Poetry Analysis Help!

[bob247]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone can help me out with analyzing "The Catch" by Richard Wilbur. Here it is:

* The poem is formatted differently *

The Catch

From the dress-box's plashing tis-
Sue paper she pulls out her prize,
Dangling it to one side before my eyes
Like a weird sort of fish

That she has somehow hooked and gaffed
And on the dock-end holds in air---
Limp, corrugated, lank, a catch too rare
Not to be photographed.

I, in my chair, make shift to say
Some bright, discerning thing, and fail,
Proving once more the blindness of the male.
Annoyed, she stalks away

And then is back in half a minute,
Consulting now, not me at all
But the long mirror, mirror on the wall.
The dress, now that she's in it,

Has changed appreciably, and gains
By lacy shoes, a light perfume
Whose subtle field electrifies the room,
And two slim golden chains.

With a fierce frown and hard-pursed lips
She twists a little on her stem
To test the even swirling of the hem,
Smooths down the waist and hips,

Plucks at the shoulder-straps a bit,
Then turns around and looks behind,
Her face transfigured now by peace of mind.
There is no question---it

Is wholly charming, it is she,
As I belatedly remark
And may be hung now in the fragrant dark
Of her soft armory.

---Richard Wilbur

I know the general idea of it. There's a woman who puts on a dress that changes her. It focuses on how clothes should be; they are unassuming when pulled out of the "dress-box," but when they are placed upon a person that is meant to wear them, they are transformed into a miraculous sight that enhances the beauty of the wearer making the personal qualities they possess visible to those around. This is general though.

- Richard Wilbur was a fisherman. That's why he uses 'fish' diction within the poem.
-The catch refers to the woman he is in love with. It relates to a fish and how a fish is usually the "big" catch. In this case, he is inferring that the woman is the "big" catch. She is a marvelous spectacle to be shown off to all.
-He uses certain words, such as "plashing" and "fail" to signify the sound that a fish makes. It splashes and flails about.

Thanks

EDIT: DONE

[Calidore]

That's not help, it's homework outsourcing. If you just need nudges, be more specific about what exactly you're having trouble with.

[bob247]

That's not help, it's homework outsourcing. If you just need nudges, be more specific about what exactly you're having trouble with.

I just really want to know if i'm on the right track. Is what I said about the poem right?

[Adolescent09]

I'm guessing the general theme has something to do with the female character's lack of self-authenticity. Hint: She is undressing over and over in front of a mirror in front of another person. If you are a man, which, with a name like bob I cordially presume you are, you should have some idea as to what such thoughts her actions would produce from the male perspective.

[bob247]

I'm guessing the general theme has something to do with the female character's lack of self-authenticity. Hint: She is undressing over and over in front of a mirror in front of another person. If you are a man, which, with a name like bob I cordially presume you are, you should have some idea as to what such thoughts her actions would produce from the male perspective.

thank you for helping! I asked my teacher for some guidance and he helped me a lot. He said this is one of the hardest poems that he has given out so you can see why I'm asking. He told me a couple of things:

- Richard Wilbur was a fisherman. That's why he uses 'fish' diction within the poem.
-The catch refers to the woman he is in love with. It relates to a fish and how a fish is usually the "big" catch. In this case, he is inferring that the woman is the "big" catch. She is a marvelous spectacle to be shown off to all.
-He uses certain words, such as "plashing" and "fail" to signify the sound that a fish makes.
It splashes and flails about.

Nevertheless, I still need a little help with the sound devices and figurative language, though
I may find some by myself.

Thanks

[MorpheusSandman]

I wanted to ask about some specific questions:

The general theme?
Structure and type of poem?
Rhyme and Rhythm of poem?
Figurative language?
Diction?
Imagery?
Sound devices? Didn't your teacher teach you what these terms mean? If so, in what way are you struggling to find them in the poem? I do think you're on the generally right track with what the poem is about. You may ask WHY the clothes seem so transformed when put on the woman (in whose eyes are they transformed?) and how that transformation relates to the title. Rhyme and rhythm, imagery, figurative language, and diction should be quite easily analyzed in this poem if you understand those terms. "Structure and type" are rather ambiguous (I mean, "structure" and "type" can refer to different things). FWIW, I'm always quite dubious about analyzing "sound devices." I mean, sure, you can point out alliteration and assonance and onomatopoeia, etc. but it's often laughable when critics speculate why such devices are used.

[bob247]

Didn't your teacher teach you what these terms mean? If so, in what way are you struggling to find them in the poem? I do think you're on the generally right track with what the poem is about. You may ask WHY the clothes seem so transformed when put on the woman (in whose eyes are they transformed?) and how that transformation relates to the title. Rhyme and rhythm, imagery, figurative language, and diction should be quite easily analyzed in this poem if you understand those terms. "Structure and type" are rather ambiguous (I mean, "structure" and "type" can refer to different things). FWIW, I'm always quite dubious about analyzing "sound devices." I mean, sure, you can point out alliteration and assonance and onomatopoeia, etc. but it's often laughable when critics speculate why such devices are used.

no he did not. That's why I need help. I tried to find some on my own, but I am not sure if they are right. Can you tell me?

-"plashing" = onomatopoeia? Sound of splash (fish)
- Alliteration - "paper she pulls out her prize" (repetition of the "p" sound)
- Simile - "Dangling it to one side before my eyes/Like a weird sort of fish " (I assumed since it has "like")
- Hyperbole - "By lacy shoes, a light perfume/Whose subtle field electrifies the room" (exaggeration on "electrifies the room.")

[MorpheusSandman]

Well, that's absurd that your teacher would ask you to analyze the poem for devices he hasn't explained. That said, you're right in all of your examples. "Electrifies the room" is also an example of figurative language (metaphor).

[bob247]

Well, that's absurd that your teacher would ask you to analyze the poem for devices he hasn't explained. That said, you're right in all of your examples. "Electrifies the room" is also an example of figurative language (metaphor).

Yes. That's why this is very hard for me. And thanks for the feedback. I also was wondering if you would guide me further.

-I have learned that when he hyphens the "tissue" to "tis- Sue," it is a clever way of revealing the name of his love; Sue.
-Also, I have realized that there is a 8, 8, 10, 6 syllable count in each stanza(is it called that?) Is there a term for that?
-Furthermore, I noticed that the first and last lines as well as the second and third lines rhyme in each stanza(?) Is there a term for that as well?

At the of the poem, I get a little confused because I don't understand why he's "in the fragrant dark/ Of her soft armory." An armory is a place where weapons are placed. Is her beauty the weapon? Also, weapons are called 'arms' so maybe it has something to do with her arms?

The structure and type of poem is challenging too. I do not know if it is fixed form, free verse, lyric, or narrative

[MorpheusSandman]

-The "tis-Sue" name play reminds me of Donne, where he often used his and his wife's name (Ann Moore). See "A Hymn to God the Father" as an obvious example. The poem in general reminds me of Herrick's Julia's Clothes.

-There's not a specific term for that stanza structure (8, 8, 10, 6 syllables), but in general any 4-line stanzas are a quatrain. You could get fancy and say "octosyllabic" for 8 syllables, or "decasyllabic" for 10 syllables, but it's really not necessary. The poem is mostly written in iambs, which are metrical feet that go ba-BUM, or weak-stress/strong-stress.

-The rhyme scheme is just ABBA. (The "A"s represent the first and last line rhymes, and the "B"s represent the two internal lines rhymes).

RE Armory: Yes, armory's are places where weapons are kept. You might ask WHAT is being hung in the armory (of the things discussed in the poem, which can be "hung up" in a "dark place?"), how it's similar to a weapon, and what it has to do with catching fish. I wouldn't pursue the arm/armory angle.

Free verse is unrhymed, un-metered poetry, so it's not free-verse. Fixed forms typically refer to poems that have to be a certain length and adhere to a particular rhyme scheme and/or meter. Sonnets are the typical example. As for lyric VS narrative, these are not really mutually exclusive terms. Narrative just implies a story being told by the narrator, while lyric implies a similarity with music (usually involving rhyme, meter, and an expression of feeling), so poems can be both, neither, or one of the two. You might consider analyzing how the poem is both narrative and lyric.

[JBI]

-The "tis-Sue" name play reminds me of Donne, where he often used his and his wife's name (Ann Moore). See "A Hymn to God the Father" as an obvious example. The poem in general reminds me of Herrick's Julia's Clothes.

-There's not a specific term for that stanza structure (8, 8, 10, 6 syllables), but in general any 4-line stanzas are a quatrain. You could get fancy and say "octosyllabic" for 8 syllables, or "decasyllabic" for 10 syllables, but it's really not necessary. The poem is mostly written in iambs, which are metrical feet that go ba-BUM, or weak-stress/strong-stress.

-The rhyme scheme is just ABBA. (The "A"s represent the first and last line rhymes, and the "B"s represent the two internal lines rhymes).

RE Armory: Yes, armory's are places where weapons are kept. You might ask WHAT is being hung in the armory (of the things discussed in the poem, which can be "hung up" in a "dark place?"), how it's similar to a weapon, and what it has to do with catching fish. I wouldn't pursue the arm/armory angle.

Free verse is unrhymed, un-metered poetry, so it's not free-verse. Fixed forms typically refer to poems that have to be a certain length and adhere to a particular rhyme scheme and/or meter. Sonnets are the typical example. As for lyric VS narrative, these are not really mutually exclusive terms. Narrative just implies a story being told by the narrator, while lyric implies a similarity with music (usually involving rhyme, meter, and an expression of feeling), so poems can be both, neither, or one of the two. You might consider analyzing how the poem is both narrative and lyric.

My feeling is the space between stanzas is a very clever rhetorical scheme, it sort of puts a jutting pacing to the poem, which, knowing Wilbur is quite likely deliberate. Notice how much push he puts on the last line of every stanza, by twisting a metaphor, or throwing an unexpected line out there. the sort of matching rhyme seems more a sort of "dress" of a scheme than something particularly structuring, the general lack of concreteness would also be something to do with the sort of themes expressed.

The guidance your teacher gave you is rather obscure, sure, Wilbur may have been a recreational fisherman, but generally his use of fish in his poems are metaphorical, such as in The Ballade for the Duke of Orleans.

When you read Wilbur, the most important thing to look for is a sort of language play and punning. He is very much a technically brilliant poet, who manipulates language to its fullest. But on the second level, you also need to look at his use of female imagery as text, not as an actual woman. The poem itself contains its own metaphorical self-acknowledgement on a metatextual level, like his other works.

So if I were to read it, lets say that the woman in the poem is a sort of Muse, and the catch is a sort of text, lets say a poem. the dressing, if you will, with language, and the turning in front of the mirror, and the fine tuning is part of a compositional metaphor, to sort of "catch" the prize. Generally Wilbur plays around with these ideas, which led to one of my professors who has written about Wilbur extensively to remark generally that Wilbur metaphorically has a sort of "sexual" relationship with his poetic muse, which is a textual construction. To frame the poem in this light brings more sense to it - how he is hooked onto it, looking for what to say, to dress it, etc.

[bob247]

-The "tis-Sue" name play reminds me of Donne, where he often used his and his wife's name (Ann Moore). See "A Hymn to God the Father" as an obvious example. The poem in general reminds me of Herrick's Julia's Clothes.

-There's not a specific term for that stanza structure (8, 8, 10, 6 syllables), but in general any 4-line stanzas are a quatrain. You could get fancy and say "octosyllabic" for 8 syllables, or "decasyllabic" for 10 syllables, but it's really not necessary. The poem is mostly written in iambs, which are metrical feet that go ba-BUM, or weak-stress/strong-stress.

-The rhyme scheme is just ABBA. (The "A"s represent the first and last line rhymes, and the "B"s represent the two internal lines rhymes).

RE Armory: Yes, armory's are places where weapons are kept. You might ask WHAT is being hung in the armory (of the things discussed in the poem, which can be "hung up" in a "dark place?"), how it's similar to a weapon, and what it has to do with catching fish. I wouldn't pursue the arm/armory angle.

Free verse is unrhymed, un-metered poetry, so it's not free-verse. Fixed forms typically refer to poems that have to be a certain length and adhere to a particular rhyme scheme and/or meter. Sonnets are the typical example. As for lyric VS narrative, these are not really mutually exclusive terms. Narrative just implies a story being told by the narrator, while lyric implies a similarity with music (usually involving rhyme, meter, and an expression of feeling), so poems can be both, neither, or one of the two. You might consider analyzing how the poem is both narrative and lyric.

Thanks for the help! I really appreciate it. I researched some more and found something called "in memorian" stanzas. Someone said that they are "quatrains with the rhyme scheme ABBA. It's called that because that's the form that Tennyson used for his long poem called "In Memoriam.""

RE RE Armory. I presume that it is the fishing rod! He is using it to "reel" her in as his "big catch."

My feeling is the space between stanzas is a very clever rhetorical scheme, it sort of puts a jutting pacing to the poem, which, knowing Wilbur is quite likely deliberate. Notice how much push he puts on the last line of every stanza, by twisting a metaphor, or throwing an unexpected line out there. the sort of matching rhyme seems more a sort of "dress" of a scheme than something particularly structuring, the general lack of concreteness would also be something to do with the sort of themes expressed.

The guidance your teacher gave you is rather obscure, sure, Wilbur may have been a recreational fisherman, but generally his use of fish in his poems are metaphorical, such as in The Ballade for the Duke of Orleans.

When you read Wilbur, the most important thing to look for is a sort of language play and punning. He is very much a technically brilliant poet, who manipulates language to its fullest. But on the second level, you also need to look at his use of female imagery as text, not as an actual woman. The poem itself contains its own metaphorical self-acknowledgement on a metatextual level, like his other works.

So if I were to read it, lets say that the woman in the poem is a sort of Muse, and the catch is a sort of text, lets say a poem. the dressing, if you will, with language, and the turning in front of the mirror, and the fine tuning is part of a compositional metaphor, to sort of "catch" the prize. Generally Wilbur plays around with these ideas, which led to one of my professors who has written about Wilbur extensively to remark generally that Wilbur metaphorically has a sort of "sexual" relationship with his poetic muse, which is a textual construction. To frame the poem in this light brings more sense to it - how he is hooked onto it, looking for what to say, to dress it, etc.

Sorry, I know your trying to help by adding your own input and shed some light, but I don't really understand what you are saying lol. Wilbur is in love with his poetry? I apologize if I offended you, but I am only in grade 12, and this is the first time I have actually DONE poetry. In grade 9, I mostly focused on how to write essays in MLA format and analyze significance in TCEA (my teacher is the one who invented it). Then in grade 10 , I had a different teacher that was laid back and said all of my work was excellent. In grade 11, the same teacher who said the same thing. But in grade 12, there was such a change. Nobody expected a teacher like this! Sorry for rambling on, but it frustrates me.

[MorpheusSandman]

Thanks for the help! I really appreciate it. I researched some more and found something called "in memorian" stanzas. Someone said that they are "quatrains with the rhyme scheme ABBA. It's called that because that's the form that Tennyson used for his long poem called "In Memoriam.""The reason I didn't mention In Memoriam is because that stanza used Iambic Tetrameter (8 syllables per line) instead of varying it like Wilbur does here, with his tetrameter/tetrameter/pentameter/trimeter (8 syllable/8 syllable/10 syllable/6 syllable) variation. If you do compare it to In Memoriam you'd have to note how Wilbur's 3rd line GAINS a foot (4 beats to 5 beats) and his fourth line LOSES a foot (4 beats to 3 beats) compared to Tennyson's. It's possible this gain/loss is making some formal point, but if so I'm not seeing it.


RE RE Armory. I presume that it is the fishing rod! He is using it to "reel" her in as his "big catch."Note that it's HER armory, not his. So what object in the poem that plays a significant part might be "hung up" in "HER armory?" (hint: substitute "armory" for "closet").


I know your trying to help by adding your own input and shed some light, but I don't really understand what you are saying lol. Wilbur is in love with his poetry? You'll have to pardon JBI for forgetting that you're a poetry neophyte. :) A lot of poets like to play around with symbols/allegories (some more/less subtle than others) about their creative process. JBI is saying that "the catch" can be the completed poem itself, the woman is "the muse/inspiration," the "dress" is technique/form that the poet uses in order to achieve the completed poem. So you have inspiration by itself (the woman), you have technique by itself (the dress), and once you put them together you have your "catch," since the two rely on each other to achieve the final result.

This reading is a bit esoteric, and probably far more than you teacher expects from you. If you do use it, I'd HIGHLY recommend citing JBI as I suspect any teacher encountering this interpretation from a high-schooler (assuming you're not some recognized genius who loves poetry) would suspect that they stole it from somewhere else.

[sandy14]

The last lines of the poem do not rhyme denoting the end of the poem -another sound device.

I think you need to think about who is caught is this poem as Wilbur seems to be (over)playing with the image of fishing, and being caught.

The wife has caught the dress, and she has caught her husband. The last verse suggests this.

The narrator not attracted/interested in his wife until she puts the (hooked and gaffed) dress and accessorises it, so whilst the narrator may feel the wife is his catch, the language shows aware shows that he is also caught by his wife in the dress. He is to be hung (like a caught fish) in the fragrant dark of her armory (her body and hooked dress).

