The Misunderstanding

The Misunderstanding

I did not say: You are nothing to me;

I said the hummingbird, the anglerfish

are not amazed at themselves.

I did not say: I have forgotten you;

but that every day a man

finds more things that trouble him.

Not You are not beautiful,

but that, often, when I lie in the grass,

a lute sings in the earth beneath me.

Not: I regret—

but that I stare at these keys

I carry in my pocket

and think of the narrow bones

I once turned over in the garden.

Not I never loved you,

but You are all you have.

as for the rest, yes,

it is as you say, the words

are mine, but all the rooms of the world

we have lived in close now

over the words of others.

Earth, keys, man—

when will you seek out

that lamp, that light,

under which they were written?


by Ralph Culver
from: Albatross; Anabiosis Press, Spring 2009

 

(via Jim Culleny at 3 Quarks Daily)

Comments

[Sujatha]

And I feel like a schoolkid again, poring over the phrases and trying to divine what the poet means. Who are You and I?

(more for the fans of nature poetry at this link.)

[Ruchira]

Hi Sujatha,

I asked Jim Culleny the poetry editor at 3 QD to explain the poem to you. Instead of posting a comment here he sent me an email with his own poetic interpretation.

Someone replies:

You place yourself above the angel fish and hummingbird
You presume to be at the center of another's concerns
You strive to compete with God
And I simply remember what my early life was
And you will exist without me
And still our world will thrive
When will you drop words
and look to from where
they derive?

For me too that's it in a nutshell. More than that, I am also getting that one person in this conversation has gone beyond the common ground that used to matter to both participants in the past. The other interlocutor is trying to re-kindle a candle that has gone off or is at the very least, sputtering. This is a conversation between two people who were perhaps once very close and have now drifted away from each other, not because of malice but for the divergence of their views.

Does that work for you?

[Sujatha]

That does make sense. My interpretation was confused as to whether the You and I in the poem referred to Man (You) and Nature/God(I) or Man(I) and Once-loved(You). But it works at both levels, I think, now that I see the 'translation'. The ambiguity in the poem permits the reader to interpret it whichever way it suits him.
Thanks for checking with Jim Culleny, Ruchira. Jim, thank you for your interpretation.