Categories
Poetry

On a Boat with Day-Lewis at Dawn

By Emma Large

 

For my grandfather

 

There was a ship on the starline

Where the water met its flank, up

And out and up like a quiet breath. 

A day, he had dared Day-Lewis, 

 

On its starboard bank; his arrogance brined

With spirits, the curdled wine from the engine

Tank. A day to beat you at your craft. The cleft

In him ran through it, as it did his life,

 

To fill that floating place: the eccentricity of 

His kindness, his fluency for endless speech

That flew without taking shape. I don’t know

How his poem read (the things

 

I’ll never know) – but he went, gleeful, to the poet’s room

As the sky was laced with morning. Look!

Your craft is mine; smugly, like a new-born;

Standing out on starboard side, yawning in the sun.

 

I am never too far away from here: this 

Is where I am from. The ramblings of a try-hard poet, 

On a boat with Day-Lewis at dawn.

Categories
Poetry

Cathedral 

By Emma Large


Labouring against me

in the sun-sucked twilight: our coolness


and the cold empire of the cathedral, my own

hurt grating against my ribs like the pluck


of fingers down banister rungs; the image

of us is numbed in the frost, without feeling. 


I sit with my books and learn how to let go.

Then I’ll let the hot rock smoke 


of a cigarette lick into my afternoons, 

my evenings – the salt ash ruminates


on the living room floor, puddles on cathedral stone.

The nightly toothache of yearning 


will spur me to my work, to be better, to grow out

my hair: all my desperate efforts, our image 


flaming to desire, without reason. I look to the church

and wonder how they bear what they bear. Their unrequited


toil, to love what is missing, an Absence so silent

they fill its mouth with their words: the hope of you 

comes to me like that, so warming, so willing.

Categories
Culture

The Mythologising of Donna Tartt

By Emma Large.

“‘Who was that charming Southern girl in the Homer class?’”

– Paul McGloin to Prof. Claude Fredericks, “The Secret Oral History of Bennington: The 1980s’ Most Decadent College”, Laura Anolik, 2019.

 

“I called my mother and said, ‘I’ve been caricatured in a book, and my character gets killed.’ And she said, ‘No, no. No one would ever kill you, not even in print, no.’ Then she read the book and said, ‘That’s you all right.’” 

Matt Jacobsen, “The Secret Oral History of Bennington: The 1980s’ Most Decadent College”, Laura Anolik, 2019.

 

In the cool crescent of a Vermont lawn, a girl and a boy sit smoking the ends of their cigarettes. The girl wears a long grey coat and sits upright against the shallow slope, with her legs laid out in front of her. Her feet, with the weight of her enormous, burnished loafers, fall lopsided; she mechanically adjusts them straight. The boy runs his finger down the spine of an umbrella. Their dark hair is cinched by equivalent pairs of large, rotund glasses, and to the unfamiliar eye, they appear almost like siblings. Behind them, in the near-past, the ghostly shapes of dancers, art collectors, composers, vocalists, writers, trail onto the college building’s rickety balustrade – white, matchstick-pillared, vaguely ecclesiastical – the all-American Parthenon for the eccentric academic.

The oval-eyed girl looks briefly at her companion. Her dark hair, at this moment, is longer that it will be again; it curls childishly, sweetly, over her forehead and under her ears. The starry expression of her face is indecipherable, her whimsy countenance is razored to an erudite blade. I like to think that, in this moment, she is plotting a murder.

 A fictional one, of course, but a murder, nonetheless. And in speculation, perhaps, the literary murder of a schoolmate at Bennington College – one of the most profligate (in all the senses of art, success, and drugs) and notoriously wealthy colleges at the time in the United States.

The boy meets her glance: he has his own novels to plot. They will be friends, fleetingly and excessively, until he tires of Bennington’s extremes and drops out in that first winter of ’82.

In Jonathon Lethem’s place, the girl unearths a new crowd. She needles her way into the male friendships of her boyfriend, Paul’s, isolated social circle: the senior Classics clique, a trio of Oxford-aspiring scholars in hefty woollen coats and ties. The girl adopts box blazers and slack, masculine clothes, shears her dark locks to a sleek bob. It is here, hair now severed to her ears, that she may have witnessed Todd O’Neal’s particular admiration for their charming, polyglot Greek professor, Claude Fredericks – here, that she may have overheard Matt Jacobsen’s exaggerated expressions and observed his money “sponging” habits.

