I can find clear evidence in the poem that the writer is trying to reconcile conflicting personal feelings: "She had horses who lied./ She had horses who told the truth, who were stripped bare of their tongues" (25-6), "She had horses who waited for destruction. /She had horses who waited for resurrection" (36-7) and "She had horses who had no names./ She had horses who had books of names" (31-2). However, at the end of the poem, the writer states that all the horses "were the same horse" (45) and this only intensifies the conflict between them. The speaker's obviously female by the feminine possessive pronoun at the beginning of every line. Usually, looking at these verses, these lines deal with broad, intimate, human feelings like love/hate, truth/deceit, creation/destruction, and how one can be both named and nameless.
I agree with Field that the horses are spirits, neither male nor female because typically, aspects of one's personality are not sexualized. I can see, as a writer myself, that I would probably not make a male/female distinction between my conflicting views of the world when writing a poem such as this.
I see many "clear truths" here being articulated. These "clear truths" are ones about life, about how one feels about oneself, about how being a human means you will forever be inherently conflicted with yourself. The last lines of the poem, for me, at least, help to provide a resolution. I feel this is so because the reader gets a sense of closure, that all of her "horses" are really just parts of herself that need expressing, the inherently conflicted, very human part of her soul. In the end, the reader feels the conjoined-ness of the horses and the poet. This helps to provide closure and resolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very good analysis with evidence to support your arguments. I like how you related your own opinion as a writer into your analysis. I agree with the argument about the inherently conflicted nature of the soul, but I think some explanation as to how this provides resolution would have made the argument more clear.
ReplyDeleteI agree that their are many clear truths in this poem, especially dealing with your own personal feelings, and the conflict each individual has to face. The ending was conjoined, liked you had mentioned, and I believe that it did provide closer.
ReplyDeleteYou brought up some good points about "clear truths." I agree that most of the poem included life experiences. Great job!
ReplyDeleteI like your ideas about the last few lines; human nature is indeed inherently conflicted and I agree that the ending helps unite the speaker and her "horses."
ReplyDeleteI like how you claim the spirits to be a part of herself. That is very different from how I perceived this poem, but it is always refreshing to see from another person's point of view.
ReplyDeleteI like your insight about how the author puts a closure to the poem. I actually had a few different ideas of why she would end her poem that way, and I like your thoughts about why and how she did it.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your point about the horses being spirits rather than genders. Aspects of personality can belong to anybody regardless of what gender they may be.
I'm liking your take on the "clear truths," especially how you mention humans' constant struggle with conflicting emotions. I also agree with your stance on the gendered horses; you propose a good point when you say that the parts of a personality don't necessarily have a sex attached to them.
ReplyDeleteputting in your view as a writer really made your response more interesting. I liked your first paragraph where you pointed out the contrasting elements in the poem such as creation/destruction etc. Very Good!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your interpretation that the horses were more symbolic of feelings and aspects of personality rather than something spiritual. Your interpretation was both thoughtful and personal which can be, I think, the most persuasive way to argue something. Good job!
ReplyDelete