Poems of Margaret Atwood

[MUMUKSHA]

This is a Photograph of Me by Margaret Atwood
http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/margaret_atwood/poems/312

My initial reactions to the poem:

It is surreal though it does appear to be developing into an image in the beginning.

The first 14 lines sort of fooled me in the first reading. Only after I had read the parenthesis part did I see the truth of the photograph. That is of course if I interpreted it right.

I think the picture described in the first 14 lines is just the result of the distortion:

the effect of water
on light is a distortion.

Actually there is no branch or the frame house halfway up the slope. There is the lake but not as described in these lines. There are a few things that make me think this way.
The voice in the poem says:

'At first it seems to be
a smeared
print: blurred lines and grey flecks
blended with the paper;'

Then as the picture is being described we are asked to see

'a thing that is like a branch: part of a tree
(balsam or spruce) emerging'

It isn't sure of it's being a branch, neither is it sure of what tree it is.

Then there is a small frame house halfway up 'what ought to be a gentle/ slope'.

When the paranthesis begins the narrator tells you

'The photograph was taken
the day before I drowned.'

She tells you that she is in the lake in the centre of the picture just under the surface of the water. Then we are given the hint that it is the distorting effect of water that makes it difficult to discern what is there in the photograph. But if we looked long enough we'd see her eventually.

This is what the poem is on the surface.

If there is anything I missed or misjudged, do let me know.

[Virgil]

This is a fascinating poem. Until your analysis here I did not think the poem was that deep. But you make some great points.


This is a Photograph of Me by Margaret Atwood
http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/margaret_atwood/poems/312

My initial reactions to the poem:

It is surreal though it does appear to be developing into an image in the beginning.

Yes, it is surreal, only in the sense that the narrator is speaking from the dead. But there is an instability to this very static scene as you point out below.


The first 14 lines sort of fooled me in the first reading. Only after I had read the parenthesis part did I see the truth of the photograph. That is of course if I interpreted it right.
I think their simplicity fooled me too.


I think the picture described in the first 14 lines is just the result of the distortion:

the effect of water
on light is a distortion.
Yes, but she tells us up front that the image is distorted:


Actually there is no branch or the frame house halfway up the slope. There is the lake but not as described in these lines. There are a few things that make me think this way.
The voice in the poem says:

'At first it seems to be
a smeared
print: blurred lines and grey flecks
blended with the paper;'
When I read this from your post, I was struck. You are absolutely correct. "seems" and "ought" are powerful words here.


Then as the picture is being described we are asked to see

'a thing that is like a branch: part of a tree
(balsam or spruce) emerging'

It isn't sure of it's being a branch, neither is it sure of what tree it is.

Then there is a small frame house halfway up 'what ought to be a gentle/ slope'.
This is what I mean by the instability. This very static appearing scene is as fluid as the water.


When the paranthesis begins the narrator tells you

'The photograph was taken
the day before I drowned.'
Oops, I think you mean "the day after I drowned."


She tells you that she is in the lake in the centre of the picture just under the surface of the water. Then we are given the hint that it is the distorting effect of water that makes it difficult to discern what is there in the photograph. But if we looked long enough we'd see her eventually.

This is what the poem is on the surface.

If there is anything I missed or misjudged, do let me know.
No, you have perfectly analyzed this. I think the key here is the distortion of image, the difficulty of perception, and the narrator speaking from the dead. I await your deeper look at the work. :)

[JBI]

The poem is designed to correspond to her theory of Survival as the centre of the Canadian literary imagination; a read through that book really puts it into context; her concept of Canadian literature is one based on a struggling artist in the backdrop of an endless wilderness fighting for survival; as such, the beauty of the wilderness in the poem swallows up the invisible poet; the poem acts against the landscape declaring "I am here, in this wilderness, part of the beauty; nobody can see me."

The poem actually comes from a movement in Canadian literature after Northrop Frye's famous Conclusion to the Literary History of Canada, that tried to create a Canadian identity based on themes. The poem itself is one of many in such a genre, the best of which being written by poets like Irving Layton, but also by novelists like Sinclair Ross in As For Me and My House, and Ernest Buckler in The Mountain and the Valley. Really the poem gets a lot of credit by being taken outside of the tradition, but there are really quite a few in similar fashion, by poets like Lampman, Don MacKay, and others.

