I need help analyzing the meaning of these poems? how are they related?? thanksPoem #1 The Moon of Daily Life- alberto blanco I gather minutes at the window sill and in silence contemplate the...

I need help analyzing the meaning of these poems? how are they related?? thanks

Poem #1

The Moon of Daily Life- alberto blanco

I gather minutes at the window sill and in silence contemplate the condos to the south. The air in the city is impureat dusk and the cars return in flocks to their sad nests. All of these lives have the profound meaning- i tell myself- but when i try to explain it, the noise of the buses drowns me out.


Poem #2

Eyes of the Fish-Jose Emilio

At the shoreling the sand- curve and a row of dead fish Like shields after battle with no trace of suffocation or apparent decay Sea- Polished jewels Sarcophagi enclosing their death There was something ghostly about those fish They had no eyes A double hollow in their heads As if their bodies could be of the earth But their eyes are the sea's And the sea observes through them When a fish dies in the sand Its eyes evaporate But at ebb-tide the sea recovers what it calls its own.


meganmjh | Student

The first poem enlightens the reader that perhaps time is destructive, and in many cases causes people to lose their individuality, through the routines and establishment of technologies. It also recognises the importance of individualism and how small one person is in comparison to the power of technology. The poet suggests that people have lost some of their self through the corruption of time. The reader gets a sense that through everyday life there is routine, and division is mostly not present. “Impure dusk” and “sad nests” reminds the reader that the natural world is not always beautiful- sometimes it can be highly destructive or just ungratifying. When the poet says “condos to the south” he establishes the concept that every person is individual, but then at the same time they are ‘owned’ or controlled by a force much greater than them, like nature.

Through the second poem, the poet demonstrates that nature is much more powerful than any organism that lives by its ruling; the sea represents nature’s complexity, and through this image juxtaposes a fish’s simplicity. This brings up the idea that nature is universal and the only barrier in life which prevents one from achieving the impossible. This reminds the reader of the natural cycle of life, the coarseness of death, yet the ability of nature to move on, and continue through all decay. The fish, just like any other animal must leave their place of sanction at some stage in life and endeavour the unknown whether they’d like to or not. The poem represents nature as invisibly powerful; in its means of representing the cycle of life in a way that does not demonstrate any obvious signs of harm. (“No trace of suffocation or apparent decay”). It also depicts death as sudden and as an unexpected occurrence- yet something that completely disfigures our day-to-day living. Now that the fish’s eyes are gone, they no longer belong to the sea, they rather belong to the earth, to decay. Their time is up.

Now as you can probably see, there are a few similarities between these two poems; for example, both display the corruption and harshness of nature’s cycle. They both stereotype one whole race of a particular organism, thereby showing the lack of individualism that organisms live by. Both directly juxtapose nature with organisms, displaying the utter simplicity of the organism, when compared with nature with its excessive complexity. Life, in both poems, is displayed as decaying; whether it be of individuality or of actual life. There may be more similarities that you may be able to pick up…

Hope this helped!! :)