Rumours buzz about the tiny girl who has so infiltrated the elusive Classics circle, her dark, quick exterior serving to deepen her impenetrability. Always impeccable, she is known to smoke using a cigarette holder, and to host tea parties in her dorm room. Her air of secrecy riles gossip to its extreme. She is shy, and talks very little, so there is always more to know. When she does speak, the class falls quiet to listen to the blurred twist of her Southern voice, its trip so slightly eased by her startlingly English pronunciation; a sound that hollows out, as decadent and old as a Southern Antiquity.

In the first year of her time there, she exchanges manuscripts via mailbox with an affected, broad-shouldered man, who is provocative even in his youth. She reads the initial drafts of Less than Zero and American Psycho. Years later, when American Psycho is published, Bret Easton Ellis asks her what she thought of it: she extends nothing but a grimaced smile. 

In turn, he reads the beginnings of The Secret History, a novel that, eight years on, will catapult its author and her Bennington friends into the public eye and into literary fame. It will transmute their time at the college into a scene of international investigation – propelled by a collective craving for mystery, and a desire to make biographical sense of a novel that is at once disturbingly strange and utterly recognisable.

 

Trawling through interview after interview of the Bennington cohort sheds light on how Donna Tartt may have mythologised her reality into her novels. It is certainly baffling that Tartt, Ellis, and Lethem were delivered from the very same ’86 ceremony (Lethem there because his girlfriend was graduating, himself a drop-out) and into the world to write extensively about murder. But retracing Tartt’s history reveals, more interestingly, a case-study of self-creation through writing – the formation of an identity and a novel in one generative sweep.

Rarely do writers appear so congruent with their writing in the way that Tartt does; this is, perhaps, why she is a figure of so much public intrigue. Her quality of fantasy and elusiveness feeds into her narratives, in which knowledge is continually fended away from the reader. In The Secret History, Richard Papen’s confusion is ours – we are rendered equally oblivious and uncertain about the strange college terrain that he navigates. The reader of The Little Friend is trapped in what is essentially a children’s comic; a vicious murder is enmeshed in a child’s detective plot. Tartt crafts mystery in frameworks that her reader must constantly call into doubt; I think of Tartt, the quiet campus enigma, causing riotous speculation with her androgynous exterior and her silence.

Ellis calls Tartt “bracketed by etiquette”. In the same way, her structured prose keeps its decorum while narratives of horror press up against it like hot, sweltering breath against a windowpane. It doesn’t crumble under emotion, or violence. We feel the heat of its awfulness, but Tartt doesn’t allow its physical body to be unleashed. Her friendly colloquialisms are offset by the refined, mineralised gems of her description, holding us at once emotionally vulnerable and in rapture of her imagery; I think of Tartt, fitted in a tailored suit, speaking in a soft, indefinite tone at a tea party, her mouth contorted with politeness when addressing the question of Ellis’s American Psycho to his face, a picture of Southern propriety.


I don’t know if Tartt’s novels are extensions of herself, or she an extension of her novels. Perhaps, her persona was first cultivated in Claude’s Greek class, or standing on the Commons Lawn, with Bennington at the wood’s edge like a white canine surfacing from burred, mudded gums. Or maybe, I think, she was drawn from her own storytelling – a person become through her writing, the very first of her literary, aesthetic creations. An image from a Seamus Heaney poem, The Grauballe Man, swirls in my mind:


“… he lies

on a pillow of turf

and seems to weep

 

the black river of himself.”

 

The “black river” of Tartt pours out into her books, and they feed back, symbiotically, into who she is. Perhaps this is why her novels take her decades to write. What is evident is that the preppy, curly-haired Mississippi transfer student who arrived at Bennington in ’82 was not the author of the stories that were to come. Somewhere, between a haircut or writing the first few notes of The Secret History, Tartt became herself, and the boundary between man and myth became indistinct.

Interview Source: “The Secret Oral History of Bennington: The 1980s’ Most Decadent College”, Laura Anolik, 2019.

