The Sun and Her Flowers by Rupi Kaur

Is it read-worth? I hate to say that I completely and utterly don’t recommend a book or an author to anyone, but that’s honestly how I feel about Rupi Kaur’s work. It is just so disappointing to read an author that is so highly acclaimed and be so disappointed by their writing. I don’t buy books to instagram caption their one liners. I buy them so I can read them. The fact that her writing consistently lacks any substance is emotionally grating. Add in the fact that they’re supposed to be empowering for women and their lack of development is almost offensive. 

I first read Rupi Kaur poetry after visiting a local bookstore. I was picking up a couple of collections of poetry to read in a nearby park. It was nice out and I wanted something that would really move me. The clerk recommended her new collection, Milk and Honey. Without even reading the first page, I just added it to my over-growing pile. It had to be good if it was someone’s first and only recommendation to me, right? 


I didn’t get a chance to start reading it that day. I think my pile of books was ten to fifteen books high and I was particularly excited to read something else I had grabbed. When I got home, I decided to look more into Milk and Honey. It was my only real impulse buy that day and I was curious as to why the clerk had recommended it to me. I was pleasantly surprised to see how many people were absolutely raving about it. They said her work was powerful and thought provoking, a true testament to the inner strength of women around the world. Wow! I was so excited to read it.

And then I did. 

What a total disappointment Milk and Honey was. The words were more evocative of a self-pitying teenage girl writing Facebook statuses about her jerk of an ex boyfriend than a powerful woman standing up to her oppressors. Not a single poem in the entire collection came across as powerful. The language used, the writing style, the poorly drawn illustrations on each page… It was heart-breaking to have such high expectations of a book just to be so completely let down.

I honestly put the book down and thought I read the work of a first grader. Literally anyone can write in Rupi Kaur’s style as long as they

write a sentence and



down into parts 

with a sketch at the bottom. It felt like something her grade school teacher had told her she did a great job on and she had never improved from there. Her topics just changed a little bit. 

I don’t personally understand the allure of a poetry collection full of writing that can barely be labeled as poetry. Rupi Kaur writes sentences and just places line breaks somewhere in them so that they vaguely resemble a stream of consciousness poem. There is absolutely nothing poetic about the majority of her poetry. They may be aesthetically pleasing to look upon (for some readers), but there is so little substance behind the words. Most of the “poetry” sounds more like tweets and Facebook statuses than they do poetry. It is absolutely shocking that her writing is so highly acclaimed and yet adds so little to the literary world. 

It is also shocking that people have such deep reactions to them. I can’t explain it. 

I watched a video on Youtube the other day, one made by Raphael Gomes. It’s titled “I tried foods people ONLY PRETEND to LIKE.” It includes food like candy corn and La Croix seltzers. How people feel about those foods is exactly how I feel about Rupi Kaur’s poetry. Because she writes so vaguely about such important and poignant topics, people pretend to like her writing. It’s easy for them to take a picture of one of her poems, caption it, upload it to Instagram, and say that they’re woke. I think I even did it the first time I read Milk and Honey. They let you feel more educated about real world problems because you shared an easy understood poem about it. Look at you! Fighting for women’s rights. 


It is such a cop out to the complexity of women’s issues and the actual emotions women feel to reduce them to the level of Kaur’s writing. What is so wounding about this is that there are thousands of poets who deserve more acclaim for their writing. People who write provoking and powerful work should be receiving the acclaim that Kaur has wrongfully received. 

Propulsion by Felicia Zamora immediately comes to mind for me. That poem resonates with such strong emotion and really calls attention to a specific problem women of color face. The writing doesn’t use overly complicated words or phrases, but it has so much meaning and depth to it. It doesn’t resort to vague half statements and illusions. It is possibly one of my favorite pieces of writing. You can absolutely say something profound about women’s issues (and racial issues) in an interesting and well-developed way. It is possible. You do not need to reduce them to the standards of Rupi Kaur’s writing.

What also comes to mind to me are a couple of spoken word poems by Bianca Phipps that are available right now on Youtube. Her work is just outstanding. Her poetry is beautiful and sad and strong. The Heartbreaker Poem in particular perfectly captures the actual emotions of women. It does not rely on overly complicated language in order to do so, similar in nature to Rupi Kaur’s writing, but it says so much more than hers. Of course, it is delivered vocally instead of in writing, but it is such an outstanding poem that I definitely recommend you give it a listen.

