Robert Hass' mild lament in "The Problem of Describing Trees" is direct and simple. He is writing poetry on how difficult it is to write about trees, and his argument would appear to be that the actions of a tree supersede the English language and possibly any language. He emphasizes that certain slices of nature are above description. Though people are tempted to write about trees and other aspects of nature, they probably shouldn't, because it is not possible to do so with entire success. The rather quirky tone of the piece is established by the fact that there is a poet proclaiming that his occupation and presumed life's focus is rendered nearly useless by the fundamental simplicity of a tree.
Hass could be addressing two different audiences here. I initially believed he was speaking to the tree, since italics and a separate line would seem to indicate a sense of detachment from the rest of the piece, and that he was really mocking the way many writers and poets try to talk about nature. It did not occur to me that the author could be invoking the reader into a dance, emphasizing his earlier claim that "it is good sometimes for poetry to disenchant us." I suppose that is poetry in the hands of a talented poet-confusing and enlightening readers by tossing up multiple concepts, like a menu with too many choices on it.
Thank you for your intelligent, enlightening post. HEY, have you thought about the possibility that Hass did not intend to confuse the reader about who he was speaking to in the line "Dance with me, dancer. Oh I will"? The reason I ask this is because sometimes it is helpful to question the author's true intent in order to understand the entirety of the piece. You might want to decide which option you think the speaker was really saying and develop it even further. Perhaps you could even take another line from the poem and dissect it this thoroughly.
ReplyDelete