For me, "Dissolving" - taken at a very basic level - tells of a man's inability to relax and forget. He is pursued, even in an ideal setting, by the overactivity of his mind.

His thoughts appear, as the poet enumerates them, as a random jumble of major and minor topics (which may be from one or more discrete memories).

The "weightless stuff ready to drift away in the water and and air and light" simply do not disappear as the man floats on the lake - his mind is "digesting meanings like a ruminant" - to me, this means a protracted assault on his attempt to leave the world's troubles behind him.

Or - is he discharging these thoughts and memories, cleansing himself as he floats? Are the "water and air and light...producing a mind digesting meanings..." so this results in a healing session?

Or do we just have a man floating on a lake, his supine position giving mild fits to those seeking to discern the poet's troubling description of that position?

Hi, GarySlater, The only thing troubling me about the poet's description is the fact that "swims on his back ... face to the bright sky" is certainly sufficient information for the reader to picture a man doing a back float. The redundancy of "in the female receptive position" makes me certain the phrase was purposeful and therefore important ... but the intent escapes me.

The redundancy of "in the female receptive position" makes me certain the phrase was purposeful and therefore important ... but the intent escapes me.

islandtime, here's what I wrote to richard re that phrase --

"I think the poet was trying to describe the man as passively waiting to receive forgetfulness from the water and air and light. But the phrase's connotation of sexual activity distracted me."

Hi Gary,

I agree with your questions. As I said in my own take on the poem,

Is this poem the description of what happens to the floating man or what he wants to happen?

But for me the distinction isn't all that important. I think both situations can exist in a poem at the same time. (How that's for a cop out?)

Hi, islandtime,

Yeah - his intent escapes me, too. The only way I could proceed is to admit that I didn't understand it, and just move on from there.

I don't like having an uninterpretable or unfathomable passage, but...that's part of art, I guess!

Perhaps the poet, or Mr. Pinsky, could give us some additional insight?

So, cop out!

Sometimes you've got to "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." You've given enough good analysis to get a "bye" on this one. I think we all have.

As I wrote to islandtime, we really need to know the poet's intention here - ideally, from the poet himself!

"Redundancy" is an interesting observation, islandtime. Like others, though, I found a dissonance with the line beyond redundancy. While others seem to be suggesting a crudeness, I think, I find it cowardly, crudeness perhaps a welcome alternative.

Which is to say that you are either spreading your legs or you are not. So why the apparent evasiveness, the apparent effort at some sort of political correctness? As you and others suggest, it would behoove the discerning reader to make sense of this line which, if not a mistake on the poet's part, is critical enough that it is made to stand out.

We can disregard the notion of a birthing, as birthing is at least ordinarily thought of as giving rather than receiving, of expulsion rather than reception. So (and if you are a woman this perhaps bothers you as much as any notion of redundancy or dissonance) is the poet suggesting that the poet/subject is in a position of docile acceptance? Or, not harsh, in a position to allow love and the beginning of a birthing, creation?

A curious line.

Take care,

Joe