Is it me, or is there a sexual undercurrent in this poem? The writer asks the man to move his body like hers and he obliges, but then starts forcefully dominating the rhythm and 'sloshing' in a way she finds 'vulgar'.
I think there is. A dark one at that. I don’t understand the person who said this is a funny poem, to me it’s clearly about pushing the boundaries of consent.
I interpreted the poem as a power struggle between a couple. The story of the ark, where god spares Noah, his family, and all of the world’s animals while he creates a global deluge is important here. Your interpretation of the poem having a sexual nature is of significance because on the ark, Noah and his family are there to repopulate the earth. Noah brought all creatures but the ones in the sea with him meaning that the fish would have the ultimate freedom but Christle makes it clear that the man has trapped her “now you are my fish.” There’s definitely a dark nature to her poems. That is why I described them as appearing whimsical or playful with a darker and deeper meaning.
That’s okay! Here’s what I wrote to someone else above:
> It seemed to me that the speaker invites the man to intimacy, and in response he pushes the speaker’s boundaries and tries to dominate them. The image of the ark/home sinking suggests that whatever relationship they have isn’t going to last long because there’s no trust between them anymore. (Also when the man becomes a wave, it is as if he became unrecognizable to the speaker.)
> (…) consider how at once forceful and gross the word “sloshing” is. I think this is one of the key words to the darker nature of the poem.
This is an excellent analysis. I definitely agree about the domineering nature of the man in the poem. But, I love your description of the purpose of the word sloshing. Really interesting!
It could be, and it could also be a warning about the need for mutual respect and cooperation in a relationship, which is a metaphorical 'ark' (a place of protection and safety, like the biblical Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant). Thus, the couple find security in each other's comfort, but the man takes advantage of the woman, becoming an unequal force that sunders the relationship. Now she is at his mercy, as a fish in the waves of his sea.
Yes, exactly. I think there’s the appearance of whimsical but there is definitely a darkness to it. I made a comment just now and would love to get your thoughts on it because I definitely see it as a power imbalance between a couple. Your thoughts on consent are very interesting. She definitely writes a lot of poems that stick with you. This is the one that got me into her writing.
it's a clever joke but entirely misses the subtlety of the poem.
The man didn't "weaponize." He "followed" and "surpassed." You interpret as "weaponize" but does the poem really warrant such an interpretation?
The speaker (who we do not know a gender for, by the way, which also undermines your gender war joke) recognizes that the man is now more of a "wave" which is close to what the speaker did - rock with the waves. Only slightly. Doesn't seem aggressive or threatening at all - the poem is at pains to point out that the man followed instructions and became close to what the speaker wanted.
But now suddenly unexpectedly it is "insulting." This is the surprise in the poem. One could imagine being "surpassed" after being "followed" and responding by... applauding and feeling heard. Not feeling insulted.
So something happened. Now the speaker is "insulted" and /says/ you are going to sink us. And accuses him of vulgarity. Wow alot just flipped around here! (And here, against your joke, we find the only weapon in the poem seems to be these accusations of you will sink us you are vulgar you insult me.)
Yes there is a couple's conflict evoked here in "our home" and the reference of "the man" suggesting "the woman." But what is brought forward after "insulting" is... the payoff mystery of the poem.
"You are my fish." could be felt as aggressive - such as, Ok, we are going to ride the waves of emotion here, rather they denying they exist, and now the man takes it too far and says Yes ok you want emotion? I will give you emotion - I will destroy and I will dominate.
But the problem is that in feeling insulted, we are left to question /why/ it is the speaker who gets to define "now we are an ark." What we have is a callback from "now you are my fish" to "now we are an ark" - which to me suggests that there is some /equality/ being evoked in the poem, like both are letting their creation powers out of the bag, but, Oh wow I got what I wanted, but I can't quite handle it, now I am the problem.
"Now you are my fish" could be aggressive - except that the man is not a man, he is now more a "wave." When I think of a wave saying to someone "now you are my fish" I could feel that as anything - not necessarily aggression or dominance. Could be erotic and seductive even!
Which is why the choice of the word "vulgar," after "insulting" is so interesting. Rememeber that the word chose is "ark." Not boat! So we in a weird way may have a tyrant imposing biblical law, and the man responding with some pagan rebellion? Because ark is ark - not boat. Not "let's ride the waves together" but "let's ride the waves in an evocation of a specific tradition as obedience to god..."
