Capital Punishment, by Sherman Alexie. (Attempting New Criticism) -Cara Dacus
This poem is from the point of view of a cook who is preparing the last meal for an Indian man about to be executed. The speaker is in conflict with his own sense of right and wrong and the laws and systems set in place by society. This poem is filled with paradox by the speaker repeatedly stating "I am not a witness", implying he does not take a stand, or choose a side, and yet the whole poem is expressing his disagreement to capital punishment.
There are many sides of "wrong" to capital punishment. One of them touched on is racism. "It's mostly dark ones who are forced to sit in the chair, especially when white people die". The point of the Indians innocence or guilt is not questioned, the "Indian killer pushed his fist all the way down a white man's throat, just to win a bet on the size of his heart". Society believes (and enforces) that punishment for killing is to be killed. Yet despite the apparent guilt the speaker still seasons this last meal, making it "just right". He does not put this amount of care into the wardens food, "For the boss I just cook. He can eat what I put in front of him". Through his actions the speaker is showing us where his sympathies lie.
I'm planning on talking somewhat about the form of the poem. How it is written in couplets, yet without rhyme and an overall somber tone. It is very literal, with very few figurative lines. One line, "I prepare the last meal for free, just like I signed up for the last war" is one of the rare exceptions and I wanted to touch on the importance of this simile. Comparing the weight of dealing with life and death between capital punishment and war (two "acceptable" forms of killing).
This idea leads into a main point of this poem, the American idea of killing. That it is an idea, with the lines about the audience shouting out what it means contrasting the speakers bluntly honest definition of "1 death+ 1 death= 2 deaths". This is a very important line, highlighting the essence of the overall encompassing truth of humanity that is trying to be told, thus a death is a death no matter who it is.
I also want to talk about the speaker tasting the food, using the same utensils and plate. The importance of his imaging a part of him becoming part of the Indian man is symbolic to all humans being connected, part of a whole as opposed to separate individuals.
This idea of wholeness is confirmed at the conclusion of the poem with "If any of us stood for days on top of a barren hill during an electrical storm then lightening would eventually strike us and we'd have no idea for which of our sins we were reduced to headlines and ash". By uniting all humanity it also condemns the right to reduce us to "headlines and ash".
ReplyDeleteCara,
I'm not sure if this first paragraph is meant to be the intro or if you just started analyzing. If it IS the 1st para. make sure you introduce the poem in the para. itself. You write, "The speaker is in conflict with his own sense of right and wrong and the laws and systems set in place by society." Yes. The poem offers a clear internal AND external conflict, and that internal conflict is made external by the speaker's repeated paradoxical statement, "I am not a witness." Good. This is a strong and obvious paragraph, the repetition of which reinforces it throughout the piece.
You write, ""I am not a witness", implying he does not take a stand, or choose a side, and yet the whole poem is expressing his disagreement to capital punishment." I'm curious as to why you think the statement = not taking a stand. Without context, a reader might assume that this means, literally, not bearing witness to an event (as in he's seeing it with his eyes but stating that he isn't). This may not be the case, but try to clarify exactly how this repeated refrain comes to mean what you say it does here. In fact, this phrase itself should probably be set up as one of your ambiguities; you can talk about the denotated and connotated possible meanings of said phrase. (Obviously, it becomes clearer, meaning-wise, as the poem moves forward, so you could work with it on that level).
Not sure what you mean here: "There are many sides of "wrong" to capital punishment." As in the poem suggests multiple moral issues with capital punishment? As written, this sounds like your opinion (stating a "fact" about capital punishment), so just clearly link the idea to what the speaker expresses.
""It's mostly dark ones who are forced to sit in the chair, especially when white people die" -- consider the irony implied by way of these contrasting images/colors.
"Society believes (and enforces) that punishment for killing is to be killed" -- avoid social context unless the poem directly implies this (and it appears the poem implies much more about the imbalance in terms of who's convicted (much higher incidence of dark-skinned convicts, particularly when a victim is white).
You do a great job establishing where/how the speaker establishes sympathy for the prisoner (and why). You might directly discuss tone in relation to this unraveling of speaker sympathies.
"One line, "I prepare the last meal for free, just like I signed up for the last war" is one of the rare exceptions and I wanted to touch on the importance of this simile. Comparing the weight of dealing with life and death between capital punishment and war (two "acceptable" forms of killing)." This sounds promising. Again, definitely use words like "contrast", "comparison", "irony", and "ambiguity" as you move toward making assertions about the ultimate meaning established.
This is unclear: "This idea leads into a main point of this poem, the American idea of killing. That it is an idea, with the lines about the audience shouting out what it means . . ." Not sure what you mean by "American IDEA about killing" . . . this suggests America as a whole holds one view of killing (and I'd stick with "capital punishment," since all forms of "killing" aren't dealt with in this poem.
ReplyDelete"This is a very important line, highlighting the essence of the overall encompassing truth of humanity that is trying to be told, thus a death is a death no matter who it is." Well done here. I'm wondering if this is the "solution" to the paradox or simply your statement about the piece's universal appeal. After all, the speaker suggests that, on hand, 1 death plus 1 death does NOT equal 2 (i.e., that one (white) person's death holds more weight than someone else's) and simultaneously suggests that 1 death plush 1 death DOES equal 2. As such, what you have here is a perfect resolution to this paradox - you just need to set it up as a paradox. If you do, then to avoid repetition of paradox in your conclusion, you might talk about how this debate is still very current/relevant (thus, the timelessness of discussing the ethics of capital punishment.)
Of course, this, too, could work for that universal appeal conclusion: "The importance of his imaging a part of him becoming part of the Indian man is symbolic to all humans being connected, part of a whole as opposed to separate individuals."
I've probably written enough to overwhelm you at this point, so I'll stop. This sounds like it's going to come together in a really intriguing way, and I'm looking forward to reading it.