Categories
Poetry

A Jade House

By Emma Large.

Twin Lantau houses swelter empty

Most of the year round, even their walls

Never touch. Named like siblings,

Green and White Jade; in equal spirit, 


In perpetual, feverish row. Air like anger

Ripples between them, too heavy

To hold itself straight: crumpling under

Heat and water, the kind of weight


That billows out like an oiled flag, the way

It rose up in the dusk. Then we wait

Until their edges dissipate to a truce

By darkness; all our gentleness


Comes back in the instinct, the grazing

Fingers against her knee,

The quiet vows in kitchen light.

My father hates this house, I think;


The insects purr too thick

In the garden, our anklebones

Are stubbed with bites. And I suppose

He felt its daylight loneliness,


The fury of a body’s ritual

That takes it blind, by night; the same

Rites that soften the longest fall,

The heart’s sweat and rise


Through old tides, its struggle to the drop down.

Same walls make quiet passage for love:

Slips, goes, no sound.

Categories
Poetry

Spring Sequence

Spring Sequence

 

Emma Large

 

We have wrestled hard into April, 

Through the bunched knuckles 

Of stonier-fisted months. Now,

 

Spring takes us with forgiveness,

Things feel leaner, my mother 

Looks at me with quiet eyes.

 

I stretch to meet 

What has opened in her:  

Tenderness that extends back to me

 

In the rawer light; draws our

Childhoods to touch, gently, 

Like two friends’ shoulders

 

Brushing together as they walk.

I’m not sure what is new and what

I have always known, or why

 

It took this to know it. I sit smoking

With her into spring dusk, until 

The linear wanes liminal: youth doesn’t

 

Come from strength, never floods

All at once; it glows and stutters in and

Out of this dimness, bruises freshen

 

This skin all the time. Old things take 

New shape; we stretch, come into line.

 

Categories
Poetry

Poetic of the Going

Poetic of the Going

Emma Large

 

Non poet, you don’t know how

maddening it is to bring back

and back and 

back and back to

margin, when I want to keep my hand

where the blood is, where the throbbing starts,

the sunken place before words only the body knows.

Keep my palm to the membrane from which the heart

swells out like an embryo against its shell,

in that valley before feeling surfaces; remembering

the brown flagstones of your skin, warmed 

in afternoon sun. I unravel us like threads

to keep our mess in my pocket and to touch

their feathered ends, every now and then,

because sometimes I like missing things to

feel I am living,

to dredge last blood for sake of requiem;

though your skin before me now, I wouldn’t touch.

It occurs to me that even our elegy 

wasn’t written to mourn you. Sentiment

for sake of feeling, grieving the going 

over what is gone; how happy I am 

you do not know

all my little cruelties.



Categories
Perspective

Can algorithms feel pain?

By Emma Large.

Curb the indignation just for a moment. Brian Tomasik wants to spark a conversation about the ethical duty he contends we have to “reduce the harm that we inflict on powerless, voiceless [AI] agents,” and I think we should briefly listen to him (very…very briefly).

Initial reactions to sentiments along the lines of Tomasik’s declaration often involve laughter. A spluttering of exasperation. Mockery. Very often, a rolling of the eyes; sometimes, as per the nature of my reaction, defensive outrage: How can anyone possibly imply we introduce AI into the scope of our moral consideration, as if there isn’t enough genuine suffering already? 

However, historically there has been a pattern of Cause-Xs: ethical areas that a current generation is blind to or critically overlook in a way that seems later incomprehensible. It is unthinkable to us now, for example, that anyone could ever think slavery a morally acceptable practice to engage with. I don’t mean to suggest that AI is a Cause-X area or in any way comparable; but I do think Cause-Xs show us that we can’t immediately laugh away subjects as ‘obviously’ undeserving of ethical consideration, without further thought. So I think we should bear with Tomasik and PETRL (‘People for the Ethical Treatment of Reinforcement Learners’ – Google it, it’s real) just momentarily. 

