Guest post by Ruth Harlow
Many of the early lines appear to be rather straightforward in telling about the naval tragedy; however, the last lines have puzzled me and intrigued me, as I believe they are meant to tell us more. The punctuation is especially noteworthy.
Water
Silences all who would interfere;
Retains, still, what it might giveWhat are your thoughts?
As casually as it took away:
Creatures passed through the wet sieve
Without enrichment or decay.
* * *
Note from Dawn: I will be on the road this weekend, so you may or may not hear from me before Monday. In the meantime, Hill readers can focus on commenting on Ruth's post.
16 comments:
Ruth, I'm curious about the historical background you shared. I would not have necessarily have assumed that the poem had a historical antecedent. How did you make the connection?
I wondered about the name as I figured just white ship was perhaps an actual name. I did some research, found that Hill often used and was criticized for basing his poems on historical events. Then I did a little more digging for the story. There is even more if you look.
The story of the White Ship and how it affected succession is pretty prevalent in British history/lit studies, and I automatically connected those events with the poem. That said, I wonder if, when an author comes from a particular tradition and uses those resonances/events/allusions, what the possible disconnect might be for those who don't come from the same tradition. I got the reference right away, but someone else (my students, for example) would likely not. What is gained vs. what is lost when we use those allusive elements is something to consider, I suspect.
Also, my copy has another comma after "still" which makes a difference, I think. Is it missing in Ruth's post? Or are there more than one version?
More about punctuation, etc. later...Thanks for choosing this poem, Ruth. It was on my short list to offer when my turn came!
Yes to anotherr comma after still
I would love to hear some thoughts about punctuation.
Retains, still, what it might give Is this remains what might have been or retains and everything is still??
Yes, Ruth, I love that ambiguity of the word "still"-- I think it contains both meanings that you suggest to suggest that timeless, static quality of the water, indifferent to human tragedy. And the punctuation helps to set off that word, too, to reinforce that serene stasis. Given the historical background of the incident that you shared, too, it seems fittingly ironic that this incident that gives rise to the Anarchy, that human contest over royal succession, should be swallowed up by the stillness of this poem.
I'm wondering what people think of the "wet sieve" in the second to last line. I confess to being baffled. Your thoughts?
The wet sieve is one of the things that intrigued me from the beginning. Perhaps we shall all die no matter our importance or destiny or position. I had wondered if it might mean that in the end or overall we don't don't matter; hence the anarchy.
Still is also quiet, not moving so perhaps this refers to not giving up any secrets and there were many speculations and theories about this sinking
I am becoming more comfortable with this poem. The punctuation functions, I like to think, as an orchestra conductor: the semicolon, the commas, the colon all do their job in a precise, controlled way. The usage seems both conventional and intentional. That is, the way the sentence's turns work are all so seamlessly crafted, and the punctuation makes it a lot easier to ponder the more philosophical points.
Speaking of which--this "wet sieve" image. Is life the sieve? I am particularly in love with the lines "water/ silences all who would interfere." We are, ultimately, not in control. Sobering thought, for sure, yet not unsettling.
Re "sieve": I am intrigued, as much as anything, by Hill's choice of modifier. Is "wet" necessary or extraneous? Did Hill choose it for reasons of cadence? I've been wrestling with adjective questions lately in my own work, so I'm sure that why I'm drawn this question now.
Perhaps the wet sieve is birth and the watery death...we pass through both without comment or judgement.
Sorry I was unclear: I wasn't thinking about meaning. I was thinking about sound.
I think that on the level of both meaning AND sound that "wet" is necessary: on the level of sense, it seems necessary to clarify the image of the waves/sea as the sieve which these lost people have passed through (since sieves typically are used for water to pass through, to make the water itself a sieve seems to need some specification); on the level of sound I think the line works best with those two stressed syllables at the end to weigh down the line. Simply to end with a single stressed syllable would not place as much watery weight (ooo, this metaphor works on both levels!) on the end of the line, on that finality that the creatures have passed through.
Yes, I agree Tom. I like the "watery" metaphor too--how it works simultaneously on those two planes.
I did understand what you meant Dawn; however, as tom wrote sound and meaning are hard to separate in this poem.
Post a Comment