Some people might infer, based on those two poems, that I do prefer slightly more advanced linguistics in my poetry. You might think that it’s just the simple words Kaur uses that turn me off to her writing. Maybe I’m one of those people who want my poetry to be absolutely littered with overly complicated phrases and long words. But I’m not. It’s absolutely possible to write amazing poetry with simple words. Most of the time, I actually prefer poetry that does so. But Rupi Kaur does not write amazing poetry. While sometimes saying more with less can be powerful, her version of saying more with less is actually less. Words strung together that look like poetry are not always fully capable of being poetry. 

At this point, you may be asking yourself why I even bothered to read The Sun and Her Flowers then? And the answer is simple: the book is free with my Kindle Unlimited subscription. I wouldn’t lose anything except for time. I remembered from the first book of hers I read that it would also be barely anytime lost. I think I read the entire book in under an hour, with pauses to try to add value to each poem with mixed success. I am a very quick reader, but anyone could read this book in an hour. 

I also hoped that, because she had been greeted with such high praises from readers, she would add more value to her work. The poems would be longer and more developed upon. She had had great success with her first collection. Why not improve upon her poetry to gain more success? 

I’m not sure she followed that path, however, and I don’t completely blame her. Why would you bother to write good poetry when what you’ve written before sells? 

I should have listened to my gut instinct when I read the first poem in the collection and was shocked by how utterly underwhelming it was: 

on the last day of love

my heart cracked inside my body

Are you kidding me? This is what we give praise to? I had forgotten the extent to which I was disappointed by the first book. 

It’s also kind of a shame because sometimes she is so close to writing good poetry that I want to scream. I can see where she’s going. But I’m always left wanting more from her writing. This collection, The Sun and Her Flowers, includes so many pieces that I wish she had improved or elaborated upon. It’s very frustrating for me. Because of how they are written, even her longer pieces just come across more as sentences or conversations that she removed the punctuation from and inserted line breaks in. It’s ridiculous. I don’t want to read poetry that makes me dislike poetry.

It is especially disappointing because her books are supposed to be all about empowering women. Instead, they’re reductive. The majority of her poetry comes across as poorly written, emotionally insecure, cliched, and overall disappointing. How is this book so popular?

To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell

Is it read-worth? Yes, because it is a short read and it’s sexist attitudes are worth discussing. No because the mentality behind this poem has no place in today’s society.

Analysis of the poem

Lauded as a beautiful love poem from days gone by, To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell has no place in modern romance. The poem, written with the intent of seducing a young virgin, is simply outdated. Beyond that, in many ways it is offensive. Marvell does not love this woman, he lusts for her. The way he addresses her, the arguments he uses, and the ideas behind the words he speaks are offensive to modern women. While it may once have been considered a wonderful love story, it now comes across as creepy, sexist, and quite a bit ridiculous. 

Why? Because, simply put, his love poem is not a love poem. He insults her, reduces her to her body, and uses scare tactics to try to seduce her. In fact, even the first two lines are insulting: “Had we but world enough and time, / This coyness, lady, were no crime” (Marvell lines 1-2). Essentially, what Marvell is saying is that her modesty is holding them back. While he may appreciate her beauty, he does not like the one personality trait of her’s that he manages to mention throughout this poem: her modesty. While many women in this day and age are not modest in the same ways as historical women are, it is the only character trait of his “love” that he mentions the entire poem and, instead of mentioning it with adoration, he dissuades it with scorn. Her modesty bothers him because it prevents him from having sex with her and is, therefore, a flaw.

That sentiment would have been understandable, and somewhat acceptable, if it had been the only insult throughout the poem. However, the manner in which Marvell “seduces” the young lady should never be considered seduction. The first stanza in itself is not the largest problem; he spends it insulting her modesty and telling her that he’ll still love her forever. If he had left it at that, the poem probably wouldn’t be quite as offensive. Yet, he didn’t end the poem at the close of the first stanza.

Instead, he decided to use scare tactics to get her to sleep with him. He tells her, “Thy beauty shall no more be found; / Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound” (Marvell lines 25-26). Analyzed deeper, these words are a not-so-subtle reminder that beauty fades. She is beautiful so he wants to deflower her. If he deflowers her, he must love her. If she wants him to love her, she must remember that time moves quickly, her beauty will fade, and one day she will die. Basically, he means to tell her that if she dies without having sex with him, she’s going to lose her looks, no one will love her, and she’ll die alone. If that is his best argument for her falling into his bed, the entire poem needs to be rethought. 

And, at that, they need to be rethought by society as well. Similar behavior on behalf of both men and women in relationships have been exhibited. Using threats, insults, and other types of emotional manipulation to get someone to want to have sex is unhealthy behavior from a personal standpoint and a societal standpoint. Rape culture within the United States (and other nations) exists because poems like this give sexism and sexualization of other people cultural ground (“Rape Culture”). It tells people that this type of behavior is romantic when it is absolutely unacceptable and is, in actuality, degrading.

