Wars and Oceans

“The Eye”

The Atlantic is a stormy moat; and the Mediterranean,

The blue pool in the old garden,

More than five thousand years has drunk sacrifice

Of ships and blood, and shines in the sun; but here the Pacific--

Our ships, planes, wars are perfectly irrelevant.

Neither our present blood-feud with the brave dwarfs

Nor any future world-quarrel of westering

And eastering man, the bloody migrations, greed of power, clash of

faiths--

Is a speck of dust on the great scale-pan.

Here from this mountain shore, headland beyond stormy headland

plunging like dolphins through the blue sea-smoke

Into pale sea--look west at the hill of water: it is half the

planet:

this dome, this half-globe, this bulging

Eyeball of water, arched over to Asia,

Australia and white Antartica: those are the eyelids that never

close;

this is the staring unsleeping

Eye of the earth; and what it watches is not our wars.

Published in 1948, this poem and others in its volume became highly disliked by the public for its blatant anti-WWII messages and its seeming unpatriotism. Robinson Jeffers was well known for his “inhumanism” or idea that mankind plays little role in the continuing beauty of nature. This, and his belief in isolationism is displayed in “The Eye” where he considers the power war has in changing things, and its little impact on the non-human world.

Jeffers begins the poem by reminding the reader of the ancient power of the oceans. The Atlantic is related in metaphor to a “stormy moat” giving it a feeling of protecting, but also as if it is being churned by the action of the war. He then describes the Mediterranean as a “blue pool” that makes it feel peaceful and polite, but it has been drowning and capturing ships for centuries. This also reminds the audience of the immortality of the oceans against the constant death of the people upon them. As Jeffers lived on the Californian coast, he then focuses on his view onto the Pacific ocean, and the war being fought over it. He talks about how the Pacific is massive and great, relating it to a large eye. Because the eye (ocean) is so large, and the war so small in both a time and size comparison, he points out nature's prevailing over human flaws.

In building up the strength of the oceans, Jeffers also belittles the actions of people. He mentions “the bloody migrations” possibly in reference to the immigration into America or the Oregon trail and the deadly journey West. He also discusses greed of power in accusation at Germany for their causing war for more power, and possibly America for its colonization occurring at the same time.  “Clash of faiths” is also pointing to Germany and its persecution of Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Gypsies. He does not see any of these actions as reasonable or validated. Compared to the power of the oceans, how can a war between humans have meaning besides bringing destruction to themselves?

Jeffers’s poetry is not only full of rich content, but of strong writing and poetic elements that enhance it. He uses alliteration such as “sea-smoke” “shines in the sun” to continue the flow of the blank verse. In line 15 he repeats to “o” sound with “dome” and “half-globe” to reinforce the shape of the round earth. He also makes use of metaphor in comparing the oceans to smaller bodies of water to give each their own more distinct feeling.The Mediterranean is personified as having “drunk sacrifice” of many ships, starting Jeffers progress in making nature and Earth a being.

Jeffers often writes about nature and its long-lasting power beyond that of humans, but “The Eye” also begins to connect people together. He points out how things people have created such as wealth, faith, and regionality have begun to drive them apart, but in nature these things do not exist and it will continue on despite what people are doing to themselves. By 1948, the atomic bomb had already been used in warfare, and I don’t know if he chose to ignore its impact on nature, or if he thought that it was in small scale compared to the immensity of oceans. Jeffers also doesn’t approach this poem with a solution to war, he only wrote it to point out war’s uniqueness to humans and how that may be because of its insufficiency.

Graveyards and the Afterlife

Barren Woman - Sylvia Plath

Empty, I echo to the least footfall,

Museum without statues, grand with pillars, porticoes, rotundas.

In my courtyard a fountain leaps and sinks back into itself,

Nun-hearted and blind to the world. Marble lilies

Exhale their pallor like scent.

I imagine myself with a great public,

Mother of a white Nike and several bald-eyed Apollos.

Instead, the dead injure me with attentions, and nothing can happen.