So everyone in the poem is caught - the dress is caught, the wife is caught and the narrator is caught after his wife dons the dress. He's using it as a metaphor for love.

It's a play on language and imagery.

[JBI]

The last lines of the poem do not rhyme denoting the end of the poem -another sound device.

I think you need to think about who is caught is this poem as Wilbur seems to be (over)playing with the image of fishing, and being caught.

The wife has caught the dress, and she has caught her husband. The last verse suggests this.

The narrator not attracted/interested in his wife until she puts the (hooked and gaffed) dress and accessorises it, so whilst the narrator may feel the wife is his catch, the language shows aware shows that he is also caught by his wife in the dress. He is to be hung (like a caught fish) in the fragrant dark of her armory (her body and hooked dress).

So everyone in the poem is caught - the dress is caught, the wife is caught and the narrator is caught after his wife dons the dress. He's using it as a metaphor for love.

It's a play on language and imagery.

Then what of the opening of the poem? "like a weird sort of fish".

the weirdness is generally the play, the dress is not just about the material in her hands but on how it is "worn". The wearing is in a sense, the art of it, getting the lines in the right place, etc.

You are seeing being caught as a sort of "being snagged". but rather Wilbur is using it as a sort of "to snag" usage. The mute poet, trying to frame the woman, who, once the dress is in place, is frameable. The dress, in a sense, is the poetic imagery of the muse, a clever conceit.

I don't see the poem as much about "love" than as much about poetic expression and language, which is quite common from Wilbur. As for the end not rhyming, it is a slant rhyme, or half-rhyme, which is actually a sort of rhyme, to the point where you don't even notice its break, as the rhyming has been rather soft throughout the poem.
And the poem is caught from the beginning. There is nothing to suggest the poet is not enticed from the beginning, he merely does not have the words of expression - the vehicle, the clothing, is not in place. language is very much a sort of clothing for the meaning we intend, which is sort of what Wilbur is getting at.

As for above, I was not responding to the homework question, but the actual poem itself. If the kid fails his homework it is his problem, his teacher didn't assign it to me.

As for the muse-poet relationship, it's age old and a sort of staple of Wilbur's. This is hardly the only example.

[MorpheusSandman]

As for the end not rhyming, it is a slant rhyme, or half-rhyme, which is actually a sort of rhyme, Slant rhymes are rhymes on the last consonant with a different vowel sound or vice-versa (more typically the former); this is an off-stress rhyme. The the "y" of "armory" and the "e" of "she" rhyme perfectly, only the former isn't stressed and the latter is.

[Nick Capozzoli]

"And may be hung now in the fragrant dark
Of her soft armory."

There's some wordplay, I think: "armory" = "armoire."

[MorpheusSandman]

"And may be hung now in the fragrant dark
Of her soft armory."

There's some wordplay, I think: "armory" = "armoire."Possible. Also, does that last line remind anyone of Keats' Ode on Melancholy?

His soul shall taste the sadness of her might,
And be among her cloudy trophies hung.

[JBI]

Slant rhymes are rhymes on the last consonant with a different vowel sound or vice-versa (more typically the former); this is an off-stress rhyme. The the "y" of "armory" and the "e" of "she" rhyme perfectly, only the former isn't stressed and the latter is.

That is still called a half rhyme, such as, "You are my fire, my one desire." which is also a half rhyme, or slant rhyme. The stress difference is what makes it imperfect.

[miyako73]

This poem is pushing me to entertain the idea that maybe this is related to the author's secret sex life. It seems the setting of this poem is 1950 or 1960 France. The "woman" below sounds like an erotic performer or exotic dancer maybe or even a prostitute. Who wore lacy dresses or shoes in America in 1987, the year this poem was published? He translated Moliere mostly in the 50's and the 60's. He might have stayed in France during those years and immersed himself in the liberal culture and sexual vices of the French poets and intellectuals of that period.

"I, in my chair, make shift to say
Some bright, discerning thing, and fail,
Proving once more the blindness of the male.
Annoyed, she stalks away

And then is back in half a minute,
Consulting now, not me at all
But the long mirror, mirror on the wall.
The dress, now that she's in it,

Has changed appreciably, and gains
By lacy shoes, a light perfume
Whose subtle field electrifies the room,
And two slim golden chains.

With a fierce frown and hard-pursed lips
She twists a little on her stem
To test the even swirling of the hem,
Smooths down the waist and hips,

Plucks at the shoulder-straps a bit,
Then turns around and looks behind,
Her face transfigured now by peace of mind.
There is no question---it"

"pulls out her prize"
"a weird sort of fish"
"the blindness of the male"

The phrases above are pushing me to go psychoanalytical.


Is it "lacy shoes" or "lacy shows"? It is "lacy shows" in http://adilegian.com/wilbur.htm

[bob247]

The reason I didn't mention In Memoriam is because that stanza used Iambic Tetrameter (8 syllables per line) instead of varying it like Wilbur does here, with his tetrameter/tetrameter/pentameter/trimeter (8 syllable/8 syllable/10 syllable/6 syllable) variation. If you do compare it to In Memoriam you'd have to note how Wilbur's 3rd line GAINS a foot (4 beats to 5 beats) and his fourth line LOSES a foot (4 beats to 3 beats) compared to Tennyson's. It's possible this gain/loss is making some formal point, but if so I'm not seeing it.

Note that it's HER armory, not his. So what object in the poem that plays a significant part might be "hung up" in "HER armory?" (hint: substitute "armory" for "closet").

You'll have to pardon JBI for forgetting that you're a poetry neophyte. :) A lot of poets like to play around with symbols/allegories (some more/less subtle than others) about their creative process. JBI is saying that "the catch" can be the completed poem itself, the woman is "the muse/inspiration," the "dress" is technique/form that the poet uses in order to achieve the completed poem. So you have inspiration by itself (the woman), you have technique by itself (the dress), and once you put them together you have your "catch," since the two rely on each other to achieve the final result.

This reading is a bit esoteric, and probably far more than you teacher expects from you. If you do use it, I'd HIGHLY recommend citing JBI as I suspect any teacher encountering this interpretation from a high-schooler (assuming you're not some recognized genius who loves poetry) would suspect that they stole it from somewhere else.

ok Thanks. Then the RE RE RE Armory must be the dress? Don't worry. I won't copy his work because he won't be expecting THAT much from me.

The last lines of the poem do not rhyme denoting the end of the poem -another sound device.

I think you need to think about who is caught is this poem as Wilbur seems to be (over)playing with the image of fishing, and being caught.

The wife has caught the dress, and she has caught her husband. The last verse suggests this.

The narrator not attracted/interested in his wife until she puts the (hooked and gaffed) dress and accessorises it, so whilst the narrator may feel the wife is his catch, the language shows aware shows that he is also caught by his wife in the dress. He is to be hung (like a caught fish) in the fragrant dark of her armory (her body and hooked dress).

So everyone in the poem is caught - the dress is caught, the wife is caught and the narrator is caught after his wife dons the dress. He's using it as a metaphor for love.

It's a play on language and imagery.

Thank you. That was very helpful! :D

[MorpheusSandman]

That is still called a half rhyme, such as, "You are my fire, my one desire." which is also a half rhyme, or slant rhyme. The stress difference is what makes it imperfect.After consulting Princeton I found it less than helpful. They categorize "slant" and "half" rhyme under their entry for "Near Rhyme" and don't really bother defining the types of differences. I would simply say that I typically hear "slant rhyme" or "half rhyme" used to refer to rhymes in which you have matching vowel or final consonant sounds (coke/tote or bill/fall), not involving any stress difference. It seems logical to have different terms for these differences, but if they exist they aren't in Princeton.


ok Thanks. Then the RE RE RE Armory must be the dress? The dress would be what's put IN the armory.

[bob247]

The dress would be what's put IN the armory.

Thanks. , I am still having trouble with the structure and type of poem. Idk what it exactly is...

[MorpheusSandman]

I am still having trouble with the structure and type of poem. Idk what it exactly is...As I said earlier, "structure and type" are rather ambiguous terms. The poem is in ABBA rhymed, metered quatrains, so it's not free-verse, and it's not a fixed form. I discussed the lyric VS narrative aspect in a previous post. Narrative is a story told by a narrator, so this poem fits that description; lyric implies a similarity with music, and the rhythm, meter, and focus on feeling would make the poem lyrical as well.

[JBI]

After consulting Princeton I found it less than helpful. They categorize "slant" and "half" rhyme under their entry for "Near Rhyme" and don't really bother defining the types of differences. I would simply say that I typically hear "slant rhyme" or "half rhyme" used to refer to rhymes in which you have matching vowel or final consonant sounds (coke/tote or bill/fall), not involving any stress difference. It seems logical to have different terms for these differences, but if they exist they aren't in Princeton.

The dress would be what's put IN the armory.


You are thinking as the same phoneme different stress as the same rhyme. But in English rhyme is not just the vowel sound with or without consonants, but also their respective stresses. Two of the same phonemes with different stresses are not regarded as the same sounds in English metrics. The same way two of the same sounds with different tones do not technically rhyme in ancient Chinese. These things are sensitive to the fact that English requires stress to rhyme, and by default almost rhyming things are grouped as half rhymes.

That there is a need for a new term is not perhaps true, since half rhyme as an umbrella blankets all this rather nicely to the anitiated.

[MorpheusSandman]

You are thinking as the same phoneme different stress as the same rhyme. But in English rhyme is not just the vowel sound with or without consonants, but also their respective stresses.No, I understand this, I just assumed that there were different terms to denote those differences. If rhyme is "same stress with same vowel sound and closing consonants" then it makes sense that there are at least three different ways one can have a "near rhyme" by varying stress, vowel, and closing consonants. While it makes sense to have an umbrella term to group them together as "near rhymes," it also makes sense to have individual terms that distinguishes between types of near rhyme. Rather strange that there isn't (or, if there is, it's not in Princeton).

[bob247]

After watching a presentation that my fellow students presented on "The Bait" by John Donne, my teacher explained the idea of the muse and that the poet is in love with poetry, etc. However, I went up to my teacher after and told him about the muse theory that JBI proposed about the poem, but he said no. That idea would NOT work with this poem. I was dumbfounded. He told me to focus on the fishing aspect and emphasize the idea that Richard Wilbur was a fisherman. He also said focus on who is being caught in the poem and explain that. Relate his love for fishing to his actual love in the poem.

[MorpheusSandman]

I went up to my teacher after and told him about the muse theory that JBI proposed about the poem, but he said no. That idea would NOT work with this poem. I was dumbfounded. Your teacher is wrong. End of story; but don't hold it against him. I'm assuming this is a high school English teacher? I'd bet on JBI every time when up against a high school English teacher (I'd bet on myself over every HS English teacher).

[bob247]

Your teacher is wrong. End of story; but don't hold it against him. I'm assuming this is a high school English teacher? I'd bet on JBI every time when up against a high school English teacher (I'd bet on myself over every HS English teacher).

Yes it is a high school teacher.


Your teacher is wrong. End of story; but don't hold it against him. I'm assuming this is a high school English teacher? I'd bet on JBI every time when up against a high school English teacher (I'd bet on myself over every HS English teacher).

Also, would the theme be: The Catch, by Richard Wilbur, focuses on a woman trying to ‘catch’ the attention or love of her husband. The woman does this through the means of her dress. She transforms once she puts on the dress and captivates her husband. Wilbur uses fish imagery to grasp the concept of being ‘caught’ and ‘hung,’ just like a fish. The wife has caught the dress, and she has caught her husband. Everyone in the poem is caught (the dress is caught, the wife is caught and the husband is caught)

Why does he repeat "mirror, mirror?" and make alliteration with "shoulder-straps?" And why is the dress compared to a fish?

[blank|verse]

Hi bob - bit late to the party on this one, but...

What do you think 'mirror, mirror on the wall' suggests?

A couple of other things - the ABBA rhyme scheme is called 'enveloped rhyme' (from en-VEL-op, verb). You could perhaps argue that the two middle lines are 'caught' between the outer two...

I also read that someone mention's Wilbur's wife was called 'Sue' which explains the Tis- | Sue break... but I can't find any supporting evidence for this. And I can't find a better source, but Wikipedia names his former wife (and spouse at the time the poem was written) as Mary Charlotte Hayes Ward. So I would check this piece of information, unless you have stronger evidence to the contrary (it's an attractive theory, and there's always a possibility it was a nickname or some such).

You're also right to point out the lineation of the printed poem is different - the longer, third line in particular sticks out. It is worth commenting on why you think Wilbur did this in relation to the poem's title.


Why does he [...] make alliteration with "shoulder-straps?" And why is the dress compared to a fish?
I don't think there's much in the alliteration, to be honest, if indeed it is alliteration.

And I'm not sure why the dress is compared to a fish - maybe the insight of Wilbur's being a recreational fisherman helps there, and is worth mentioning, if only to keep your teacher happy!

It is more constructive to consider what Wilbur does with this figurative comparison in the poem. I notice by the end of the poem, in a striking metaphor, the dress 'is' her ('it is she', line 29). At the start of the poem, the dress is described as 'a weird sort of fish' (line 4). So by the poem's end, his wife is half-human, half-weird-sort-of-fish... a mermaid. So Wilbur as poet has transformed his wife / lover (?) into a mythological temptress.

You might also like to comment on the 'soft armory' - note the juxtaposition of opposing meanings. Why does Wilbur do this? What is he saying?

And just to add to that, it's worth noting the Wilbur is morally, and artistically, quite traditional.

But it's worth noting the playful, 'battle of the sexes' tone that underpins the poem. The self-deprecating admission of the 'blindness of the male', and the fact his wife/lover takes 'half a minute' to change both are nicely observed, tongue-in-cheek moments in the poem.

In fact, a feminist might take a chunk or two out of the poem. Notice how it's only after the male poet agrees that the dress is suitable for her 'may be hung now' (line 31) in her wardrobe/closet.

(And just reading my own posts back, it's interesting to note how the narrator / poet describes himself as blind, like Homer, the poet of [I]The Odyssey, of course, in which the Sirens appear. And ok, I think technically they weren't mermaids, but they are closely related! It's a bit of a stretch, but there might be something in that, although you might want to stick to the basics first.)

But if you're interested in sound effects, the second stanza is worth looking at - there are many words he uses that utilise the 'c' or 'k' guttural sound found in the 'c' in 'catch'. Say the word aloud and notice how, as it is a guttural, it sticks in the throat. Notice how he uses the sound in this stanza in particular, given what he is describing. You might like to consider why he does this.

Anyway, hope all those ramblings are of some use, bob! Good luck with it.

[bob247]

Hi bob - bit late to the party on this one, but...

What do you think 'mirror, mirror on the wall' suggests?

I'm not sure. Maybe she is trying to get some approval 'out of the mirror' as in the saying 'mirror, mirror on the wall. Who's the prettiest of them all?" because her husband didn't compliment her?


A couple of other things - the ABBA rhyme scheme is called 'enveloped rhyme' (from en-VEL-op, verb). You could perhaps argue that the two middle lines are 'caught' between the outer two...

Lol. I like it


You're also right to point out the lineation of the printed poem is different - the longer, third line in particular sticks out. It is worth commenting on why you think Wilbur did this in relation to the poem's title.

I honestly don't really know. The shape doesn't remind me of anything. Maybe a fishing rod? Or a dress? The third line is a 'catch' in each quatrain. Idk


I don't think there's much in the alliteration, to be honest, if indeed it is alliteration.

And I'm not sure why the dress is compared to a fish - maybe the insight of Wilbur's being a recreational fisherman helps there, and is worth mentioning, if only to keep your teacher happy!

It is more constructive to consider what Wilbur does with this figurative comparison in the poem. I notice by the end of the poem, in a striking metaphor, the dress 'is' her ('it is she', line 29). At the start of the poem, the dress is described as 'a weird sort of fish' (line 4). So by the poem's end, his wife is half-human, half-weird-sort-of-fish... a mermaid. So Wilbur as poet has transformed his wife / lover (?) into a mythological temptress.

You might also like to comment on the 'soft armory' - note the juxtaposition of opposing meanings. Why does Wilbur do this? What is he saying?

Idk. The soft armory is the weapon that she wields, which is the dress. She uses the dress to seduce her husband

THANKS FOR THE HELP!

[JBI]

Is it? Or is it the woman in the dress in front of the mirror(world) dressed for all to see? Again a notion of poetic metaphor, the mirror more or less the capturing of the object as mimesis. Such notions are quite common in pre romantic poetry. Beauty in a sense captured in front of a view, is a staple of painting, as anybody who has seen a 17th century nude will tell you. This general idea of arming against the mirror is magnified with the idea of being armed against the audience, us.

Wilbur being a fisherman is the stupidest reading I've ever heard. I guess there is a reason your teacher does not understand poetry, because he has a lack of a metaphorical understanding of literature.