I’m nothing close to a computer scientist but I can attempt an amateur explanation of Tomasik’s general premises.1 AI agents in some algorithms (in lift buttons; in ChatGPT; in the behaviours of NPCs in video games) are trained to accomplish set tasks using a technique called reinforcement-learning (RL), a method sourced from biological neuroscience. Agents are set a task and receive a ‘reward’ whenever they achieve the desired state. When they fail to achieve the desired state, they receive a ‘punishment’. This seems familiar – don’t we often teach human children and animals in the same way? Tomasik argues the various cases of the agent receiving a reward or punishment can be identified with very rudimentary, extremely minimal states of cognitive pleasure and pain. These algorithms might, then, have the capacity to suffer. It is a fairly prevalent thought that we should try and prevent suffering if we can. Tomasik thereby presents his case that RL algorithms should be assigned a non-zero level of moral value (infinitesimal but not net-zero); in fact, he equates the moral value of one laptop’s combined RL algorithms to nearly that of an ant.

How is an artificial ‘punishment’ like biological pain?

Tomasik employs many complex parallels between neurological states and reinforcement-learning states to support the plausibility of his claim that AI possess some minimal sentience. These are too intricate for me to explicate or do justice to here. He does, however, employ three empirical criteria for identifying if something is in a state of pain, which he contends reinforcement-learning algorithms often exhibit when experiencing ‘punishment’ states:

  1. Not wanting anymore. Reinforcement-learning algorithms sometimes choose to enter terminating states (they will turn themselves off) sooner rather than later. This seems strikingly similar to the way we choose not to extend our painful experiences; behaviour like this implies that perhaps the algorithm was having or was anticipating net negative experiences.
  1. Avoiding rather than seeking. If moving across a grid of high-reward and low-reward squares, for example, an RL agent will avoid the low-reward squares. Whether this is high-reward seeking or low-reward avoidance is contentious; but ultimately, does it really matter? Both suggest the agent has a preferred and a non-preferred state of being that can be paralleled to sentience.
  1. Self-evaluation. Intelligent RL agents can sometimes ask us to stop running an algorithm or to turn them off, indicating they are having negative experiences. Sometimes they can literally tell us they are in ‘pain’ (if they are intelligent enough to understand the human concept of pain).

I’m not convinced. These exhibited RL behaviours might be similar to animal responses to pain; I can even accept that algorithms are put into states that are very distantly equivalent to neurological pain. However, I can’t corroborate the moral significance of this sentience because it seems to be non-qualitative and unconscious. We typically envision consciousness as supervenient on our bodies yet also non-physical, like a mysterious fog of qualitative experience that hangs about us. This could be false2, but it is a useful picture in showing this is not something that algorithms possess. AI can identify the colour red, but it doesn’t know what it feels like to see red; it can know a pain-state, but it doesn’t know what it feels like to be in pain. Algorithms don’t know the texture of experience, in all its mottled consistencies. So how can they be truly sentient in a way that is morally relevant, if they can’t consciously feel pleasure and pain in the way we do?3

Why would AI suffering matter?

I’m sceptical it would, even if algorithms did possess minimal sentience. However, Tomasik grounds his argument for why we should care about AI suffering with an extreme but somewhat persuasive analogy: 

A scientist proposes that she wants to create human children in labs that are physically disabled, for the purpose of research. As a result, they will likely spend their lives in quite a lot of pain. We naturally respond: absolutely not. 

But often AI is not programmed perfectly, and it malfunctions. It therefore spends quite a lot of time in a state of punishment, which Tomasik argues is somewhat equivalent to pain. Why should we morally condemn the first and not the second case?

Presumably, because the first case is one about human suffering – which is more important to us than silicon suffering. But Tomasik retorts: is the material that something is made of a morally relevant factor? It is wrong to discriminate against or disrespect people upon the basis of sex, or nationality, or race, or the colour of their eyes; these physical attributes are irrelevant to how we determine someone’s value. How can discrimination upon basis of material be any more morally justifiable? Surely, this could lead to an undesirable ethical landslide.

Tomasik consequently recommends we reduce the number of RL algorithms used and replace them with other AI, or refine algorithms to be more humane by using only rewards instead of punishments. I’m sceptical, but Tomasik’s problem is one to keep in mind; and as neurologists and computer scientists continue mapping the biological brain’s structure into AI sub-systems, one that will become increasingly ethically relevant.

References

1 His arguments require dense metaphysical and neurological explanations, which I don’t have the space for here; I link his thesis below. 