The moon lays her hand on my forehead,

Blank-faced and mum as a nurse.

As the title suggests, Plath’s poem tells the story of a woman unable to bear children. The poem is not autobiographical--Plath had two children over the course of her life--but the story can easily be imagined and related to by any woman living in a society that puts so much importance on being able to have children. Plath criticizes this societal importance by comparing her own body to an ancient, abandoned empire, as well as comparing the dream of having children with holding court at Mount Olympus.

The poem’s first word is “empty”, which tells one everything one needs to know from the start. Besides that, the action of the “echo” also conveys a large, cavernous emptiness. “Grand with pillars, porticoes, rotundas” shows the complexity and beauty of the narrator’s body, but the fact that it comes after “museum without statues” shows that it does not matter when it cannot produce another body. “Nun-hearted and blind to the world” is another, very descriptive phrase: nuns, of course, cannot marry or bear children as a part of the vow they take, and are blind to the world as a result of the surroundings they live in, and to say this of her body shows a bitter, unwilling chastity. The most descriptive imagery in the first stanza, however, is the fountain that “leaps and sinks back into itself”. As a healthy woman, the narrator has all of the requirements needed to bear a child, but the requirements do not work in the way that they do most of the time. Thus, no water comes out of the fountain, and no child comes from the woman. Furthermore, the fountain exists only for aesthetic purposes, and some may think the same of the narrator.

Then, in the second stanza, the narrator imagines herself in the company of gods and goddesses. Nike is the Greek goddess of victory, and Apollo is the Greek god of (among other things) the sun. If able to bear children, a woman is victorious and basking in sunlight. Instead, she is alone, with the dead and the moon, things often associated with Hades and Artemis, respectively. It is worth noting that Artemis, the sister of Apollo, lives a life of chastity and loneliness in the woods, among deer and other animals. The narrator suggests that being unable to bear children resigns a woman to the same fate: alone, animalistic, and “blank-faced and mum as a nurse”.

By using a combination of strong imagery and mythological references, Plath has conveyed just how much women are shunned from society when they cannot bear children. Although she has not experienced this personally, she is likely somehow familiar with how it feels, and she is clearly angry that other women are treated so poorly just because they are unable to do something that she can and has done. By using metaphors involved with graveyards and the afterlife, she certainly makes a strong point and her stronger feelings known.

Masculization

The Replacement

From Tony Hoagland’s Donkey Gospel

And across the country I know

they are replacing my brother's brain

with the brain of a man;

one gesture, one word, one neuron at a time

with surgical precision

they are teaching him to hook his thumbs

into his belt, to iron his mouth as flat

as the horizon, and make his eyes

reflective as a piece of tin.

It is a kind of cooking

the male child undergoes:

to toughen him, he is dipped repeatedly

in insult--peckerwood, shitbag, faggot,

pussy, dicksucker--until spear points

will break against his epidermis,

until his is impossible to disappoint.

Then he walks out into the street

ready for a game of corporate poker

with a hard-on for the Dow-Jones

like this hormonal language I am

flexing like a bicep

to show who's boss.

But I'm not the boss.

And there is nothing I can do to stop it,

and would I if I could?

What else is there for him to be

except a man?

If they fail,

he stumbles through his life

like an untied shoe.

If they succeed, he may become

something even I can't love.

Already the photograph I have of him

is out of date

but in it he is standing by the pool

without a shirt: too young, too white, too weak,

with feelings he is too inept to hide

splashed over his face--

goofy, proud, shy,

he's smiling at the camera

as if he were under the illusion

that someone loved him so well

they would not ever ever ever

turn him over to the world.

   I chose this poem because of how well it encompasses the style as well as the greater themes of Tony Hoagalnd’s collection, Donkey Gospel. The poems focus largely on the subjectivity of masculinity, the discovery of one’s own, the enforcement of it, and the subsequent effects of that enforcement. Many of these subjects are explored in “The Replacement”.