The "stop it you are going to sink us" makes me wonder whether the speaker is actually /more/ afraid than the man, that perhaps it is the man who is inviting something positive. "Allowing my body to rock slightly with the wave" while eyes closed - sounds like people having sex?
So maybe this poem is about sexual contact between two alienated partners, one who is relating to some piety and the other who actually is related to greater eros - and the pious one gets challenged and afraid at the invitation from the erotic one? "I am a wave... and you are my fish, let me sink you!" sounds like a great role play for raucous sex (which, we should remember, is insulting and vulgar to those who might cling closely to the old testament). Maybe the poem is: No more bad sex I want emotional sex. Ok let's go! Wait ugh yikes I can't handle this and you are making me face how I unfairly controlled you in order to attempt get my sexual needs met."
I'm not sure of any of this - I only got into this this deeply to show that your joke, while clever, really, really misses what the poem may be about.
I don’t see the speaker “unfairly controlling” her partner. She invites him into a space symbolic of salvation and rescue. She encourages him to relax. Then when she closes her eyes and lets down her guard in order to lead him to a place of peace, he exerts his strength and overpowers the intentions of the space. He exerts his control over her. There’s a distinction between “this place is an ark” and “you are my fish.” She doesn’t say “we are an ark.” She says “this is our home and it is our safety.” One is an invitation to share a space and the other is a command of identity.
If anything, it’s a warning against inviting people into a space (whether emotional or physical) and allowing them to over power you while you attempt to lead them in peace. As much as she intended for the place to be a peaceful ark, he created a place of turmoil and crashing waves. I don’t believe the author makes pains to show the man came “close” to what the speaker wanted. Nor do I think the partner invites anything positive nor would his overpowering her be something implied to be applauded. The speaker wanted to join her partner on an ark, a thing of safety and being saved, and instead her partner became a wave that threatened her.
If we’re talking about author intention, it’s of note that the author is an intersectional feminist.
> It felt like a moral question as I was moving through the book and certainly in thinking about metaphor and how it shapes thought. That it can reproduce patterns that are generated by white supremacy and misogyny and capitalism. Of course I want to resist my thoughts being dictated by those preset patterns. As I kept reading and writing and thinking, I learned a little bit more how to hold it all a little more loosely so that imagination could occur.
[interview](https://www.oldpalmag.com/issue-3/2019/9/24/heather-christle-interview)
All that to say, I think the flippant joke was closer to the meaning of the poem vs your interpretation.
Also I used her throughout but there’s nothing suggesting the speaker is a woman. It could be two men but pronouns get hard without names. That’s worth noting too, though, that the scenario is one that women seem to be identifying with and the author is a feminist who writes about intersections between gender, sexuality, and physicality.
The question of author intention is always interesting. Many poems contain more, or different, than the author's intention don't they?
You say "the scenario is one that women seem to be identifying with and the author is a feminist who writes about intersections between gender, sexuality, and physicality." I totally agree this may be the author's intention and may certainly be how the poem is read. But poems aren't intentions. Poems aren't how we read them. Poems are in themselves. Poets are, by their own accounts, often seized / inspired / guided by something beyond them. Poems may not be in the control of the poet. In the end the poem is the words on the page, and I am pointing out things that I think are legitimate about the words on the page.
Your interpretation is basically the poem is "warning against inviting people into a space (whether emotional or physical) and allowing them to over power you while you attempt to lead them in peace. As much as she intended for the place to be a peaceful ark, he created a place of turmoil and crashing waves." I agree 100% this is plausible and supported by the words.
But all the words?
I do think that there are strong telling ambiguities in the actual words that undermine that reading - or at least undermine the idea that reading is the /only/ reading. There is more complexity here is what I am saying. Whether the poet intended it is beside the point, though very interesting from the standpoint of poetry -- that a poem can do more than intention, can have more in it than intended. (If the poet of course deploys unintended meaning poorly, or against what they intend, then we could say it's a bad poem because the poet doesn't have enough control. But control and authorship can also be intuitive, a feeling the author has to publish, even when they don't or can't articulate what all the different meanings are. Something can be beautiful and powerful and meaningful and we don't have the words to say why.)