Tomasik, Brian. “Do Artificial Reinforcement-Learning Agents Matter Morally?.” (2014).

2 Tomasik certainly argues it is; but, again – not an argument I can lightly abridge.

3 Tomasik responds that moral relevance only requires the faintest traces of sentience. My suggestion that basic sentience isn’t sufficient to meet the standard for moral relevance admittedly gets tricky because it could possibly exclude quite a lot of things like insects, or humans with minimal sentience, from moral relevance. It also raises the eternal big question: if sentience doesn’t make you morally relevant, what does?

PETRL link – Look particularly at Brian Tomasik’s interview on their blog page.

Categories
Perspective

It’s time to Get Our Knickers in a Twist: a brief interview

By Emma Large.

Content Warning: References to Sexual Assault.

The one thing that we all tend to take for granted – knickers. 

The crucial undergarments that not only provide the foundation for the rest of our clothes, but underpin and permit the routines and solaces of our regular lives. They keep us warm; they keep us clean; they can make us feel sexy and they can make us feel comfortable. We can stick pads into them when we are on our periods, and constantly they provide that valued additional barrier to the outside world; whether we keep this barrier on or take it off is a matter of our own choice. They really are indispensable – all at once I think emblematic of consent, privacy, comfort and sexiness.

Hence why the absence of pants is the core focus of Durham University student Serena Chamberlain’s charity campaign. I sat down with Serena to discuss the movement and ask her a few questions about what she thinks pants really mean to people.

  1. To start things off, can you give me a brief explanation of who you are and what the campaign involves?

Hi, yes. I’m Serena, I’m in my second year at Durham, and my campaign is called ‘Let’s Get Our Knickers in a Twist’ – a female student-led operation which aims to provide vulnerable women with access to brand new underwear. We ask for donations of brand-new packaged pants of any size or style, or we fundraise monetary donations in order to buy these items. We then take the pants to various women’s refuges in Durham, London and Somerset and drop them off.

  1. Can you explain what you mean by the term ‘vulnerable’?

I use the term ‘vulnerable’ as an umbrella word for women in lots of different kinds of situations. We provide new underwear for women who are involved in sex work; women who are victims of domestic violence and addiction; and women who have become involved in the criminal justice system, often through no fault of their own. Many of these circumstances often lead to homelessness, which exacerbates their current vulnerability.

  1. Why is there such a dire need for underwear specifically, for women in these vulnerable situations?

While it is great that clothes donations and charity shopping are becoming increasingly popular, lots of people forget that the one item which cannot be donated to charities nor bought from charity shops is underwear, due to personal hygiene reasons. There is consequently an underwear deficiency for those who cannot afford new pairs. We know having spoken to women’s refuges that they get very few donations of female underwear, and they so desperately need them.

  1. Why do people forget or choose not to donate underwear?

Many people are not aware of the issues I have just mentioned, so forget to donate underwear; moreover, people often choose not to donate pants because it requires a greater sacrifice. It’s easy to donate old jeans you haven’t worn in a few years, but having to go out and buy brand new underwear is a bigger effort requiring more money and time, so it is not done as much.

  1. What inspired you to start the campaign?

My mum and I have been volunteering at a women’s refuge local to us in Somerset for quite a few years now, and when we have asked what they need the most, it has always been underwear. Two years ago, my mum threw a large fundraising event for women’s knickers, and ever since I have wanted to do something similar but didn’t know what. Timing is key and I wanted to do it at university, because here it is easy to get more people on board and build a support network. 

I would say I had two key parallel experiences that incited my determination to set up this campaign. The first was when I was volunteering at the Somerset women’s refuge, when I was lucky enough to sit in on some ‘advisory sessions’ (as I believe they call them) with the ladies who came in. The second was during my volunteering in Zambia on a female-empowerment project. I conversed with the ladies on both occasions, and a common theme across both sets of conversations was that when these women were bleeding vaginally – either from menstruating or, unfortunately, from assault – they did not even have a pair of underwear to stick a pad to (if they had one).