   The poem begins in ambiguity, when Hoagland mentions his distant brother having his brain replaced. What makes this first stanza so striking, however, is that it’s being replaced “with the brain of a man.” Without knowing the context of the poem, this idea seems absurd. Later, he expands upon it and goes into the details of the operation. This replacement is not immediate, it’s a slow and painful process. With single gestures and remarks, his brain is being replaced “one neuron at a time” by that of a man. From Hoagland’s use of they, one can guess he’s talking about society in general. Society has this process fleshed out too: it’s “with surgical precision” that this takes place. Then Hoagland’s tone moves away from that of an operation and more towards the idea of conditioning. “They” are teaching him masculine composure and habits, one being a flat affect.

   “Cooking” is the next comparison he makes, but now he applies it to all male children and we also find out the goal of this process. It’s done to “toughen” them. In Hoagland’s poems, he often references the harsh phrases he both remembers and used in his childhood. In this poem it’s less personal, but still very important. These are the insults the children are “dipped in,” the insults that harden them until his skin is impossible to pierce. This image portrays the emotional hardening of male children, how it starts from a young age. Hoagland doesn’t dwell on this though, he moves on quickly: skipping adolescence and going straight to adulthood.

   Now the poster male child is on the streets pursuing a corporate life. He has a “hard-on” for the Dow-Jones. This sexual reference is very much intentional, as it seems like the societal conditioning has spilled into the biological, it has creeped into even the primitive parts of the brain that control sexual urges. Hoagland even acknowledges his own use of what he calls “hormonal language.” He does it, apparently, to show who’s boss. This is the last image of the stanza, and here begins Hoagland’s assessment of his own masculinity, as this must have happened to him too. He has an urge to assert dominance.

   This is the major shift in the poem, from societal description to society’s effects on Hoagland himself. The irony of his previous claim becomes apparent in the next stanza, when he quickly contradicts himself. He’s not the boss, and he’s obviously not in control if there’s nothing he can do to stop this process. He even questions his ability to come up with an alternative. “What else is there for him to be except a man?” Is there any other role he can occupy in society? This is Hoagland’s view of the world: black and white. He either stumbles and flails if he can’t adopt this artificial masculinity, or he becomes something even Hoagland  “can’t love.”

   The poem becomes increasingly personal, with phrases like “even I can’t love” offering insight to Hoagland’s character, the analysis of which is the premise of the collection. He brings up the photograph he has of his brother as a kid that’s outdated at this point. It’s his brother in his rawest state, before this masculinization. His feelings that he’s too inept to hide” are “splashed” all over his face. Despite this positive image, Hoagland once again ventures into dark territory. His brother smiles at the camera, but Hoagland suggests he’s under the illusion that “someone loved him so well they would not ever ever ever turn him over to the world.” This image is of his brother, but the emotions seem all too personal. “Ever ever ever” holds a lot of emotion, and Hoagland certainly feels as if he was turned over to the world. There seems to be an absence of blame here, however. Maybe it’s not possible for one person’s love to hold back the whole of society.

   This poem ends with a rumination, and not a light one, at that. It’s a coming-to-terms with society, with culture and the way masculinity is enforced. It’s inherently negative, as one could draw from this poem, but it might just be inescapable.

The Name

Decorumby Stephen Dunn

She wrote, “They were making love up against a gymnasium wall,” and another young woman in class, serious enough to smile, said

“No, that’s fucking, they must
have been fucking,” to which many
agreed, pleased to have the proper fit
of word with act.

But an older woman, a wife, a mother,
famous in class for confusing grace
with decorum and carriage,
said the F-word would distract

the reader, sensationalize the poem.
“Why can’t what they were doing
just as easily be called making love?”
It was an intelligent complaint,

and the class proceeded to debate
what’s fucking, what’s making love,
and the importance of the context, tact,
the bon mot. I leaned toward those

who favored fucking; they were funnier
and seemed to have more experience
with the happy varieties of their subject.
But then a young man said, now believing

he had permission, “What’s the difference,
you fuck ‘em and you call it making love;
you tell ‘em what they want to hear.”
The class jeered, and another man said

“You’re the kind of guy who gives fucking
a bad name,” and I remembered how fuck
gets dirty as it moves reptilian
out of certain minds, certain mouths.

