Comment 21 of 32, added on March 26th, 2008 at 3:37 PM.

When I first started to read the poem I thought it was about a reporter
going into the war to capture and experience events that had been going on,
regardless if they were a man/woman. As I read further down they would
describe how days/nighhts were perceived to them as days were spent there.
I think Rich was writing from a Soldier/Marines type of view. Even if I am
wrong about my views I do not believe that Rich was writing about broken
marriages- or suicides or anything that has to do with our own problems ..I
believe she was trying to define as she saw it and how it affected everyone
in general being a man/woman.

Isabel from United States

Comment 19 of 32, added on January 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 PM.

I believe the comment by Patrice Kapur a few boxes down is the most
accurate analysis. I must say, good analysis, sir. Some great insights,
especially about the bias of the reader going into the poem.

And whoever said this poem is boring, I challenge you to increase your
knowledge of poetry. I found poetry extremely boring before I learned of
their techniques. Once you have a better understanding of the techniques of
poetry, it's a whole new world reading it.

Casey from United States

Comment 17 of 32, added on November 26th, 2007 at 9:03 PM.

Interesting comments about what the wreck stands for. Personally, I
interpreted as the past.

Nicole from United States

Comment 15 of 32, added on April 25th, 2007 at 4:37 AM.

What a great piece of work! I haven't read this since college, and it's
better than I remember it--Paul Volponi

paul volponi

Comment 13 of 32, added on March 27th, 2006 at 3:31 PM.

I think that there is an unfortunate tendency among poetry readers to view
a writer’s work within the narrow prism of what the reader knows about the
writer’s personal life. I think that this approach may be useful in
deciphering the meaning of poems written by relatively inexperienced poets,
but it makes no sense in analyzing this work, which was completed by one of
our country’s most penetrating and accomplished writers.

Rich is not talking about strictly personal issues (marriage, suicide,
etc.) in this poem; rather, she is thoughtfully and deliberately talking
about the wreckage of our society and the need to go beyond myth (the STORY
of the wreck) so that we can assess the damage actually being caused by our
social structures, as well as recognize the treasures contained within
them. Only by doing so can we correct serious social problems and
simultaneously retain those social norms that are healthy and productive.

Rich takes us on this voyage as a genderless being early in the work,
pointing to a concern about gender-based social definitions, among others,
in the poem. By the end of the piece, she expands her view beyond gender
and addresses the reader as both an individual and part of a collective
whole, directing us to look at the wreck of our society so we can
(presumably) change its course. In the last line, our names do not appear
in the book of myths because the pervasive, patriarchal and limited views
of our society contained in such a book does not match the reality of
individual lives.


Patrice Kapur