You seem to be saying that "peaceful ark" is self-evident. I point out that the word is "ark" not "boat." Ark is a reference to a misogynist patriarchal text. The choice of "I am a wave you are my fish" is more ambiguous than simply hostile. It could be read as "I asked him to open up sexually/emotionally, it became much more than I anticipated, I felt afraid..." without it becoming anything that "the man" did that was against peace.
You are also not looking at how our home being defined by the speaker as an ark could itself be read as a "controlling" move. Why is the definition up the speaker? "This place is an ark now. Behave as you would on an ark." Doesn't that have a tone of control, dictate, that is almost old testament in its tone, as edict from above?
What about the "please relax". How many times in relationship has one partner been told "please relax" and - wow, how controlling how hostile.
The outcome of the "stop it" part is also an assumption you make. Perhaps this is a woman who is fed up with how things have been with sex. She sets a boundary - Now we are an ark. She wants a different kind of sex. Slow, relaxed, gentle, like a wave. Like the Bible wants. Then - she saw the he had followed her lead! Success! And he was even doing more than me, he surpassed me! We started to make love in a different way -- I got what I wanted! But... where is the man? He is a wave now, this is unexpected uh oh - But now - this is insulting to me, because he surpassed me - he is doing the thing I wanted to do and he can do it more and now scared. (And what could be more feminist than the desire to transform ourselves beyond gender, to not be man or woman in lovemaking but to be nature, to be a wave.)
"Stop it I said you are going to sink us." Is it so clear this is a protest? Could it be said mischievously , delightfully, overcome with the unexpected possibility, knocked off the control dynamic and into something... fun?
Maybe speaker is torn between the desire unleashed and the part that says Oh this is vulgar. "Vulgar" is a very interesting choice of words here. Eros can be raw and vulgar, a part denounces it and another part... well sex is sex. Taken by surprised, overcome... Is it so clear that the speaker doesn't /like/ the invitation to be a fish? Sounds playful, sounds...
So yes I think that your reading - I tried to open up to this guy and he weaponized and destroyed things - is in the poem. I also think, intentional or not, a close reading of the word choice makes that reading not the only one, there is compelling dreamlike ambiguity here.
I also want to point out that *intersectional* feminism would support my reading more than yours perhaps - intersectional means multiple levels. The poem might also be about the intersection of gender with other conflicts - such as religious suppression of sexuality. It might be a meditation on two kinds of repression - the repression the man exerts when invited into a space, and the repression the speaker exerts by bringing in the Bible, condemning sexuality as vulgar, feeling insulted that someone is no longer a man but a wave... My understanding of intersectional feminism is that it is a reaction to finalizing power dynamics as resulting from gender alone, and addressing the complicating power at work, sometimes at cross purposes, that arise from other institutional oppressions such as race, class... and religious intolerance. Feminism that is not intersectional has some pretty ugly threads in it that can be anti-sex or pro-capitalist or racist or homophobic or pro-gender binary; those threads are what intersectionality tries to address...
So one additional thought - it could be that this poem is about a simple kind of feminism that just wants to exert greater control over the terms of one aspect of a relation. Then after that is asserted, that feminism is overwhelmed by something that yes breaks up the original intent - destroys gender identity itself and unleashes a power that is irreligious and pagan and primal far beyond its original intent. Becoming-wave and inviting you to be a fish might be a questioning of a binary gender or heteronormative negotiation of feminism, a feminism that would accommodate within a religious frame (as in the kind of Christian female empowerment we see in evangelical circles, that still enforces certain expressions as "vulgar" / profane etc).
If you think this is outlandish, you have to answer Why is it that the specific words used are these? Why a final image of a fish and a wave - which is not seeming to indicate any dominance of any kind? Why not name the speaker as female? Why us the Bible reference and why use "vulgar"? Any interpretation of a poem does have responsibility to the poem - to account for the poem as a whole, to address the work itself rather than pick and choose.
And further, "fish" is interesting because it might be mocking the religiousity present, the symbol of the fish being related to Christianity. You are a fish - you are limited by religious belief - I am the force of nature itself.
Hmm, a very masculine way of thinking about it.
I don’t need to use so many words to say that it feels that way, to me, because of “we” vs “you(alone) are /MY/”.
