My Criticism of Brautigan's "All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace": or A Practical Demonstration on How to Bias a Review

Richard Brautigan's poem "All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace" can easily be viewed to be in either a pro- or anti-technological stance.

As evidence for the poem's pro-technological undertones, the poem seems very much willing to incorporate computers and technology into an ecological fabric, using images such as a "cybernetic meadow" and those of where mammals and computers coexist in harmony. The author even seems to make that relationship sound natural, likening it to “pure water touching clear sky”. He juxtaposes images of deer and computers, not so much for the contrast as much as to say ‘yup. deer and computers. what of it?’. And what should seem a nail in the coffin is the maternalistic attributes given to machines, where the machines’ existence means less work (“free from our labors”), more one-ness with mother nature (“returned to our mammal brothers and sisters”), and finally, that we are “watched  over by machines of loving grace.”

Or anyways, that’s how the poem might appear if we were to ignore the evidence that might lead to the contrary conclusion. In each of the three strophes, Brautigan includes parenthetical text as part of the poem. Each reads like an internally-thought interjection on the text that they are respectively commenting on. These interjections are “and the sooner the better”, “right now, please!”, and “it has to be!”. The effect of these interjections is to cast doubt (or at least express a narrator’s doubt) on the apparent likelihood of the ideas expressed in each strophe actually coming about. It’s like someone saying “Sure, it’ll all work out fine!” only to mutter (for the audience’s sake, of course) their internal misgivings by saying “good god, i sure hope it does.”

Perhaps the more convincing view on the poem’s stance is the latter one. Yes, the poem is open to interpretation. And yes, the latter view (as I’ve so far expressed it, anyways) is a little deficient. It fails to reconcile all of the positive images presented with a negative attitude towards machines. But while the images are positive, they almost seem saccharine: strained. Interestingly enough, they also seem like the entirely-too-happy ramblings of the resident stoner of “That 70’s Show.” But the effect is that, to this blogger, anyways, that there is a sinister underside to the poem that sneers at its light-hearted facade.