Interpretation of Grace Chua's (a love song, with two goldfish)

(love song, with two goldfish)


(He's a drifter, always
floating around her, has
nowhere else to go. He wishes
she would sing, not much, just the scales;
or take some notice,
give him the fish eye.)

(Bounded by round walls
she makes fish eyes
and kissy lips at him, darts
behind pebbles, swallows
his charms hook, line and sinker)

(He's bowled over. He would
take her to the ocean, they could
count the waves. There,
in the submarine silence, they would share
their deepest secrets. Dive for pearls
like stars.)

(But her love's since
gone belly-up. His heart sinks
like a fish. He drinks
like a stone. Drowns those sorrows,
stares emptily through glass.)

(the reason, she said
she wanted)
(and he could not give)
a life
beyond the
(bowl)


By Grace Chua



It seems that it is just me, but I feel as if the goldfish within the poem are PHYSICALLY separated and in different bowls.... Does this seem to be too far of a stretch? He is described to "stares emptily through glass". But, many others felt thet were within the same bowl... Is there room for interpretation of both sides or am I just wrong?

Oh my gosh... Are you in IB!! That was the same thing I was thinking... maybe i should have mentioned the ambiguity of that...

I realised, at the end of the exam, that many had thought the fish were in the same bowl... However, the feelings of isolation (with contrasting tones) were so prevalent that it was as if the fish were in separate bowls... Also, the parenthetical statements isolated the male and female fishes' thoughts to the point that it was as if they were PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY separated... It created a feeling that there was a romance that could never be, creating the overall tragic feel. What were you're interpretations? Does mine sound supportable? Plus, good luck on all of your exams!

hhhhhh

When I was taking the test, I didn't even realize that the parenthesis were the fishbowl. Now that I hear that interpretation, it makes so much sense. But I felt that the fish were an analogy to the life elderly people live in a nursing or assisted living home. They are unable to escape and can't have life on the outside, they can be on the outside of the facility when they die, but they wouldn't be alive.

A boy in my class had the same idea for that analogy... It seems like a stretch, but mine is too! I am just worried that the examiner will grade me down for having a "wrong" interpretation... Was I just flat out wrong?

hi i am also part of the IB and took the same exam yesterday.
i interpreted the poem very differently. i did discuss the purpose of the parentheses but i thought that the poet was trying to convey that we cannot always attain what we want. i thought that the female was constantly trying to strive for more and in the end because of her greediness, she was left empty...
she wanted independence so badly that she got it, but in a negative way.
is this a completely wrong interpretation? the examiners won't mark down for having a different interpretation, will they?

I'm not sure you'll be marked down for a wrong interpretation even if it's not what the grader had in mind since you do have a legitimate justification for what you said. Typically, a grader who reads and scores a TON of papers will not be impressed by the same response over and over. It seems that the vast majority of testers commented on the parentheses symbolizing the bowl, but I haven't heard of many other people suggesting that they're in separate bowls. Your response is more unique in that sense, and that could work to your advantage.

However, I don't agree with you. In the first stanza, the image of him floating "around" her leads me to believe that they're in the same bowl. Also, I'm not sure I see how him staring emptily through glass suggests that they're in two separate bowls. I didn't think there was enough evidence to support the idea that they're in two bowls.

Did you comment on the seemingly musical structure of repeating sestets and quintains like verses and choruses in a song? If you did, do you think that it's legitimate to argue that the last stanza still follows the pattern, but has an aspect of emptiness (just talking about the appearance on the page...due to the shorter lines) like we see the male fish does on the preceding line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellomoto78

i did discuss the purpose of the parentheses but i thought that the poet was trying to convey that we cannot always attain what we want.

---

That's similar to what I think we were all getting at. I'd say that parentheses symbolize the bowl which symbolizes a type of confinement. Ultimately, since what she wanted was a life beyond the bowl, the bowl was an instrument in keeping her from what she wanted.

What worries me about what you said is that she wanted independence. I think a life beyond the bowl would be something more like freedom than independence. Also, whatever it was that she was looking for, could you say that she got it? She ends in the same place she started, but the relationship is over. She's still confined in the bowl. I'd be more careful with wording too. I think "greediness" might have too harsh a connotation for the situation. She had an impossible desire, but I'm not sure you could classify it as greed. One more thing is that, based solely on your post here, you seemed to focus more on her aftermath than his whereas the poem seemed to have more of a focus on his (drinking like a stone, sinking like a fish, staring emptily through glass).

The most important thing is that you justify what you said and support any assertions you made (especially if they are bold). How long was your paper?