Very 70s, though I don't think she ever kicked the funk of this sort of limited imagination of Canadian identity, despite the 90s shift from the natural world to urban multiculturalism, and post-modern destabilization.

[MUMUKSHA]

Oops, I think you mean "the day after I drowned."
:goof: Yes, that is exactly what it is.


I think the key here is the distortion of image, the difficulty of perception, and the narrator speaking from the dead. I await your deeper look at the work. :)

I look forward to know what more it suggests to you.

What I was reminded of when I read it was Barthes' Death of the Author. It was sort of a reclaiming of the presence of the author.

Then there is the symbol of water or lake which stands for the subconscious mind. It is this subconscious mind that gives birth to works of art. So, we have to look longer and deeper perhaps to find the artist there who is not apparanetly visible.

This was of course before reading JBI's response. It is more informed. Thanks JBI. May be you could elaborate a little more about the book you've mentioned.

[Virgil]

The poem is designed to correspond to her theory of Survival as the centre of the Canadian literary imagination; a read through that book really puts it into context; ...

Very 70s, though I don't think she ever kicked the funk of this sort of limited imagination of Canadian identity, despite the 90s shift from the natural world to urban multiculturalism, and post-modern destabilization.
Well, I know very little about her and her work. I cannot put this poem into a broader context I'm afraid. Thanks for that JBI





I look forward to know what more it suggests to you.

What I was reminded of when I read it was Barthes' Death of the Author. It was sort of a reclaiming of the presence of the author.

Then there is the symbol of water or lake which stands for the subconscious mind. It is this subconscious mind that gives birth to works of art. So, we have to look longer and deeper perhaps to find the artist there who is not apparanetly visible.


It's possible that she is referring to the subconscious with the lake, and that is certainly one way to read the poem. I think, however, that might be a secondary meaning. For me, it's these lines that are the crux of the poem:


It is difficult to say where
precisely, or to say
how large or small I am:
the effect of water
on light is a distortion

What it says to me is that how we understand another person is dependent on perception. How we know another individual is really hard and is distorted by the surroundings and the moment in time. She knows if she is large or small, but the picture (which could be a view from outside herself) cannot specify.

Your reading assumes a search for self identity; my reading assumes she is trying to look at herself from another person's eyes and finds that from the outside the true self is vague. I assume she can mean both.

[MUMUKSHA]

It's possible that she is referring to the subconscious with the lake, and that is certainly one way to read the poem. I think, however, that might be a secondary meaning. For me, it's these lines that are the crux of the poem...


What it says to me is that how we understand another person is dependent on perception. How we know another individual is really hard and is distorted by the surroundings and the moment in time. She knows if she is large or small, but the picture (which could be a view from outside herself) cannot specify.

Your reading assumes a search for self identity; my reading assumes she is trying to look at herself from another person's eyes and finds that from the outside the true self is vague. I assume she can mean both.

The idea that the poem is referring of the process of understanding or discovering the real person beneath the exterior did occur to me. But as I read it carefully it's self-relexivity became more important than this idea. It is something like meta-text, in fact self-reflexive describes it best for me.

As we read the poem we initially think it is a picture of a lake and things in it's vicinity- a landscape. Then it tells us it is not. It is in fact the picture of the artist herself. In the course of the poem we have come to learn about the poem itself. It explains itself. It explains how underneath the surface of a poem, this one in particular, we will find the poet herself. It tells us of what the poet thinks about the artist in relation to her art or her stance generally(as JBI pointed out). It reasserts the presence of the author in text negating the post-structuralist claim of the death of the author. That's what it says to me.

[Virgil]

The idea that the poem is referring of the process of understanding or discovering the real person beneath the exterior did occur to me. But as I read it carefully it's self-relexivity became more important than this idea. It is something like meta-text, in fact self-reflexive describes it best for me.

As we read the poem we initially think it is a picture of a lake and things in it's vicinity- a landscape. Then it tells us it is not. It is in fact the picture of the artist herself. In the course of the poem we have come to learn about the poem itself. It explains itself. It explains how underneath the surface of a poem, this one in particular, we will find the poet herself. It tells us of what the poet thinks about the artist in relation to her art or her stance generally(as JBI pointed out). It reasserts the presence of the author in text negating the post-structuralist claim of the death of the author. That's what it says to me.

