I’ve been thinking about Barack Obama’s decision to have a poet read at his inaugural — about what it means for language and the nation (and not so much about the poet, Elizabeth Alexander, whose work I unfortunately have not read) but was having some difficulty putting it into words. I think this comment from Christian Wiman, the editor of Poetry magazine, in The New York Times sums it up best:
“After eight years of mangled and manipulated language, and the palpable effects of that in the real world, it seems like any gesture toward clarity of expression and dignity of life is welcome,” Christian Wiman, the editor of Poetry magazine, said in an e-mail message.
“In a way, the poem itself is not the point,” Mr. Wiman added. “I would guess that a president-elect decides to have an inaugural poem in the first place not in the hope of commissioning some eternal work of art, but in order to acknowledge that there is an intimate, inevitable connection between a culture’s language and its political life. That Obama wants to make such a gesture seems to me a pure good — for poetry, yes, but also for the country.”