In reworking the paragraph about Peggy Clevenger, I attempted to suggest that although Peggy seemed a nuisance to the “Pineys,” what ultimately happens to her (at least what is implied) is surprising and cruel. Did the Pineys steal her gold, lock her in her cabin, and burn her alive? I wanted that to be a possible conclusion from reading the poem. When reading the paragraph, I was most drawn to the sentences about gold and thought bookending the poem with the references to gold could be a nice framework, which could put words such as greed and revenge in the back of the reader’s mind while reading the rest of the poem. The middle portion, containing the two instances of the rabbit and lizard, complicate Peggy’s image. She was bothersome, but did she deserve to die and her gold stolen? I hope that my poem asks this question.
About twice as long in length, the second paragraph allows more potential for differing interpretations. Is Charlie’s son Jim a picker who oversees or just an overseer? I think the answer to that question influences how the reader interprets the old picker who gives the tickets back to Charlie. Will Jim turn in those tickets to earn himself some cash or are those tickets for giving out to the other workers? Regardless, the old picker acts honestly when he could have claimed the tickets as his own. I wanted the picker’s honesty to be the main thrust of the poem, but I don’t think I did a good job. It doesn’t flow in the way I envisioned. If I were to revise the poem, I would try to cut out some of the description, painting a more immediate image of the inside of the packing house and the interaction between Charlie and the old picker. I ended the poem strangely by mentioning the line waiting for the outhouse on purpose, but I’m not sure if I succeeded in my decision. I wanted to suggest that, like waiting in line to go to the bathroom, the whole scene is mundane.
No comments:
Post a Comment