Great analysis Mamuksa. I support it!

If you wish to select another, feel free to do so. :)

[quasimodo1]

The Loneliness of the Military Historian


Confess: it’s my profession
that alarms you.
This is why few people ask me to dinner,
though Lord knows I don’t go out of my way to be scary.
I wear dresses of sensible cut
and unalarming shades of beige,
I smell of lavender and go to the hairdresser’s:
no prophetess mane of mine,
complete with snakes, will frighten the youngsters.
If I roll my eyes and mutter,
if I clutch at my heart and scream in horror
like a third-rate actress chewing up a mad scene,
I do it in private and nobody sees
but the bathroom mirror.


In general I might agree with you:
women should not contemplate war,
should not weigh tactics impartially,
or evade the word enemy,
or view both sides and denounce nothing.
Women should march for peace,
or hand out white feathers to arouse bravery,
spit themselves on bayonets
to protect their babies,
whose skulls will be split anyway,
or, having been raped repeatedly,
hang themselves with their own hair.
These are the functions that inspire general comfort.
That, and the knitting of socks for the troops
and a sort of moral cheerleading.
Also: mourning the dead.
Sons, lovers, and so forth.
All the killed children. ... {excerpt}

[JBI]

The idea that the poem is referring of the process of understanding or discovering the real person beneath the exterior did occur to me. But as I read it carefully it's self-relexivity became more important than this idea. It is something like meta-text, in fact self-reflexive describes it best for me.

As we read the poem we initially think it is a picture of a lake and things in it's vicinity- a landscape. Then it tells us it is not. It is in fact the picture of the artist herself. In the course of the poem we have come to learn about the poem itself. It explains itself. It explains how underneath the surface of a poem, this one in particular, we will find the poet herself. It tells us of what the poet thinks about the artist in relation to her art or her stance generally(as JBI pointed out). It reasserts the presence of the author in text negating the post-structuralist claim of the death of the author. That's what it says to me.

I don't know if I can agree to a subverting of post-structuralism. I think she is just playing with her theory - the idea of death by drowning, or of disappearing in the vast landscape, that is both violent and beautiful is central to the Canadian imagination, and particular to her work, which stems from a reading of Susana Moody's Roughing it in the Bush.

The idea of the struggling artist has been rather central to Canada because, quite simply, Canadian authors were ignored until the 70s pretty much; the modernist movement in Canadian prose was believed to never have happened, until academics started finding mass amounts of manuscripts that didn't get published because of a lack of Canadian market (small population, with an acceptance of British and American titles).

The idea of the photography then becomes central - it is a building upon the long art movement of landscape painting - pushed forward by the mythology and influence of painter Tom Thompson, whose never ending wilderness sketches culminated in his disappearance in the Canadian uncharted - but beyond that too there is the vast idea of the uncharted, giant country.

To me the poem isn't talking about the presence of the author, but the presence of the people within the wilderness - within the geography - which is something perhaps many forget, given the lack of knowledge of Canada that ever our neighbors seem to have.

[MUMUKSHA]

Great analysis Mamuksa. I support it!

I'm glad you approve it.

JBI, I am not claiming that what I read in the poem is what Atwood intended the poem to mean. I'm trying to tell what the poem means to me. What you're telling us is what Atwood means to convey to us through this poem. You are right in your interpretation because you know of her concerns as far as Canada is concerned. But there are many other things the poem says. And that is a part of the beauty of a poem that it comes to mean much more than it had been intended to mean by the poet. And there is nothing wrong with it. To limit a poem to just the poet's intentions would be unfair to the poem. So I wouldn't contradict any interpretations unless I can find something that supports my objection in the poem itself, not the poet's convictions or her stance over an issue. I hope we come to an understanding here.

[MUMUKSHA]

Thanks quasimodo for the link to the poem. I read it. It's a good poem. Since you introduced it I think you should write something about it too, so we could discuss it. We'll wait for it.

Meanwhile we might take up this poem I read.
Siren Song: http://www.famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/margaret_atwood/poems/311
The title refers to the Greek myth of the Sirens. There are a few stories related with the Siren Myth. The one I find relevant is the Abduction of Persephone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/persephone

This is how it begins:

This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:

It is about the Siren song.

