Jigsaw II and View from a Window ~ Portrayal of society

Both of them discus the separation of society and the individuals who live in isolation, but the poets differ in their attitudes and their hopes for a resolution of this existence mired in separation.- Both agree about the separation of humans from their neighbours by means of the property they

live in. Extension of mind and body, divorce from physical and natural reality in Macneice’s and physical separation in life and even in death in Sa’ats — and that’s what is frightening, because there is no hope of resolution- Another level of contrast: While Sa’at’s people are irreconcilably divorced from each other in

reality, while Macneice’s people are divorced from their reality, and Macneice hopes to set them straight by tearing down the walls of interaction and communication.

- “Property! Property! — already from the first line we get a sense of the difference in tone — Macneice is emphatic and hollers / shouts in his demands for attention to be paid to how hu-mans treat property and their relationship with each other as a result of the physical separation the property creates, “looking out”, in a line of its own, uncapitalised, is far more stark, un-adorned, and homes in on Sa’at’s more quiet grimness, solemnity and the gravity of the point he is trying to make

- The repetition of “at” at the beginning of each line deadens the flow of the poem, as the finality of the sharp “t” sound bears a note of ending, of resignation, and stifles any future promise or changes from happening. In contrast, the 5 “Ands” at the end of Macneice’s poem bears possi-bility, and creates a sense of accumulation, as “and” suggests that things are building onto one another, and drawing our attention to the strength of the “poltergist” and by extension the em-phatic quality and strength of the claim that Macneice is making, while Sa’at’s repetition wrenches the life from his poetry, and deadens the subject matter. In addition’s Sa’at’s flat, muted rhythm and the emptiness of the prose, the stark visual quality of how it reads especially reinforces the isolation and alienation — bringing our attention to existence in a permanent state of stasis. In contrast, while Macneice’s poem is seemingly structured, given the equal number of lines in each stanza and the regular punctuation, (unlike Sa’at’s minimalist work), the sense of symmetry only draws attention again to the edifice, for it is filled with diction, punctua-tion and descriptions that are far from structured and mundane, therein underscoring the seem-ing peace and security that is underlain by deeper tensions and the possibility of change that Macneice demands. In contrast, Sa’at’s poem plateaus, and life there drags on with nothing happening, unencumbered by even any overt tensions — only Sa’at sees the “ghosts” in his in-timate, personal encounter at Simei Street 1 11.22pm, , while Macneice makes a general com-ment about humankind and our relationships within the confines of our societies.

- Likewise, with the muted diction — closing, washing, closing — the mundanity of the actions in Sa’at’s diction is a strong, even jarring juxtaposition to the life that Macneice imbues into his words, and the sort of jaunty, galloping rhythm that persists through the entire piece. This is most emphasised in the end of the poem — cut, smash, wreck, stop — each line of the Macne-ice piece is forceful and imbues us with energy — the same energy that Macneice asks of the poltergeist to destroy the edifice. In this sense, we get another distinction that creates another divergence between the two poems — while Macneice’s human’s separation is self-perpetu-ated, it is indeed an edifice that can be easily brought down by bringing down the “curtains and fences”. On the other hand, Sa’at’s isolation runs deep,. While we can see past the “curtains” and look at the house of our neighbours, there is zero possible intimacy. Everyone is framed, contained and held in place as he socks, air-cons and washing poles are. In that sense isolation is not merely self-imposed, but exacerbated and perpetuated by the very environment they live in (columbarium is visually shocking, we are reminded of how they look like HDB flats) and the ignorance of this isolation — continue living their lives in plateau. On the other hand, Macneice’s poem is comic in the line “as good as the neighbours to keep out the neighbours” — funny be-cause it is ironic and because of the tragic self-awareness that Macneice demonstrates — “ster-ilised”, “unshared”, “insured”. They are aware that it is an edifice, a picket fence that is erected by humans, but in Sa’at’s case people live their life in this permanent state of stasis and passiv-ity, completely unaware and not interested — deadened almost, hence the reference to ghosts,

to the quiet, to the columbarium. Uneasiness there because while the ghosts of dissatisfaction live amongst us in Sa’at’s poem, Macneice’s poltergeist only comes out for specific purposes, highlighting again the fact that Sa’at’s humans live mired in this state of having unfinished busi-ness, of quiet dissatisfaction, but that they do not do anything about because of the safety of confinement.

- Even the ghost in Macneice’s poem is enlivened, purposeful, and brings action. In contrast, Sa’at’s ghost is merely a ghost — echoing the shadow, noiseless, and “behind plague”. Unlike the ostentatious poltergeist, it does not make its presence known. Rather, in that same muted existence, Sa’at’s ghost is equally empty. In that sense there is a stark difference because while Macneice offers us the possibility of change and resolution, Sa’at continues, throughout the poem, to channel that same isolation and emptiness — on a deeper level, there’s a different sort of dissatisfaction, for while Macneice’s ghost is angry, charged with purpose and elevated emo-tions, Sa’at’s ghost is unadorned, bare, lonely and quiet. There is this sense of quiet unease, something unsettling about Sa’at’s ghost, because it hangs around with any real action. Further-more “hunting for this souls” is underwritten by an unnerving sense of fear for the unfinished business. And furthermore, there’s another sense of gravity because while for Macneice the pol-tergeist is separate from the human, in Sa’at’s poem the ghost and the people are parallel im-ages. It’s a sad observation that the housewives washing dishes and the emptiness of that scene matches that of ghosts hunting for their souls, and both a devoid of the same purpose and mired in similar passivity

- This is further emphasised by the chaste, blanched, unadorned quality of Sa’at’s poetry, devoid of any elevations in the form of imagery or metaphors, descriptions etc — all is mundane, muted, deadened. In contrast, Macneice imbues his with far more life - “a box” is given human characteristics and qualities of life and can take on many forms, underscoring the idea of possi-bility of change — Macneice’s television can “talk” and “make faces”, unlike Sa’at’s drawers, woks and television boxes are bland, matter of fact.

- The poltergeist represents aggression, while the ghost and the mention of the columbarium as explicitly grim and sad. For Macneice, action and realisation and reject of the edifice are ways out of the passivity, to relieve the pain of “ingrown souls” — there’s a way for this souls to seek reprieve from the isolation and passivity of separation that they are mired in, but for Sa’at there is no resolution and the “souls” continue to wander, to be lost, and to be disconnected from their human selves (“ghosts”) in an impossible fracture of existence, and so the ending, “even gravestones have names” is redolent of a great sadness.