Wilbur is not being autobiographical in the sense that he is probably not even writing about his wife, or even a real woman. The muse of this poem more or less functions as a conceit in the 17th century sense (which relates back to Dante and Petrarch). The direct almost Sidney like play on names is further evidence of this. But then again, it takes a minor in English at some university to teach high school. There is no gaurentee he is any better than the average reader, given that even most English majors cannot handle poetry, let alone poetry without cliff notes like Wilbur.

[miyako73]

Who told you that this poem is about the author and his muse? A muse in literature is, typically, distant, pursued, imagined, unattainable, awaited, mysterious, memorialized, immortalized, hidden, or even dead (in the case of the beautiful woman in EAP's Annabel Lee). That's why muses sometimes are gone and artists and writers are waiting for them for inspiration. A muse is not as easy as the woman in the poem. A muse inspires love not lust. Have you sensed a semblance of love in the poem?

This poem is indeed about fishing also known as luring in the poem. The catch is the author. What are the lures? dress, laces, straps, perfume,etc. The following verses suggest the unwinding (v1) and casting (v2) of the net.

"With a fierce frown and hard-pursed lips
She twists a little on her stem
To test the even swirling of the hem,
Smooths down the waist and hips,"

Plucks at the shoulder-straps a bit,
Then turns around and looks behind,
Her face transfigured now by peace of mind.
There is no question---it "

Wilbur is a fish!

[JBI]

Nobody told me, I infered it from reading. These metaphors are not uncommon. But keep in mind fishing uses "lines" as well as poetry, a common pun in Wilbur's work.

Think more yell less. I have a point with all this and I'm not just making it up. Wilbur uses the word catch quite a bit elsewhere in his poetry, and it also contains the capture sense for him as in the sense of a photograph

Likewise, he elsewhere describes fishing as a two way struggle, and likens it to the poetic process, the same way he likens his reader to a rider. These image tropes and muse constructions run constant in his work. I am not some amateur reader with half a brain, but someone quite familiar. Thanks.

[miyako73]

Chill, JBI. My post is for bob who was disappointed that he could not use the author-muse interaction in the poem. The common representation of muses in literature is that they do not do anything but exist. Their beauty, raw and without trappings, is the source of their characterization. The woman in the poem does not fit the typical notion of a muse.

In this verse, the author gives up fishing or luring her:

"I, in my chair, make shift to say
Some bright, discerning thing, and fail,
Proving once more the blindness of the male.
Annoyed, she stalks away"

"She stalks away" suggests he cannot catch her so he quits--" make shift to say/ Some bright, discerning thing, and fail."

"Some bright, discerning thing," is a line as in pick up line, the author's fishing line. When a line fails to catch in fishing or in picking up a woman, you move to another place to fish/to another women or change your line (speech/nylon). In succeeding verses, there is no another woman, he does not get out of the room, and he does not make another line. That means he gives up line fishing.

"Proving once more the blindness of the male" implies a man's underestimation of a woman. Later, the fisher(man) becomes the fish of the woman-- a reversal.

The verse above is where the author is still active. In the succeeding verses, it is all about the woman according to what the author sees. He becomes a passive viewer almost like a fish mesmerized by fishing lures.

When the woman comes back, her fishing/luring begins:

And then is back in half a minute,
Consulting now, not me at all
But the long mirror, mirror on the wall.
The dress, now that she's in it,

The "dress" here becomes the net--a net looks like a hemmed dress. A fisherman and his net are inseparable-- "The dress, now that she's in it,"

The "long mirror, mirror on the wall" is actually the metaphor for a reflective, flashing mirror lure. Here's another thing: mirror lures are hung on the wall. Google it. Mirror is also a symbol of femininity that lures. All women I know have mirrors in their bags for checking their faces and retouching their makeup.


In the end, the author is lured and charmed --in fishing, caught.

"Is wholly charming, it is she,"

The author has to be the fish. In symbolism, fish is commonly treated as a phallus.

[MorpheusSandman]

One thing I'm surprised nobody has commented on yet is the referential ambiguity of the final verb:

it // Is wholly charming, it is she, / As I belatedly remark / And may be hung now in the fragrant dark / Of her soft armory.

The syntax makes it so that what "may be hung" could either be "it" (the dress) or "I" (the narrator). While the common-sense reading would make it the dress that's being hung in the armory (if we read "armory" as "place to store weapons"), there is an alternate reading. An armory is also related to heraldry, which, to quote Dictionary.com is:

"arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms."

So it's possible that the narrator is the woman's "achievement," her herald. Earlier, I said the "arm/armory" connection was a bit of a stretch, but is it possible that the final sentence could be read as saying that HE may be hung ON HER? Think of how a man might accompany a woman to, say, a formal party, with their arms linked together. In such a case, he would be the symbol of her achievement. The only caveat with this reading is the "dark" noun, because there's no discernible reason why her "arm" would be dark (though fragrant and soft fits).


And I'm not sure why the dress is compared to a fishBecause one could argue that the central structuring motif of the poem is how all three of the central objects--woman, (male) narrator, and dress--transform in their metaphoric relationship to the fisherman/fishing rod/fish. The dress begins by being the fish, the thing caught by the woman, and ends by being the rod, the thing the woman uses to catch fish. The narrator himself begins as fisherman and ends as fish, the thing the woman has caught with the dress. So it's this shifting of metaphorical perception (and in poetry, metaphor IS perception) on the part of the narrator of the roles these objects have.


I notice by the end of the poem, in a striking metaphor, the dress 'is' her ('it is she', line 29). At the start of the poem, the dress is described as 'a weird sort of fish' (line 4). So by the poem's end, his wife is half-human, half-weird-sort-of-fish... a mermaid.I don't think so. I think the "it is her" is symbolic more of the transformation of the dress than the woman. There is a conceit amongst fisherman that the rod becomes an extension of yourself, so the idea of the dress becoming her (shame Wilbur couldn't work in the pun on "becomes her") is, in essence, saying that she is completely at ease with her "weapon" for catching fish.


In fact, a feminist might take a chunk or two out of the poem. Notice how it's only after the male poet agrees that the dress is suitable for her 'may [it] be hung now' (line 31) in her wardrobe/closet.I don't think the implication is that it's the male narrator's opinion that matters. Rather, it's his burgeoning ability to see the dress as SHE sees it, not as HE sees it.


The soft armory is the weapon that she wields, which is the dress. She uses the dress to seduce her husband

THANKS FOR THE HELP!An armory is a place where weapons are kept, so the dress (weapon) is kept in her closet (armory).


The woman in the poem does not fit the typical notion of a muse.The 20th century has had an explosion of poets radically rethinking "typical notions" of classic poetic tropes. James Merrill, to use one familiar (to me) example, used several of his male lovers in place of the muse, even though they did more than just exist. I think any modern poet using the "muse" concept is probably going to try to make them seem more realistic than the muses of antiquity.

[miyako73]

We won't argue, Morpheus, okay? We'll just discuss.

Stick to the text. It is neither a postmodern piece nor a work of new form or genre. I don't think you can just redefine a muse however you want. It has its own etymology and literary history from Homer to Neruda.

Even male, gay, lesbian muses, and transgender muses (in Lou Reed's Coney Island Baby, for example) in contemporary and postmodern literature or art possess the traditional qualities of a muse--pursued, awaited, imagined, idealized, admired, unattainable, distant, kept, gone, dead, etc.

The last two lines are about the end of the woman's luring and fishing--sex.

"And may be hung now in the fragrant dark
Of her soft armory."

Four scenarios are suggested here:

The woman hangs her dress in her closet (armory) of soft things--laces, straps, dresses, ribbons, etc.

The author is literally hung (big, bulging, erect) now in the fragrant dark--evocative of a naked woman. The soft armory here is her room and the soft things are breasts, belly,thighs, and the rest of her body. His use of "may be" in "And may be hung now in the fragrant dark" has a tinge of shyness and embarrassment--a typical feeling of a traditionalist man when it comes to sex talk.

The fisherman hangs the fishing net in the dark storage that has the scent of the sea. The storage is an armory of soft things: lures, nets, lines, even baits, etc.

The catch or fish is hung somewhere dark--the fishy smell is fragrance to fishermen. The soft armory is again the fisherman's storage for the soft from the sea--what he catches.

The interpretation I like:

"And may be hung now in the fragrant dark
Of her soft armory."

The author is one of the men lured by the woman. She will hang him like a photograph in her soft armory-- that is her memory. That interpretation brings us to these first two verses:

"From the dress-box's plashing tis-
Sue paper she pulls out her prize,
Dangling it to one side before my eyes
Like a weird sort of fish

That she has somehow hooked and gaffed
And on the dock-end holds in air—
Limp, corrugated, lank, a catch too rare
Not to be photographed."

The verses above, literally, show or establish that the woman knows how to catch a fish. Literally, what the woman pulls out is a photograph of her prized catch--a real fish.

To go deeper, that photograph could be of another man the author finds strange--"like a weird sort of fish". Fish is a phallus; ergo, it can be a metaphor for a man. "Limp, corrugated, lank, a catch too rare Not to be photographed" (opposite of a brute, macho, sea-hardened fisherman) is the author's condescending remark towards the man in the photograph. "Limp" is also a word commonly attached to "penis". This is believable because one of the tricks some women pull in luring a man is to make him jealous.

If I'll go sick with my textual reading, the "woman" in the poem pulls out the prized part of "her" body that is too rare that it should not be photographed-- another interpretation of "Dangling it to one side before my eyes/Like a weird sort of fish" and "Limp, corrugated, lank, a catch too rare/Not to be photographed"--notice "not to be photographed" is a separate line. It can be a body part that has a metal ring on it--"she has somehow hooked and gaffed". That's why it's strange or weird. "Limp" can also be related to that body part. That "prize" is pulled out, dangles to the side, and is held in air--"she pulls out her prize," and "Dangling it to one side before my eyes" and "And on the dock-end holds in air". Nobody pulls out a vagina,and it does not dangle to the side. Breasts can be pulled out, and they dangle to either side, but in the poem "her prize" is singular. The author uses "it" and "a"--"Dangling it to one side before my eyes" and "Like a weird sort of fish"

"dock-end" can be related to c*ck docking--google the definition.

My sick interpretation may not be the intent of the author, but any text is open to reader's interpretation if you believe in what Barthes says--"the death of the author."

Thanks for letting me do my close textual reading.

[MorpheusSandman]

I don't have a problem with most of your reading, miyako. I think your sexual inferences are quite astute, and this is definitely a piece that supports multiple readings.


Stick to the text. It is neither a postmodern piece nor a work of new form or genre. I don't think you can just redefine a muse however you want. It has its own etymology and literary history from Homer to Neruda.
I don't want to be confrontational, but you can't say "stick to the text" while using as your central argument the extra-textual tradition of how muses are portrayed in literature. Your argument is, by definition, not "sticking to the text." That said, I don't know what "not being postmodern" or "not a new form or genre" has to do with the author's (in)ability to rethink the role of the muse. I mentioned Merrill earlier, and one of the best essays I read on his work was titled "Rethinking Models of Literary Change" by Mutlu Konuk Blasing that dealt specifically with critics' inability to see the innovative and postmodern elements in Merrill's work because of his conservative formalism. She convincingly argues that this latter element does not necessarily equate to conservative, reactionary content in Merrill's case. As for Wilbur, I have not read enough of him to argue one way or the other, but I would argue that you need a better argument for why Wilbur can't be rethinking the archetype of the muse than pointing to his conservative formalism and genre. I'd certainly argue an artist could (and should!) look to "redefine the muse" if the archetype is to have continuing relevance.


The last two lines are about the end of the woman's luring and fishing--sex... The author is one of the men lured by the woman. She will hang him like a photograph in her soft armory-- that is her memory.I don't think you can equate an armory with a memory. The entire point of an armory is that it's a place to keep weapons, and I don't think there's anything in the poem that equates the man to a weapon. The only way I see that he can be hung in an armory is if, as I said in my last post, we take "armory" to mean "heraldry" instead of "a place to store arms."

[miyako73]

My "Stick to the text" is about your statement on contemporary redefined muses. I did not see a redefined muse in the text. I read the poem in high school and read it today; I just could not see a muse.

Armory

"a storage place for weapons and other war equipment."

"a secure place for the storage of weapons"


Weapons are hard. The poem says "soft armory". "Soft armory" negates or contradicts the dictionary meaning of "armory' as a storage for hard weapons and deadly war arsenals.

In the poem, the "armory" is a storage for soft things--her body, her lures, her dress, her fragrance, etc.


Memory:

"the ability of the mind to store and recall past sensations, thoughts, knowledge, etc."

"the mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling or recognizing previous experiences."


Memory is a storage too for soft things--smiles of faces, fragrance, thoughts, experiences, etc. Abstract things are soft.


I mentioned "postmodernism" because it is the business of postmodernists to revisit conventional notions and create opposite or strange terms and definitions. If the poem is a postmodernist piece, I can entertain the thought that the dress hemmed and made of fabric is the muse. Anything goes in postmodernism, doesn't it? But we know Wilbur is traditionalist. Just check his form and syntax. If form and syntax are not enough, check the "Emersonian sensibility" --not vulgar, sexual stuff are written as innuendos and undertones--in Wilbur's works.

Emersonian sensibility is also about the treatment of the ordinary and the common as the focus--like the woman's dress and her dressing in the Poem "The Catch". It is also about subtle openness and sometimes obscured integrity in writing. Such sensibility is grounded on conservative morals and values.

[sandy14]

The entire point of an armory

To a fish, something with lures and hooks is an armory.

The dress, shoes and perfume are the armory. He's going to be hung by her side tonight (next to the implements that attracted him).

[MorpheusSandman]

My "Stick to the text" is about your statement on contemporary redefined muses. I did not see a redefined muse in the text... I mentioned "postmodernism" because it is the business of postmodernists to revisit conventional notions and create opposite or strange terms and definitions. If the poem is a postmodernist piece, I can entertain the thought that the dress hemmed and made of fabric is the muse. Anything goes in postmodernism, doesn't it? But we know Wilbur is traditionalist.So I must "stick to the text" but you don't have to? Thing is, you look at the text and see "tradition" (formal, genre, linguistic) and think that these traditional aspects disallow for a "postmodern" muse. I was pointing out how you can have these "traditional" aspects and still have a "postmodern" muse, and used James Merrill's poetry as one example. Formally, genre-wise, and linguistically, Merrill is just as traditional as Wilbur. Your mistake is in seeing postmodernism as an "all-or-nothing" proposition. It's the same mistake critics have made with Merrill. Ostensibly radical texts (Eliot is an example) often mask very traditional thoughts and figures; ostensibly traditional texts (Merrill is an example) often mask very postmodern thoughts and figures. It's a mistake to think that a postmodern muse can't be found in an otherwise traditional piece.


Armory

"a storage place for weapons and other war equipment."

"a secure place for the storage of weapons"It's also involved in heraldry, being the art of blazoning arms: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/armory?s=t If you look up "blazoning" it says:

1. to set forth conspicuously or publicly; display; proclaim:
2. to adorn or embellish, especially brilliantly or showily.
7. conspicuous display.

The narrator can be all of these things to the woman.


Weapons are hard. The poem says "soft armory". "Soft armory" negates or contradicts the dictionary meaning of "armory' as a storage for hard weapons and deadly war arsenals.

In the poem, the "armory" is a storage for soft things--her body, her lures, her dress, her fragrance, etc.


Memory:

"the ability of the mind to store and recall past sensations, thoughts, knowledge, etc."

"the mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling or recognizing previous experiences."


Memory is a storage too for soft things--the smiles of faces, fragrance, thoughts, experiences, etc. Abstract things are soft.The problem is that there's no mention of "memory" in the poem at all. Given that armory is used metaphorically, everything associated with the term (such as the "hardness" of weapons) need not be carried over to the "real" objects being hung in there (like the dress). The "soft" adjective even specifies one of the limits of this metaphor.

[miyako73]

Please don't lure me into formalism debate. We already did it. And It seems I have been entertaining its relevance these days-- "the love the rose conveys (text) is hate when offered in a broken vase (form)". That's how far I can embrace form in poetry--textual literality--as of now. Oh, I have been reading Mary Oliver's handbook and Paul Edwards' How to Rap for traditional and street forms. I'm no longer averse to Formalism. I'm taking baby steps though because the surge of textual (con-, sub-, and inter-) reading is still strong.

A sense of memory is obvious in the poem-- "a catch too rare not to be photographed".


My reading of the poem only analyzes what I read in the poem. You will then say, Barthes' "The Death of the Author" is a text. Yes, it's a text, but I treat it as an idea. That's why in my previous post I wrote it not in capital letters--"the death of the author"--because I consider it not a text. That's also the brilliance of formalism. Even the forms and appearances of letters have hidden thoughts and meanings.


If I do intertextual reading using "The Catch" and "The Death of the Author", a semester won't be enough.

[MorpheusSandman]

miyako, I wasn't trying to debate formalism, merely say that you shouldn't mistake the existence of traditional formalism for a complete absence of postmodernism. Postmodernism is about more than just what form something's written in.


If I do intertextual reading using "The Catch" and "The Death of the Author", a semester won't be enough.Perhaps ironically, Barthes' "Death of the Author" could be more accurately described as "Birth of Intertextuality." Barthes thought that other texts were more the "authors" of texts than the authors themselves.

