Wednesday, March 11, 2009

"Fish" by Elizabeth Bishop

When we think of this poem. we should look at the connection between nature and humankind.We can look at it even in nature's perspective. The initial feelings that arose was a sort of jealously for nature for its beauty is not realized but only through the readers mind. The writer is trying to connect with nature. She uses analogies that discuss familiar and homely objects. For me, this poem makes me think about the ignorance of nature.If it was not for the writer, the fish would receive no praise nor would it need it. This was something Bishop tried to connect with and understand. I think the poem revealed a new found understanding. The poet found beauty in something seemingly horrific. eww! A fish with scales and seaweed? seems disgusting but it possess a beauty of nature that was well deserved for admiration.
Posted by at
Labels:

7 comments:

  1. melaphorMarch 13, 2009 at 3:05 PM

    I agree with you about Bishop beautifying the fish.

    But, don't you think that she's also a bit destructive while she's trying to connect with nature? While she's admiring the fish, it's dying. In essence, she's suffocating 'him.' We (humans) often have to destroy things to learn about them, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  2. tlMarch 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM

    "If it were not for the writer..." Yes, and says something about the responsibility of the poet/artist vis a vis the "other"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. tlMarch 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM

    and, yes, Amara points to a conflict in the poem...no easy answer to this...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tanya Saint JeanMarch 15, 2009 at 4:38 PM

    I do agree with William. But to sort of answer or add my insight to Amara's question. I do think that humans do have a tendecy to kill in order to learn, but its not in all cases. The poet is decribing and learning about the fish and it is still alive. Yes it is suffocating but she learned more about it being alive than dead. Being able to abserve the fish gills still moving do show how strong the fish still is in a sense, for her reason to give him more honor. She is being a bit destructive but it is in her, human, nature to do so. But the fish survives in the end to lets all be happy for him :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ms. Shanell to you....March 15, 2009 at 6:19 PM

    I think this is true but i also felt that the poet was trying to connect the fish to the human. Not only was this poem looked at from a natures point of view i also felt that the poet felt as if we as humans dont respect nature and has done and still is doing for us. But i just dont see how the poet see's a fish as beauty of nature .... Smh... That's something new.. Eww..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shay22March 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM

    I agree with Ms. Shanell about finding a fish as beauty, that is something new. But thats what i liked about the poem. The fact that she took something that we bypass everyday and seen its inner beauty. Although the fish was horrific or ugly or whatever you would like to describe it as, thats the reason why it was beautiful. the scales and how the fish looked to the poet shows that the fish was strong because it was evident that it went through a lot but yet in still the fish was still here, apart of nature and apart of our world in some way as well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. aaronMarch 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM

    indeed it is seen alot in poems, a poet will see beauty in something thats is not necessarily beautiful , i think that all things have a significance and play a role like mentioned in the wheel barrow bycarlos williams.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)