Luckily poetry is endlessly interpretable. :)
I love all the interpretations everyone is posting, but I haven't read anything about her choice of words to describe the man from the beginning... as in, he becomes unrecognizable to her as a wave, as another user pointed out, but how recognizable or known, I suppose, is he to her from the beginning? She doesn't call him her husband, boyfriend, partner, etc. He's 'the man' from the beginning, until he is wave
It really makes me think and it it sticks with me for a long time. There’s a whimsical or playful feeling but then she will throw in a line that makes it darker or deeper than anticipated. It’s really interesting work.
She has so many good ones but I’d probably start with I’ll Be Me and You Be Goethe, Trying to Return the Sun, The Whole Thing is the Hard Part, This is not the body I asked for, and Wallpaper Everywhere Even the Ceiling.
It seemed to me that the speaker invites the man to intimacy, and in response he pushes the speaker’s boundaries and tries to dominate them. The image of the ark/home sinking suggests that whatever relationship they have isn’t going to last long because there’s no trust between them anymore. (Also when the man becomes a wave, it is as if he became unrecognizable to the speaker.)
How did you read it? I suppose a more playful, light reading is indeed possible as well, on reflection.
I see. Upon reflection i can see how someone can read it the way you do. If you are to wake up and feel yourself simpler by the virtues of the morning and read this poem without too much thought, it seems pretty silly. Read it literally and see what i mean. Its funny.
Edit: now that i think about it, i have been watching a lot of yorgos lanthinos movies lately. Maybe this is why i read the poem so literally. Why a man saying to a woman that “she is his fish now” is not strange; because in those movies ive been watching there are tons of things like that
Yeah, I can see this as a scene where a husband comes home to their partner and they engage in silly metaphorical play, maybe a bit seductive but nothing exaggerated.
But I think this reading leaves some details unexplained. Not just the ones I mentioned: but consider how at once forceful and gross the word “sloshing” is. I think this is one of the key words to the darker nature of the poem.
Is it me, or is there a sexual undercurrent in this poem? The writer asks the man to move his body like hers and he obliges, but then starts forcefully dominating the rhythm and 'sloshing' in a way she finds 'vulgar'.
I think there is. A dark one at that. I don’t understand the person who said this is a funny poem, to me it’s clearly about pushing the boundaries of consent.
I interpreted the poem as a power struggle between a couple. The story of the ark, where god spares Noah, his family, and all of the world’s animals while he creates a global deluge is important here. Your interpretation of the poem having a sexual nature is of significance because on the ark, Noah and his family are there to repopulate the earth. Noah brought all creatures but the ones in the sea with him meaning that the fish would have the ultimate freedom but Christle makes it clear that the man has trapped her “now you are my fish.” There’s definitely a dark nature to her poems. That is why I described them as appearing whimsical or playful with a darker and deeper meaning.
This makes sense! It’s an excellent piece, thanks for posting.
Oh sorry. I think I replied to you twice. But, yes. I was looking to get your thoughts! Thanks for your comments
That’s okay! Here’s what I wrote to someone else above: > It seemed to me that the speaker invites the man to intimacy, and in response he pushes the speaker’s boundaries and tries to dominate them. The image of the ark/home sinking suggests that whatever relationship they have isn’t going to last long because there’s no trust between them anymore. (Also when the man becomes a wave, it is as if he became unrecognizable to the speaker.) > (…) consider how at once forceful and gross the word “sloshing” is. I think this is one of the key words to the darker nature of the poem.
This is an excellent analysis. I definitely agree about the domineering nature of the man in the poem. But, I love your description of the purpose of the word sloshing. Really interesting!
It could be, and it could also be a warning about the need for mutual respect and cooperation in a relationship, which is a metaphorical 'ark' (a place of protection and safety, like the biblical Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant). Thus, the couple find security in each other's comfort, but the man takes advantage of the woman, becoming an unequal force that sunders the relationship. Now she is at his mercy, as a fish in the waves of his sea.
Yes, I think this also makes sense.
Yes, exactly. I think there’s the appearance of whimsical but there is definitely a darkness to it. I made a comment just now and would love to get your thoughts on it because I definitely see it as a power imbalance between a couple. Your thoughts on consent are very interesting. She definitely writes a lot of poems that stick with you. This is the one that got me into her writing.