[miyako73]

Arguing that formalist ideas, forms, and formalism in general are anti-textual reading and against the grains of postmodernism will open our old debate, which was the phase in my literary adventurism that I would not mind forgetting.

If I claim in my analysis that the dead maiden, the muse, in Edgar Allan Poe's Annabel Lee is a lifeless mannequin the author desperately wants to be alive, do you think I'll be taken seriously? I can use all post isms in the world, still it won't be convincing. Every writer has an obvious sensibility and a known set of devices that includes form, theme, style, thinking, expression, etc. Redefining and deconstructing common symbols and conventional notions was not one of his literary devices. If that was not the case, "The Raven" could have been "The Dove" or "The Pigeon". Why should I insist then that Poe's muse in Annabel Lee is a mannequin? Just to redefine the conventional notion of a muse? That would be ignoring the text.

I thought I already explained why Wilbur's poem could not be examined through the lens of postmodernism. First, he is not a postmodernist. Second, he expressed in many interviews that he was attached to traditional forms, expressions, and sensibilities. Reviewers of his works even use "Emersonian sensibility" to describe his intents, purposes, thoughts, themes. You know such sensibility is not an offspring of contemporary or postmodern literature.

Do you know the thing postmodernist critics fear most? When the authors of the texts they deconstruct, dissect, sabotage, and destroy ask, "What are you smoking? I want some."

You are correct in your assessment of authorial absence and intertextuality. Barthes' contribution to literature is the democratization of reading, reception, criticism,and analysis.

[JBI]

Just read more of Wilbur's work. Your so called post modern Muse us a staple. Take a look at the beginning of The Bsllade for the Duke of Orleans as an example of the same trope.

Your arguments over tradition and formalism are nonsense as nobody as a poet clearcuts their works so finely. Wilbur is very much a postmodern poet thematically. As for dressing the muse, this is also age old. I don't want to argue with a poetry 101 student about textual definitions of muses. Just by example, Keats la belle dans sans Zmerci is also a textual muse by traditional interpretation. This clear cut definition you hold is like a child waving a cheap dictionary in the air thinking he has all the answers. As we mentioned earlier, such things hardly hold, as images shift over time and between poets.

[MorpheusSandman]

miyako, I have little to add to what JBI stated. If you like, I can scan that essay on Merrill's postmodernism despite his traditional formalism. I can post a few poems that show how within that traditional formalism he rethinks the muse. You might find it enlightening if applied to Wilbur as well. I am not familiar with most of Wilbur's work, so I wasn't arguing that he is certainly redefining the muse based on my experience. However, I definitely trust JBI's experience and judgment and, as I said, your arguments for why he can't be redefining the muse don't hold up in the abstract.


Every writer has an obvious sensibility and a known set of devices that includes form, theme, style, thinking, expression, etc... I thought I already explained why Wilbur's poem could not be examined through the lens of postmodernism. First, he is not a postmodernist. Second, he expressed in many interviews that he was attached to traditional forms, expressions, and sensibilities. And, according to JBI, one of Wilbur's "set of devices" is his metaphoric handling of the muse similar to what's on display here. Again, all you seem to have to argue against this is the too clear-cut proclamation that "Wilbur is not a postmodernist" (same thing has been said about Merrill, and critics were wrong) and that he was attached to "traditional forms, expressions, and sensibilities," (which doesn't mean he can't utilize certain postmodernist tendencies, just like Merrill).

[miyako73]

I won't respond to JBI's silly, childish put downs.

Show me a text that says Wilbur dabbles in postmodernism or that shows Wilbur's admission that his works are of postmodernist kind.

Postmodernist critics sometimes consider "The Writer" as a postmodernist piece but not Wilbur. They can critique "Paradise Lost" too as if it's a postmodernist piece, but that won't make Milton or his masterpiece postmodernist.


I can show you a text in which Wilbur declares that "form liberates imagination"--that is a contradiction to the postmodernist mantra that form limits text, imagination, narrative, possibility. Show me a postmodernist text that unabashedly celebrates traditionalism and formalism. Wilbur embraces both.

Wilbur also says in one of his interviews that he conceals and hides the truth in his writing. That's not a postmodernist process of making narratives or creating texts. Postmodernists question and dismantle truths or create and construct multiple shades of truths. Wilbur has said a lot that contradicts and opposes the tenets of postmodernism. And now you want to treat his works as postmodernist?

I have with me here a copy of Postmodern American Poetry (A Norton Anthology)--more than 600 pages. I see no Richard Wilbur in the index. That is criminal if indeed Wilbur has written postmodernist pieces.

[MorpheusSandman]

We're just going around in circles, miyako. I'm not saying that Wilbur is (much less typifies) postmodernism, but I think you're ignoring the point that postmodernism is not an all-or-nothing category, just like most labels. A great many artists fit into multiple categories at certain times, in certain pieces, in certain elements within those pieces. The fact is that there's nothing about Wilbur's formalism that is mutually exclusive with postmodernism ipso facto. Artist's often have the least understanding of their own work as well. I wouldn't expect any Postmodernist Anthology to contain Wilbur because most have your preconceived notion that anything traditional is automatically contra to postmodernism, they lack the ability to reduce these artists/works into parts and see which parts are traditional and which are not.

As for the postmodern "mantra" that form limits (rather than liberates), this is not really true. Postmodernism may be against slavishness to tradition, but it is very much for playing with and mixing & matching old forms, styles, etc. This is probably most easily illustrated through film rather than poetry, where a postmodern director like Quentin Tarantino is praised for his encyclopedic ability to "borrow" from dozens (or hundreds) of films and combine those various forms within a single film. So while postmodernism might not like, say, a completely traditional samurai film, it doesn't mind if you combine a samurai and anime and western etc. into a single entity like Kill Bill. Postmodernism sees tradition as a huge playground in which there are no rules, in which we should be free to play with and sample everything or invent to our heart's desire.

As for "constructing multiple shades of truth," if Wilbur doesn't do that, then why are we all disagreeing over what the "truth" is about this poem? ;)


Show me a postmodernist text that unabashedly celebrates traditionalism and formalism.The Changing Light at Sandover.

[miyako73]

JBI:

You may not listen to an amateur, dumb, third-world literature enthusiast, but I hope what James Longenbach (2004), a well-published American critic and poet and Guggenheim fellow, wrote won't merit pretentious, boastful ad hominems from you:

"Wilbur and Robert Lowell: While Lowell is the poet who transformed himself, liberating poetry from the modernist shackles of impersonality, Wilbur is the poet who stayed the same, continuing to write with the courtly manners he perfected in the 1950s. Wilbur and John Ashbery: While Ashbery is the poet of our postmodernity, constructing poems that mirror our disheveled mediascape, Wilbur is the poet who remained content with formalist procedures, composing poems Tennyson would recognize."

Morpheus:

The Changing Light at Sandover is an epic poem. Can you really say that epic poem is exclusively formalist or postmodernist? Formalist only enters the scene because of the poetic form. Imagine if it's a prose, where will formalism be?

I'm looking for a work of a postmodernist theorist who sides with and supports traditionalism and formalism as what they are--unadulterated. Give me a name, so I can order it Online. I've been looking. Thank you.

Let the postmodernist explain to you their critique of traditionalism and formalism and their explanation on the limitation of form. I can't defend a theory I despise. By the way, appropriating formalism in postmodernist practice is not a strict adherence to formalism. The postmodernist deconstruct or overhaul forms a lot to create new forms that are not exclusively formalist.

Wilbur does not create shades of his truth; he hides parts of it. Check Emersonian sensibility.

[MorpheusSandman]

The Changing Light at Sandover is an epic poem. I'm looking for a work of a postmodernist theorist who sides with and supports traditionalism and formalism as what they are--unadulterated.Sandover is epic in length only. It's far more of a really long elegy than an epic. I don't really get your request; most postmodernist theorists don't write poetry.


Let the postmodernist explain to you their critique of traditionalism and formalism and their explanation on the limitation of form. I've read (some of) them, and I've also read what I feel are better, more reductionist essays on the compatibility between form and postmodernism. Here, I scanned and uploaded that essay I referenced earlier that addresses this exact issue (it's only 16 pages): http://www.filedropper.com/merrillessay

[miyako73]

I'm looking for a work of a postmodernist theorist who sides with and supports traditionalism and formalism as what they are--unadulterated. Give me a name, so I can order it Online. I've been looking. Thank you.

[MorpheusSandman]

I gave you a link to an article by one such "theorist" that addresses these issues. Her credentials are here: https://research.brown.edu/research/profile.php?id=10003 Read it and get back to me.

EDIT: I assume her book-length study on the issue would expand on the above essay. I haven't read it, but it's here: http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Form-Postmodern-Poetry-Literature/dp/0521496071/

[miyako73]

Was James Merrill a postmodernist theorist? I didn't know that.

I still believe that strictly canonizing Wilbur as formalist and traditionalist in the sea of postmodernism is good for the language, which postmodernism tries to ruin.

Page 156 of Politics and Form that you linked said: "No one has accused James Merrill of being postmodern."

It then said: "Merrill's postmodernism, then, is not merely a late phase of modernism but represents a challenge to the ideology of modernity."

Parts of New Formalism such as revisiting the traditional forms and restraining free forms are critiques against Modernism. Was Merrill actually a formalist of Late Modernist strand whom postmodernists want to consider their own due to the overlap between Late Modernism and Postmodernism?

Interesting book, Morpheus.

[JBI]

I'm looking for a work of a postmodernist theorist who sides with and supports traditionalism and formalism as what they are--unadulterated. Give me a name, so I can order it Online. I've been looking. Thank you.

J m reibetanz, my professor and noted scholar of Wilbur's work. She has I believe written about the notion of the muse in his work.

You are mixing up new formalism as a movement and Wilbur as a poet. Writing with form comes in many shapes, such as Robert Lowell, a confessional post modernist, writing sonnets.

Elizabeth bishop has also been anthologized as a post modern poet, yet she wrote with forms often. You are simply showing yourself as an uneducated reader. It's like calling everyone who paints figured a traditionalist.

[miyako73]

Has your professor published an article or a book about the postmodern muses in Wilbur's poems? I would love to read them. If postmodernists redefine and resurrect muses as sluts, how do we then call or treat those muses who are not sluts. Are we now going to classify muses into postmodern muses and traditional muses? That's how postmodernism ruins language.

The articles I have read so far seem to agree with what other critics say about Wilbur's traditionalist tendencies and formalist practices. There's nothing wrong about that. That should be celebrated. I can't picture a literary circle peopled entirely by postmodernists.

Read James Longenbach's brief assessment of Wilbur's poetry that I posted.

Just for the record, Bishop is not in Postmodern American Poetry (Norton Anthology - first edition).

[JBI]

I'm looking for a work of a postmodernist theorist who sides with and supports traditionalism and formalism as what they are--unadulterated. Give me a name, so I can order it Online. I've been looking. Thank you.

Wilbur is hardly unadulterated. Even this poem as an example uses a slant rhyme at the end, and plays with the metre throughout. Likewise, postmodernism is not just a formal approach, as much as it is a thematic approach to material. Take a look at on the marginal way by Wilbur to get an idea of the sort of thematic range the form can handle. Wilbur very much is playing with the form rather than just utilizing it, the same way someone like Byron would have.

As for critical opinion, the actual definition of movements has never been static, and that tennysonian remark was not particularly well stated in reference to Wilbur's literary games.

Likewise you also need to realize he is not the poet of today, and that his work comes much around the time of late modernism. Quit trying to match him to a younger generation.

As for defining movements, what does that have to do with reading his thematic content. Quit pretending Wilbur is a Victorian, and simply read more clearly. I want you to prove to me with the poem that Wilbur as the poet is the catch. He seems hooked from the beginning, if you read. It's the pose which is not right until the end. The conceit is about getting it just right. To snag. You are limiting your reading of the title to one of many meanings the word catches. Think more broadly.

I'm using my phone now, so I cannot go line by line. I'll do it when I get home.

[miyako73]

Read my post properly. It's about a postmodernist theorist. Wilbur is a poet. To be clear, I am on the side of Wilbur being traditionalist and formalist. Reading him using postmodernism is not a good exercise. It's like listening to Madama Butterfly in rap.

I already shared my close reading of the poem. If it doesn't convince you, as jerrybaldy said, I don't give a toss.

[miyako73]

"I want you to prove to me with the poem that Wilbur as the poet is the catch."

Fish being a phallic symbol is enough a hint that the male "I" in the poem is the catch. Read my close reading again. Everything you want to know is in there. My God! It's even a high school reading material.

This thing about the muse in The Catch is very funny to read. All you have to do is read Wilbur's interviews. His idea of a muse is not even earthly. His muse is like the muses of Homer, Virgil, and Shakespeare--abstract, imagined, not physical, not human.

An interview with Richard Wilbur

by Peter Davison

September 9, 1999

"You have spent a lifetime in poetry now. What are you most grateful to poetry for?

I'm grateful to all of the poets of the past who have delighted me, and who gave me a feeling that I wanted to do something like that. And if there is a muse, I'm grateful to the muse for the occasional experience of making something as good as I wanted it to be."

------------------------
Another interview where he says he has a sense of distance from his material--opposite of the authors who do muse poems in which they long, they despair, they love, they miss, they express their feelings, they unmask themselves, they expose their emotional vulnerabilities for the sake of their materials: their muses. Wilbur says in this interview that he does not do those stuff. He restrains himself. He does not spill his guts. You want muse poems? Read Neruda then tell me if he sounds like Wilbur. Of Course, you will say Neruda was Latino so his sense of romanticism was strong. Now compare Wilbur's supposedly muse poems to Poe's.

Richard Wilbur, The Art of Poetry No. 22
Interviewed by Helen McCloy Ellison, Ellesa Clay High, Peter A. Stitt
March 1977

INTERVIEWER

You have said that “the work of every good poet may be seen in one way or another as an exploration and declaration of the self.” Is this true in your own case?

WILBUR

I don't think that I explore myself in poetry in the way in which some so-called confessional poets do, although I must say I am writing many more poems out of my actual experience and my relationships. But I usually have a certain sense of distance from my material, a feeling that I am not spilling my guts but arranging some materials and trying to find out the truth about them. If, in the process, I also find out something about myself, I think it is indirectly done. It is the thing, and not myself, that I set out to explore. But then, having chosen my subject and explored it, and having seen what I can say, I suppose one result of the poem is that I know myself a little better. There are certain things I find that I will not say, and there are certain matters to which I keep coming back. I would rather not name them because I think they are clear enough in the poems. The funny thing is that I often won't know that I have reapproached a subject until a new poem has been finished. Then I will say, oh yes, this turned out to be that question again. My process of self-exploration is almost as strangely indirect as that of Beau Brummell in a story that I remember hearing told about him. Somebody asked Brummell which one of the northern lakes he preferred. He turned to his valet and said, “Which one of the northern lakes do I prefer?” “I believe it is Windermere, sir,” the valet replied. So Brummell said to his questioner, “Apparently it is Windermere.” I see some resemblance between that process and the process by which I make discoveries about myself. I ask some poem to write itself, and once I am through supervising that process, I have discovered whether I like Windermere or not.

[JBI]

Are you arguing against or for me? You are proving my point. He is creating an artful play with a textual woman, not writing about love. You see my point?

I don't know what nonsense you are spewing about formalism being traditionalist or whatever, but your quotation merely illustrates the sort of textual tendencies of Wilbur as poet of artifice that further muse readings.

As Wilbur makes clear, he is more about creating and exploring art through his work. This applies with his constructed tropes such as Painting, art, muses etc.

He is not a Petrarchan sonneteer, mind you, but s rather clever wordsmith, like Donne or Herbert. That being said, I see no reason that he could not play with such forms and explore these ideas, further supporting allegorical readings.

What he is commenting against is the 1960s and on movement Of writing personal cOmplaint poetry, and emotional confessions. This has nothing to do with formalism or tradition, but merely different directions in the same development.

You need to read more of his work to get what I mean. These tropes he plays are standards of his.

[MorpheusSandman]

Was James Merrill a postmodernist theorist? I didn't know that.

I still believe that strictly canonizing Wilbur as formalist and traditionalist in the sea of postmodernism is good for the language, which postmodernism tries to ruin.

Page 156 of Politics and Form that you linked said: "No one has accused James Merrill of being postmodern."

It then said: "Merrill's postmodernism, then, is not merely a late phase of modernism but represents a challenge to the ideology of modernity."

Parts of New Formalism such as revisiting the traditional forms and restraining free forms are critiques against Modernism. Was Merrill actually a formalist of Late Modernist strand whom postmodernists want to consider their own due to the overlap between Late Modernism and Postmodernism?

