islandtime:

Hi, Rabbit, You and one other person (Falcon, I think) said the poem was a mother talking to her son. I was certain it was a woman talking to her lover. This goes back a little bit to the discussion in my 'current events quiz' post about who owns a poem's interpretation. If the poet were here discussing her poem with us and we asked her who Oscar was, could we both abide by her answer? I want to know why you thought she was talking to her son ... please.

A lot of us are talking about "Oscar". Somehow, I never got the memo that there even was an "Oscar". So I let my first impressions of the "Ranch" guide me.

First, the narrator seems to have the general tone of a woman -- complete with a particular linkage of thoughts that in many if not most men would not happen easily if at all and would seem to them fairly random. Anyway, it's natural for a poetess to speak from a female point of view.

Second, from the narrator's wish for both the subject's self-possession and said subject's possession of such a landscape, I inferred that time would need to pass, as well as maturation of some sort. Plus, the wish for both of those things still is wished most often for a male.

Third, said male is almost always happy. Since few males can say that once they reach the age of responsibility, I inferred that the male was still very young -- moreover, young enough to be amused at almost anything and therefore largely innocent of evil. Also, since I thought it relatively improbable that a happy lover would be involved with an unhappy woman (but relatively probable that an unhappy woman could have a happy child), I therefore inferred that the male was the woman's son.

Now since these are all inferences, even assuming that my logic and facts are correct at all points, these are all matters of probability. A single sure observation -- or a single direct and authoritative testimony -- can refute any such inference. So if Ms. Ball told me that the woman was talking to her lover (explaining why), and if I was certain that she had no reason to lie or forget, then I'd accept the statement and rethink my paradigm -- and that would be that.

In seeking the truth, observation trumps theory every time -- and truth is far more important to me than my own natural, formidable opinionatedness. (That commitment to truth, I sometimes feel, is the only thing that keeps me from making a complete fool of myself on this Fray.)

wr ()()