Lines10-12:

Shall I tell you the secret
and if I do, will you get me
out of this bird suit?

It is the Siren song. Maybe it is not. It’s just a ‘bird suit’. So, this could be a ruse.

Towards the end:

I will tell the secret to you,
To you, only to you.
Come closer. This song
is a cry for help: Help me!
Only you, only you can,
you are unique

at last…

How can this be resisted? There are all the stratagems. There is that aura of mystery and vulnerability. The voice is calling out to you offering to let you in on the mystery and making you ‘unique at last’. It professes to be helpless without you. There is the appeal to the inflated ego: ‘Only you, only you can’.
And the final confession:

Alas
it is a boring song
but it works every time.

Obviously, the speaker does not enjoy the powerful gift or lure that she has despite the success with which she uses it. In lines 17-18 she confesses:

I don't enjoy singing
this trio, fatal and valuable.

There are a few other things that occur to me.

It is both about the song and is itself the song so it is self-reflexive in this sense.

It refers to Sirens who were initially nymphs turned into Sirens (were given wings) by Demeter so they would find Persephone
(their song is supposed be to calling out to Persephone) and probably as a punishment for not having interfered when Persephone was abducted by Hades. I think the fact that Hades is Dis Pater, will be of some significance to a feministic interpretation of the poem.

These are the various thoughts that came into my mind reading the poem. Now I could use some more information or suggestions before I can collect my thoughts into a coherent whole. So I’ll wait some.

[Virgil]

Meanwhile we might take up this poem I read.
Siren Song: http://www.famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/margaret_atwood/poems/311
The title refers to the Greek myth of the Sirens. There are a few stories related with the Siren Myth. The one I find relevant is the Abduction of Persephone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/persephone
Hmm, it's a cute poem and clever, but I don't really see it as very deep. I think it's a ploy, a luring the reader and capturing him like the siren herself, the poem imitating the subject.



This is how it begins:

This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:

It is about the Siren song.

Lines10-12:

Shall I tell you the secret
and if I do, will you get me
out of this bird suit?

It is the Siren song. Maybe it is not. It’s just a ‘bird suit’. So, this could be a ruse.
Yes, I would say it is. :D



Towards the end:

I will tell the secret to you,
To you, only to you.
Come closer. This song
is a cry for help: Help me!
Only you, only you can,
you are unique

at last…

How can this be resisted? There are all the stratagems. There is that aura of mystery and vulnerability. The voice is calling out to you offering to let you in on the mystery and making you ‘unique at last’. It professes to be helpless without you. There is the appeal to the inflated ego: ‘Only you, only you can’.
Yes I agree, that is the crux of the poem. :)



And the final confession:

Alas
it is a boring song
but it works every time.

Obviously, the speaker does not enjoy the powerful gift or lure that she has despite the success with which she uses it. In lines 17-18 she confesses:

I don't enjoy singing
this trio, fatal and valuable.
I'm not sure we know if the speaker does not enjoy it. I would think she does and is luring the listener.



There are a few other things that occur to me.

It is both about the song and is itself the song so it is self-reflexive in this sense.
Those were my thoughts too.


It refers to Sirens who were initially nymphs turned into Sirens (were given wings) by Demeter so they would find Persephone
(their song is supposed be to calling out to Persephone) and probably as a punishment for not having interfered when Persephone was abducted by Hades. I think the fact that Hades is Dis Pater, will be of some significance to a feministic interpretation of the poem.
I would think there is a feminist theme in here, but other than the fact the sirens oare women luring men, I don't see any solid theme. Can you articulate one?


These are the various thoughts that came into my mind reading the poem. Now I could use some more information or suggestions before I can collect my thoughts into a coherent whole. So I’ll wait some.
Sorry I didn't get back to this last night. I was kind of upset and didn't feel like hanging around here. But I had to come back to read this poem and comment. It was enjoable. :) :)

[OrphanPip]

I would think there is a feminist theme in here, but other than the fact the sirens oare women luring men, I don't see any solid theme. Can you articulate one?