  1. Now, I know about this next question because I was there (and it was indeed epic), but what is a ‘pants party’?

So, the ‘pants party’ movement is an initiative to increase donations to the campaign. It was a large all-women gathering in one of our university houses, with the dress code of pink or pants, where those attending were either encouraged to wear their knickers if they were comfortable – or if not, wear pink. This helped to create a really fun atmosphere and a united sense of femininity. We wanted the party to be ‘all-girls’ was so that we could create a safe space, especially in the current climate where I know my friends and I have felt a lot of unwanted male sexual attention. For me, I felt it was freeing to be in our underwear just for ourselves, free from external judgement and discussion. We had a camera and took some great pictures (with people’s permission of course) – which is where the cover picture for this interview came from.

We had a firm ‘no knickers no entry’ policy, which meant you had to bring a brand-new pack of underwear to the door in order to be let in. We collected 380 pairs of pants that evening, which we took to a women’s refuge a few days afterwards.

We are trying to encourage students at lots of different universities to hold their own pants parties and do their own take on it to collect donations of underwear – if you would like to do so, please get in touch with me!

  1. How many pairs of pants have you collected so far?

1882. 

  1. What are your plans for the future?

Alongside spreading the ‘pants party’ initiative, we are hoping to collaborate with some more underwear brands and charities to host joint fundraising events. Bravissimo has already sent us 500 pairs of underwear and we have a current collaboration with ‘Bottoms Up The Brand’, in which they’re giving us 10% of their profits from November.

There are plans in the works with some of the Durham University fashion shows and for further collaborations with Durham charities, like the City of Sanctuary through Durham Refugees Club, by matching their clothing donations with knickers donations to local asylum seekers.

  1. Do you think the problem of underwear might be difficult to talk about for some women? Do you think that female underwear has a certain taboo about it?

Yes, I do – and it’s a strange taboo because underwear is such a basic necessity. I think for some reason a sense of dignity is tied up in our idea of female underwear, maybe precisely because it is so fundamental to our lives, and is a symbol of our sexuality, and helps us with all our ‘embarrassing’ bodily functions that have been kept secret and underground by society for years. I think the stigma around pants could be similar or linked to the stigma around sanitary products. We know that many women in vulnerable situations may find requesting underwear humiliating or embarrassing, and we want to provide knickers for women without them needing to ask. But ultimately, we’d love to remove the stigma around female underwear which shouldn’t even be there in the first place.

  1.  If people want to donate to the campaign or help in some way, what should they do?

Please keep donating pants by dropping them around (contact us via email!) or donate at the GoFundMe link: https://www.gofundme.com/f/provide-knickers-to-ladies-who-need-them-most?member=22146243&sharetype=teams&utm_campaign=p_na+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=customer

Have your own pants party and help us to fundraise either physical pants or monetary donations.

Furthermore, if anyone has any ideas or connections that could help with fundraising please drop me a message – this kind of stuff really helps and opens up new pathways for the campaign!

Social media for ‘Let’s Get Our Knickers in a Twist’: Our Instagram and TikTok handle is @letsgetourknickersinatwist – follow us to get regular updates on the campaign, pant counts and to see where your donations are going and the impact they are having.

Categories
Culture

Is ‘Insta-poetry’ real poetry? A study of Rupi Kaur’s poetry in the age of consumerism

By Emma Large.

When reflecting on previous avant-garde poets and movements, such as Allen Ginsberg and the New Age poets or Ezra Pound and the Modernist movement, it seems that new poetry is almost always divisive and controversial in its contemporary context. We often wonder why these works were such furious points of literary contention. I now want to be on the right side of history, embracing new art forms and styles with open arms. However, when I consider the new era of ‘Insta-poetry’, front-lined by poet Rupi Kaur whose work first shot to fame on the social media platform in approximately 2015, I am unsure which side I want to be on at all.

Kaur, self-styled a “poet, artist and a performer”, publishes and promotes her poetry on her Instagram account with a vast following of 4.5 million. She is known for her distinctly brief and fragmented poetic form, typed in all lowercase letters and without punctuation, and usually accompanied by a small sketch:

The debate about the value and nature of Kaur’s work has been particularly vociferous, and I have no desire to feed into a fierce pool of unnecessary criticism. However, whilst I understand her writing is emotionally impactful, I struggle to see how it can be called ‘poetry’; at least it seems less like poetry than the work of Ginsberg or Pound. Though it is not necessary for poetry to have form, I propose Kaur’s work lacks something that means it often fails to fulfil the conditions of real poetry. This deficiency’s exact nature seems elusive and contentious for all. While her work may be short, great Haiku poetry is only a few lines long; and though her words are decapitalised, this is also often the case for many contemporary poets. Hence, I pose the following questions: what exactly is Kaur’s writing lacking, and why does it matter?