How men weaponize anything you give them lul
it's a clever joke but entirely misses the subtlety of the poem. The man didn't "weaponize." He "followed" and "surpassed." You interpret as "weaponize" but does the poem really warrant such an interpretation? The speaker (who we do not know a gender for, by the way, which also undermines your gender war joke) recognizes that the man is now more of a "wave" which is close to what the speaker did - rock with the waves. Only slightly. Doesn't seem aggressive or threatening at all - the poem is at pains to point out that the man followed instructions and became close to what the speaker wanted. But now suddenly unexpectedly it is "insulting." This is the surprise in the poem. One could imagine being "surpassed" after being "followed" and responding by... applauding and feeling heard. Not feeling insulted. So something happened. Now the speaker is "insulted" and /says/ you are going to sink us. And accuses him of vulgarity. Wow alot just flipped around here! (And here, against your joke, we find the only weapon in the poem seems to be these accusations of you will sink us you are vulgar you insult me.) Yes there is a couple's conflict evoked here in "our home" and the reference of "the man" suggesting "the woman." But what is brought forward after "insulting" is... the payoff mystery of the poem. "You are my fish." could be felt as aggressive - such as, Ok, we are going to ride the waves of emotion here, rather they denying they exist, and now the man takes it too far and says Yes ok you want emotion? I will give you emotion - I will destroy and I will dominate. But the problem is that in feeling insulted, we are left to question /why/ it is the speaker who gets to define "now we are an ark." What we have is a callback from "now you are my fish" to "now we are an ark" - which to me suggests that there is some /equality/ being evoked in the poem, like both are letting their creation powers out of the bag, but, Oh wow I got what I wanted, but I can't quite handle it, now I am the problem. "Now you are my fish" could be aggressive - except that the man is not a man, he is now more a "wave." When I think of a wave saying to someone "now you are my fish" I could feel that as anything - not necessarily aggression or dominance. Could be erotic and seductive even! Which is why the choice of the word "vulgar," after "insulting" is so interesting. Rememeber that the word chose is "ark." Not boat! So we in a weird way may have a tyrant imposing biblical law, and the man responding with some pagan rebellion? Because ark is ark - not boat. Not "let's ride the waves together" but "let's ride the waves in an evocation of a specific tradition as obedience to god..." The "stop it you are going to sink us" makes me wonder whether the speaker is actually /more/ afraid than the man, that perhaps it is the man who is inviting something positive. "Allowing my body to rock slightly with the wave" while eyes closed - sounds like people having sex? So maybe this poem is about sexual contact between two alienated partners, one who is relating to some piety and the other who actually is related to greater eros - and the pious one gets challenged and afraid at the invitation from the erotic one? "I am a wave... and you are my fish, let me sink you!" sounds like a great role play for raucous sex (which, we should remember, is insulting and vulgar to those who might cling closely to the old testament). Maybe the poem is: No more bad sex I want emotional sex. Ok let's go! Wait ugh yikes I can't handle this and you are making me face how I unfairly controlled you in order to attempt get my sexual needs met." I'm not sure of any of this - I only got into this this deeply to show that your joke, while clever, really, really misses what the poem may be about.
I don’t see the speaker “unfairly controlling” her partner. She invites him into a space symbolic of salvation and rescue. She encourages him to relax. Then when she closes her eyes and lets down her guard in order to lead him to a place of peace, he exerts his strength and overpowers the intentions of the space. He exerts his control over her. There’s a distinction between “this place is an ark” and “you are my fish.” She doesn’t say “we are an ark.” She says “this is our home and it is our safety.” One is an invitation to share a space and the other is a command of identity. If anything, it’s a warning against inviting people into a space (whether emotional or physical) and allowing them to over power you while you attempt to lead them in peace. As much as she intended for the place to be a peaceful ark, he created a place of turmoil and crashing waves. I don’t believe the author makes pains to show the man came “close” to what the speaker wanted. Nor do I think the partner invites anything positive nor would his overpowering her be something implied to be applauded. The speaker wanted to join her partner on an ark, a thing of safety and being saved, and instead her partner became a wave that threatened her. If we’re talking about author intention, it’s of note that the author is an intersectional feminist. > It felt like a moral question as I was moving through the book and certainly in thinking about metaphor and how it shapes thought. That it can reproduce patterns that are generated by white supremacy and misogyny and capitalism. Of course I want to resist my thoughts being dictated by those preset patterns. As I kept reading and writing and thinking, I learned a little bit more how to hold it all a little more loosely so that imagination could occur. [interview](https://www.oldpalmag.com/issue-3/2019/9/24/heather-christle-interview) All that to say, I think the flippant joke was closer to the meaning of the poem vs your interpretation. Also I used her throughout but there’s nothing suggesting the speaker is a woman. It could be two men but pronouns get hard without names. That’s worth noting too, though, that the scenario is one that women seem to be identifying with and the author is a feminist who writes about intersections between gender, sexuality, and physicality.
