Mommy (edit 1)

[Isis]

There are a few things that I really like about this poem, but there are also a few things that lost me or confused me.


First, the stuff that I liked. Even though it's stated more baldly than I would state it, I'm interested by the idea of she (mommy) as music, "unnecessary but still fully necessary". I kind of want that to get elaborated on because I think it's interesting, like something worthy of a whole section of a longer poem, something that Walt Whitman might dwell on for awhile. But since this poem is on the short side and since brevity seems important here, I get why it's not elaborated on or explored more explicitly.

I also like the sound and resonance happening in "kelly blades and jade stems" - it took me a moment for the image to click, but I liked this once it did.

I'm also interested in what seems to be one of the main contrasts in the poem. I'm not sure if it's something that got consciously worked in or if it just emerged from the ideas. Now that the mother is in the ground (I'm interpreting this as a poem of reaction to a mother's death, please let me know if I'm way off base) she is all non-physical stuff: the air, music, stardust, unearthly dots, a constellation. And the speaker is mostly physical, talking about agony, broken ribs, and crawling like a child. I think that thread of ideas running through the poem helps me get the situation a little better, and also helps me get how the speaker feels about it.

I am confused by a few parts of this contrast, particularly this:

She was the human body's lightest part;
suddenly stardust scattered
across inked expanse.

This and "under heart's cessation" is where we get a reference to the body of the mother. But what is the human body's lightest part? The poem doesn't lead me there … I'm stuck her wondering, having a hard time moving on from my question to understand or care about her becoming stardust across the night sky.

I'm also a little bit confused by the very end of the poem:

bringing light that couldn't possibly be enough,
but it must be,
for I have understood the gun's allure
but know not the steely taste of tranquility.

Is it the mother who killed herself, or is it the speaker who feels drawn to the gun, tempted to use it in grief over the mother's passing? I think the poem is currently open-ended. That's one approach to ending the poem that could work, I think, but somehow I feel like that might not be intentional? If it's not, I'd suggest clarifying this in some way.

I also feel like the last line, and the way the poem ends on the concept of "tranquility" is a little bit oblique.

I hope you find this helpful - let me know if you want to discuss further.