enl 3 assignment 2

I believe that this poem by Brautigen is making an argument that takes an anti-technology stance. While technology is intertwined in this poem, it is clear through the stark references to nature that he does not support technology. The first strophe includes meadow, mammals, harmony water and sky, using this strong imagery Brautigen is able to introduce ideas of technology but overpower them with nature references or words that are normally are used as nature descriptors. The second strophe is dominated with deer, pine tress, flowers, and springy blossoms. I think that the incorporation of animals again emphasized the ideas of nature, and the simplicity and beauty that life has without technology. The last strophe talks about being joined back in nature. Here I think the verb, joined is very strong because it insinuates that they once were separate.

This poem, by Brautigen fights for the attention and importance of technology in our modern society. In the first strophe he includes a statement of ‘the sooner the better’, this connects with the instantaneous nature of technology—through it people are able to get information, contact people, and do anything ‘now’. In the second strophe he uses the forest as a parallel for technology and the plethora of different aspects that it holds, and the mysterious creatures that lie within it. Technology too, is very mysterious to most of its every day users. The last strophe mentions ‘freeing our labors’ which I think insinuates that technology has the ability to alleviate work that existed previously.

I believe both arguments are believable, that the second is better. I would not normally say this, but I think it shows a creative insight to the poem, and meaning that would not normally be seen. I also believe that the poem reiterates the ideas of technology by using the same form for each strophe in the three, showing little creativity and variation, almost as if it is formulated. I believe that this is more convincing because it comes closer to the meanings that I feel the author intended the reader on seeing. I am not sure if either is more or less powerful, but I also think that the second argument is stronger because literature analysts like to see alternative interpretations, which I believe this is. The first argument just seems too obvious.