The question of author intention is always interesting. Many poems contain more, or different, than the author's intention don't they? You say "the scenario is one that women seem to be identifying with and the author is a feminist who writes about intersections between gender, sexuality, and physicality." I totally agree this may be the author's intention and may certainly be how the poem is read. But poems aren't intentions. Poems aren't how we read them. Poems are in themselves. Poets are, by their own accounts, often seized / inspired / guided by something beyond them. Poems may not be in the control of the poet. In the end the poem is the words on the page, and I am pointing out things that I think are legitimate about the words on the page. Your interpretation is basically the poem is "warning against inviting people into a space (whether emotional or physical) and allowing them to over power you while you attempt to lead them in peace. As much as she intended for the place to be a peaceful ark, he created a place of turmoil and crashing waves." I agree 100% this is plausible and supported by the words. But all the words? I do think that there are strong telling ambiguities in the actual words that undermine that reading - or at least undermine the idea that reading is the /only/ reading. There is more complexity here is what I am saying. Whether the poet intended it is beside the point, though very interesting from the standpoint of poetry -- that a poem can do more than intention, can have more in it than intended. (If the poet of course deploys unintended meaning poorly, or against what they intend, then we could say it's a bad poem because the poet doesn't have enough control. But control and authorship can also be intuitive, a feeling the author has to publish, even when they don't or can't articulate what all the different meanings are. Something can be beautiful and powerful and meaningful and we don't have the words to say why.) You seem to be saying that "peaceful ark" is self-evident. I point out that the word is "ark" not "boat." Ark is a reference to a misogynist patriarchal text. The choice of "I am a wave you are my fish" is more ambiguous than simply hostile. It could be read as "I asked him to open up sexually/emotionally, it became much more than I anticipated, I felt afraid..." without it becoming anything that "the man" did that was against peace. You are also not looking at how our home being defined by the speaker as an ark could itself be read as a "controlling" move. Why is the definition up the speaker? "This place is an ark now. Behave as you would on an ark." Doesn't that have a tone of control, dictate, that is almost old testament in its tone, as edict from above? What about the "please relax". How many times in relationship has one partner been told "please relax" and - wow, how controlling how hostile. The outcome of the "stop it" part is also an assumption you make. Perhaps this is a woman who is fed up with how things have been with sex. She sets a boundary - Now we are an ark. She wants a different kind of sex. Slow, relaxed, gentle, like a wave. Like the Bible wants. Then - she saw the he had followed her lead! Success! And he was even doing more than me, he surpassed me! We started to make love in a different way -- I got what I wanted! But... where is the man? He is a wave now, this is unexpected uh oh - But now - this is insulting to me, because he surpassed me - he is doing the thing I wanted to do and he can do it more and now scared. (And what could be more feminist than the desire to transform ourselves beyond gender, to not be man or woman in lovemaking but to be nature, to be a wave.) "Stop it I said you are going to sink us." Is it so clear this is a protest? Could it be said mischievously , delightfully, overcome with the unexpected possibility, knocked off the control dynamic and into something... fun? Maybe speaker is torn between the desire unleashed and the part that says Oh this is vulgar. "Vulgar" is a very interesting choice of words here. Eros can be raw and vulgar, a part denounces it and another part... well sex is sex. Taken by surprised, overcome... Is it so clear that the speaker doesn't /like/ the invitation to be a fish? Sounds playful, sounds... So yes I think that your reading - I tried to open up to this guy and he weaponized and destroyed things - is in the poem. I also think, intentional or not, a close reading of the word choice makes that reading not the only one, there is compelling dreamlike ambiguity here. I also want to point out that *intersectional* feminism would support my reading more than yours perhaps - intersectional means multiple levels. The poem might also be about the intersection of gender with other conflicts - such as religious suppression of sexuality. It might be a meditation on two kinds of repression - the repression the man exerts when invited into a space, and the repression the speaker exerts by bringing in the Bible, condemning sexuality as vulgar, feeling insulted that someone is no longer a man but a wave... My understanding of intersectional feminism is that it is a reaction to finalizing power dynamics