There's a sort of tension here between the fact that the poem seems an attack on an apparent male preference for helpless women hopelessly in need of them and that the sirens are female murderers and seducers. Although, I think most of the focus is on this sort of male desire, on patriarchal attitudes towards women. We could say the sirens are individual women, but the men that they seduce are universal representatives of masculinity since the song works every time.

[MUMUKSHA]

I'm not sure we know if the speaker does not enjoy it. I would think she does and is luring the listener.
Considering this perspective I might agree with you.


Sorry I didn't get back to this last night. I was kind of upset and didn't feel like hanging around here. But I had to come back to read this poem and comment. It was enjoable. :) :)
It's Okay. And I'm sorry to know that you were upset. Oh you don't 'have to do' anything you don't want to when you don't feel like it. I'm glad you enjoyed the poem though.


I would think there is a feminist theme in here, but other than the fact the sirens oare women luring men, I don't see any solid theme. Can you articulate one?



Thank you OrphanPip for putting me on the right track.

And Virgil I will try and articulate my views about this.

I am not as yet familiar with much of feminist discourse, so I am going to interpret the poem only on the basis of my own stand as a woman. Now relationships, esp. man-woman relationships, involve power-politics whether it is acknowledged or not. In this power-struggle between the sexes the odds are heavily in favor of men. The attitude of men towards women might have changed but the world is still the one fashioned by the male mind. All systems- social, political, economic etc, etc, etc have all developed as men fashioned them. All theory and all philosophy behind all kinds of knowledge began as man’s mind perceived it. Even the language we have to use is not quite of our making. Even if women finally get a say in all this, it doesn’t mean the world now belongs to her in the way it does to the man. Men will always be more at home in this world of their making than women. The woman can only be really home in nature because it isn’t ‘man-made’. Even if all the men in the whole world were to acknowledge the equality of women as fellow human beings the fact that this world is not natural to the woman doesn’t change. So, something mythical or ancient as the Siren Song retains its significance as a power that the woman uses to subvert patriarchal hegemony. In ancient times women were, as everyone knows, of little consequence to men. They were sometimes not even considered equal to animals, esp. the useful ones, sometimes just things. But even then she could have such power over a man as to make him wage war against the whole world, even against gods. This Siren Song you see is boring, routine but it never fails.
But she says she doesn’t like it and I have to agree with her. I, as a person am disgusted by manipulations or affectations of any kind. I have been born into a life where I have done just fine without any stratagems of this kind. My way is the way of a soldier, I wage war. The Siren Song is the weapon of a diplomat, comparatively more effective. It depends entirely upon the woman which she decides to choose. In any case not to choose any and continue being a victim would be just too stupid to be considered an option. If you have the power to turn the game around on your opponent, you must.
In line 15, “picturesque and mythical” says the poem-that is what women are expected to be. Valued for their beauty and outward charms more than their actual selves, women are described in terms of archetypes and are denied their flesh and blood reality. That is why she wants to get out of that ‘bird-suit’. Posing is not a very enjoyable thing for her. But still the Song is “valuable”. So she is not giving it up. Not unless she can escapes this ‘bird-suit’ and proclaim her true identity.

[Virgil]

It's Okay. And I'm sorry to know that you were upset. Oh you don't 'have to do' anything you don't want to when you don't feel like it. I'm glad you enjoyed the poem though.

No, no. It had nothing to do with this thread. If anything, this thread brought me back to lit net. It's discussions like this that makes me love this place, certainly not some of the other inane discussions that pass for intellectual nonsense. It had nothing to do with you Mumu. :)


Thank you OrphanPip for putting me on the right track.
Yes, he made a good point, though i can't quite agree about the individual woman versus the universal male part of his thought. I'm not sure what that has to do with it or even if it's valid.


And Virgil I will try and articulate my views about this.
Let me first say, that i am not sympathetic to contemporary feminism. And by contempory I mean here in the United States in the past 30 or 40 years.


