The last two lines are obviously the money shot. It's a neat hat trick, referring to the breaks within and to the previous line. I would add the implication that it can't be of such consequence to want love--everyone wants love, if they want at all. But it's twisty because wanting what he wants is twisty and dangerous (as the dreams explain). I don't feel him stepping out of the poem, but more trying to explain his confusion and fear. Also, the dreams *tried* to teach him. Not that it did.
I also had some thoughts about the horrific man-baby holding the disembodied hand. The pure phallic symbol explanation doesn't work for me (although I admit that's probably something you're supposed to think about). Hands do so many things--they comfort and guide and soothe. But not when all you get is the hand, removed from all its will and context.
It is such a delight for me to read your poetry analysis. It takes me to a part of my brain I don’t visit often enough, and I always learn new things. I love how poetry has so many layers, and that understanding the context of the writer opens up new worlds in the poem. In this particular poem, I thought I knew where the poem was going until those last two lines, and it all unraveled. I don’t read poetry to analyze them for the most part, I just sit with my thoughts and feelings. Your writing makes me realize how much I’m missing out on.
For had not each
In its own way tried to teach
My will to love you that it cannot be,
As I think, of such consequence to want
What anyone is given, if they want?
The last two lines are obviously the money shot. It's a neat hat trick, referring to the breaks within and to the previous line. I would add the implication that it can't be of such consequence to want love--everyone wants love, if they want at all. But it's twisty because wanting what he wants is twisty and dangerous (as the dreams explain). I don't feel him stepping out of the poem, but more trying to explain his confusion and fear. Also, the dreams *tried* to teach him. Not that it did.
I also had some thoughts about the horrific man-baby holding the disembodied hand. The pure phallic symbol explanation doesn't work for me (although I admit that's probably something you're supposed to think about). Hands do so many things--they comfort and guide and soothe. But not when all you get is the hand, removed from all its will and context.
Hi Noah,
It is such a delight for me to read your poetry analysis. It takes me to a part of my brain I don’t visit often enough, and I always learn new things. I love how poetry has so many layers, and that understanding the context of the writer opens up new worlds in the poem. In this particular poem, I thought I knew where the poem was going until those last two lines, and it all unraveled. I don’t read poetry to analyze them for the most part, I just sit with my thoughts and feelings. Your writing makes me realize how much I’m missing out on.
Really enjoyed this Noah please continue these kind of writings.