Dr. Kunjappu’s poems are quite abstract, and not in the way that I am accustomed to, in the sense that they are among the few poems that I have read that have been conceptualized and projected through a scientific lens. I have been taught to approach and analyze poems in a way that can only be described as scientific to some degree. Each piece I read, I take apart, word by word. I look to see if the author has any sort of recognizable style. I look at the author’s specific choices throughout the text. I consider the biographical experiences and external influences of the author. I consider the socio-political atmosphere of the time period in which the author is writing. I look to see how closely or loosely the author adheres to poetic convention and tradition. Perhaps it is my passion for the literary, rather than the scientific that hindered me from discovering authorial intent. Ultimately, authorial intent is not the most important aspect of a text. When an author makes the conscious decision to publish his or her own work, they relinquish their monopoly on interpretation. Their work no longer belongs to them alone. Their work becomes transactional for their audience and although the audience, like myself, might value the author’s meaning above all, in reality, it is their individual interpretations that actually matter.
    Dr. Kunjappu highlights the randomness of this collection from the very beginning. It does not have a central message or theme, and it is not intended to. Stylistically, each poem seems to be written as a stream of consciousness. Thematically, they seem to do the same in their randomness of arrangement. This narrative style is where individual interpretation becomes a valuable tool.

    I have selected a few of his poems to examine, due to their peculiarity and subject matter that I have found both interesting and compelling. One that really held meaning for mewas the poem “Scholars.” In its lines, I saw a necessary criticism of the increasing commercialization of scholarship. As the bureaucracy of various departments within post-secondary academia, dictate the value of specific scholarship, out of necessity or arbitrarily, and publication has become more important than instruction. Dr. Kunjappu makes an important note of this when he writes,

        True distributors of eminence
        metamorphose into kingmakers
        in obscene gowns of metamorphic assaults
        to define scholarship as the means
        of eliminating the essentials from nonessentials, (“Scholars”, 11 - 35)

What I found especially amusing about this piece was Dr. Kunjappu’s admission of the frequent triviality of what people in academia call scholarship.

    Another piece that I enjoyed was “Sharpening Tools.” From what I understood, the piece discusses the importance of aggressive ambition despite decline and the ability to tirelessly take on the unknown and discover the undiscovered.

    The final poem that I would like to discuss, initially drew my attention due to its title. The Rape of The Lock is one of the most famous mock-epic poems and also Alexander Pope’s most well-known piece. Having read the poem many years back in college classes, I knew that it humorously satirizes the vanities and trivial obsessions of the upper class. I was curious about what Dr. Kunjappu’s piece would hold in terms of similarities and differences, thematically, since its title is borrowed from a canonical, Neo-Classical English piece. One thing that immediately brought a smile to my face was the narrator’s mention of Pope himself, casually called, “Alex” (29 - 79). The narrator approaches this subject with a slightly different angle, seemingly oriented around things traditionally considered vices. “Vice” here might be a physical, tangible vice, be it prostitution, opium, etc. However, if I can apply a message to the piece, it seems to imply that these vices are part of a cycle of subjugation and socio-cultural corruption, perpetuated by those in power, which can include, the wealthy, politicians, developed nations, and even religious leaders, and that this cycle continues due to the passivity of the subjugated. As someone who believes in different types of morality, including personal, universal, and situational, I’m not sure if I can have a concrete opinion on this idea. Again my interpretation is just that, a personal understanding of what the piece does, it may be entirely wrong, right, somewhere in between, or completely irrelevant.

    I noticed that some of Dr. Kunjappu’s pieces clearly demonstrate his understanding of both the scientific and the literary and that his knowledge transcends the confines of his field. Personally, the beauty about literature, especially poetry, is that it is in a volatile state of both regression and evolution. Although the evolution of literary studies, as a field, may be contested, the materials we work with are the results of adherence to tradition, extreme desire for nuance, release, and a variety of other factors. Our field is in a constant state of fluctuation. As a result, it is where familiar discourse and consensus often clash with newly developing schools of thought. This principle undoubtedly applies to the sciences as well. Dr. Kunjappu’s candid observations throughout each piece, are undoubtedly fruitful ground for scholarly discourse and hold value for both the learned and those in pursuit of knowledge.
 (Read these poems quoted in Mr. K. K. johnson’s review below)