Interesting book, Morpheus.Merrill wasn't a theorist at all, he was a poet. My link was from a theorist explaining the postmodernist elements in Merrill's poetry and how others tend to dismiss these postmodernist tendencies because they're blinded by Merrill's formalism. Perhaps one thing you don't understand is that postmodernism (PM) was, essentially, a challenge to modernism (M), the key difference being that M recognized the fractured nature of subjectivity and experience, but thought it could (and sought) to create a larger, coherent through through those fragments. For poets like Eliot and Pound that "larger coherency" could be found through religion and past art, which they felt could contain and connect those fragments. They also sought to maintain a hierarchy when it came to art, history, society, and language. PM was about showing how such coherency was impossible if those fragments and subjectivity were explored to their ends, and that there WAS no objective hierarchy when it came to culture and society. This is why PM was so focused on things like unusual juxtapositions in art, or poststructuralism in theory (showing how the same text could argue for mutually exclusive meanings). It sought to explore how language and culture subverted itself, and any sense of meaning and coherency was a result of selective ignorance.

When you look at what M and PM are as intellectual concepts, it makes it easier to see how it relates to things like form. It may seem like form is, superficially, antithetical to both modes. It's antithetical to M because M can't represent subjective fracturedness through consistent, coherent form. This was what was behind the injunction to "Make it New!" It would seem antithetical to PM for a similar reason (since PM seeks to maintain the fractured subjectivity of M); however, PM's real injunction is "You can't make it new!" because it's all already been done. In such a philosophy, form becomes a TYPE of expression, experience, subjectivity; not one that is meant to bring absolute coherency and harmony to a philosophical worldview. So in Merrill you get a sprawling work like Sandover that utilizes a dizzying variety of forms in the context of the same work, where different characters, different events, different forms of expression are identified by their own forms, and this jostling of forms represents the jostling of fractured perspectives and the lack of hierarchical privilege that PM is so against.

Ultimately, the point is that, and I think Blasing makes this point quite well, that form isn't inherently antithetical to any mode of expression. In order to say a work or artist isn't PM, we have to look beyond the form. Look past the experimentation of Eliot and Pound and you find very traditional, even reactionary, philosophical worldviews; alternatively, look past the formal traditionalism of Merrill and you find a poster-child for PM. That "no one has accused Merrill of being PM" says more about the failure of critics than it does about Merrill. Your question about whether Merrill is "late M" or "PM" is not an easy question to answer about numerous artists, because M and PM share a lot of overlap (in general) in their devices, and the supposed things that separate them (the philosophical purpose of those devices) is not always made clear. I think the fact that no critic knows quite what view to "privilege" in Merrill is evidence that he's more on the PM side of things. It's hard to single out any conclusive summarizing view in Merrill's work, especially Sandover. There are too many perspectives, too many themes, and it's never made clear what the hierarchy is, which view we're supposed to listen to as "truth."

Finally, I have no problem categorizing Wilbur as a "formalist" or "traditionalist," but I've been trying to make the point that this categorization doesn't mean there aren't any M, PM, or contemporary (in general) strains in his work. Don't mistake a general categorization for a complete and accurate representation of everything an artist is about. Afterall, Wordsworth and Byron are both "Romantics," but they're also completely different poets on most every relevant level. That generalized "romantic" label doesn't tell us much about them besides the timeframe in which they wrote.

[miyako73]

Are you arguing against or for me? You are proving my point. He is creating an artful play with a textual woman, not writing about love. You see my point?

I don't know what nonsense you are spewing about formalism being traditionalist or whatever, but your quotation merely illustrates the sort of textual tendencies of Wilbur as poet of artifice that further muse readings.

As Wilbur makes clear, he is more about creating and exploring art through his work. This applies with his constructed tropes such as Painting, art, muses etc.

He is not a Petrarchan sonneteer, mind you, but s rather clever wordsmith, like Donne or Herbert. That being said, I see no reason that he could not play with such forms and explore these ideas, further supporting allegorical readings.

What he is commenting against is the 1960s and on movement Of writing personal cOmplaint poetry, and emotional confessions. This has nothing to do with formalism or tradition, but merely different directions in the same development.

You need to read more of his work to get what I mean. These tropes he plays are standards of his.

JBI, you are arguing by yourself and against yourself. Check the tenor of my discussion with Morpheus. We are discussing not arguing the appropriation of forms in texts, of formalist analysis in textual reading, and of formalism in postmodernism.

Your idea of "textual woman" as muse is what traditionalists and formalists should be wary about. Like postmodernists, you want to ruin a literary tradition and language. Yes, language evolves; that's basic. But it should evolve not into destruction but construction. Saying all women in texts are muses destroys the concept of muse that has specific, exclusive history in language and literature.

A textual woman is basically a woman in a text. If all textual women are muses, we will have a problem. Even a begging woman, a baby girl, a female prisoner, a grumpy old woman, a drug-addicted mother who appear in poems that are not about longing, love, eroticism, bodies can be muses. Such totalizing idea is definitely a noise, a nonsense in literature.

I'm fine with the constructed "male muse" even though there's a tinge of oxymoron to it. It does not ruin the essence of "muse". "Male muse" has its own exclusive meaning and specific sense. It does not obscure or redefine the muses of Catullus, Poe, or Neruda.

My erotic poems are inspired by my male muses but my other poems with men in them are not. I wrote about a muscular policeman. He was not my muse even though I wrote about his muscles. I used his muscles as metaphors for brutality and injustice. The thing you cannot deny is that writers and artists know who their muses are. You just cannot choose muses for them. That is the fallacy of most critics.

Muses since the time of Homer have appeared in poems of solitude and despair, in poems of love and longing, in poems of bodies and eroticism. Do you think your thinking is enough to ruin those literary traditions? Come back to earth please.

Famous muse poems are unrestrained, emotionally confessional, expressive, shameless. You will not find those qualities in Wilbur's works. He already says that he distances himself from his materials, that he hides some truths about himself, that he does not spill his guts. Those declarations are considered Emersonian-obscuring, hiding, restraining, limiting, muting, simplifying, trimming, cleaning truths to avoid vulgarities and vulnerabilities. Critics connect such process of writing to traditional morals and conservative values. Wilbur's sensibility is Emersonian. There is nothing Emersonian in famous published muse poems.

Wilburs treatment and consideration of form being not limiting, restraining, and directing is Petrarchan. Again, check this interview:

An interview with Richard Wilbur

by Peter Davison

September 9, 1999


"How does (or should) form direct the flow of energy into a poem, or out of it?

I must say that I never think of form as directing. I don't think of the form itself as making any demands. In this I suppose I'm very close to being a free-verse poet. I think of the form as something that you choose because what you want to say is going to be able to take advantage of it. One example that I have always given my students is the Petrarchan sonnet. Robert Frost used to say if you have something you'd like to say for about eight lines and then want to take it back for six lines, you're on the verge of writing a sonnet. And he meant the Petrarchan, I guess, in that case. Every form I think has a certain logic, has certain expressive capabilities. Most of the time the ideas that come to us have no business at all being thrust into the sonnet form. If we did start behaving that way, it would be true that the form would be directing us, would be making certain demands. But if one chooses form rightly, one is not submitting to the demands of the form but making use of it at every moment."

Read his "A Miltonic Sonnet for Mr. Johnson on His Refusal of Peter Hurd’s Official Portrait". It is considered a Petrarchan sonnet by some due to its sense and syntax and Miltonian by others for its subject and scheme-Milton's Petrarchan style.

By the way, I read Wilbur's Ballade for the Duke of Orléans that you recommended. I did not see even a trace of a muse--traditional or postmodern. I'm beginning to think that what you are spewing here are all air you blow in my direction as if I'll inhale it without checking if it's fetid. You did use postmodern muse in one of your posts. Is your textual muse postmodern? Read my concerns with postmodernism in my next reply to Morpheus.

Please read Wilbur's criticism of Poe. This is what he says about Poe's works:

"But too much of the poetry is virtually pure incantation, its substance being cloudy or predestroyed."

Well, famous published muse poems have the tenor of incantations celebrating love, lust, beauty, body and their substance is clouded with unrestrained flow of emotions and expressions and romantic honesty that is neither hesitant nor bashful. Some of those muse poems also begin with conceptual predestructions--dead, lost, missing, hiding, forever gone, non-existent muses. Wilbur criticizes those. Stick to Wilbur's muse--abstract, imagined, not physical, not human.

As for the theme of Wilbur's The Catch, it is in the text. In a sentence, it is about the blindness of a man to the lure of a woman that makes him, the supposed fisher and catcher, her catch, her fish. The brilliance of "The Catch" is that it can be read in several ways, and doing so will give you a consistent pattern that will unravel the hidden, obscured truth. Formalists and traditionalists are good with symbolism. Explore the symbols in the poems. For example, the forms of a vagina, of a dress, of a net are the forms of the things that catch. Phalluses like fish, sperm, penis are the ones caught by those catchers. Read also the conceptual evolution and history of fish as a phallic symbol. If you want more, find out if symbolism is one of Wilbur's literary devices. If you do those, you will see the light.

By the way, Formalism includes many things, including abstract and literal forms. Reading the ancient Greeks is a good start. Then progress to New Formalism. You need to know its history as a concept, so you will stop dismissing the idea that traditions and conventions are relevant in the study and analysis of forms. Isn't the philosophical circle (enso, for example) a form symbolizing life, universe, balance, continuity, strength, enlightenment because of the literary conventions and linguistic traditions in East Asian cultures? Now apply that to the form of the Western muse.

This is my last reply to you, as I'm doubtful now of your empty boasting. My wasted time is affecting my writing. I cannot continue wasting my time for someone who knows nothing about civility. Also, your ad hominems, condescending statements, and boastful insults are nothing but words you use to fill and cover your deficiencies and inadequacies. By the way, are you published? Can you tell me the title so I can buy it and read? Maybe it can sharpen my dull mind.

I hope our discussion will remain civil, Morpheus. I appreciate your answers to my questions as I have been exploring forms, formalist ideas, and formalism lately.

On Postmodernism:

I had been a rabid postmodernist from high school until college, a theoretical infection from the intellectuals in the third world who believed postmodernism could intellectualize their marginalized voices. I swallowed it whole without questions, maybe due to my rebellious and anarchist tendencies not only my gullible affinity towards theoretical fads and trends.

The late nineties came, and I encountered Latour. He enlightened me and I became a reformed postmodernist. There's still a streak of postmodernism in me, I have to be honest. I'll explain later why. Read Latour's apologetic critique on Postmodernism, his own bread and butter. What an irony! Read "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From
Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern (http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf)".

It seems to me postmodernist critics are only good at considering, taking, naming, calling anything and anyone they see or think of as postmodern. If Postmodernism is a critique against the grand narratives and hegemonic discourses of Modernism, do you think examining the excesses of modernism through the lens of postmodernism is enough to overhaul, deconstruct and destroy those narratives and discourses? Postmodernism should create their own narratives and discourses. Postmodernist theorists, artists, and literary writers do that. They create by deconstructing first. How about postmodernist critics? They create nothing but deconstruct almost everything.

Using muse as an example. In postmodernist criticism, anything and anyone can be a muse, even a stone--remember they democratize narratives, meaning anything or anyone, big or small, has it. That is clearly a destruction of language and meaning, for nothing is created or constructed. Male muse is a good example of conceptual creation and construction that is related to the revisiting of the conventional and traditional, but it is not a product of postmodernism. Early queer American poets like Whitman had male muses in their works way before the spread of Postmodernism. The construction of their male muses can be traced back to the homoerotic love writings and practices of the early Greeks and Romans.

The contemporary queer writers and artists have male muses too, but they are not the conceptual constructs of Postmodernism. Their objectification of men--erotic or romantic--has been influenced by Feminism. Isn't queer studies an offspring of feminist gender studies? To summarize, conceptualizing men as muses, which is not the working of Postmodernism, is a form of construction, while conceptualizing stones as muses, which is only possible in Postmodernism, is a form of destruction/distraction.

My beef with postmodernist critics is that they shamelessly call anything and anyone postmodern because they can. The practice of Postmodernism is limitless. It is so because its foundation is anchored on deconstruction of discourses and destruction of narratives, and we know that anything and anyone can be deconstructed or destroyed. They even waste their time on destroying the already non-existent god and the abstract nature of love. Postmodernism is uncontrollable, indeed. It is supposed to be the critique against the excesses of a school of thought, which is Modernism, but why is it that postmodernists are creating and constructing their own excesses? Do we need a Post-Postmodernism to check and critique also their excesses?

Camille Paglia cited an example: an image of a woman wearing dark sunglasses as the blinding of a woman by a patriarchal commercialism. Feminism before Postmodernism had not hysterically engaged and indulged in this kind of excessive abstractions. Their feminine struggle and suffering were as real and tangible as a woman's vagina. That is one of the dangers of postmodernism--dilution and adulteration of meaning, concept, term, ideology, discourse, practice. Again, they don't construct after deconstructing. They don't make after destroying.

I do not condemn Postmodernism as a whole. There are postmodernists who make, construct, and create. They are those whose interests are in the processes of deconstructing and constructing afterwards. I like their kind of postmodernism. They create narratives and discourses to rival the hegemonic ones. They don't resort to taking existing concepts with history and tradition, tweaking them, and calling them postmodern. For instance, they don't just mangle forms but also make sense of the deformed to create new concepts and meanings arising from their newly constructed forms. They do not deny the histories of the new forms.

Rhizome and assemblage of Guattari and Deleuze fall under the Postmodernism I like. After re-reading them last night after many years of postmodern hiatus, it's clearer to me that form and text can be siblings without rivalry. It is possible to begin with form and end with text or vice-versa. Form can be a consequence or result of text and vice-versa. Form can even be embedded in text and text, in form. it is also doable to merge and combine the two. Those processes are possible because of the Postmodernism that constructs after deconstruction. Read Guattari and Deleuze.

I think "The Changing Light at Sandover" is a great example. Formalism is appropriated in the process of writing the text and in the creation of multiple narratives that are postmodernist. Merrill's kind of Postmodernism constructed something that could not and did not deny the forms and formalist elements embedded in it. It is neither totally formalist nor totally postmodernist. In Guattari and Deleuze's theoretical vocabulary, The Changing Light at Sandover is an assemblage.

Do postmodernist critics practice what Guattari and Deleuze preach? I am not even sure if their rhizome and assemblage are possible in a fallacious intellectual practice based on illogical accusations, considerations, reductions, and intuitions. I even heard someone say Jesus Christ was a postmodernist. That totally throws Modernism (whatever it means or implies) out of the picture. Where is the logic in that? Indeed, even the linearity of time is deconstructed for no reason at all.

I question the practice of applying postmodernism on any text and the idea that any text--formalist, functionalist, historical, cultural, biblical, archaeological, to name a few--has postmodernist elements in it. How can formalism and functionalism--form follows function in architecture, for example--have postmodernist elements when they are the babies of Modernism, the narrative and discourse postmodernism critiques or goes against? How can you read and critique the Greek tragedies in a postmodern way when the writing of those texts happened way before modern times? We should not forget that postmodernism is a critique against Modernism.

I can understand why Feminist and Marxist readings of any texts are acceptable and possible. Even way before the birth of Marx or the publication of early feminist writings in the 16th century or even way before the crucifixion of Jesus, women struggle and suffering and issues on class, poverty, exploitation had already existed for centuries. Postmodernism as a critique of Modernism should find the modernist traces, artifacts, and remnants not in the texts that predates Modernism. To ignore that is just silly.

So if a postmodernist critic says a chair can be a muse, the response is simple: make love to that chair.

[JBI]

to begin with, another Wilbur poem, arguably quite formal.

Flailed from the heart of the water in a bow,
He took the falling fly; my line went taut;
Foam was in an uproar where he drove below;
In spangling air I fought him and was fought.
Then, wearied to the shallows, he was caught,
Gasped in the net, lay still and stony-eyed.
It was no feeling iris I had sought.
I die of thirst, here at the fountain-side.

Notice the pun on the word "Line" a clear note to poetic usages, the idea of writing a poem for this duke to win the prize, and comparing it to fishing the great catch, yet falling short by the waterside as it dies with you in the struggle. The use of this imagery is a rather standard Wilbur usage, which you should take heed of. This poem is clearly about poetry, without a doubt, yet uses fishing as a specific metaphor for the poetic process, and likens it to a two way struggle between poem and poet.

Down in the harbor's flow and counter-flow
I left my ships with hopes and heroes fraught
Ten times more golden than the sun could show,
Calypso gave the darkness I besought.
Oh, but her fleecy touch was dearly bought:
All spent, I wakened by my only bride,
Beside whom every vision is but nought,
And die of thirst, here at the fountain-side.

Again poetic experience is likened to a sexual encounter, and looking for the "only bride" beside which "every vision is but nought". The poetic capture, marked by this contest for the best poem is merely accentuated as a sexual experience between the poet, and the sexualized poetic subject, that of a Calypso beside a Penelope. The idea is that the poetic experience is about perfection of the form, and though we come close to it, the perfection is beyond the grasp of the subject - Calypso is merely another struggle which is not the true struggle, it is merely another poem beside the true poem, which is the Penelope.



Now, we notice the next poem often employs similar images, fishing, catching, struggle, form, and femininity in the same sort of poetic exercise. As simply put, the poem seems rather bland if it is merely about a girl in a dress attracting a man. And ify ou extend it to mean love, or whatever, it seems even more bizarre that Wilbur, a non-personal poet, would have engaged in writing a sort of still-life poem.