The young woman whose poem it was,
small-boned and small-voiced,
said she had no objection to fucking,
but these people were making love,

it was her poem and she herself up against
that gymnasium wall, and it felt like love,
and the hell with all of us.
There was silence. The class turned

to me, their teacher, who they hoped
could clarify, perhaps ease things.
I told them I disliked the word fucking
in a poem, but that fucking

might be right in this instance, yet
I was unsure now, I couldn’t decide.
A tear formed and moved down
the poet’s cheek. I said I was sure

only of “gymnasium,” sure it was
the wrong choice, making the act seem
too public, more vulgar than she wished.
How about “boat house?” I asked.

Sex.  It is not only one of the most primal human desires, but it is also a necessity to the survival of the human race. Without sex there would be not babies and without babies there would be no humans.  Over time, sex and the way it is perceived in society has changed.  Centuries ago sex had one purpose: procreation.  Soon after, sex was for the pleasure of men, women just has to suck it up until it was over and she was rewarded with the miracle of pregnancy. Eventually, the concept that a woman had sexual desires that did not involve procreation became less taboo.  In his poem, Decorum, Stephen Dunn provides a snapshot of the nature of sex and its place in humanity.  Dunn places himself in the context of a conversation about the place for and difference between fucking and making love.

In many of his poems, Dunn is an active participant in the plot.  Decorum is one of these poems where Dunn is a teacher in a classroom full of presumably college aged men and women.  The poem starts with "She wrote 'They were making love up against the gymnasium wall'" (1-2).  From there, a conversation about the difference between fucking and making love ensues where various people weigh in on which is appropriate to characterize this occasion.

The poem's structure is constructed so that it flows like a conversation.  This is common of Dunn's poems.  It is a snapshot of one of life's little moments of which Dunn was a part.  Those who were on the making love side made comments such as "the F-word would distract the reader, sensationalize the poem" (12-13).  The author of the poem itself said "she had no objection to fucking, but these people were making love" (35-36).  These two commentators were women.  A man introduces a new perspective.

Just when it looks like this poem may introduce a reasonable conversation about sex and its role, a man inserts his entitled opinion.  This certain man thinks "'What's the difference, you fuck 'em and you call it making love; you tell 'em what they want to hear""(25-28).  Dunn's introduction of this perspective brings a shock of reality.  Along with "'the kind of guy who gives fucking a bad name'" (29-30) is another group "who favored fucking; they were funnier and seemed to have more experience with the happy varieties of their subject"(21-24).  Dunn identifies with this group.

Dunn's seemingly relaxed and simplistic tone and structure is challenged in the final stanza.  Dunn writes "I said I was sure only of 'gymnasium,' sure it was the wrong choice, making the act seem too public, more vulgar than she wished.  How about "boat house?" I asked"(48-52).  Boat house.  These two words insert a new level to the poem. Dunn is inadvertently commenting on rape culture and the different circumstances of sex.

In his simple and relaxed poem, Dunn not only provides a snapshot of the questions many have about the nature of sex, but also his own opinion.  Fucking or making love.  Dunn has his own opinions and they seep through his poem, but the further purpose is to bring of the question of sex and the way it has evolved in society.

The Patriarchy and the Family

Dedication to Hunger

     1. From the Suburbs
They cross the yard
and at the back door
the mother sees with pleasure
how alike they are, father and daughter--
I know something of that time.
The little girl purposefully
swinging her arms, laughing
her stark laugh:

It should be kept secret, that sound.
It means she's realized
that he never touches her.
She is a child; he could touch her
if he wanted to.

     2. Grandmother
"Often I would stand at the window--
your grandfather
was a young man then--
waiting, in the early evening."

