Chainsaw Versus the Pampas Grass
Do you think the poet is celebrating or critiquing masculinity? A particular version or
idea of masculinity? Discuss with reference to Form, Language, etc.
“Chainsaw Versus the Pampas Grass” is a mock epic poem about a narrator who uses a
chainsaw to cut down the overgrown pampas grass in their garden. The chainsaw is
associated and described with masculine characteristics – especially rage and power,
while the pampas grass is associated with feminine characteristics. The language and
imagery used by the poet, Simon Armitage, appears to celebrate the traditional form of
masculinity – especially the kind that links strength with violence. This celebration of
masculinity is furthered by the masculine coded chainsaw’s opposition against the
feminine coded pampas grass, as the language used presents femininity in a vain and
obnoxious form. However, the mock epic tone and cyclical structure of the poem seek
to use this language and imagery to eventually critique these negative associations of
masculinity. The chainsaw’s depicted anger and violence is presented as a futile cycle
and an over-glorification of characteristics with toxic associations to the traditional form
of masculinity.
Firstly, the poet is celebrating a stereotypical form of masculinity, by glorifying the
masculine associations of strength and power with violence and rage. The narrator
holds the personified chainsaw, “and felt the hundred beats per second drumming in its
heart and felt the drive-wheel gargle in its throat,” This personification contributes to
the glorification of the masculine chainsaw and its power as the object is described as a
war-hero ready and blood-thirsty for battle. This association of power rooted in violence
is also exhibited in the vocabulary used from military semantic fields. The simile
describing the laying out of the power line to being, “fed out like powder from a keg,”
compares this simple task to something as powerful and vicious as explosives. Once the
chainsaw has been assembled, the narrator, “then dropped the safety catch and
gunned the trigger,” comparing the chainsaw to a deadly gun. The plosive sounds and
the alliteration of the hard ‘g’ sound add to the ideas of violence and strength drawn out
in these lines of the poem that use vocabulary from the military semantic field. Power is
associated with the military, yet this power is rooted in violence, similar to the
traditional masculine tendency to link violence and rage to power – which is also
displayed through the chainsaw – extolling this form of masculinity. The tool, “with its
perfect disregard, its mood to tangle with cloth or jewelry or hair…its bloody desire, its
sweet tooth for the flesh of the face and the bones underneath,” also has a strong and
“instant”, masculine, misogynistic rage. The visceral violent imagery in these lines
display the anger the chainsaw holds – towards women – as the polysyndeton lists
stereotypically feminine qualities, with the repeated ‘or’ displaying the depth of the
chainsaw’s indifferent rage towards the feminine. Yet, the use of the casual words
“perfect disregard”, and “sweet tooth,” simultaneously trivializes and glorifies this rage
and violence associated with power over the other sex, rather than condemning it.
Furthermore, these traditional ideals of masculinity are celebrated and praised as the
language of the poem imbues the chainsaw and its actions with masculine
righteousness and opposes this with the pampas grass’ feminine frivolity. The title itself,
“Chainsaw Versus the Pampas Grass,” does not place a determining article of speech
before the chainsaw, portraying it in a righteous light – as if it is an entity seeking
justice against the wrong doings of the pampas grass – which does have a determining
