and not to grow thin in the city,
where at some point you will have to live;
and one must imagine the absence of money.Most of all though: the living weight,the sound of his feet on the needles,and, since he is heavy, and real . . .
No, I think Meghan O’Rourke is very skillfully playing a rhetorical game. She gives us a whiff of the specifics that might concern a father, but from the first line, the poet has loaded the situation with overtones that are dark, difficult, pragmatic, economic, philosophical, psychoanalytic.
O’Rourke is having her cake and eating it too, playing at a childhood situation while driving at something adult and complex. So, by the time we get to the more obviously daunting questions, we’ve been prepared for them:
and, since he is heavy, and real,
. . . one must imagine lovein the mind that does not know love,
an animal mind, a love that does not dependon your image of it,your understanding of it;
I find those lines chilling, haunting, almost Gothic, the creation of a Frankenstein—or is it Hannibal Lector whose mind "does not know love?"
So what is this scary metaphor for or symbol of a horse? I suspect it’s poetry—or art in general. Once “invented,” art, like a half-pretend, half-material horse, is full of considerations that are, if I may quote myself, dark, difficult, pragmatic, economic, philosophical, psychoanalytic.
So what is this scary metaphor for or symbol of a horse? I suspect it’s poetry—or art in general. Once “invented,” art, like a half-pretend, half-material horse, is full of considerations that are, if I may quote myself, dark, difficult, pragmatic, economic, philosophical, psychoanalytic.
Like O’Rourke’s symbolic horse, a poem or painting is indifferent to the nutrients for a literal horse, because the work of art is an invention, not a palpable, hungry, breathing, and above all, not a loving presence. So it is:
indifferent to all that it lacks:
a muzzle and two black eyeslooking the day away, a field emptyof everything but witch grass, fluent trees,and some piles of hay.
Like the Mona Lisa of the 1950s song, this invented horse is just a cold and lonely, lovely piece of art. Yet I do not mean to diminish the scope or sophistication of the poem by comparing it to something in pop culture as well as a child's imagining. By offering this notion of a poem, Meghan O'Rourke is able to conjure all the romance, gallantry, nobility, and simply all the pleasure of a horse. In a modern culture where horses are not a primary or practical means of transportation or labor, all those characteristics amount to a child's enjoyment of riding; it’s a fanciful, pretend world. So O’Rourke tries to give us the weightier aspects of invention as well.
s She has taken an enormous chance here—the chance of sounding foolish. A poem as a child’s horse might even seem to degrade, or at least challenge, every traditional, loftier notion we have about the nature of artistic creation. But Meghan O’Rourke sees that the experience of writing is all that—a child’s infatuation, a romantic gambol, but also a gallop into awareness of darker matters. She makes every piece of the puzzle fit, and gives us a fresh consideration of creativity. It's an intriguing, provocative ride.
Inventing a Horse by Meghan O'Rourke : The Poetry Foundation
Inventing a Horse by Meghan O'Rourke : The Poetry Foundation
*