Keep in mind, Wilbur is a very conscious poet, and very much deals with the subject of poetry within his poems. This is like saying that Botticelli was in love with his Venus, and that the poem is a dedication of his love for her. Or that anybody who painted a female figure is merely trying to express love for the figure, and showing how he was "caught". such a reading is rather weak, I am afraid to say, and betrays a lack of ability to apply a poem beyond its denotative sense of meaning.


The Catch

From the dress-box's plashing tis-
Sue paper she pulls out her prize,
Dangling it to one side before my eyes
Like a weird sort of fish

As a constructed image, the the dress undoubtedly is being compared to a fishing line. The dress box is likewise compared to a tackle box. This is absolutely clear to any reader, but the actual meaning of the last line seems more difficult - like a weird sort of fish? what kind of line is that to describe "her prize". Already this extended metaphor of the dress is becoming more complex than we on the surface assume, as if the dress as an object is "weird" and useless without its "wearer."

That she has somehow hooked and gaffed
And on the dock-end holds in air---
Limp, corrugated, lank, a catch too rare
Not to be photographed.

Again we see the same sort of play with the form, with Wilbur putting a big switch in metaphoric usage in the last line - the hyperbole of the language articulated by the strange twist "not to be photographed." Here we also see the reuse of the word "catch", assumedly discussing the dress she holds in the air - this weird fish of a prize that she has hooked and gaffed. This is not the poet we are talking about is it? Is he hooked and gaffed like a fish, or are we discussing the prize fish of the dress. Limp, corrugated, lank, a catch too rare. There is an obvious ironic usage being played with these rather negative adjectives and the last 4 words. The point is this fish is lame, nothing worth catching, despite it being held as the "catch" so prized. It is something in itself, not so beautiful, not put together, in a sense, not assembled, or dressed. Perhaps like a broken poem with lines out of place, or scattered words?

I, in my chair, make shift to say
Some bright, discerning thing, and fail,
Proving once more the blindness of the male.
Annoyed, she stalks away

Why is the man trying to say something? Why is he trying to capture the form of the woman with the dress? The idea of saying something bright and discerning is rather simple in interpretation - is that not what poets do? Is that not what they do toward, lets say, their muse, who they flatter or describe with language, such as petrarchan conceits, "shall I compare thee?" etc.? You see my point, the muse and the poet are now in a talking match - he must say something, as he is transfixed from the beginning, but she is "not to be photographed" in such a state, the makeup and the polish are not applied to the form - that of the photograph, or poem, is not exactly ready. The idea of the artist capturing the image, or beauty, or love within the artistic creation is age old, and I don't need any nonsense essays on post-modernism and formalism to prove so. This argument is rather basic - He is not taking a picture, or writing a poem of the broken, unmade sort of lame pose by the dock of the prize (her dress, and by extension her) but rather needs the right form, the right pose, in order to say some "bright" thing that will make a sort of "discernible" sense. The lack of voice, and the looking for the words are quite common tropes in poetry, particularly romantic and post-romantic poetry. This idea of language trying to capture the feeling, or the subject is an age old debate and running current in Western poetry (and much of Eastern poetry too, coincidentally). The whole idea of invocation of the muse is not to gain this power of speech in order to write poetry? Is not the muse a sort of vehicle for the poetic creation, that which needs to be there, in Milton's terms, "To enlighten" the sort of blind poet with the beauty of the subject, and therefore make taught his flaccid gift of writing? (and yes, the tradition is very male centered, but that's the tradition)

And then is back in half a minute,
Consulting now, not me at all
But the long mirror, mirror on the wall.
The dress, now that she's in it,

Bingo! the dress, now that she's in it. Notice the subject of the catch, which before was a dress, has now become a dress with her in it? the poem, which describes the prize, is now describing the woman. The poetic experience, which was writing a poem, now has found its beauty by consulting the image of the woman against the wall, looking at the reflection, which is like looking at the form of the artistic creation. Notice the word wall being used, sort of highlighting this connection between the woman in the dress and being hung up, like a painting. The mirror, is, in a sense, "catching" the reflection of the woman in the dress within its reflection, and displaying it. The poet has moved out, but the form, the subject, the muse, has moved in - taking over, the form of the dress, and becoming the form of the woman in the dress.

Has changed appreciably, and gains
By lacy shoes, a light perfume
Whose subtle field electrifies the room,
And two slim golden chains.

Two golden chains is a clear pun on capturing, or imprisoning, a nice shift - but notice now the sort of "lacy" frills being added, a sort of polish with accessories - the perfume, and the shoes being mere conceits to play with. Wilbur is conscious of such superficiality, yet he is very much using such superficial things to highlight the sort of power of the subject. Very much in a sense of how a poet may play with rhyme and form to entice the reader. Also notice, the shift in audience perspective - it has gone from the mirror now, to the entire room watching, as if the poem itself has become a sort of vocal or visual performance to a wider audience. There are only two people in the room, but the whole place is "electrified". Sort of like how a poet, while writing about a muse, may hook the audience of 500 years of readers.

With a fierce frown and hard-pursed lips
She twists a little on her stem
To test the even swirling of the hem,
Smooths down the waist and hips,

Very much images of the process of writing. She is looking for any blemishes, perfecting the actual shape and form, and thinking hard - she is in a sense, ironing out the image of herself (the figure of herself within the dress) and looking for its evenness and twisting, swirling and smoothness (all poetic references, a trope, after all is a "turn" smooth can be described of poetic flow, as can even lines, etc.). When we start to read as such, picturing the audience in the electrified room, it makes more sense. This is very much a woman of artistic creation, being witnessed by the standing poet, who is framing the form with his words, and creating the actual poetic representation by description and the act of writing. We may be "caught" by the poem, but the poet is doing exactly what the woman is doing - he is in a sense, describing the female muse's catching of the audience, and by extension, catching us, the audience, by his smoothing out of her form. He is very much the mirror, catching the pose, and narrating it to us through his poetry.

Plucks at the shoulder-straps a bit,
Then turns around and looks behind,
Her face transfigured now by peace of mind.
There is no question---it

We don't need further discussion of the idea of transformation. Just think of the difference between a reflection and a painting. The reflection relates back the form, but the painting transforms it into its own set of art, based on the impression of the painter. Take Wilde's Discussions in the Portrait of Dorian Grey as the sort of standard on the subject. Painting transforms the subject into something that just "got it right" in the sense of the poem. Then, when it is right, the audience is addressed by the muse directly, by her turning behind - and there is no question - "it" the key turn is highlighting that the form is "it", it is the complete and perfect unity of the form and the subject into the artistic creation. And we, as readers are as much the viewer as the poem's speaker, who is narrating - she is turning not only to the speaker, but also to us, the audience, who are listening to the speaker get "it" just right.

Is wholly charming, it is she,
As I belatedly remark
And may be hung now in the fragrant dark
Of her soft armory.

Now, we realizes that we too are hung, and hung by what? We are caught by what - the big catch of the dress, is caught by the woman who transforms it. The woman has caught the speaker who is transformed by the form, and we the audience are caught by the speaker, who has created the poem by evoking the muses form, by means of capturing us in the darkness of the tri-level bait and catch. The muse is very much as caught in her "dress" as the dress is caught in her grasp at the beginning. The usage of the word functions on multiple levels to evoke both "seize and capture" as well as "catching the eye".

As for a discussion of poetic experience, it is very much this - the form of the muse, is dressed up in her catch - what catches others, and what she pulls out of her box of fishing tools at the beginning of the poem. The woman then is caught in front of the mirror - stretching the poem beyond the poet's control, into the description of "her" which takes over, and the speaker retreats up until the end. with the dress catching the woman's beauty, and all the added frills, the speaker too is finally caught by those two golden chains that bind him to the service of describing the muse's beauty for the audience, us, who are also caught by the poem. The poem then can be read as a functional allegory on the poetic experience of "catching" both the subject, and the reader, by means of getting the form and the frills right, and therefore delivering the subject (it is she) to the audience correctly (again, the sort of mirror). Now, when dealing with mirrors, we should also add that "mirrors" tend to be a stand in for the notions of mimesis and platonic notions of poetic forms and capturing the world. If we read for instance, Sidney's defence of poetry, it often compares this idea of poetry as giving us this sort of mirror or window into looking at the edenic forms - it brings us, to the gates of paradise if you will.

The poetic muse is very much that, the captured beauty in the perfect form before the mirror. Yet by turning back at us, she beckons us with her beauty to look into this image being contained with the mirror - the sort of frame on the wall is our view, coming from the poet, who has given the viewer the glimpse at the picture he has painted with words (something he, unfortunately, says belatedly, as he is without words to capture it before it takes on a life of its own).


Go ahead and argue all about post-modernism, and how the muse is not a traditional muse all you want. I still kick butt at reading poetry. Don't tell me I am wrong and then offer some rather shallow boring reading about how it is a simple love poem about the poet being caught, the language does not only support this reading, and that is merely one facet of the poetic expression. The first thing you should learn while reading Wilbur is Wilbur is always conscious that he is writing poetry, and not merely portraying his poem's speakers, or his poems for that matter as a contained diegesis the way a Browning Dramatic Monologue would. He is aware of what he is doing, and that is why he plays around so much with double meanings and tricks. He is very post-modern in that sense, since he does not restrict his meaning, but looks to express multiple meanings throughout his work.

Now, you can say he is not like others, or keeps with tradition, or doesn't innovate, but I would disagree, he merely offers a different development than the mainstream direction poetry took after the 1960s. He is very much playing with the games someone like Pound or Eliot carved up, but developing them in his own directions. Thematically he is also very much a poet writing about loss, especially after the Vietnam War, which is very much in line with post-modern developments out of counterculture. The problem is he has way too many mediocre readers, who are not trained enough in the games that lie before him to understand the way he has advanced them.


Or better yet, everything I have just said is nonsense. This poem is actually a confession about his secret sex affair in Paris in the 1960s. And the "shoes" are merely a psychoanalytical slip for "shows". And you complain my interpretations aren't supported.

Let me ask you, are you published? What's the name of your book so I can read it so I can be enlightened. Do you think I care that you write about male muses in your poetry, or that you don't want to respond further? I am glad you don't, as you have been misquoting and spitting nonsense for the past couple of days. The muse trope is common, and a staple of Wilbur, you need to learn that some people may be quite familiar with his work before you begin spitting nonsense, as, like I have said, my professor who I worked under for quite a while is an expert on his work who has met with him personally and interviewed him. I would trust that sort of authority, especially since she directly has addressed notions of critical reception and functions of post-modernism in his work.

You are looking at an ouvre coming mostly from the 60s. This is 50 years later, and Wilbur is 92. He is not Vikrem Seth trying to rewrite Onegin.

As for further on the muse, try this one for example:



Take X. J. Kennedy for example writing at the introduction of a book on Prosody:

Give me leave, Muse, in plain view to array
Your shift and bodice by the light of day.
I would have brought an epic. Be not vexed
Instead to grace a niggling schoolroom text;
Let down your sanction, help me to oblige
Him who would lead fresh devots to your liege,
And at your alter, grant that in a flash
They, he and I know incense from dead ash.

Now apologize before you lose even more face with your silly definitions and mediocre quotations. I'm a seasoned reader, and don't need some doggerel writer to tell me about her weird dictionary definitions of poetry in order to properly interpret. Never contradict my opinion, or question my authority unless you plan on going all in. Like I said, I was responding by phone before, as I am currently in the Chinese countryside. I know what I am talking about, and unless you have something to refute me, then please do not directly attack my readings, or my interpretations with your nonsensical mediocre readings of poetry.

[miyako73]

You should have committed suicide by now. Obviously you're not reading my posts that corrected many of your pretentious, hollow assumptions. One of them is your assumption that nothing in Wilbur is Petrarchan.
.
Read your post again and again; you will see your follies. You compare two different poems with two different subjects, with two different kinds of fishing to find the common and the reccuring and you use them in your reading for both poems. Where did you learn that kind of textual reading?

This line: "He took the falling fly; my line went taut;" from "Ballade for the Duke of Orléans" is fly fishing. Do you see fly fishing in "The Catch"?

Okay I'll post this again:

In this verse, the author gives up fishing or luring her:

"I, in my chair, make shift to say
Some bright, discerning thing, and fail,
Proving once more the blindness of the male.
Annoyed, she stalks away"

"She stalks away" suggests he cannot catch her so he quits--" make shift to say/ Some bright, discerning thing, and fail."

"Some bright, discerning thing," is a line as in pick up line, the author's fishing line. When a line fails to catch in fishing or in picking up a woman, you move to another place to fish/to another women or change your line (speech/nylon). In succeeding verses, there is no another woman, he does not get out of the room, and he does not make another line. That means he gives up line fishing.

"Proving once more the blindness of the male" implies a man's underestimation of a woman. Later, the fisher(man) becomes the fish of the woman-- a reversal.

The verse above is where the author is still active. In the succeeding verses, it is all about the woman according to what the author sees. He becomes a passive viewer almost like a fish mesmerized by fishing lures.

When the woman comes back, her fishing/luring begins:

And then is back in half a minute,
Consulting now, not me at all
But the long mirror, mirror on the wall.
The dress, now that she's in it,

The "dress" here becomes the net--a net looks like a hemmed dress. A fisherman and his net are inseparable-- "The dress, now that she's in it,"

The "long mirror, mirror on the wall" is actually the metaphor for a reflective, flashing mirror lure. Here's another thing: mirror lures are hung on the wall. Google it. Mirror is also a symbol of femininity that lures. All women I know have mirrors in their bags for checking their faces and retouching their makeup.


In the end, the author is lured and charmed --in fishing, caught.

"Is wholly charming, it is she,"

The author has to be the fish. In symbolism, fish is commonly treated as a phallus.


You should ask Morpheus to teach you how to keep your eye on pronouns and follow the movements of the characters whether they are passive or active.

Again, are you published? Can you tell me the title so I can buy and read it? Maybe it can sharpen my dull mind.

You must be a published professional. Didn't you call me amateur? Let this amateur read your work. Unlucky you, you put down a wrong amateur.

[miyako73]

By the way, I was the first one who shared the setting of this poem. why don't you go back to my post?


This poem is pushing me to entertain the idea that maybe this is related to the author's secret sex life. It seems the setting of this poem is 1950 or 1960 France. The "woman" below sounds like an erotic performer or exotic dancer maybe or even a prostitute. Who wore lacy dresses or shoes in America in 1987, the year this poem was published? He translated Moliere mostly in the 50's and the 60's. He might have stayed in France during those years and immersed himself in the liberal culture and sexual vices of the French poets and intellectuals of that period.

"I, in my chair, make shift to say
Some bright, discerning thing, and fail,
Proving once more the blindness of the male.
Annoyed, she stalks away

And then is back in half a minute,
Consulting now, not me at all
But the long mirror, mirror on the wall.
The dress, now that she's in it,

Has changed appreciably, and gains
By lacy shoes, a light perfume
Whose subtle field electrifies the room,
And two slim golden chains.

With a fierce frown and hard-pursed lips
She twists a little on her stem
To test the even swirling of the hem,
Smooths down the waist and hips,

Plucks at the shoulder-straps a bit,
Then turns around and looks behind,
Her face transfigured now by peace of mind.
There is no question---it"

"pulls out her prize"
"a weird sort of fish"
"the blindness of the male"

The phrases above are pushing me to go psychoanalytical.


Is it "lacy shoes" or "lacy shows"? It is "lacy shows" in http://adilegian.com/wilbur.htm

[JBI]

You should have committed suicide by now. Obviously you're not reading my posts that corrected many of your pretentious, hollow assumptions. One of them is your assumption that nothing in Wilbur is Petrarchan.


Read your post again and again; you will see your follies. You compare two different poems with two different subjects, with two different kinds of fishing to find the common and the reccuring and you use them in your reading for both poems. Where did you learn that kind of textual reading?
This line: "He took the falling fly; my line went taut;" from "Ballade for the Duke of Orléans" is fly fishing. Do you see fly fishing in "The Catch"?

Of course they are not absolutely the same - they are not the same poem. My point was a discussion of linking poetic experience to fishing, which is the point of the the Ballade, if you read it carefully. I never said anything about Petrarch not being petrarchan, actually I mentioned him playing with such ideas more than once. Just because he may play with something doesn't mean, however, that he is petrarch. Of course I am not saying the poems are the exact same - merely drawing the parallel between the same sort of conceit.


Okay I'll post this again:

In this verse, the author gives up fishing or luring her:

"I, in my chair, make shift to say
Some bright, discerning thing, and fail,
Proving once more the blindness of the male.
Annoyed, she stalks away"

He is stumbling for a line, she stalks away. Not he. I am sure you are smart enough to know the difference between pronouns? He and She - blindness of the male - notice that the male has lost "vision", or blindness - he fails to 'see' in the poetic sense. And she gets pissed. She is basically leering at him, and he can't get his brain around it.


"She stalks away" suggests he cannot catch her so he quits--" make shift to say/ Some bright, discerning thing, and fail."