I am not as yet familiar with much of feminist discourse, so I am going to interpret the poem only on the basis of my own stand as a woman. Now relationships, esp. man-woman relationships, involve power-politics whether it is acknowledged or not. In this power-struggle between the sexes the odds are heavily in favor of men.
With my statement above, let me add now that i am in favor of the feminism before 40 years ago that strove to make things equal, at least on a legal level. I certainly support the equality between the genders. My problems with contemporary feminism is that once such laws were achieved the feminists have gone off to radical philosophic conclusions that are whacky and disasterous for society at large. But this is in the United States and probably most western nations, but I'm not going to speak for them without first hand knowledge. I'm sure that most other places in the world have not achieved the equality we have between the genders here.


The attitude of men towards women might have changed but the world is still the one fashioned by the male mind. All systems- social, political, economic etc, etc, etc have all developed as men fashioned them.
For the most part that is true, but women have consented to it and many if not most women in such places actually endorse it. So I don't think it's fair to say that men "fashioned" it all by themselves.


All theory and all philosophy behind all kinds of knowledge began as man’s mind perceived it.
Let me disagree. I believe there is a natural dynamic between men and women given a primitive and physically based society. It is my opinion that men will become dominant given the conditions where strength, aggression, and violence are necessary attributes for existence. If a man's strength is valued, then men will be more valued; if aggression is required, then men will more likely become leaders; if violence is the normal state of affairs, then a man who risks his life for the safety of others will be seen as superior. After all, those that are protected have a moral obligation to deferr to he that is risking his life.

There is a reason why all societies known to date (other than the contemporary modern world) are patriarchal. If women were equal naturally under primitive conditions then you would find some examples of a matriarchal society somewhere in the world at some time. There hasn't been. Not one.

So I do not agree with most of what feminism purports today. But i do acknowledge that in the modern world there is no reason to exclude women or hold them down.


Even the language we have to use is not quite of our making.
Oh that's part of the silliness of feminism, that language creates gender disparity or even sillier that the language was formulated to hold women down. I don't buy this at all. It's psychobabble.


Even if women finally get a say in all this, it doesn’t mean the world now belongs to her in the way it does to the man. Men will always be more at home in this world of their making than women. The woman can only be really home in nature because it isn’t ‘man-made’. Even if all the men in the whole world were to acknowledge the equality of women as fellow human beings the fact that this world is not natural to the woman doesn’t change. So, something mythical or ancient as the Siren Song retains its significance as a power that the woman uses to subvert patriarchal hegemony. In ancient times women were, as everyone knows, of little consequence to men.
How can you say they were of little consequence? The Trojan War was supposedly started over a woman. Men fought over women. That could hardly mean they were of little consequence. Women were prized, though I will say they were objectified for the most part.


They were sometimes not even considered equal to animals, esp. the useful ones, sometimes just things. But even then she could have such power over a man as to make him wage war against the whole world, even against gods. This Siren Song you see is boring, routine but it never fails.
Wait a second. First you're saying she doesn't have power and now you're she does have power? Which is it? :wink5:


But she says she doesn’t like it and I have to agree with her. I, as a person am disgusted by manipulations or affectations of any kind. I have been born into a life where I have done just fine without any stratagems of this kind. My way is the way of a soldier, I wage war.
No wonder I'm so fond of you. :) You should see how my wife fights with me all the time. She never uses stategems. Actually I wish she did. It would make my life so much more pleasant. :lol:



The Siren Song is the weapon of a diplomat, comparatively more effective. It depends entirely upon the woman which she decides to choose. In any case not to choose any and continue being a victim would be just too stupid to be considered an option. If you have the power to turn the game around on your opponent, you must.
In line 15, “picturesque and mythical” says the poem-that is what women are expected to be. Valued for their beauty and outward charms more than their actual selves, women are described in terms of archetypes and are denied their flesh and blood reality. That is why she wants to get out of that ‘bird-suit’. Posing is not a very enjoyable thing for her. But still the Song is “valuable”. So she is not giving it up. Not unless she can escapes this ‘bird-suit’ and proclaim her true identity.
That is a very convincing understanding of the poem. I agree.

[OrphanPip]

Yes, he made a good point, though i can't quite agree about the individual woman versus the universal male part of his thought. I'm not sure what that has to do with it or even if it's valid.


