Mean Free Path is quite experimental, in the way it uses language to reconstruct and destruct ideas. The recombination of text is playful and opens up the poem for reinterpretations. The fragmentation is quite jarring. Lerner invites his readers to rearrange his own poems like building blocks. His lines are out of order and can be rebuilt to whatever dimensions we want them to be. His stanzas may look tidy at first glance, but once you dig into them, they are disorderly, with no clear beginnings or ends.
The passage I chose to analyze in Mean Free Path for lines and line breaks is as follows:
The good news is light is scattered such
Toxicity means the paint must be applied
The apparent brightness of the surface
By robots one atom at a time, bad news
Is the same regardless of the angle of view
I thought I should be the one to tell you
Simultaneously, how monks sing chords
A kind of silence, what we might call
The military application of Cezanne
(Lerner, 51)
It’s easier to look at a particular passage rather than analyze the entire poem because his lines become more digestible that way. Note the way Lerner starts with “good news” as “light” and ends with bad news as the “same regardless of the angle of view.” He equates “a kind of silence” and “military application” as negative news.
Many of Lerner’s end lines serve as cliff hangers (e.g.: “The military application of Cezanne”). They leave us frustrated and wanting to know more about a briefly mentioned subject. And how do we make sense of invalid arguments like “Toxicity means the paint must be applied.” Does he want us to rearrange the text to read how we want it to: “toxicity means a kind of silence”? His poetry is filled with false starts and no clear finish (e.g. “thought I should be the one to tell you”) Tell me what?!
While reading fragmented sentences slammed together with no punctuation can be tiring and frustrating, in a way, Lerner’s poetry mimics the way we speak out loud (e.g. “Simultaneously, how monks sing chords”). We are not tidy in real speech, with proper noun-verb agreements and often end in mid-thought. Normally, we are engaged in conversation and answering someone, so our sentence replies are often fragmented when we talk. Lerner’s odd line breaks are examples of how language can break up when we become emotional and how language can also hinder communication. Lerner also writes how we dream, disjointed and incongruent.
Lerner’s poetry is unruly with its lack of punctuation (notice there are only two commas in the above passage) and violent switch in subject matter (one moment we are talking about toxic paint, and the next line moves onto robots).
Furthermore, his line endings don’t always feel meaningful (e.g.: “The good news is light is scattered such”) Why is he ending on “such” a weak word? He is breaking all the traditional rules of poetry. The line breaks are not audible. I cannot hear the music. I cannot hear the pause. I feel disengaged from the subject matter as it jumps frantically from “Toxicity” to “robots.” If line breaks “allow us to dwell in the image or idea of individual lines” as Instructor Maxwell points out, then Lerner’s does quite the opposite.