The imagery of this poem strikes me as a respectful combination of both human and fish-world viewpoints. At one point Bishop refers to the shallow, metallic eyes of her new companion. As seen from our perspective, fish eyes are typically of that nature. At another point she recognizes the "terrible" oxygen which is presumably causing the fish great pain to endure.
Similar descriptions throughout culminate in the realization of the age, power, and "wisdom" of this creature. He's a survivor. A war vet. A real trooper. After coming to terms with her victory, she naturally let's him go. On the surface this seems like the only right thing to do. The intent to bag a catch, in this situation, falls aside in light of such circumstances.
However, after re-reading the piece for the sake of this blog entry (uh oh, I'm breaking the third wall) I noticed the option to hear the poem read by miss Elizabeth Bishop herself. I was surprised at the matter-of-fact tone of her voice. It was less like a reading of a piece of poetic literature, more like reading a caption beneath a photo. When she got down to the final line, in which she lets the big guy go, I was surprised yet again. This time by the emphasis Bishop herself puts on the individual words. My mind, seeing the release of the aquatic veteran as the only logical choice, was surprised to hear her emphasize the word "I". As in "I did, you wouldn't."
It seems the unasked question is not "Wouldn't you?", but is rather "Would you not?"
"At one point Bishop refers to the shallow, metallic eyes of her new companion. As seen from our perspective, fish eyes are typically of that nature. At another point she recognizes the "terrible" oxygen which is presumably causing the fish great pain to endure."
ReplyDeleteJohn, I think you captured really well Bishop's intention. It seems to me there is a duality - the world of the fish and our world. The oxygen so precious for us is killing the fish. The same duality exists in ugliness /beauty also seen in the world and in the fish itself.
Good points, folks--yes,we have to remember that all the warrior-like metaphors are traits (values)the the speaker projects onto the fish--or, we might say, Bishop's line--the one she uses to catch the fish,the poetic line--is also (must also be, given the logic of the poem's development) broken...
ReplyDeleteAdam, I like your comparison of the fish and a war veteran and that you noticed Elizabeth Bishop's tone of voice as she read her poem. I agree with Florina. I think you really saw where Bishop was going with her poem.
ReplyDelete