It was a bit forced, and only a quick initial reaction to the poem. Mumuksha's post has changed my mind. I think this is more about the Siren's disgust, or boredom rather, at having to use a power that derives from the condescension of the sailors she lures. If I'm not mistaken, this is the major shift from the traditional myth, the siren song is supposed to be irresistibly alluring and supernatural. Atwood's siren song is something very banal and ordinary, it's the kind of interaction between men and women you expect from a James Bond movie. Historically, manipulation, often sexual, was one of the few ways a woman could achieve her desires. I think what this is about is the conflict between the siren's personal disgust over what is her only source of power, much like Mumushka said. The lack of supernatural quality to the siren song makes me feel that this is about the position of women in society. Even in a liberal society, much of their social power derives from those oppressive stereotypes and manipulation.

[Virgil]

I can agree with that reading O-P. :)

[MUMUKSHA]

No, no. It had nothing to do with this thread. If anything, this thread brought me back to lit net. It's discussions like this that makes me love this place, certainly not some of the other inane discussions that pass for intellectual nonsense. It had nothing to do with you Mumu. :)

I’m happy about that.:)


Let me first say, that i am not sympathetic to contemporary feminism. And by contempory I mean here in the United States in the past 30 or 40 years.

I don’t know all that much about feminism so I won’t be able to form an idea of what is it that you don’t agree with by just this.

Another thing, I’m trying to find the feministic theme in the poem. I’m not really arguing about feminism in general or defending my own stance.




For the most part that is true, but women have consented to it and many if not most women in such places actually endorse it. So I don't think it's fair to say that men "fashioned" it all by themselves..

I didn’t mean it that way.
Besides the fact that women consented to it or now actually endorse it isn’t contrary to what I am trying to say. Women don’t have much of a choice. If women wanted to have a say in this world they had to first accept it. It’s only by becoming part of this world as it is that she has been able to bring about a change in her situation or role. But that is where the part that she is singing the Siren Song even though she dislikes singing it becomes so important. She wouldn’t probably make many of the choices she has had to if there were any other options. Here she has two options: sing the Siren Song or die of want. The option that she would like to choose- to get out of the bird-suit is not really available to her. Not unless “you get me out of this bird suit”.


Let me disagree. I believe there is a natural dynamic between men and women given a primitive and physically based society. It is my opinion that men will become dominant given the conditions where strength, aggression, and violence are necessary attributes for existence. If a man's strength is valued, then men will be more valued; if aggression is required, then men will more likely become leaders; if violence is the normal state of affairs, then a man who risks his life for the safety of others will be seen as superior. After all, those that are protected have a moral obligation to deferr to he that is risking his life.
'Moral obligation?'
I wish I could argue about this stance of yours but I don't feel equal to the task right now. But I will someday.



There is a reason why all societies known to date (other than the contemporary modern world) are patriarchal. If women were equal naturally under primitive conditions then you would find some examples of a matriarchal society somewhere in the world at some time. There hasn't been. Not one.

There actually are matriarchal societies. I let you know more about them when I have sufficient information.



So I do not agree with most of what feminism purports today. But i do acknowledge that in the modern world there is no reason to exclude women or hold them down.


Oh that's part of the silliness of feminism, that language creates gender disparity or even sillier that the language was formulated to hold women down. I don't buy this at all. It's psychobabble.

I am not at all surprised that you disagree. You couldn’t possibly understand unless you were a woman. I never said I believed language was ‘formulated’ to hold women down. I am not accusing men of having conspired against women. But I do feel sort of dissatisfied by language, the way words come to mean what they mean. I am particularly uneasy about definitions. For instance you use ‘natural’ and ‘normal’, there is a whole sort of family of such words the defining of which would be quite different from the perspectives of the two sexes. And it is in such cases that I feel unsure about language. Men use language in an assured way. They seem confident that when they write say, ‘natural’, it will be perceived as they intend it to. I don’t feel that kind of confidence in language. Maybe it’s just an individual thing but I feel it is a concern with women in general.


How can you say they were of little consequence? The Trojan War was supposedly started over a woman. Men fought over women. That could hardly mean they were of little consequence. Women were prized, though I will say they were objectified for the most part.

