So the county I live in has a program in their public transit system called Moving Words. It’s actually pretty cool and the poems are fun to read. They are often by kids in elementary or middle school but there are some by adults too. They are generally pretty good. Anyway, I was bored on the bus so I decided to write an analysis of this poem because I had ideas and hey, I’m a nerd! Now I’ve stayed up waaay too late trying to finish it. :)
I like how Young used the structured the poem to convey that no matter how good a man he will become, all teenage boys objectify girls. Let’s first look at how Young develops the character of the man. A list of occupations—for lack of a better word— is used to build up a picture of a man. Most of these occupations are things with good connotations.
For instance, the poem’s opening lines paint a picture of social figures. People who are a “Defender of the Faith,/Father of Liberty.”(1-2) are people like MLK, people who dedicated their lives to positive change, people who in our collective conscious are near perfect and can do no wrong. As the poem continues, Young lists categories of people that are more broad or apply to more people. Line three uses titles that are generic but depict people society values. To be a “Cinematic Auteur” is to be someone who is acclaimed by the critics, which is something valued by our society. To be a “Comedic Genius” is to be cemented in our culture through references and the phrase “you haven’t seen this?” uttered in complete disbelief. These are people who’s bad moments are generally overlooked and not even glossed over in the history books. Instead, they are seen as amazing people because of the quality of their work. The next line is people who we look up to. Maybe not everyone, but most people have a teacher or a coach they looked up to. These words appeal to your individual memories. they allow you to picture someone good in your life.
I think it’s interesting that “Olympic Physicians” is in this line as well. These are not people that everyone has one of. I think “Physician” brings both level of prestige and muster to the person. Physician invokes the levels of education and dedication needed to become a medical professional. Our society generally values doctors and think of them as good people because we have a bias toward people with a higher level, STEM education. “Olympic” also brings a certain level of prestige. Olympic teams would only hire the best, right? However, we don’t really hear about the physicians. We all have some scandal in mind when asked about Olympians or coaches, but I know I can’t even name one Olympic Physician. So the inclusion of Olympic Physicians is to add a level of prestige not sullied by the scandals that are present, like with other people involved in the Olympics. This occupation certainly adds to Young’s purpose, however the only reason I can find as to why she would include it in this line even though Olympic Physicians contrasts with the commonness of teachers and coaches is that they are all people who are respected and who’s advice is (generally) taken, especially if they are good at what they do.
The next and final line of occupations is a list of male familial relationships. “Cousin, Uncle, Brother, Father”(5), the poem states. I think that these serve to remind you of more people in your life. Generally, people are closer to at least one of these relations than a teacher or a coach. Additionally, most men serve at least one of these roles. This line serves to make this narrative applicable to all men. an interesting thing to note: “be he” is repeated, from the opening, at the beginning of this line. I think this selective repetition serves to reinforce the universality of these relationships. Had every line begun with “be he”, the poem would have a nice rhythm, but it would lose it’s emphasis on the commonality of the familial relations. All if the people in the occupations listed above are probably one of these people. A cousin or a brother or and uncle or a father.
All these occupations are summed up in line seven with the sentence fragment; “makes no difference”. I find it impactful, almost like the em dashes at the ends of lines five and six signify that the “makes no difference” is them being cut off. You know the feeling when someone offers an assertion and you begin to offer what ifs and they keep cutting you off and saying it doesn’t matter? that’s what I feel like this line does.
When I first read the poem, I couldn’t see the title. The conclusion I came to about it after reading was that it was about how even smart, intelligent people are nervous the first time. But then I read the title. Object. At first, the title didn’t make sense to me. Then I reread it. the word “linger” in the second to last line caught my eye. What also caught my eye was that he was tickling her. It wasn’t that she had let him touch her, or that his hand had grazed her thigh, eliciting a reaction— both of which could very easily be the other side of the story. No, it was that he had made this happen. I think that the latter half of this poem is depicting a boy’s discovery that he has a power to do things to girls. Why do I infer that this is his discovery? Because first of all, the poem tells us that he is 14. While that isn’t too young for someone to have some experiences, it’s also not too old to not have any. But I think the real key is in the fact that his “eyes widen” at his touch. Generally, eyes widening is a signal of fear or discovery. I think his eyes widening is because of his realization of his power and how it could be used. I think the title of this poem suggest what happens next.
I think the title suggests that this boys begins treating girls as object. I think the building up of character in the first half of the poem suggests the universality of objectification. We generally don’t think of nice people as the kind of guy who would participate in objectification. But as the poem tells us, it matters not. They all are guilty in some capacity.
I think this poem has some interesting things to say about institutionalized and intrinsic properties of objectification. And there are still more things to analyze! I didn’t talk about the punctuation or capitalization and I’m sure that other’s have found other things to talk about in this poem. I feel like my analysis is only stating the obvious but I feel like these poems don’t get much attention so here’s to showing some underappreciated poetry some love.