Again, look at the pronoun usage, and quit chopping the development of the poem. There is a clear narration and you've jumped the bottom to the top.


"Some bright, discerning thing," is a line as in pick up line, the author's fishing line. When a line fails to catch in fishing or in picking up a woman, you move to another place to fish/to another women or change your line (speech/nylon). In succeeding verses, there is no another woman, he does not get out of the room, and he does not make another line. That means he gives up line fishing.


Where are you getting this weird allegory from? This makes absolutely no sense with the development of the poem - the general idea that the woman is progressively getting more dressed, and the poet is progressively describing her more and more - what does this have to do with a fishing line, and getting out of the room - it's about the getting the pose right, not about "catching" as in a struggle. Like I said before, you are using the verb in the wrong sense as something physical pulling, as apposed to as "capturing" in the sense of taking a picture.


"Proving once more the blindness of the male" implies a man's underestimation of a woman. Later, the fisher(man) becomes the fish of the woman-- a reversal.


Or, on a metaphorical level, the blind poet and the "visionary muse" in the sense of the Greek tradition, and of Milton or others evoking the muse to "enlighten" that which brings them their poetic gift. The muse is very much the source of the poetic vision - the sort of subject that the poet needs to describe.


The verse above is where the author is still active. In the succeeding verses, it is all about the woman according to what the author sees. He becomes a passive viewer almost like a fish mesmerized by fishing lures.

And us? I am not going to disagree here, this is perhaps the only really interesting point you have made so far, and, ironically, it was made several pages back my me. Not mesmerized by fishing lures though, rather he is hooked from the beginning, as his narration and fixation never stop.


When the woman comes back, her fishing/luring begins:

And then is back in half a minute,
Consulting now, not me at all
But the long mirror, mirror on the wall.
The dress, now that she's in it,

Remember though, that the dress before was also compared to a "catch" you miss the double usage of the dress as both that which catches and that which is caught. This pun is running throughout the pun, as if saying that dress is catching, yet also saying your beauty is caught by the dress.


The "dress" here becomes the net--a net looks like a hemmed dress. A fisherman and his net are inseparable-- "The dress, now that she's in it,"

This is merely a bad speculation. How do you know it is a net like dress? And also, if you are reading it as such, why didn't you apply my logic to the entire thing before hand - she is in it. The net, meaning who has caught who? If we interpret the net as poetic craft, then yes, the muse is caught in this poetic net. She is caught, not the man you mention so many times. You cannot disagree with the textual "she is in it". Then who is the fisherman? The poet, catching the subject? as for what kind of dress it is, that's mere speculation though.


The "long mirror, mirror on the wall" is actually the metaphor for a reflective, flashing mirror lure. Here's another thing: mirror lures are hung on the wall. Google it. Mirror is also a symbol of femininity that lures. All women I know have mirrors in their bags for checking their faces and retouching their makeup.

Or rather, if we want to take the fishing metaphor more seriously, the mirror could be a water surface, yet even so, it's hanging on the wall and she in front of it only adds to the fact that the woman is being caught, not the man. Women of course spend tons of time in front of mirrors (as do men) and they are often used to "check" and adjust ones appearance. The actual mirror lure is rather too obscure a reference to hold much water, I'm afraid.


In the end, the author is lured and charmed --in fishing, caught.

As is the woman, as is the reader. Again, you miss the point, the poet is very much fishing as well, as we the readers are caught by the poem. You are unable to read on a higher level, please sit down.


"Is wholly charming, it is she,"

The author has to be the fish. In symbolism, fish is commonly treated as a phallus.

What the hell are you talking about? Fish is now phallus? Put down your Freud and learn to read here. Fish is not phallus as fish is caught, therefore, if you want to say, is like the Doe in symbolism, not phallus. Just because it is long and wet doesn't make it a phallus, hate to break it to you. The fish is pursued, and like the previous poetic example, is very much associated with the poetic process, and with the feminine.


You should ask Morpheus to teach you how to keep your eye on pronouns and follow the movements of the characters whether they are passive or active.

You should fire your poetry teacher, and stop writing poetry, because you simply do not understand the notion of metaphor and rhetoric. I am fine with poetry, thanks, stick to your gay muses.


Again, are you published? Can you tell me the title so I can buy it and read? Maybe it can sharpen my dull mind.

I'm published in Chinese, but you wouldn't want to read that, now would you. Like I said, I may not be published, but others are, and others are wiser than your third rate reading abilities. You are a child with a big mouth, so please, take your own advice and don't respond to me.



You must be a published professional. Didn't you call me amateur? Let this amateur read your work.

and you, what nonsense have you put on the press?


By the way, I was the first one who shared the setting of this poem. why don't you go back to my post?

I did mockingly, if you notice. I think your poem setting is nonsense. The poem setting is text, not a real event. How do we even know this is a real woman, and how can we guess by the conceits if she is actually in the 1960s, when she is merely made up of text.

[miyako73]

I just can't finish reading your post, JBI. It's making me laugh. It's making me dumb too. I'm dumb already. Please spare me. Wait. I will ruin you. Maybe you will shut up after this.

The Line:

"And two slim golden chains."


Your interpretation:

"Two golden chains is a clear pun on capturing, or imprisoning, a nice shift"




Has changed appreciably, and gains
By lacy shoes, a light perfume
Whose subtle field electrifies the room,
And two slim golden chains.

Two golden chains is a clear pun on capturing, or imprisoning, a nice shift - but notice now the sort of "lacy" frills being added, a sort of polish with accessories - the perfume, and the shoes being mere conceits to play with. Wilbur is conscious of such superficiality, yet he is very much using such superficial things to highlight the sort of power of the subject. Very much in a sense of how a poet may play with rhyme and form to entice the reader. Also notice, the shift in audience perspective - it has gone from the mirror now, to the entire room watching, as if the poem itself has become a sort of vocal or visual performance to a wider audience. There are only two people in the room, but the whole place is "electrified". Sort of like how a poet, while writing about a muse, may hook the audience of 500 years of readers.



hahahahaha. Are you talking about two of this golden handcuff chain?


http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/c8424bf1-1f8e-48dc-8195-adf04d95252a_zps57a57035.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/c8424bf1-1f8e-48dc-8195-adf04d95252a_zps57a57035.jpg.html)

My god! That woman must be rich! She has two of that in gold? Is that a slim handcuff chain to you, JBI?

I nearly liked your interpretation because of the BDSM element in it, but unfortunately there was no mention of leather and latex in the poem. So no whipping and melting of candles. You'll find those in a different poem written by a dominatrix.

What are you smoking, JBI? Imprisonment? There's now a crime twist in the poem?

Maybe you mean this kind of chain used on captured African slaves:

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/e627c697-cc2b-4fff-b87c-156bfef8a4a3_zps0707ad54.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/e627c697-cc2b-4fff-b87c-156bfef8a4a3_zps0707ad54.jpg.html)

That woman in the poem must be a millionaire to have two of that in gold. I'm not sure if she can carry them though. Do you know any other slim chains that clearly suggest capture and imprisonment?

Maybe two of this chain symbolize imprisonment:

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/f63f33c2-70fb-44b6-a6f8-e5c7a7968dbe_zps60e9b039.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/f63f33c2-70fb-44b6-a6f8-e5c7a7968dbe_zps60e9b039.jpg.html)

That's a necklace. How can that symbolize imprisonment? I know how. If that's a bling-bling worn by a drug dealer who is arrested by cops. Bingo!

The woman has two of that to capture the the man in the poem? Are you kidding me? Jewelry to rope a guy onto a bedpost?

That golden chain symbolizes wealth or money not capture or imprisonment.



Enough of these embarrassing silliness and juvenile thinking. Let me do it for you.

Professor, Sir, the two slim chains are gold dangling earrings that look like these:

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/2b4d612d-6173-4672-adaf-180f91c9161f_zps41a53e93.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/2b4d612d-6173-4672-adaf-180f91c9161f_zps41a53e93.jpg.html)

Definitely that woman in the poem can afford those, and she needs those-- she's a woman of vanity and style after all. Her shoes are laced. Do you expect a woman like that not wearing a pair of earrings. What's that mirror for if not for putting makeup and earrings on? Don't you have a girlfriend or wife? You should know these stuff.

Also, Sir, the convention in fashion styling is that if a woman wears a strapped dress (like what the woman in the poem wears), the earrings recommended are the ones that dangle--like the "two slim golden chains" for example. the woman below does it right. She's a fashionista, indeed.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/d47ac565-485c-4ffc-bc21-535fc3e38215_zps9ae41901.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/d47ac565-485c-4ffc-bc21-535fc3e38215_zps9ae41901.jpg.html)

Now let's go to the two verses, Sir:


"And then is back in half a minute,
Consulting, now, not me at all
But the long mirror, mirror on the wall.
The dress, now that she's in it,

Has changed appreciably, and gains
By lacy shoes, a light perfume
Whose subtle field electrifies the room,
And two slim golden chains.

What change or improve (gains) the appearance of the dress?

Answers: lacy shoes, light perfume, and two slim golden chains

Sir, those stuff are worn by the woman in the poem. The dress "gains" those stuff--meaning, those stuff come with the dress.

Using your interpretation of handcuff and imprisonment, that woman handcuffs and captures herself. She has to put those golden handcuffs on her wrists. That's your interpretation, Sir. Remember lacy shoes, a light perfume, and two slim golden chains appear with the dress on the body of the woman. That's in the text.

Okay, let's end this childishness of yours. I promise this is my last last last reply to you. I hope you will quit after this.

Sir, remember the subtext of the poem is fishing. My father is a fisherman. I know what are in his box. I just checked and found these:

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/afbeaaf1-aa03-485f-be6b-36661527d628_zps113ec4e9.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/afbeaaf1-aa03-485f-be6b-36661527d628_zps113ec4e9.jpg.html)

Aren't they slim? They come in many colors too. There are gold ones. They are fishing lures, Sir. they are called daisy chains or daisy fishing chains.

Here's the explanation on how daisy chains work in fishing:

http://www.tormentertackle.com/daisy_chains_and_how_they_work


I think you should give up.



Note: All photos above are not mine. I cannot ascertain their provenance.

[JBI]

It's a pun you goat. The chains which clasp at the catch - it's a clever usage that anybody familiar with Wilbur, or a poet that uses puns would pick up on. ultimately the chains also functions as jewelery. But why not say jewelery, why gold chains? He is playing with language.

I don't think you understand what word play is. there is a such thing as a double meaning.

Gains is being used above, Electrifies the room is in the middle. there is a language game. You should be more clear what the main verb is - it certainly is not "gains"

[miyako73]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, indeed. Simply, don't claim to be a professional if you can't do a simple thing professionally. Let the readers decide. I may be an amateur, but you cannot put me down easily. I'm done with you. Doing those visuals was such an effort. Bye.

[JBI]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, indeed. Simply, don't claim to be a professional if you can't do a simple thing professionally. Let the readers decide. I may be an amateur, but you cannot put me down easily. I'm done with you. Doing those visuals was such an effort. Bye.

Bye, take take care. Don't bump your *** on the way out.

[miyako73]

Visuals of the Poem "The Catch": The Woman, The Fisher, Lurer, Catcher



Woman in the Dress - Fisherman (his wrist) in the net (Lead Line)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/fec2a79b-d10f-422a-974d-45b51a43029b_zpsa431ae3f.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/fec2a79b-d10f-422a-974d-45b51a43029b_zpsa431ae3f.jpg.html)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/b73ce18d-35a7-4869-adc6-303adabbdcf9_zpsafc264e3.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/b73ce18d-35a7-4869-adc6-303adabbdcf9_zpsafc264e3.jpg.html)


Strapped Dress - Fishing Net or Cast Net


http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/a8c8c79b-2ff6-4693-a1f2-4407115fdc94_zps22d7fa3d.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/a8c8c79b-2ff6-4693-a1f2-4407115fdc94_zps22d7fa3d.jpg.html)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/13612d6a-8ee8-4aa8-b0c9-49d8f62253fa_zps6971fefc.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/13612d6a-8ee8-4aa8-b0c9-49d8f62253fa_zps6971fefc.jpg.html)


Dress Box (usually used for photos) - Tackle Box (storage for fishing stuff)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/fbc73837-188d-4e51-b0c3-9963d5895773_zps538cb8c1.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/fbc73837-188d-4e51-b0c3-9963d5895773_zps538cb8c1.jpg.html)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/7d7e8c58-4626-4e3d-a70f-3536786bafc2_zps9485721e.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/7d7e8c58-4626-4e3d-a70f-3536786bafc2_zps9485721e.jpg.html)


Mirror Mirror on the Wall - Mirror Lure on the Wall

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/840ab4e0-f871-4ec7-bace-7b9bb8c55f89_zps2f341dca.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/840ab4e0-f871-4ec7-bace-7b9bb8c55f89_zps2f341dca.jpg.html)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/0daa1c31-c83e-459c-9b9d-a4504d156c7c_zps99b29473.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/0daa1c31-c83e-459c-9b9d-a4504d156c7c_zps99b29473.jpg.html)


Lacy Shoes - Jig Lures

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/images_zps2196900b.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/images_zps2196900b.jpg.html)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/2d58ddd2-e7d9-4967-ae74-73a3409bcc62_zps54018466.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/2d58ddd2-e7d9-4967-ae74-73a3409bcc62_zps54018466.jpg.html)


Perfume - Bait

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/daf1bb02-dbbf-44e1-b674-86e260da5aff_zps7d5aefce.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/daf1bb02-dbbf-44e1-b674-86e260da5aff_zps7d5aefce.jpg.html)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/93f31676-34bb-40a8-b80c-729a2df89dca_zps189fcb81.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/93f31676-34bb-40a8-b80c-729a2df89dca_zps189fcb81.jpg.html)


Slim Golden Chain - Daisy Fishing Chain

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/c09ff53d-6a71-42b7-85e2-08456904fb43_zpsfe8eab81.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/c09ff53d-6a71-42b7-85e2-08456904fb43_zpsfe8eab81.jpg.html)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/e0d4fc2c-8205-45b7-9c78-fa64d1e907ff_zps73ec236e.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/e0d4fc2c-8205-45b7-9c78-fa64d1e907ff_zps73ec236e.jpg.html)



Now, who is the fisher, lurer, catcher in "The Catch"?

What is pulled out from the box?

Dress boxes usually end up as containers for photos. What is pulled out is a photo of a man--the woman's former lover perhaps. A man is a catch of a woman--vagina catches p enis, period. In fishing, a "prize catch" is a fish--fish symbolizes male due to its being phallic. So the "prize" (without the word "catch") the woman pulls out from the dress box is a "man". Since the box is a small dress box, what she really pulls out is a photo of the man. I will explain later the poem of Wilbur's female poet friend that supports my treatment of fish as male.


From the dress-box's plashing tis-
(Basically, there's a fish/man in the box)

Sue paper she pulls out her prize,
(Since the box is small, what Sue pulls out is a photo of a man--"paper" is photo paper)

Dangling it to one side before my eyes
(The woman dangles the photo to make the author jealous)

Like a weird sort of fish
(The author finds the man in the photo strange-looking--"weird sort of fish" is the same as "strange sort of man")


That she has somehow hooked and gaffed
(that the woman lured, fished, and caught. "Somehow" here has a tinge of disbelief. The author cannot believe that the woman was able to get a lover--lovers allow to be photograph; Johns don't. Is the woman a prostitute? It's not easy for prostitutes to get lovers who can accept their kind of work.)

And on the dock-end holds in air—
(This is about the pier where the photo was taken. Maybe in the photo, the man waved her goodbye--"holds in air".)

Limp, corrugated, lank, a catch too rare
(These are the features of the man in the photo--limp (Soft or tired-looking), corrugated (his face has pimples or creases), and lank (long, straight hair) or (thin body). The dictionary definitions of "lank" (being related to human hair and body) prove that the author talks about a human being. The author mocks the looks of the man--"a catch too rare" is the same as "an ugly or strange-looking man")

Not to be photographed.
(Too ugly that he should not be photographed)


The key to this reading is to show that fish is male or man. Elizabeth Bishop was a friend of Richard Wilbur and his wife. Richard Wilbur did a memorial tribute to her in 1979 at the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Wilbur admired her poetry. According to him, he and Bishop shared their favored poets and favorite poems with each other. No question, Bishop and Wilbur were friends. There is a possibility that "The Catch" was Wilbur's response to or mimicry of Bishop's "The Fish". Maybe Bishop influenced Wilbur. The fish in Bishop's poem is undeniably a man. It is a "he" in the poem. There is a possibility that Wilbur used his friend's symbolism for fish in his.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40344084?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103287081067


The Fish

I caught a tremendous fish
and held him beside the boat
half out of water, with my hook
fast in a corner of his mouth.
He didn't fight.
He hadn't fought at all.
He hung a grunting weight,
battered and venerable
and homely. Here and there
his brown skin hung in strips
like ancient wallpaper,
and its pattern of darker brown
was like wallpaper:
shapes like full-blown roses
stained and lost through age.
He was speckled with barnacles,
fine rosettes of lime,
and infested
with tiny white sea-lice,
and underneath two or three
rags of green weed hung down.
While his gills were breathing in
the terrible oxygen
- the frightening gills,
fresh and crisp with blood,
that can cut so badly-
I thought of the coarse white flesh
packed in like feathers,
the big bones and the little bones,
the dramatic reds and blacks
of his shiny entrails,
and the pink swim-bladder
like a big peony.
I looked into his eyes
which were far larger than mine
but shallower, and yellowed,
the irises backed and packed
with tarnished tinfoil
seen through the lenses
of old scratched isinglass.
They shifted a little, but not
to return my stare.
- It was more like the tipping
of an object toward the light.
I admired his sullen face,
the mechanism of his jaw,
and then I saw
that from his lower lip
- if you could call it a lip
grim, wet, and weaponlike,
hung five old pieces of fish-line,
or four and a wire leader
with the swivel still attached,
with all their five big hooks
grown firmly in his mouth.
A green line, frayed at the end
where he broke it, two heavier lines,
and a fine black thread
still crimped from the strain and snap
when it broke and he got away.
Like medals with their ribbons
frayed and wavering,
a five-haired beard of wisdom
trailing from his aching jaw.
I stared and stared
and victory filled up
the little rented boat,
from the pool of bilge
where oil had spread a rainbow
around the rusted engine
to the bailer rusted orange,
the sun-cracked thwarts,
the oarlocks on their strings,
the gunnels- until everything
was rainbow, rainbow, rainbow!
And I let the fish go.


