Richard's LOVETREES in retrospect

It's interesting to me how the two reviewers of Richard Greenfield's work didn't seem to have as much to say as the reviewers of Nick Flynn. That is to say, I didn't get as strong of an opinion on either end of the love/hate spectrum from Greenfield's reviews as I did from Flynn's. Despite this, I thought Joyelle McSweeney and Stephen Burt had some good points in their reviews, many of which we discussed in class and in our respective blogs. Burt points out that "Greenfield's distinctively serious mien sends him out on consciously risky searches for the obtrusively beautiful; his emotions, by contrast, emerge through understatements." We discussed in class how Greenfield emphasized the beauty of nature, and many of us felt that he used this to contrast with the more gruesome plots of his poems. As Burt put it, "Greenfield makes cinematic cuts not just between scenes but between tones." I completely agree with this statement. I constantly felt that Greenfield was using different "scenes" to contrast emotions, and in my opinion this was very effective.

Something that both reviewers focused on was the confessionality aspect of Greenfield's poetry. Burt thought that Greenfield was attempting to "reinvent poetic memoir" because of the recurring mother, father, and child stories. I, however, would have to agree more with what McSweeney thought about the "confessional-seeming" thoughts. She said that "[This autobiographical] account is but one element in a potentially edited montage." I lean much more towards this explanation of Greenfield's work. I don't believe that A CARNAGE IN THE LOVETREES was 100% confessional poetry. As I expressed in my previous post, I really loved how Greenfield saw his own pain in other people and in natural events. Every natural disaster he described, every third person account served to explain something going on inside of Greenfield. I DO appreciate that Burt points out how Greenfield's "emotions...emerge through understatements." I think this is one of the most important things Burt said about LOVETREES.

Neither Burt nor McSweeney completely bashed Greenfield's A CARNAGE IN LOVETREES, and both praised his style. Both seem to appreciate the more abstract stories being told in his poetry. Before reading these reviews, I probably would have said that I enjoyed Nick Flynn's SOME ETHER more that LOVETREES, but after class discussion on Tuesday and reading these reviews, I would have to say I appreciate Greenfield's style more, and I find it easier to talk about his work. It's interesting how retrospect can change an opinion.