My teacher said something almost like this once in the class. And it was in the context of The Trojan Wars. I did not say anything at that time but I have so wished I had. I’m going to now at least say this to you. Men have fought over anything and everything. It just proves men love to fight and nothing else. It just proves how little they have valued life. It does not at all prove that the things that they have fought over held any real significance for them. Moreover, women are not things to fight over. The fact itself that they were fought over brings them down to the level of acquirable objects.[/QUOTE]


Wait a second. First you're saying she doesn't have power and now you're she does have power? Which is it? :wink5:

Come on, don’t pretend you don’t understand. This power is no actual power. It is just a way of subverting power.


No wonder I'm so fond of you. :)
:)


You should see how my wife fights with me all the time. She never uses stategems.

I love her for it then.


Actually I wish she did. It would make my life so much more pleasant. :lol:

And that’s why the Siren Song is and will always be ‘valuable’


That is a very convincing understanding of the poem. I agree.

It’s good that you finally agree.

[Virgil]

I didn’t mean it that way.
Besides the fact that women consented to it or now actually endorse it isn’t contrary to what I am trying to say. Women don’t have much of a choice. If women wanted to have a say in this world they had to first accept it.
I don't really want to argue feminism. The fact that they did not rebel supports my argument that it's part of natural human dynamics. Where are the women rebllions in history? There are all sorts of slave rebellions in the course of history, rebellions by people who have been subjugated? Where are the female rebellions?



It’s only by becoming part of this world as it is that she has been able to bring about a change in her situation or role. But that is where the part that she is singing the Siren Song even though she dislikes singing it becomes so important. She wouldn’t probably make many of the choices she has had to if there were any other options. Here she has two options: sing the Siren Song or die of want. The option that she would like to choose- to get out of the bird-suit is not really available to her. Not unless “you get me out of this bird suit”.
Where in the poem does it say the siren will die of want? No I have to disagree there. I think here you've added meaning that's not in the poem.



'Moral obligation?'
I wish I could argue about this stance of yours but I don't feel equal to the task right now. But I will someday.
Moral obligation that when a person is risking his life for another (male or female) the person being protected has a personal debt to the protector and violating that would consitute a moral transgression.


There actually are matriarchal societies. I let you know more about them when I have sufficient information.
Well I would like to know of one. I've never heard of it. There have been societies that worshipped a goddess but they had men in power.


I am not at all surprised that you disagree. You couldn’t possibly understand unless you were a woman.
There are plenty of men that are feminists. So I think men can understand. I do understand that women have been at men's will throughout history, and that is unfair and wrong. Still I am not a feminist. :D


I never said I believed language was ‘formulated’ to hold women down. I am not accusing men of having conspired against women. But I do feel sort of dissatisfied by language, the way words come to mean what they mean.
So if words come to mean what they mean, can we find words that would put women in a good light? Of course we can. Feminists only look at the words that support their argument.


My teacher said something almost like this once in the class. And it was in the context of The Trojan Wars. I did not say anything at that time but I have so wished I had. I’m going to now at least say this to you. Men have fought over anything and everything. It just proves men love to fight and nothing else. It just proves how little they have valued life. It does not at all prove that the things that they have fought over held any real significance for them. Moreover, women are not things to fight over. The fact itself that they were fought over brings them down to the level of acquirable objects.
:lol: Yes you are right there. I concede that point.


Come on, don’t pretend you don’t understand. This power is no actual power. It is just a way of subverting power.
Actually some feminists do think it's power. You've got two competing ideas in feminism on that one. To be honest i'm of two minds here. If a man is using his brute strength to gain power over his woman, he is using his masculinity. If a woman is using her feminine charms to gain power over her man, then she is using her feminity. But I acknowledge when we are talking about social power, you are correct.


It’s good that you finally agree.
I agree more than you think. I'm just not a feminist. :D

Mumu, I think we need to wait until I come back from my trip to do another poem. It will probably be over a month from now. If you wish to move to another poet, I'm willing to do that too. Think it over and decide.

[MUMUKSHA]

Where in the poem does it say the siren will die of want? No I have to disagree there. I think here you've added meaning that's not in the poem.

Yes, you are right. Consider it struck off. That probably came from one of the stories I read about Sirens while I was looking up The Siren Myth.


Mumu, I think we need to wait until I come back from my trip to do another poem. It will probably be over a month from now. If you wish to move to another poet, I'm willing to do that too. Think it over and decide.

Don’t worry about it. I will have much time to think and decide. You have a great trip. Good luck.:seeya: