How Fast Can We Be Delivered?

“Shape without form, shade without color,

Paralyzed force, gesture without motion;”

- T. S. Eliot,  The Hollow Men

​This just in, a local barbershop owner allows regular customers to schedule a private haircut despite having to close up shop due to it being deemed a non-essential business—these claims require further investigation. This just in, an elderly woman protests for dogs to be kept at home for fear of them being unleashed and jumping onto prone civilians—these claims require further petition. This just in, though air pollution in tertiary cities such as Los Angeles and New York have seen a positive, and visible change in the sky, there has been speculation that gloves, masks, and other sanitary supplies that are in one-time-use will offset the change and be the cause of a global warming spike—these claims require further study.

​With news being reported on a 24/7 cycle, every second being informed is both a blessing and a curse. What is more is that some news is actually new, while some news becomes content that is recycled, reconstructed in its intent, and reduced in terms of its language. Some are updated continuously, while some stagnate as neglected markers of time. Who is to be believed, and what is right and wrong? What does one do with all the information? The answer Jorie Graham might give is that those kinds inquires, sprung from consuming news, requires "further study.” This paper aims to explore the fast pace and paralyzing eco-consciousness found within the entirety of the first section, and the transition that happens in the second section of Graham’s prose poem, “Self Portrait at Three Degrees.” Graham’s writing is at its best when depicting the current thought process put up against contemporary ideas, but resists providing a sort of background, reason, or resolve to those thoughts.

​The opening of the prose poem possibly reads as a conversation, both in a literal and a metaphorical way. The first section of the poem begins with the lines, “Teasing out possible linkages I—no you—who noticed—“ Who is “I”, and who is “you?” It is possible that the “I” is either the speaker of the poem, or Graham herself. The “you” could be an epistolary address to someone in specific, and might be overheard by the reader, or it could be directed to the immediate reader. It is not clear who exactly is speaking and being spoken to, but rereading considering different perspectives has effects on the meaning of the writing. What exactly are these two people conversing over? Graham continues:

—if the world—no—the world if—take plankton—I feel I cannot love anymore—take plankton—that love is for another kind of existence—take plankton—that such an existence is a form of porn now—no—what am I saying—take plankton—it’s the most important plant on earth—think love—composes at least half the biosphere’s entire primary production—that’s more than all the land plants on the whole planet put together—blooms so large they can be photographed from space—everything living—

Is it love that is the main topic of conversation, or is it plankton? What is meant to be produced when saying, “—composes at least half the biosphere’s entire primary production—“ Is the production pertaining to earthly production by natural means, or worldly production by civilized means? Eliding this portion of the section aids in understanding what is meant, but still has holes left for interpretation since neither subject is fully flushed out in a narrative way.

Starting with plankton:

Teasing out possible linkages I—no you—who noticed—if the world—no—the world if—take plankton—…—take plankton—…—take plankton—it is the most important plant on earth—…—composes at least half the biosphere’s entire primary production—that’s more than all the land plants on the whole planet put together—blooms so large they can be photographed from space—everything living—

Here, Graham is taking notice of a planktons role in the earth’s ecology. Plankton are microscopic organisms that grow in large bodies of water such as oceans, seas, and lakes. Though they may be small in size, they have a huge impact on earth in that they are the primary food of many aquatic life. On top of being a food source, their life cycles contribute to the production and stabilization of ocean oxygen and carbon levels. Continuing on with Graham’s words, she notes “—blooms so large they can be photographed from space—“ She might be referring to a harmful algal bloom, which is a phenomenon that could possibly be caused by a rapid increase or accumulation of phytoplankton. This observation she makes serves as a way to briefly inform the reader of a planktons ecological importance, but she stutters along the way by constant repetition. It is as if she is trying to string together her thoughts as she writes, or in this case speaks, to whomever she may be conversing with. She leaves out scientific details of what planktons, and their role in an ecological chain are, but she is able to depict the gist of their importance by making generalized statements.