What were your favorite parts of the poem? I'm torn between the fishing metaphor, the "scales", and the back to back similes in the fourth stanza.

thanks, garrett.
i also discussed the use of fishing metaphors, but i enjoyed the poem in its entirety. i thought it was simple but very thought-provoking. kudos to ib for that..
but mainly, kudos to grace chua. the poem was very beautifully written and i know that most of the students in my school felt the same way.
garrett, i think what you said is correct. i think some of my points may have been a little over the top, but hopefully my other insights will prevent me from getting too low a score. either way, i'm just going to have to rock out my paper 2!
thanks again

I'm in Grade 11 IB this year... I became a member on this forum to say that this is one of the worst poems I've ever read. All the fish references are embarrassingly amateurish... "swallows his charms hook, line and sinker..." or "...just the scales..." Don't these just make you gag? I think the imagery and metaphor are so ridiculously blunt that the poem has no place in an IB exam... maybe I'm alone here, I don't know...

It's not actually that hard when you start to decompose it; just first outline the development, then decompose the irony. Sorry, I won't say more now, as I am not in IB, and therefore don't need my answers on your tests. But in all honesty, not the hardest poem.

I tend to think they are in one bowl, even though that's not enough for them to maintain their connection. They are in one bowl, but still separate. It does refer to "life beyond the (bowl)" at the end, not "life beyond her (bowl)," or "their (bowl).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

I tend to think they are in one bowl, even though that's not enough for them to maintain their connection. They are in one bowl, but still separate. It does refer to "life beyond the (bowl)" at the end, not "life beyond her (bowl)," or "their (bowl).

---

The bowl implies the confines of their space - the fish's desire to explore hints at the desire to be beyond the confines of the limited existence.

I don't really think there is enough supporting evidence to say the fish were in separate bowls. Did anyone else consider that maybe the "life beyond the bowl" had to do with escaping small town life? Maybe I'm too American, but that was a thought. I gave more interpretations, but that struck me as possible. Rutherford, I disagree with you. I loved this poem, enough to print a copy once I got home. Simple is not always bad. At least IB provides interesting works (the prose this year was good too). Take an AP Lit or Lang exam, and you'll regret your statement. Oh, and JBI, if you didn't know, all IB students take their examines at more or less the same day and time. So no one would have been able to copy your answer. Not that I would have anyway. I mean, it takes a certain amount of hubris to think someone will just take one random poster's interpretation just because.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gray1992

I don't really think there is enough supporting evidence to say the fish were in separate bowls. Did anyone else consider that maybe the "life beyond the bowl" had to do with escaping small town life? Maybe I'm too American, but that was a thought. I gave more interpretations, but that struck me as possible. Rutherford, I disagree with you. I loved this poem, enough to print a copy once I got home. Simple is not always bad. At least IB provides interesting works (the prose this year was good too). Take an AP Lit or Lang exam, and you'll regret your statement. Oh, and JBI, if you didn't know, all IB students take their examines at more or less the same day and time. So no one would have been able to copy your answer. Not that I would have anyway. I mean, it takes a certain amount of hubris to think someone will just take one random poster's interpretation just because.

---

I don't know - I am in Canada and not in IB - but I have had my posts unfootnoted in a presentation in front of my class the next day, to which I responded by asking a question that obviously would make them look awful.

My initial reaction to the poem is that it's really similar to a young love story. Teens or even pre-teens. The feelings of isolation are something everybody goes through at that age and the desire to explore the world, as well as interest in each other which I interpreted as innocent in nature, are also attributes of young teens. Them both being in a fishbowl could be that they're self-absorbed and the centres of their own world, also something teenagers tend to be. Finally the boy and girls' means of interacting with each other seems tentative and the love collapses in the end, which is also typical of that age. Make sense?

Also I think the poem was selected because it's pretty simple and takes little abstract connections; it only uses a few literary devices common to poetry and repeats those a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AJohnson 91se

(love song, with two goldfish)


(He's a drifter, always
floating around her, has
nowhere else to go. He wishes
she would sing, not much, just the scales;
or take some notice,
give him the fish eye.)

(Bounded by round walls
she makes fish eyes
and kissy lips at him, darts
behind pebbles, swallows
his charms hook, line and sinker)

(He's bowled over. He would
take her to the ocean, they could
count the waves. There,
in the submarine silence, they would share
their deepest secrets. Dive for pearls
like stars.)

(But her love's since
gone belly-up. His heart sinks
like a fish. He drinks
like a stone. Drowns those sorrows,
stares emptily through glass.)

(the reason, she said
she wanted)
(and he could not give)
a life
beyond the
(bowl)


By Grace Chua



It seems that it is just me, but I feel as if the goldfish within the poem are PHYSICALLY separated and in different bowls.... Does this seem to be too far of a stretch? He is described to "stares emptily through glass". But, many others felt thet were within the same bowl... Is there room for interpretation of both sides or am I just wrong?

---

Although it is not far fetched, the second line of the first stanza states that the male is always "floating around her" which would indicate that they are in the same bowl.