenn Wright]

There are two ways to look at ultra-minimalist poems like this one. One is to say that they don’t provide enough guidance to allow explication. The other is to say, as Jim Moonan does, that they require the reader to do most of the work in creating meaning and to become an active participant in the poetic process. These ultra-minis are like springboards or catalysts to provoke the creation of meaning from within the reader. They are like Rorschach tests to help the readers discover the contours of their own psyche, or like a greased pole to climb as a way to test their critical fitness.

In approaching this poem, as Max pointed out, the title is the best starting point, as it provides a clue or direction for inquiry. As I read the poem, a number of questions occurred to me. Who is “he,” and is he the same person in both stanzas? Who is the narrator, and where is he located in order to be able to observe and report the events? Why are the repeated actions mentioned exactly twice? If it is meant to describe an infinitely or indefinitely repeating cycle, why not write it in a circle like Gertrude Stein’s “A Rose Is a Rose?” Why does the cycle begin with “He wakes” instead of “He sleeps?” What does “he” feel about his existence? Is “he” aware of possibilities beyond the severely proscribed cycle of events he repeats? How does the N feel about it?

Here are some possibilities:
1. “He” is a brain-damaged/dementia afflicted patient in a nursing home. N=nurse marking his chart
2. “He” is an agoraphobe cowering in his tiny apartment.
3. “He” is profoundly depressed and contemplating suicide. (The title might imply this.)
4. “He” is Adam in the Garden before the creation of Eve. N=God
5. “He” is a different prisoner in each stanza living in adjacent cells. N=prison guard
6. “He” is a monk in a cloister, silently praying for the redemption of the world.

Rather than expecting the poet to leave a trail of bread crumbs leading to a foregone conclusion, ultra-minis hand the readers a pencil and paper and invite them to find meaning in themselves. Just as teachers know that the silence after asking a question can press students to think through and find an answer in themselves, so ultra-minis use what is not said to press readers to find an interpretation that feels true to them.

Literary critics are skeptical of the “affective fallacy” in which readers import their own thoughts and feelings into their interpretation of a work of literature, regardless of what the author actually wrote. Yet this is exactly what most people do when they read a poem or watch a film. They want the literature to speak to them personally and relate to their own unique life experiences. Ultra-minis actively encourage readers to commit the sin of the affective fallacy by providing no other way to make meaning.

Glenn