I first contend that Kaur’s art lacks the unique specificity that provides most poetry it’s crucial emotional passion and substance, a point on which she has received a great body of criticism. Her work rarely provides a geographic or temporal location nor explicit context and abounds with generalised pronouns as she addresses the wider ‘you’ of her readers. This universality is amplified further by her poetry’s brevity. I provide these two examples from her 2015 collection ‘milk and honey’ for reference.

Kaur’s work is deliberately vague and imprecise for the purpose of being relatable to most people’s circumstances and contexts; the ‘all’ she depicts (or doesn’t depict) in the second poem is consciously undefined for this very reason. In the same way, her poem begins just after an event – ‘and’ – yet the exact occurrence remains unknown. The ‘you’ she addresses in the first poem could refer to anyone, thus easily translatable into a reader’s own life; and the ‘you’ addressed in the second is explicitly her audience. Though Kaur’s poetry thus appears to express passionate personal sentiment, at its bottom it does not entail anything individual or intimate at all; its emotion and personality is provided by her reader’s interpretation of it. This is arguably the key to Kaur’s popularity – her poetry can apply to everyone and anything, easily accessible and crafted for mass consumption.

Of course, I am hesitant to fall into the trap of poetic elitism. As Monika Hartmann suggests, Kaur’s work “democratises” poetry so that all can appreciate it; merely because something can be understood by all does not mean it is inherently bad or unworthy. Universality could be a vital asset of Kaur’s work. However, for me her artwork lacks the specificity and personal feeling that I think poetry – or at least captivating poetry – requires. Her poems do not make “monuments” out of “moments” (as Dante Gabriel Rossetti once wrote about sonnets), finding beauty and profundity in a singular place and time; but rather provide shiny all-purpose statements that could mirror any time and event in a reader’s life. Kaur’s poetry therefore may be reflective, but I certainly do not believe it is authentically personal.

Furthermore, the immediate transparency and directness of her work also means that it does not need much thought to understand. She rarely uses figurative language, and her metaphors and similes are instantly obvious or explained to the reader. Many of her poems likewise seem to be frank statements of fact and advice, absenting any literary features at all. This is an example from her newest collection ‘home body’:

I do not deny that this poem can be emotionally powerful for its readers; in fact, I think that Kaur’s frankness intensifies her work’s vitality and impact. However, I do also strongly believe that good poetry requires a little thought from the reader in its understanding; poetry needs to be interpreted and mused on rather than simply served up to its reader on a silver platter. Kaur’s work does not engage a reader’s thought in the process of reading it, as they do not need to discover its meaning: it is spooned directly and straightforwardly, straight into their mouths. Her poetry to me appears more like statements reflecting fact, or self-help advice; while perhaps powerful and motivating, you do not need to think to understand it.

At the core of my arguments thus far lies my conviction that Kaur’s work seems crafted more for immediate mass consumption than individual deliberate thought. Both the structural form of her poems – their brevity, the frequent line breaks, the decapitalization of her words for no apparent purpose – and her direct transparency of meaning and universality all suggest that her work has been crafted to be read quickly by many. While superficially her writing seems genuinely confessional, at its core it does not offer much real emotional substance; likewise, it does not inspire much deliberation on its meaning. Kaur’s work seems to reflect its creation in the Instagram-age, in which we are used to consuming art and media at a rapid speed and forming an opinion after only a quick glance. Her work is perfected for the Instagram feed. While I cannot deny its emotional power and inspiration, I do not think either that a lot of it can be classed as poetry. Without personal contextualisation and emotion or figurative language, I think Kaur’s writing consists instead of beautiful assertions and mirroring musings on reality. Its focus is on its reader rather than its writer. This is art fashioned for consuming rather than thinking. But, perhaps, in our intensely commercial environment, this is what art is becoming?