​The other subject that follows in tandem with plankton is love:

Teasing out possible linkages I—no you—who noticed—if the world—no—the world if—…—I feel I cannot love anymore—…—that love is reserved for another kind of existence—…—that such existence is a form of porn now—no—what am I saying—…—think love—composes at least half the biosphere’s entire primary production—love this—love what—I am saying you have no choice—…—blooms so large they can be photographed from space—everything living—

In this edit, love perhaps influences the production of human civilization. Instead of being an object like a plankton, love is an idea. Love can be an emotionally charged response or action. There is work that is done as a labor of love, while there is work that is done for the love of doing it. To do something because of love, and to feel love for doing something are various reasons for a product to be made, and for a product to be consumed. In this sense, love is like plankton in that it provides nourishment on an individual level, but also provides the production and stabilization of emotions through a sort of economical exchange.

​Love and news go hand in hand in the conversation Graham is trying to have throughout the first section of the prose poem. Graham writes, “—I feel I cannot love anymore—…—that love is reserved for another kind of existence—…—that such an existence is a form of porn now—“ Though love is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as senses relating to affection and attachment, this work thinks it to be a sort of pornography in the sense that it is becoming excessive. In this portion, love almost seems to be tainted by porn. Pornography, defined again by the OED, is the explicit description or exhibition of sexual activity or desire in a given medium, done in a matter to stimulate erotic feelings rather than aesthetic. The more emotionally charged definition of love is lost by contemporary convolution. From the Bible to the Beatles, love continues to be used as a rhetoric, permeating more prominently through popular culture, whether it be for entertainment purposes or for spreading a meaningful message through social media and news.

​With a surge of technology contributing to constant connection between one another, information is abundant. Though there are many topics to talk about through daily conversation, news is an omnipresent topic given the 24 hour news cycle. Pitted against love, Graham writes about news, “—that’s our raw material, our inventory, right now, we are going through the forms of worship, we call it news, we will make ourselves customers, we won’t wait, how fast can we be delivered—will get that information to you—requires further study—“ Plankton and love were once the main subjects of production in this work, but news has now taken the stage. The word of news seems to be just as strong as the word coming from a religious text. People believe news, and sometimes even worship it, because it aims to report facts. The issue with facts, despite it trying to present sound evidence to support or dispel problems, or to forecast statistical probabilities of the future, is that there is too much being reported. Distinguishing what information is scholarly correct, if a claim is too emotionally charged, or if an argument is rooted by being misinformed is a task that can become too convoluted, especially when there are endless citations and countless news outlets reporting recycled content. With so much information accessible at the whim of a swipe and a click, one can become a paralyzed force by the paradox of choice, or one can become a productive force by virtuously filtering through the chaotic terror—but those are close reading interpretations. Returning to the polarizing formality Graham writes in, what she does when describing news is similar to how she described plankton and love; she quickly describes the subject and it generalized importance, but is then interrupted by another thought. When she writes, “—will get that information to you—requires further study—“ it seems as if this little portion of this section can be read like an abrupt end transmission, especially in the tone of a news reporter quickly signing off. While it is difficult to pinpoint the main line of thinking within the prose poem, and the significance of every thought introduced, it is the thinking itself that is decisive.

​The constant arrival and interruption of a thought is a calamity of temporality. The em dashes, “—,” found throughout the first section may be acting as a sort of caesura, emphasizing that a thought is constantly being either introduced or reintroduced. The lines written, “—no you—…—no—…—no—what am I saying—…—I am saying you have no choice—…—you don’t want it—I don’t care—you carry it for now—I need to catch my breath—“ can be read as if there is a disagreement not only between whoever Graham is speaking to, but Graham herself. One thought does not sit well, so she questions what she says. Another thought seems to be claimed on an absolute basis, and that there is no other choice beyond what she is saying. Despite attempting to move from one thought to another in order to formulate a coherent though, she seems defeated and overwhelmed when she says that she does not care, and that the reader take over while she catches her breath. Every em dash is a pause; a moment to think, or perhaps a moment to take a break from thinking.

