“The City Planners” by Margaret Atwood and “The Planners” by Boey Kim Cheng
Many poets lament humanity’s soulless march toward technology and industrialization. Both “TCP” and “TP” reflect this
sentiment. The poems are similar in ideas and tone, although Atwood’s is considerably more skilled and Cheng’s themes
are more specific to his particular homeland.
“TCP” – themes of modernity pushing aside nature; loss of human/nature relationship; identity
Structure/Poetic Devices/Analysis
(Have students find devices for homework, but for analysis purposes the poetic devices worth noting consist mainly of
just imagery, simile and metaphor although it is good to note that the free structure keeps the focus on the images and
ideas. Atwood’s ironic/sarcastic/humourous tone is also an effective device for conveying her ideas)
- Atwood’s poem is rich with irony (humour) and linguistic inventiveness/ fun with words. It is written in her
trademark free verse style, with little structure or formality.
- Her “us” is not a strong blank narrator because her situations are specific experiences and not general enough
for all people to relate to. The poem also reflects her personal views, which are also too specific (“HS” and “TC”
are stronger blank narrators because they are based in reaction and common crises, not specific experiences
and opinions).
- She grabs our attention with her unusual manner of description, her irony and her claim of being offended by
normal life (the all-too-normal suburbanites)
- “The houses in pedantic rows, the planted/sanitary trees” Atwood sees suburbia as dull and pedantic. She paints
it not as the comfortable, safe existence that ‘normal people’ think it is, but like a boring, colourless situation.
What other images clearly show her distain for suburbia?
- The lawnmower is sarcastically described as the most interesting thing in suburbia – this signals a shift in the
poem for the dramatic and judgmental, no longer just merely observational. Atwood talks of how these City
Planners, who are so full of themselves, think they know best; that all of their suburban creations will make the
world better. Atwood disagrees, implying that modern suburbia will be the apocalypse/death of humanity. She
identifies flaws in suburbia/modernization that foreshadow this breakdown of humanity – can you find them?
- Atwood’s ending is very hyperbolic, inferring that these self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing City Planners are
just as empty and meaningless as the ‘burbs they pollute the world with.
Consider: Is “TCP” a poem that shines with wit and brilliant phrasing, such as “bland madness”, or is it nothing more
than a whiney rant, an exaggerated condemnation of something rather harmless?
-
-
Atwood can also be showing us how these modern, manmade ‘plans’ are a form of escapism. Modern Man is
hiding behind his unnatural, overly-organized environments so he does not have to fell he is not always in
control (“HS”).
Atwood can also be showing, in her comment about the Planners, that Man thinks what he does in important,
but it is not and it will not last – that Planners who seek to control and mould nature are fighting an uphill battle
that nature will always win (outlast).
Consider: What words would you use to describe the tone of this poem? Prove with text.
“TP” -- themes of modernity pushing aside nature; loss of human/nature relationship; identity
Structure/Poetic Devices/Analysis
(Have students find devices for homework to show engagement, but the main devices worth noting, like “TCP” are
imagery. Note that the metaphors are often mixed – terrible – and the imagery is hyperbolic and clumsy. Let’s focus on
the message, not the bad poetry.)
-
-
-
-
-
Atwood’s “TCP” is insular and only deals with her personal hatred/views regarding the suburbs (and how they
represent the epitome of unhealthy technological advancement/ industrialization/dehumanization/moving
away from the ‘natural way’…) however, Cheng’s poem has a broader scope: he reflects on not just his personal
\pet peeve’, but on his home nation’s apparently soulless route of progress.
Cheng begins with observation/ description of modern Singapore. He talks about how everything is decided,
planned, made with precision – modern Singapore has none of the vagueness or irregularity of nature, “Even the
seas draw back/ and the skies surrender” is hyperbole – the Planners have planned everything so exactly that
even nature seems to bend to their will/plan. The idea that everything natural is gone and only the perfection of
mathematics remains. Can you find more examples of this Singaporean ‘perfection’?
The second stanza is also in many ways descriptive, but here for the first time the poem is also meaningful. Like
Atwood, Cheng does not like the blind stomp toward technology and away from nature – although he focuses
his criticism on Singapore instead of the concept of modern suburbia. Both could be described as antimodernist.
Singapore used to be a colony and now it wants to redefine itself on its own terms. It chooses to do so, says
Cheng, by being a defiantly modern, scientific, unsentimental nation. Cheng’s description is dramatic - he writes
of “history” being “new again”, and being blasted away by the drills. This can be seen as an overly simplistic
analysis of Singapore.
Cheng goes so far as to make Singapore seem like a scary, inhuman state now (examples?) and says that “But
my heart would not bleed/poetry” implying that art/poetry and modern Singapore cannot exist at the same
time/in the same place. *groan* NB: he wrote this after moving to Australia. He fears the Planners damage both
the past and future by ignoring M/N relationship, ignoring nature in general and through their arrogance
(believing themselves to be better than nature/beyond it/capable of creating perfection).
Consider: Having read both “TCP” and “TP” now, who exactly do you think these Planners are? Can you think of job
descriptions or real-life examples of these ‘people’?
Compare/Contrast:
- Both poems revolve around the poet lamenting the move away from nature, toward technology /modernity and
use poetic devices to emphasize this point: hyperbole, imagery, sarcasm, ironic humour.
- Both poems are only one-sided opinions/declarations about life. They make damning judgments about society
without looking at the other side of the coin/other perspective or offering any solutions. They are argumentative
rather than evocative, ‘preachy’ rather than meditative.
-
Both lament a lack of M/N relationship (they portray a lack of N in life as harmful – how?)
Both can be said to also be about identity, in that these poets build part of their identity on the fact that they
disagree so strongly with the Planners (both set themselves apart from ‘them’/ ‘the bad/misguided Planners’).
Consider: What words would you use to describe the tone of this poem? Prove with text.