than in either Creeley’s or Plath’s lyric. There is no positioned observer,
whose insights are detailed one by one. The ¤rst line, “Age as a centripetal
force,” sets the stage: the reference is to the increasing inward turn, the with-
drawal from contact with the outside world that characterizes old age, as
memory comes to replace action as well as anticipation of a possible future.
The “Direction” of the title is thus inward. But who is “she” and why can’t
she hold even “the ¤ctive / panoply of characters / apart”? Evidently “she” is
the “old woman” who “sheds tears” in line 7; even the soap opera she watches
on TV, perhaps, has become too complicated for her to follow. And “that” of
course is “scary” to the “I” of line 8, who is evidently at her bedside. But
“Is that scary?” may also be the old woman’s question about the “¤ctive
panoply” she is watching on TV or reading about. Indeed, every thing is scary
in this context, especially since “Origin’s a sore point.” The “Origin” of what?
Of illness? Of the ¤rst signs of memory loss or Alzheimers? Of the lack of
rapport between the two people in question, who may well be (but we can’t
say for certain) mother and daughter. Armantrout doesn’t spell it out, so it
seems all the more sinister and frustrating.
The narrator tries to keep things normal, unemotional: “When the old
woman sheds tears / I say, ‘What’s wrong?’ / as if surprised.” Such pretense
is perhaps necessary, but it can also be perceived as cruel—a denial that the
poem likens to Peter’s betrayal of Jesus and, in turn, Jesus’ refusal to ac-
knowledge Mary as his mother. The poet is uncomfortable with bedside
scenes, and she may not be close to this “old woman” even though the situa-
tion is obviously painful for them both. The last lines, in any case, are equivo-
cal: “We want a more distant relation,” she says, “like that of Christmas tree
ornament / to fruit.” Who, to begin with, is “we”? Human beings in general
in their dealings with relatives or perhaps even friends? Young people? Chil-
dren of the elderly and sick? Or speci¤cally daughters? Or certain kinds of
daughters? The simile, far from being graphic, is purposely open to interpre-
tation. If the Christmas tree ornament is an angel, its relation to fruit is in-
deed “distant.” If it is a blue metal ball that looks rather like a plum, the
distance decreases. Then again, the piece of fruit may be the Christmas tree
ornament itself. In that case, how distant is a “more distant relation”? And
how easily can the “I” actually detach herself from the old woman’s plight?
Let us now step back and see what assumptions have been made thus far:
First, that any serious poem, however disjointed and “nonsensical,” is mean-
ingful. Second, that the poem’s meanings are never quite paraphraseable,
never univocal—numbers of alternate readings are possible. And third, that
the only way to get at the poem is in fact to read it, word for word, line by
line. Much of what passes for poetry criticism today refuses to do this: it
246 Chapter 13