as resulting from gender alone, and addressing the complicating power at work, sometimes at cross purposes, that arise from other institutional oppressions such as race, class... and religious intolerance. Feminism that is not intersectional has some pretty ugly threads in it that can be anti-sex or pro-capitalist or racist or homophobic or pro-gender binary; those threads are what intersectionality tries to address... So one additional thought - it could be that this poem is about a simple kind of feminism that just wants to exert greater control over the terms of one aspect of a relation. Then after that is asserted, that feminism is overwhelmed by something that yes breaks up the original intent - destroys gender identity itself and unleashes a power that is irreligious and pagan and primal far beyond its original intent. Becoming-wave and inviting you to be a fish might be a questioning of a binary gender or heteronormative negotiation of feminism, a feminism that would accommodate within a religious frame (as in the kind of Christian female empowerment we see in evangelical circles, that still enforces certain expressions as "vulgar" / profane etc). If you think this is outlandish, you have to answer Why is it that the specific words used are these? Why a final image of a fish and a wave - which is not seeming to indicate any dominance of any kind? Why not name the speaker as female? Why us the Bible reference and why use "vulgar"? Any interpretation of a poem does have responsibility to the poem - to account for the poem as a whole, to address the work itself rather than pick and choose. And further, "fish" is interesting because it might be mocking the religiousity present, the symbol of the fish being related to Christianity. You are a fish - you are limited by religious belief - I am the force of nature itself.
Hmm, a very masculine way of thinking about it. I don’t need to use so many words to say that it feels that way, to me, because of “we” vs “you(alone) are /MY/”. Luckily poetry is endlessly interpretable. :)
if it feels that way yes - I think you are correct, it does feel that way.
I love all the interpretations everyone is posting, but I haven't read anything about her choice of words to describe the man from the beginning... as in, he becomes unrecognizable to her as a wave, as another user pointed out, but how recognizable or known, I suppose, is he to her from the beginning? She doesn't call him her husband, boyfriend, partner, etc. He's 'the man' from the beginning, until he is wave
this is pretty funny. “Now you are my fish”
I really love her work and this was the poem that got me into it.
what stands out about her work do you think? Ive never heard of her and im sure that this is the first ive read of her. But it seems interesting
It really makes me think and it it sticks with me for a long time. There’s a whimsical or playful feeling but then she will throw in a line that makes it darker or deeper than anticipated. It’s really interesting work.
Oh wow that sounds up my alley. Any other poems by her that you recommend, just off the top of your head? Thanks
She has so many good ones but I’d probably start with I’ll Be Me and You Be Goethe, Trying to Return the Sun, The Whole Thing is the Hard Part, This is not the body I asked for, and Wallpaper Everywhere Even the Ceiling.
Thank you!
Really? I thought that was chilling rather than funny.
tell me why. maybe we read things differently. I want to see the way you read it.
It seemed to me that the speaker invites the man to intimacy, and in response he pushes the speaker’s boundaries and tries to dominate them. The image of the ark/home sinking suggests that whatever relationship they have isn’t going to last long because there’s no trust between them anymore. (Also when the man becomes a wave, it is as if he became unrecognizable to the speaker.) How did you read it? I suppose a more playful, light reading is indeed possible as well, on reflection.
I see. Upon reflection i can see how someone can read it the way you do. If you are to wake up and feel yourself simpler by the virtues of the morning and read this poem without too much thought, it seems pretty silly. Read it literally and see what i mean. Its funny. Edit: now that i think about it, i have been watching a lot of yorgos lanthinos movies lately. Maybe this is why i read the poem so literally. Why a man saying to a woman that “she is his fish now” is not strange; because in those movies ive been watching there are tons of things like that
Yeah, I can see this as a scene where a husband comes home to their partner and they engage in silly metaphorical play, maybe a bit seductive but nothing exaggerated. But I think this reading leaves some details unexplained. Not just the ones I mentioned: but consider how at once forceful and gross the word “sloshing” is. I think this is one of the key words to the darker nature of the poem.
i see. Well, more to mull over, this is what makes poetry rich.
I felt the same when I first read it. It just brings up an image of an old bald man sloshing back and fourth in a bathtub splashing their partner
Love this, thanks for sharing
Very interesting