To be perfectly plain, To His Coy Mistress represents a lot that is wrong with people’s perception of romantic relationships. No one should ever use scare tactics to frighten someone into having sex. Furthermore, the idea that a woman is only worth something if she is still young and beautiful is insane. The way Marvell speaks to his potential lover is inappropriate, cruel, reinforces rape culture, and has no place as an emblem of love and romance. To His Coy Mistress is not a love poem – it’s a problem. 

Works Cited

Marshall University Women’s Center. “Rape Culture.” Womens Center.

Marvell, Andrew. “To His Coy Mistress.” Poetry: An Introduction, 7th edition. Ed. Michael Meyer. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013. 79. Print

The Dual Storylines of Bored by Margaret Atwood

Is it read-worth? To be perfectly honest, almost all poetry is worth a read. Most poetry is short enough that it only takes a portion of time and each line is bursting with meaning. This poem is no exception to that rule. Bored is absolutely worth reading and, more than that, it’s worth looking into more deeply.

The Dual Storylines: An In-Depth Analysis

One of the greatest, and most terrible, characteristics of Bored by Margaret Atwood is the fact that it has the potential for a large variety of meanings. The words used are nuanced and, depending on how they are read and pieced together, multiple meanings can be derived from the one poem. Even the form of the piece, as a free-form poem without any stanzas, encourages readers to develop several different interpretations. The lack of separation between different sections of the poem allows the themes to blur together. It is easier to derive multiple meanings when certain ideas are not confined to a singular space or train of thought. This was extremely clever because it allows one piece to hold sway with multiple audiences, connecting them by one central theme of regret. 

These multiple storylines are somewhat different from one another. For example, Atwood could literally just be describing a boring day she remembers from the past. More likely, she could be describing her memories of time spent with her father doing chores. Atwood’s language, if applied to that meaning, suggests that she wishes she had appreciated her time with him more. On the other hand, the male character is not specifically defined to be her father. He could have been her lover. As a result, Atwood could be expressing that she regrets allowing him so much control over her life. She regrets taking the backseat and wishes she had asserted herself more. In either case, with either male figure defined as such, she expresses a sense of regret. She wishes she had lived her life to the fullest, had enjoyed each moment, and had defined her own course. 

To follow the first storyline, in which the male figure is defined as Atwood’s father, the poem is a happier, fond poem. She remembers doing chores with her father as a fond memory of him: “Why do I remember it as a sunnier, / all the time then, although it often / rained, and more birdsong)?” (25-27) She enjoyed spending time with her father. However, she simultaneously wishes she had enjoyed it more in the moment. She had spent their time together wishing she was elsewhere instead of recognizing its worth. She was shortsighted by failing to see the big picture, by failing to remember that one day her father would grow old and die, far before she would, and that time spent with him should be cherished: “… and then the graying bristles / on the back of his neck” (18-19). Her biggest regret in this story-line is not having the wisdom to appreciate her childhood. If she could go back, she wouldn’t have wasted their time together with boredom and would have, instead, enjoyed the little moments.

Yet, if you define the male character as her lover, the tone of the piece is completely different. While she still remembers the time spent with him fondly, as viewed in the line where she describes it as a sunnier time, she wishes she had made better decisions. Her short-sightedness, in this case, is more unforgiving and, if she could, she never would have stayed in the relationship or, vise-versa, would never allowed him to have so much control over her life: “Now I wouldn’t be bored. / Now I would know too much” (33-34). Atwood feels as if she were out of her mind for allowing him to make her decisions for her: “All those times I was bored out of my mind” (1-2). The lines: “Or sat in the back / of the car, or sat still in boats, / sat, sat, while at the prow, stern, wheel / he drove…” suggests that she wishes she had moved past her mindless boredom and taken more control (8-11). He had controlled the direction of their lives. Her shortsightedness, her myopia, was failing to recognize that she had so little sway until it was too late, and they had both aged (14). At the end of the poem, she compares herself to animals to suggest the stupidity of such a decision: “… It [boredom] is for dogs or / groundhogs” (31-32). Dogs, usually characterized by obedience, and grounds, who are pests, are an apt representation for the way this made her feel. If she could go back and make different choices, the piece suggests that she would.

In any case, with either story line, the key idea is relatively constant. Margaret Atwood wishes she had appreciated life more. She wishes she had taken the time to enjoy the little moments and, at times, wishes she had asserted more control over her life. With her father, it would have gained his respect while also showing him that she cares and wants to put in effort similar to his own. With a lover, it could have changed the entire direction of her life. This familiar emotion makes the poem universally applicable – no matter the preferred or inferred direction of the story behind it.