As usual you give a detailed and erudite analysis. But your critique is more interesting than the poem itself. Much of the information you give can not be gotten from the poem. While every poet assumes there are basic facts and idioms known commonly to all the readersand therefore need no explanation, still there are limits to that assumption. In this poem there is no way a reader can know about all that references that you cite. How would we know from the four corners of the verse that the poem describes the coup in chile? How would we know the narrator is a Mormon from just reading the work?There is simply too wide a gap between what the poem actually implies and what you infer. I am well aware of the brutal Pinochet coup in chile and suspected that might be one of the themes; nevertheless, it would be too great a stretch to make the connection from what is

the poem itself.