Elizabeth Bishop

[bob247]

"Why can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King

[MorpheusSandman]

Yikes! This thread turned into an epic inferno since I left it. I think I'll bow out myself, and only say in parting that (and in speaking of butts):
I still kick butt at reading poetry... Now apologize before you lose even more face with your silly definitions and mediocre quotations. I'm a seasoned reader, and don't need some doggerel writer to tell me about her weird dictionary definitions of poetry in order to properly interpret. Never contradict my opinion, or question my authority unless you plan on going all in. Like I said, I was responding by phone before, as I am currently in the Chinese countryside. I know what I am talking about, and unless you have something to refute me, then please do not directly attack my readings, or my interpretations with your nonsensical mediocre readings of poetry.I laughed mine off at this! I envisioned JBI stating this while wearing tights and a cape in the voice of Poetry Reader Man!

[miyako73]

This will blow your mind, JBI. I read Helen Vendler last night. I appreciate her now. Indeed, literature is a play of words and meanings. Let me do it in a formalist way. This is how professionals do it.


This is the author in a chair line fishing:

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s672/miyako1973/ea6b3dd5-ca07-4737-9985-bb346673a58f_zps8c31f2d7.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/miyako1973/media/ea6b3dd5-ca07-4737-9985-bb346673a58f_zps8c31f2d7.jpg.html)


This verse is the most important in the poem. It gives hints whether the author is the catch or the catcher. This verse is the most brilliant and playful in the poem, "The Catch".


"I, in my chair, make shift to say
Some bright, discerning thing, but fail,
Proving once more the blindness of the male.
Annoyed, she stalks away"


1) "I, in my chair, make shift to say"

The author is in his chair line fishing. He moves to change his position or he changes his course of action-- "make shift"

"Make shift" is very important. Now let's do the formalist reading. Why did Wilbur use the phrase "make shift"?

"make shift" is a verb phrase meaning change position, change action, or change place. In the poem, the author changes his position in the chair to make some action--to say something to the woman. In fishing, the fisherman moves to another place and change his act--maybe he continues fishing or he does not.

Now, let's consider "make shift" as one word--"makeshift", a noun and an adjective.

make·shift (mkshft)

n.
A temporary or expedient substitute for something else.

adj.
Suitable as a temporary or expedient substitute:

So, "I, in my chair, makeshift..." really means the author in the chair, line fishing temporarily while the real fisher, lurer, catcher--the woman--is not on the prowl yet.


2) "Some bright, discerning thing, but fail,"

I already said in my previous post that "some bright, discerning thing" is a pick up line for seducing the woman. In fishing, it is a baited fishing line that lures fish. "But fail" is important here. The pick up line and the baited fishing line fail to lure and catch.

3) "Proving once more the blindness of the male"

This line is playful too with words and meanings. The important phrase here is "of the male". It is both plural (adjective - of the male - of men) and singular (noun - of the male - of the man). The plural "male" is general. The singular "male" is particular--the author.

male (ml)
adj.
1.
a. Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.
b. Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex; masculine.
c. Consisting of members of this sex.

2. Virile; manly.

n.
1. A member of the sex that begets young by fertilizing ova.
2. A man or boy.

Plural adjective "male"

"Proving once more the blindness of the male" is the author's self acceptance and mockery of men's macho self-confidence and underestimation of women. The author thinks the woman is easy to lure and tame. Remember his pick up line fails. "Blindness" here means men's inability to really know women.

Singular noun "male"

"Proving once more the blindness of the male" is a little bit complicated but very revealing. It is a self-realization said in jest about the author's "blindness"--inability to know a woman. It is an acceptance that he is one of those assuming men above.

Now, let's use the line in fishing. "Proving once more the blindness of the male" is the realization of the fisherman that there is no fish he can catch in the water or that he cannot find or see any--"blindness". "Once again" means this happened to him before. If there's no fish to catch, fishermen give up fishing. This line is a hint that the man gives up line fishing--luring the woman.

4) "Annoyed, she stalks away"

This is a complicated play of meanings and words too. Let's define the verb "stalk(s)" first.

stalk (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks

v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.

v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

"Stalk(s) as "To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait"

"Annoyed, she stalks away" sounds redundant. "Annoyed" compounds "stiff, haughty, or angry" already embedded in the single word "stalk". This is not a blunder neither in grammar nor in style. This is intentional so the author can play with words and meanings. In this line, the annoyed woman walks away. This supports the previous line that there is no easy fish the fisherman can catch. That's why he gives up. Now let's go to the other "stalk(s)".

"stalk(s) as "To track prey or quarry" or "To pursue by tracking stealthily"

"Stalks away", whose verb is intransitive (does not require a direct object) is not about stalking. Wilbur uses the phrase because it can be played around. This is a play of sound and sense. In Wilbur's playful mind "Stalks away" is also "stalks a way", whose verb is transitive (requiring a direct object). "Stalks a way" is now about tracking or pursuing a way, which means process, method, or action.

"Annoyed, she stalks a way" can now be related to stalking a prey. It is a sentence but short. If extended, "Annoyed, she stalks a way (to track or pursue a prey) is clearer.


This again proves--using formalist methods in language and literature--that the predator and catcher in the poem "The Catch" is the woman.

You will ask then if Wilbur really does all these. Isn't he a formalist? Of course, he knows all these things. He plays anagrams a lot. Anagrams is a word play board game that involves rearranging letter tiles to form words.


The World is Fundamentally a Great Wonder
a conversation with Richard Wilbur
10/21/2009 by Arlo Haskell


"L: Were you among the Anagrams players in Key West?

RW: Yes, I’ve played a lot of Anagrams. I was introduced to it as a child, but I wasn’t an incessant player until I began playing in Key West with people like John Malcolm Brinnin and John Ciardi– a devoted and violent Anagrams player. There’s a long list of people who became devoted to the game: Jimmy Merrill played a little with us, Harry Mathews, Rust Hills, Irving Weinman, and each of the players took turns hosting the weekly game. John Hersey played– he knew all the names of all the fish in the sea, and he was very good at any word connected with boats and fishing– and after a certain amount of exposure to the game John wrote a story about it, published in Key West Tales. We tried to keep it a high-minded, good-tempered game. There were no wagers, but we did begin to have certain rules that were above and beyond the rules of the game itself. It was understood, for instance, that you would not have any Bass Ale, which came to be the official ale of these games, until the first of two rounds was over."


I'm done with this thread, JBI. It's all yours. Now let me put my thesis back on the shelf. By the way, thank you, formalist gods.

[Scheherazade]

I grew up in a fishing village and spent many days and nights on fishing trips :)

If I can offer my absolutely not-published-never-will-be-published-and-I-don't-even-have-an-MA-in-Literature interpretation (which will probably be ignored by my betters, no doubt):

From the dress-box's plashing tis-
Sue paper she pulls out her prize,
Dangling it to one side before my eyes
Like a weird sort of fish
I think here the box is more like a pond (splashing sounds) from which she catches a prize: a dress, which is like a fish dangling from a fishing line. And if it is on a hanger, its shape is not all that different from a fishing hook either.

That she has somehow hooked and gaffed
And on the dock-end holds in air---
Limp, corrugated, lank, a catch too rare
Not to be photographed.
Her expression or triumph reminds the persona the pride of a fisherman catching a rare fish but it will not be photographed (as many fishermen do take their photos with their rare catches). She is displaying her catch proudly, lifting the way a fish might be held up (near the hook, which goes with the hanger imagery again here)

I, in my chair, make shift to say
Some bright, discerning thing, and fail,
Proving once more the blindness of the male.
Annoyed, she stalks away
He wants to say something intelligent and impressive to compliment (because he feels it is called for in the face of her excitement and pride over the catch?); however, he fails to see why it is such an important catch (remember to him it only looks "limp, corrugated, lank, weird") and cannot deliver what he believes is expected of him, which he considers to be a male weakness (failure) in general.

And then is back in half a minute,
Consulting now, not me at all
But the long mirror, mirror on the wall.
The dress, now that she's in it,
When she returns wearing the dress, she does not seek for his opinion at all but the mirror. "mirror, mirror on the wall" is, of course, a reference to the tale and to be followed by "who is the most beautiful of them all". Is she also asking this question, seeking a confirmation that she is the most beautiful one especially now that she has got this dress?

Has changed appreciably, and gains
By lacy shoes, a light perfume
Whose subtle field electrifies the room,
And two slim golden chains.
By having her inside, the dress has changed in the eyes of the persona as well. No longer a "weird, lank" form but this perception is also aided by the shoes, perfume and chains she is wearing

With a fierce frown and hard-pursed lips
She twists a little on her stem
To test the even swirling of the hem,
Smooths down the waist and hips,

Plucks at the shoulder-straps a bit,
Then turns around and looks behind,
Her face transfigured now by peace of mind.
There is no question---it
Initially, she examines and adjusts the dress carefully, studiously, frowning and making the necessary adjustments. She then turns around to check the back of the dress as well and her expression becomes a peaceful one because the decision is now made.

Is wholly charming, it is she,
As I belatedly remark
And may be hung now in the fragrant dark
Of her soft armory.
The persona also agrees (after witnessing the transformation of the lank, weird form with her in it) that the dress is charming and it becomes her, suits her wonderfully. The male eye, maybe, is unable to appreciate the potential of the dress until he sees it worn by the female, waist and hips filled, emphasised (which is why his comments come a little late, not as soon as she takes the dress out of the box).
The dress will now be hung in the darkness of her scented (fragrant) wardrobe now (the soft armory) along with her other armours (dresses).

I find this final switch very interesting. The dress that has been presented as a fish, catch till then is suddenly turned into an armour or another kind of arm; a weapon maybe that she will use to defeat him because he knows he won't have a chance to resist (thus her as well while she wears them)?

[JBI]

Miyako73, I decided to take your advice. This is the last post I will address, as my reading, to my extent, has already been displayed. if you wish to carry on and not walk away as you said, so be it, it will be without me. This applies to all other subsequent threads - if you quote me, I will not respond, if you engage, with my discussion topics, I will also not respond. In fact, the very notion of entertaining your existence on these boards will henceforth not occupy the content of my posts. I wish you the best in your endeavor. Such conversation as the one you relish does not make for good discussion.

Sincerely,

JBI.

[miyako73]

Should I say bon voyage? I think you are a brilliant man, but you only hear the lions not the loons. They may tell you how to roar and chew, but do they know about the gentleness of the ripples and the depth of the sea? Wherever you are, JBI, please inspire the children to find solace in the power of words when existing in this unforgiving world seems meaningless.

[mona amon]

Scher, I like your analysis best, and my reading was almost like yours. Muses and phalluses just don't work for me. An initial reading suggests a skillfully rendered domestic scene, almost certainly autobiographical because of the intimacy and accuracy with which it is portrayed, and subsequent readings only reinforce this for me. So in a way Wilbur's wife is the Muse since she inspired the poem, but the poem itself is not about the Muse.


When she returns wearing the dress, she does not seek for his opinion at all but the mirror. "mirror, mirror on the wall" is, of course, a reference to the tale and to be followed by "who is the most beautiful of them all". Is she also asking this question, seeking a confirmation that she is the most beautiful one especially now that she has got this dress?

I like the way the woman comes back to consult the mirror, instead of her husband. This is not the magic "mirror on the wall" of the fairytale which will give her an objective opinion, but only her own opinion, reflected back to her. I like her self confidence, and I think it is also the important factor that makes her husband find her so charming.


I find this final switch very interesting. The dress that has been presented as a fish, catch till then is suddenly turned into an armour or another kind of arm; a weapon maybe that she will use to defeat him because he knows he won't have a chance to resist (thus her as well while she wears them)?

Nice interpretation. I feel the fishing imagery ends with the first two stanzas, and never occurs again in the rest of the poem. This poem is not about 'the catch' anymore than the painting The Potato Eaters is about eating potatoes. The dress is the only catch, not the man or the woman, who are obviously in a relationship and have been 'caught' by each other long before the time frame of the poem.

[MorpheusSandman]

This will blow your mind, JBI. I read Helen Vendler last night. I appreciate her now. Indeed, literature is a play of words and meanings. Can't tell if you're joking: were you really reading Vendler? Which book? Anyway, the only book of hers I read where she talks a lot about wordplay is her book on Shakespeare's sonnets. She seems to tailor her formalist approach to whatever poet she's writing about. She's certainly not a one-note formalist who sees wordplay everywhere.

[miyako73]

Morpheus, you just want to make an enemy out of me. Let's grow up. You treat me like I'm really dumb and making up stuff. I talked about Latour, Lyotard, Boudrillard, Guattari, Deleuze (those are difficult readings) and you still think of me as shallow and hollow?

I'm currently reading the same book: The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets. I'm almost half-way. I'm already understanding her "verbal contraption", keyword method, word combination. Quick reading and scanning forward, I can see interesting stuff related to anagram such as combining words and changing their placement as in "one and three" into three-in-one, anagramatic reading such as evil-vile, phonetic anagram like time-might, end-word anagram, graphic anagram, and many more.

Read your book again. Maybe you can explain many stuff to me that make me scratch my head sometimes.

[MorpheusSandman]

How in the world did you get out of what I wrote that I'm "trying to make an enemy out of you?" Your comment to JBI did have a potentially flippant tone, starting with "this will blow your mind" and ending with "literature is a play of words" followed by a lengthy post where you employ this thought in great (perhaps mocking) detail; so I couldn't tell if your if you were serious about reading Vendler, so I asked. I also don't know how I've treated you as if you are dumb and/or "making stuff up," as I certainly didn't think you weren't capable of reading and/or comprehending Vendler. As for last bit: what's causing you to scratch your head?

[miyako73]

"Can't tell if you're joking: were you really reading Vendler? Which book?"

Didn't you write that? You should feel elated that you're old stuff here have been vindicated, and that you have a new convert in me. Someone asked you before what you had been smoking because of the new things you introduced here. If asked with the same question now, I'll say, "Good stuff."


Never mind my head-scratching. I can deal with it. Just be nice to me. I'm not the old Miyako you despised. Been to the rehab twice already. I'm done hating the world and making even my shadow my enemy.


Take care.

[MorpheusSandman]

Miyako, I never despised you. We had some disagreements that perhaps got out of hand. Tone doesn't always come across on the internet. I just wasn't sure if you were serious or not given your previous aversion to Vendler and that kind of criticism. It's nice to know that you're serious. No hard feelings. :)

[virtuoso]

Also, I think that Wilbur is distinguishing the feminine, materialistic mindset, and the male utilitarian mindset. The dress is alluring to the woman, because it represents material gain. The box has intrinsic value, because it represents material gain. To the male, the box is a bland receptacle. Also, the dress has no utility, until its value is displayed in a concrete manner. When she puts on the dress, the piece of fabric is no longer a vapid piece of apparel. The transparent beauty of the fabric is transformed into an alluring object by the sensory accoutrements. The gold chains and fragrant perfume show the male that the piece of cloth has extrinsic value. Only after she flanks the dress with alluring objects that a man would find titillating (gold/sensuous perfume), does the male appreciate her intrinsic beauty. In the last, few lines, he further distinguishes the male and female materialistic mindsets. He would not see the utility in placing a piece of cloth in a dark closet to languish, canker. To him a trophy or prize has utility when it represents a lingering, active, and evident utility. So, he has her placing the dress in a fragrant closet. The fragrance gives a feminine quality to beauty that the male can appreciate. He, also, compares the closet to an armory. An armory has utility, because it contains materials that represent the masculine attributes of power and rank. He combines the feminine and masculine attributes of material possession by calling it a "soft armory". The male and female aesthetic gauges on beauty are clearly revealed in this poem.