To me, Ferlinghetti's poem "Dog" exhibits a great balance of accessibility and artfulness. The subject of the poem, a dog, presumably meant to represent Ferlinghetti himself, observes the city surroundings as he "trots freely in the street." The scenes he describe depict typical city life, from "Drunks in doorways" to "cats and cigars." In this sense the poem is rather playful, with lines like, "a real realist / with a real tale to tell / and a real tail to tell it with." The playful, almost innocent observations of a dog allow Ferlinghetti to create a reader-friendly environment.
However, at the same time Ferlinghetti is getting at his deeper, more serious views of government and protest. His main target is Congressman Doyle and the Unamerican Committee. The lines "He will not be muzzled / Congressman Doyle is just another / fire hydrant" paint a clear picture of Ferlinghetti's feelings toward Doyle. The muzzle is a thinly veiled reference to the Unamerican Committee and their actions toward protesters. Regarding the police, Ferlinghetti states that he "doesn't hate cops," but perhaps would stand up to one abusing his power, "He would rather eat a tender cow / than a tough policeman / though either might do." Overall, Ferlinghetti seems to condone questioning, if not challenging the government.
In the last section of the poem, Ferlinghetti displays his artfulness. The lines become very broken up as the dog becomes the logo for Victor Records. This last section of the poem could also be a commentary on major corporations, and technology as a whole. A line earlier in the poem may also commentate on technology as the dog is "afraid of Coit's Tower" but "not afraid of Congressman Doyle." Perhaps Ferlinghetti sees possible change in the government but not technology.
Question: What does Felinghetti mean in the very last lines of "Dog?"
"with its wondrous hollow horn / which always seems / just about to spout forth / some Victorious answer / to everything"
6 comments:
I enjoy your commentary on this poem except I am not positive that the reason why the dog isn't afraid of Congressman Doyle is because he sees hope in the government. I feel that he sees that the government as completely ineffectual, especially in contrast to the increasingly overpowering technology. He sees corporations as a threat to his existence, eventually wiping him out but the government remains stagnant, an annoyance to the speaker, but not a threat. His apathetic tone towards the congressman does not seem to show hope or any optimism, just merely impassivity.
It's interesting to see you say it's accessible; I guess it shows how far-removed I am from poetic understanding! Your insight into the poem was really helpful though; upon rereading it I definitely feel the Congressman Doyle part, though that may just be because I want government to be decent myself. Well, here's to hoping I guess!
Derek - nice, thoughtful analysis. The contrast between Coit's Tower and Doyle is curious, isn't it? I hadn't actually thought of the Tower as representing "technology" (what's your take on this?) but either way, we could just as easily say that to the dog, the Tower is inanimate and mighty, and Doyle is human and questionably mighty. So then perhaps the dog is more afraid of the inanimate building - a somewhat odd but potentially meaningful fear - than the politician.
I like the different readings you and Melissa have given. Any new thoughts as to whether Doyle's being praised or criticized?
I did a little search on the Coit Tower - who's Coit, etc. - to add to your technology reading... Not sure what to do with it yet, but it might be interesting anyway if you care to explore further:
http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist1/h-coit.html
To answer question, what Ferlinghetti meant in the final lines of 'Dog, two years later:
I believe by referring to himself as 'a living questionmark' and by looking into the 'great gramophone of puzzling existence' he is posed and prepared to question everything that it expels, including its 'Victorious answer to everything'. I take it that Ferlinghetti is proposing that we, along with himself, question everything from every source and take nothing as inherently true.
I've loved this poem since '78. My take on it is that the more socio/political criticism applied the less of an interesting (and a more common) poem it becomes. Though Ferlinghetti probably meant a fair amount of contemporary commentary in writing it, like much great work, something better arises instead/as well. Forget all the political, etc. meaning and it stands proudly on its own as one damn fine existential dog poem.
I came to this poem through this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Ty_8Nw-CY
rendition.
Post a Comment