​With every thought fleeting at the beat of an em dash, those lines soon turn into arrows in the form of “→” to propel these thoughts at a pace faster than before. The transition from the em dashes to arrows is not only a formal change, but a tonal change. The thoughts in the previous section seemed more disconnected as the various subjects differed from each other, but this section seems more centered on a single subject: time. The first section transitions to the second section as so:

“—I am standing, look, I am a growth possibility, will accumulate a backlog, will become an informed consumer→shapeless unspendable future→this was my song to you→I stood for the first time on my own→unimaginable strength in these feet, these hands→what am I supposed to not harm→”

Her claim of being a “growth possibility” might be an attribute toward trending news topics; climate change for example. Being an informed consumer might mean that she has done the work to obtain information, process the knowledge, and use what she learns to her disposal. Accumulating a backlog might be the outcome of being informed, as every piece of information will become fuel to any sort of action or claim that she wants to make in regards to climate change. She might then see herself as an agent of change, and push an agenda that she has compiled and curated through her informative findings as way to maybe make positive impact onto society.

​Returning to the subject of time in this section, Graham is possibly reflecting on a time where she had a positive outlook of the future, but does so by looking back on the past negatively. She could possibly be addressing the future personified when she writes, “→shapeless unspendable future→this was my song to you→” The word “was” stands out as it indicates the past tense. If it the song was directed to the future, what were her intentions, and what did he song mean? Has it withstood the test of time and remained the same? Is there a new intention or meaning to it? On one hand, I am reminded of the universality and positivity found within Walt Whitman’s, “Song of Myself,” since Graham’s writing describes a individualized, yet generalized plan of action for the future. On the other hand, her writing echoes Ed Roberson’s claim made in his essay, “We Must Be Careful.” He writes, “Our technology, however, is more likely to conserve, regenerate, and nourish the limiting and exclusive resource base of capitalism than our larger human or Earth/Nature.” What Roberson might be claiming is that technology could possibly be a greater answer to being able to rehabilitate the world, and not so much the actions done by a willing, and altruistic individual.

​Following the notion of Roberson, there might be an acknowledgment or admittance of naivety that follows Graham’s reflection. The importance of naivety presents itself when Graham writes, “→I stood for the first time on my own→unimaginable strength in these feet, these hands→what am I supposed to not harm→” What Graham might mean when saying that she “→stood for the first time on her own→unimaginable strength in these feet, these hands→” is that, like a baby, she is excited at the ability of being able to walk, or avoiding the baby simile, that she is excited at the prospect of being able to do something. This might possibly be in respect to climate change. On top of being able bodied, there is a sense of promise and invincibility experienced in that baby-like youth. The feeling is as if nothing can go wrong, or if things do go wrong, then there shall be a triumph regardless of the trial. But instead of wholly and blindly believing that nothing could go wrong, Graham has the slightest inkling of realizing that there are possible stakes at hand when she says, “→what am I supposed to not harm→” Posing this statement as a question can provide further insight.

​“What am I supposed to not harm?” Along with the understanding of the former line’s exciting prospects and youth fueled invincibility, one way to interpret the question is with innocence. Given that humans thrive on a productive and civilized nature, she might be asking what can truly not be harmed in the process when humans have so much power. This makes harm an action that is unintended, yet inevitable. Another way to read it is with inexperience. Perhaps she is trying to ask the question to receive an answer that is more definitive, that way she knows what she can do to cause as little harm as possible. She continues, “→I want to touch things until they break→that is how to see them→” Perhaps an example of what she might mean is to use products with longevity, or with at least with intentionality. Wearing a sustainably produced Patagonia jacket versus a similar jacket produced with a minimum standard by Walmart is a more specific example to interpret. The Patagonia jacket may last a lifetime, but it comes at a high cost. The Walmart costs less, but it may only last a few years.Which jacket is best? Time will tell, but in this train of thought actions are evaluated with opportunity cost as a way to manage economical harm, fiscally and physically. This makes harm an action that occurs by deliberate choice, yet is an action taken with a consciousness that is aware of the stakes involved.