That is what marriage is.
I watch the tiny figure
changing to a man
as her moves toward her,
the last light rings in his hair.
I do not question
their happiness. And he rushes in
with his young man's hunger,
so proud to have taught her that:
his kiss would have been
clearly tender--

Of course, of course. Except
it might as well have been
his hand over her mouth.

     3. Eros
To be male, always
to go to women
and be taken back
into the pierced flesh:

         I suppose
memory is stirred.
And the girl child
who wills herself
into her father's arms
likewise loved him
second. Nor is she told
what need to express.
There is a look one sees,
the mouth somehow desperate--

Because the bond
cannot be proven.

     4. The Deviation
It begins quietly
in certain female children:
the fear of death, taking as its form
dedication to hunger,
because a woman's body
is a grave; it will accept
anything. I remember lying in bed at night
touching the soft, digressive breasts
touching, at fifteen,
the interfering flesh
that I would sacrifice
until the limbs were free
of blossom and subterfuge: I felt
what I feel now, aligning these words--
it is the same need to perfect,
of which death is the mere byproduct.

     5. Sacred Objects
Today in the field I saw
the hard, active buds of the dogwood
and wanted, as we say, to capture them,
to make them eternal. That is the premise
of renunciation: the child,
having no self to speak of,
comes to life in denial--

I stood apart in that achievement,
in that power to expose
the underlying body, like a god
for whose deed
there is no parallel in the natural world.


In this poem, Louise Glück discusses the complexity of social patriarchy in a family. The poem shows four different snapshots of family life and an explanation of the purpose for the poem. Each part of the poem demonstrates a way in which women are oppressed or controlled by patriarchal society, from childhood to marriage. Glück uses "Dedication to Hunger" to critique a system that puts women in a place of disempowerment and that also causes men to feel as if they are both all-powerful and in a constant battle for power.

Glück tells us of the power imbalance between mother and father, man and woman, caused by the inability of fathers to securely claim parentage; this results in abuses of power that eventually construct a patriarchy. The poem begins with a picture of a "father and daughter" playing together, observed by "the mother" (1.3-4). According to Glück, the child has realized that her father "never touches her" (1.11). The following lines imply two things. "She is a child; he could touch her / if he wanted to" (1.12-13). Firstly, these lines imply the sinister threat of pedophelia. "[H]e could touch her / if he wanted to" tells us that the father has the power to physically abuse the child; the line break forces us to pause at a point of tension in the phrase, adding to the dark mood that is already administered by the words themselves. Also implied, however, is a thought that is continued in the third part of the poem. The father and daughter return here, and it is speculated that "the girl child. . . loved [her father] second" to her mother (3.7-11). She expresses no need to him (11-12) because she gets everything she needs from her mother. Therefore, the father has a "desperate" look in his eyes when trying to connect to his daughter "[b]ecause the bond / cannot be proven" (14-16). Unlike the undeniable biological relationship between a mother and child, the fathership of a child "cannot be proven." This is the reason why fathers cannot connect to their children the way that mothers do, and it gives them a power over both mother and child that the mother cannot exert.

Glück also shows how this power imbalance negatively affects the woman in a relationship, further enforcing the ideas of male dominance that are caused by the problems mentioned above. In the second part of the poem, Glück describes her grandmother's relationship with her grandfather. Her grandmother would wait at the door for her husband to come home every day. Glück says that "his kiss would have been / clearly tender-- / Of course, of course" (2.14-16). But she follows this with, "it might as well have been / his hand over her mouth" (2.17-18). While he may be kind and loving, the wife's submission to her husband, in sex (see "his young man's hunger" in line 12 of part 2) and in waiting for him at the door, is a kind of silencing of the female voice. This idea is carried on to the next section of the poem, which begins: "To be male, always / to go to women / and be taken back / into the pierced flesh" (3.1-4). This is the right of a husband, under the patriarchy in the 1970s. Because he is "male," he can always attain sex from his wife or any woman. Glück's language here -- to "be taken back" into a woman's embrace -- implies that it is the expectation that the woman is willing, if her feelings are considered at all. This furthers the power dynamic established in the poem between a husband and his wife, and it takes away the woman's freedom and voice.

