The Secret Relationship: Gray Brechin and Brautigan.

For this post I will focus primarily on Brautigan’s Trout Fishing in America in relation to Brechin’s Imperial San Francisco. My purpose in comparing these to texts is because one clearly sheds light on the other. That is, Brechin’s text gives the reader a lucid frame of reference to read Trout Fishing In America. Ironically enough, we read Brautigan before Brechin, but this makes my point even more clear. Without Brechin’s historical work, Brautigan, at least in my opinion, seems like, to paraphrase a line from a well-known film, as readers we are lost children walking into the middle of a movie. In other words, the sections of the novel seem like descriptions of fishing and other randomness. With Brechin’s frame of reference however, we see the Brautigan in his text constantly refers to the destruction of the natural by way of modern advancement in mining and the construction of San Francisco as a Metropolitan city. To illustrate my point I will examine one section of Trout Fishing in which a person looks to buy a lake that has been sectioned off and sold bit-by-bit, from the actual lake to the nature and scenery surrounding it, as well as cite various points in which Brechin alludes to the destruction and commercialization referenced subversively in Trout Fishing in America.
As Gray Brechin puts it early on the text, “Thousands of men armed with such simple weapons initiated an arms race against the earth that devastated the Sierra Nevada and the Central Valley (32-33)”. As the gold rush initiated, so began the process and mining and industrialization on the earth of San Francisco, and so the begot the destruction of the natural earth revered by characters like those in Trout Fishing in America. Moreover, as Brechin articulates, the earth became section off and sold in pieces, “ By rendering nature into the abstract and interchangeable units of the marketplace, the ‘Change succeeded in dividing and distancing it, as a slaughterhouse rendered the carcasses of animals into precise units of tinned meat (38)”. This fact is addressed and responded to throughout Brautigan’s text. Specifically, in the previously mentioned section the main character ventures into a store in which he hears of a lake for sale. When he meets with a sales person he learns that the lake is sold per measurement and that the surrounding wild life and scenery is sold separately, though most all the animals have been sold already. Without Brechin’s text or a vivid understanding of the historical development of San Francisco, the text is either taken literally or the obvious metaphor is lost without a frame of reference. From Brechin, we understand that Brautigain is referring the new stream of industrialization that has been introduced and that, metaphorically, that which natural has been seized, sectioned off, and sold.
We again see the parallel between the two texts when we examine references to fish, which seems inescapable in Brautigan’s text given the name, Trout Fishing in America. Brechin articulates that, “…Hydraulicking had proved itself a great advance in land disturbance…the Yuba River, reported one observer, ‘once contained trout, but now I imagine a catfish would die in it (50)”. Brautigan also refers to the poor conditions of rivers and the fish within them subversively in a scene where a couple begin to have sex in a river when suddenly many dead fish carcasses rise up from under water and touch the semen of the man. Alone this imagery seems necromantic or at the very least, depending on your taste, disturbing. However, with Brechin in mind we see that Brautigan is in fact alluding to the conditions of rivers and animal life within them. We also see, upon closer consideration, that the fish breaking the floating semen is not merely sexual imagery, but a metaphor for natures interaction and death with the motivational essence of the men of the time, manifest destiny.
My point is simple, but a little more complex than merely drawing parallels between the two texts. What I mean to say, by drawing these comparisons, is that the two are deeply interrelated. Even more so, I mean to say that Brautigan’s work is subversively working to depict the destruction of nature at the hands of man within the formerly natural San Francisco. Alone, at least in my uninformed mind, it can be difficult to pick up on what Trout Fishing in America really aims at. At times, it seems merely like a devout man searching for trout. However, with Brechin as a guide, the subversive nature of the text becomes all too clear.

Response to Ferlinghetti's "In The Golden Gate Park That Day

Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s poetry in “San Francisco Poems” has been regarded by some people in lecture as cliché, or lacking the kind of unique poetically profound style found in let’s say Ginsberg, though at times he has also regarded in the same light. I mention this because at times it appears to me that these opinions may perhaps have been formed by overly critical or perhaps even obtuse perspectives deriving from pressures of academia or a staunch pretentiousness found in some Literature majors. Whatever the case may be, these minds tend to over look the overall motivation and process of the construction of these poems and misperceive it as a lack of skill or poetic device. For Ferlinghetti specifically, his rejection of the title “Beat” and his desire to write accessible poetry can overshadow the elaborate profoundness of his work for some. One poem in particular that has great poetic merit in my opinion is, as the title of this blog alludes to, “In Golden Gate Park That Day…”.

Now, I admit I may be reading too much into what may turn out to be a simple poem. But let the first Lit. Major who has not committed the same sin cast the first stone. This poem presents a real perspective of a couple on a typical outing with emphasis on the female perspective. A perspective that can be overlooked in Ginsberg, for example, and at times Brautigan, who exude the kind of male description of sex and to a certain degree, love. On the contrary, from Ferlinghetti we receive the critical moment in which we find the calm rosy picture of a couple’s outing to the park obstructed by real human emotion relayed by fitting imagery.

yet fingering the old flute

which nobody played

and finally looking over

at him

without any particular expression

except a certain awful look

of terrible depression

Noticeably, in this poem there are lines that are common and could be regarded by some as cliché. For instance, in the first set of lines Ferlinghetti reiterates the line “the meadow of the world”. However, whatever arguments made towards calling this poem cliché are sufficiently countered when presented with the final lines quoted above. Here we see virile imagery that alludes to many things without specifically calling them out. For instance, the flute which nobody plays alludes to the fact that perhaps the statement of visibly bringing a flute to the park is for mere aesthetics and part of a false artistry. Surely, we’ve all seen friends and strangers with expensive guitars that only serve the purpose of decoration. Secondly, the women’s “awful look of terrible depression” reveals much more than what one who less familiar would associate with Beat. In this instance, we see real emotion and, arguable, a breakdown of the beat utopia and the patriarchal structure of relationships that can also rear its head in the most leftist of movements. We see, like at times in Brautigan, the visceral side of the life style, but from a female perspective. We see the companion who may be a fraud and the other, who seems to be longing from something more than the life style and what could be interpreted as a subordinate role. Ferlinghetti presents this in an altogether subversive and artistic manner.

Typically we find a deep dedication to artistry, a rejection of the capitalist consumerism, and the stride towards a certain ideal utopia. In contrast, Ferlinghetti presents us with something completely in opposition; he presents us with the reality in the scope of a simple trip to the park. In this simple trip he reveals much more about the nature of relationships, gender, and how these discourses in the setting of the San Francisco liberal movement interact. How then could one make the argument that these poems are altogether cliché?

My point is simply that Ferlinghetti allots more to the discussion than simple clichés and typical representations of Beat culture. While Ginsberg certainly presents us with virile emotion and expressions of human nature and disdain, he does it from an arguably academic poetically experienced language, essentially eliminating the common person from understanding or empathizing with his words. Ferlinghetti merges the two while not relinquishing a certain profoundness about the realities of the culture we are currently studying. Brautigan, as I had mentioned earlier, does the same but from a limited scope and one in which the common person may have trouble associating with. Is it not entirely unique then, when presented with these well regarded poetically fashioned poets, for another poet to emerge and use language that preserves his profundity while simultaneously reaching a larger audience? In my opinion, his adamant denial of introduction in the Beat genre is for a specific reason, and in poems like “In Golden Gate Park That Day…” one can make a sufficient argument that he expresses this rejection.