Despite all of this, Glück maintains that the patriarchy is not an absolute power. She recognizes the beliefs of patriarchal society -- such as when she notes that "a woman's body / is a grave; it will accept anything" (4.5-7) -- but she actually notices the problematic thoughts that both women and men have, and she challenges them. She says that she feels the burden herself, where she has a "need to perfect, / of which death is the mere byproduct" (4.16-17). Women feel so pressured to be perfect, physically and mentally and behaviorally, that they would die if that was necessary for the image of perfection. But even the title of the fourth part of the poem shows that Glück is seeing things from a different perspective. She is a "deviation" from the normal perspective. In the fifth part of the poem, she states her purpose: to use her poetry to "capture" the facts of her life and deny their truth: for, "the child, / having no self to speak of, / comes to life in denial" (5.3,5-7). In this, she is saying that a child born into a culture of conformity is going to refuse to accept this as a legitimate way of life. This is Glück's message: she hopes to deny the normality and acceptability of the patriarchy in her home using her work.

Title of Allusion

"Adam's Complaint"
Denise Levertov

Some people,
no matter what you give them,
still want the moon.

The bread,
the salt,
white meat and dark,
still hungry.

The marriage bed,
and the cradle,
still empty arms.

You give them land,
their own earth under their feet,
still want to take the roads.

And water: dig them the deepest well,
still it's not deep enough
to drink the moon from.

This poem, out of all the others in the volume, spoke to me the most. This poem is complex, yet simple and conveys a deep meaning, although it may not be the most lengthy. "Adam's Complaint" uses a few literary devices that help further Levertov's observation of humans never being satisfied.

The title itself is an alliteration. It refers to the Bible story of Adam and Eve. When God made man, he made Adam and gave him all the animals. But Adam was not satisfied; he wanted a human companion and so God made a woman, Eve. Levertov's choice for alliteration is extremely interesting, as it seems to be more of a confident assertion. It insinuates that she believes Adam was being greedy and one comes to this conclusion after reading the rest of her poem centered on the motif of greed. As a Christian, I thought long and hard about this assertion of Levertov. I have read the Creation Story many times and have never thought of Adam as greedy, only lonely. The title gives the poem a more cynical mood.

The breaks in the lines of the poem and the place of words are unique and purposeful. The first four stanzas' first lines are simply the subject of the sentence she is trying to form. This is so the reader can see the main purpose of the stanza. The subject also is extremely relatable to every day people. The last line in the first four stanzas begin with "still".  By repeating the word still it holds a resonance that sticks with the reader. The word is stressed so that one can clearly see it being tinged with disapproval and irony. Finally, in the last stanza, Levertov mixes it up with structure. She puts the subject and purpose of the subject in the first line. It becomes clear that the reason she did this is to finish her poem in what is called full circle, In this case, she starts the first stanza about the moon and ends her last stanza with the moon as to bring back to her main point is that people desire unrealistic objects.

Finally, the content and theme of this poem is that people are never satisfied with what they have and that makes them undesirably greedy. She starts off obscure, with "no matter what you give them/ [they] still want the moon" (2-3). This implies they could be as ridiculous as giving them the sun, but they want the moon. She then narrows it down to giving "bread/ salt/ white meat and dark" and the person is "still hungry" (4-7). Stanza three is meaningful because it talks about emotional greed rather than physical. The "empty arms" are more metaphorical (10). She implies that one is given a marriage and a baby, which usually fill life with joy, but it is not enough and his/her life is still empty. The next stanza touches metaphorically on physical ownership. You give them something of their own in this case land, and they end up using something that does not belong to them, roads. The last stanza may influence the reader to believe it will say how people's thirst are never quenched, but it turns and say "still it's not deep enough/ to drink the moon from" (15-16). Levertov is stating that no matter what one does, they still might not be able to reach their goal, because sometimes one simply cannot have what they want.

Through alliteration, specific structure, and strong content, Levertov expertly emphasizes that human kind as a race has always been greedy. The examples she gives are solid and clear, which help further support her claim. The short sixteen line poem is given much deeper meaning with her clever title and use of literary devices.

Young's View of the Ocean

Undertow

By Dean Young

Related Poem Content Details

People looking at the sea, 

makes them feel less terrible about themselves, 

the sea's behaving abominably, 

seems never satisfied, 

what it throws away it dashes down 

then wants back, yanks back. 

Comparatively, thinks one vice president, 

what are my frauds but nudged along 

misunderstandings already there? 

I can't believe I ever worried 

about my betrayals, thinks the analyst 

benefitting facially from the sea's raged-up mist. 

Obviously I'm not the only one suffering 

an identity crisis knows the boy 

who wants to be a lawyer no more. 

Nothing can stay long, cogitates the dog, 

so maybe a life of fetch is not a wasted life. 

And the sea heaves and cleaves and seethes, 

shoots snot out, goes to bed only to wake 

shouting in the mansion of the night, pacing, 

pacing, making tea then spilling it, 

sudden outloud laughter snort, Oh what the 

heck, I probably drove myself crazy, 

thinks the sea, kissing all those strangers, 

forgiving them no matter what, liars 

in confession, vomitters of plastics 

and fossil fuels but what a stricken 

elixir I've become even to my becalmed depths, 

while through its head swim a million 

fishes seemingly made of light 

eating each other.

This poem discusses the ocean, people, and how both view each other. From start to finish, Young comments on and analyzes the emotions of the sea and those that look to it for guidance. He also touches on the environmental issues revolving around the ocean and humanity's impact and involvement in that. Consequently, there is a strong emotional impact on the reader that Young builds on throughout the poem involving the ocean, humanity, and how both affect the other.

Young begins this poem by stating that the sea tends to make people "feel less terrible about themselves" (2) due to it's unpredictable and often furious attitude. He also alludes to how the sea and those looking to it for help never feel content with what they find or receive. He personifies the sea by giving it these human-like emotions and qualities. Young further emphasizes the temperamental tendencies of the ocean by stating that it ever wave throws the water away and then brings it back because it had decided that it does actually want the water it pushed away. 

As the poem continues, Young begins to talk about different people and how they view the ocean. He includes a vice president, an analyst, a boy who doesn't want to become a lawyer anymore, and a dog. Each of these characters go to the sea to find some sort of solitude and understanding, which the sea does provide for them. This section of the poem, lines 7-18, focuses on these characters and how the sea helps them find a certain faith and hopefulness in their life and gives them the push they need to keep moving forward in their life. However, the underlying information within these lines about the sea is very important as well. When describing the sea, Young uses words such as "raged-up mist" (12) and describes the movement of the water by "the sea heaves and cleaves and seethes" (18), create a violent image of the sea despite how much it is able to aid the previously discussed characters with their issues. 

The final section of this poem focuses solely on the sea and how it is impacted by all it must deal with, both voluntarily and involuntarily. Young writes from the sea's perspective and states, "Oh what the hell, I probably drove myself crazy thinks the sea, kissing all those strangers, forgiving them no matter what" (22-25). This personifies the ocean once again and gives the reader a new perspective on the sea through how it is truly impacted people and the emotions it feels when being used in a negative manner by humanity. Young furthers this idea by alluding to the environmental impact people have on the ocean by discussing humanity as "vomiters of plastic and fossil fuels" (26-27) due to all of the plastic found in oceans and destroying ocean life and fossil fuels destroying the environment. The powerful description of humanity as "vomiters" gives the reader a clear understanding of how disgusted and frustrated the sea is regarding plastic and fossil fuels. Young finishes the poem by describing the head of the sea being filled with fish and light that appear to be eating each other to hint at the life present within the ocean and how they are also being impacted. 

This poem is beautifully written and does a good job of demonstrating the emotions of people and the ocean. The environmental implications that this poem has makes it even more powerful and meaningful. Young did a good job capturing all of the topics in this poem and expressing their inner thoughts and feelings.