Elizabeth Bishop's "At the Fishhouses": Five Interpretations

Elizabeth Bishop’s “At the Fishhouses” (The New Yorker, August 9, 1947) is my favorite poem. I love it for two reasons: (1) its unconventional sense of beauty; (2) its movement from description to epiphany.

1. Unconventional Beauty

Not everyone sees beauty in fish scales and fishing shacks. Bishop did. In “At the Fishhouses,” she wrote, 

The big fish tubs are completely lined
with layers of beautiful herring scales
and the wheelbarrows are similarly plastered
with creamy iridescent coats of mail,
with small iridescent flies crawling on them.

Note the repetition of “iridescent.” That’s a change from the New Yorker version. That version says “creamy iridescent flies.” When Bishop reprinted the poem in her Pulitzer Prize-winning Cold Spring collection, she doubled the iridescence, describing the wheelbarrow as “plastered / with creamy iridescent coats of mail, / with small iridescent flies crawling on them.” She calls the fish scales “the principal beauty” (“He has scraped the scales, the principal beauty, / from unnumbered fish with that black old knife”). 

Eleanor Cook, in her Elizabeth Bishop at Work (2016), says of “At the Fishhouses,”

The scene is not a conventional thing of beauty, but Bishop’s eye sees the working tools and the iridescent patterns of countless fish scales as if in a painting.

2. Description/Meditation

“At the Fishhouses” is beautiful in another way. It shifts from description to meditation – one of my favorite literary moves. You don’t see it very often. It’s not a procedure; it’s more of a happening. In the first two-thirds of the poem, Bishop describes the harbour scene: the fishhouses, the old man, the wheelbarrows, the lobster pots, the herring scales, the wooden capstan, the black old knife, the long ramp descending into the water, the water itself (“cold dark deep and absolutely clear”). Details accrete; a scene is evoked. This is standard literary procedure; Bishop executes it masterfully. But in the poem’s last stanza, she does something extraordinary. She takes a big leap:

The water seems suspended
above the rounded gray and blue-gray stones.
I have seen it over and over, the same sea, the same,
slightly, indifferently swinging above the stones,
icily free above the stones,
above the stones and then the world.
If you should dip your hand in,
your wrist would ache immediately,
your bones would begin to ache and your hand would burn
as if the water were a transmutation of fire
that feeds on stones and burns with a dark-gray flame.
If you tasted it, it would first taste bitter,
then briny, then surely burn your tongue.
It is like what we imagine knowledge to be:
dark, salt, clear, moving, utterly free,
drawn from the cold hard mouth
of the world, derived from the rocky breasts
forever, flowing and drawn, and since
our knowledge is historical, flowing, and flown.

Seamus Heaney said of these lines: 

What we have been offered, among other things, is the slow-motion spectacle of a well-disciplined poetic imagination being tempted to dare a big leap, hesitating, and then with powerful sureness actually taking the leap. [The Government of the Tongue, 1989] 

The leap, Heaney said, is from “the observed world” to “the world of meditated meaning.” Bonnie Costello, in her Elizabeth Bishop: Questions of Mastery (1991), calls it a “shift from description to meditation.” But she also says “the poem’s description prepares for a “visionary leap.” She refers to the “visionary thrust” of the poem. She says, “In this passage, in which the phrase “above the stones” is repeated four times, particulars are finally overwhelmed by a visionary flood.” To me, meditation is one thing; vision is another. Costello seems close to calling Bishop’s leap an epiphany. In fact, she says it: “Bishop seems to have yielded her consciousness fully to this epiphany.” But then she backs off: “This is hardly the certain rhetoric of epiphany.”

3. Description/Epiphany

As for me, I think “epiphany” is the right word. I find support for this in Colm Tóibín’s On Elizabeth Bishop (2015), in which he brilliantly compares the ending of “At the Fishhouses” with the ending of James Joyce’s “The Dead.” He writes, 

This method, the movement from very detailed and exact description to a moment that is totalizing and hallucinatory in its tone, which moves above the scene and attempts in its cadences both to wrest meaning and create further mystery from the scene below, occurs also in the very final passage of Joyce’s “The Dead,” which, in describing the snow, also takes a leap.

The ending of “The Dead” is a famous example of literary epiphany: see Florence L. Walzl, “Gabriel and Michael, The Conclusion of ‘The Dead,’ ” (in Robert Scholes and A. Walton Litz, eds., Dubliners: Text, Criticism, and Notes, 1969 (“Dubliners as a collection and “The Dead” as a narrative both culminate in the great epiphany of Gabriel Conroy, the cosmic vision of a cemetery with snow falling on all the living and the dead”).

4. Baptism

Is there an alternative to the Heaney/Tóibín/Costello epiphanic “big leap” line of construction? Yes, there’s at least one – April Bernard’s “baptism” interpretation. In Bernard’s view, there’s no visionary leap. Instead, there’s a slow, steady descent to the water: 

We first look down, with the speaker, from a slight height to take in the scene—“All is silver: the heavy surface of the sea, / swelling slowly as if considering spilling over” and the five fishhouses, an old fisherman, fish tubs, lobster pots, the trees—before making our way downward, and then pausing. “The old man accepts a Lucky Strike. / He was a friend of my grandfather.” Then we proceed, down the boat ramp to the water itself, where, our narrator tells us, she often encounters a seal, to whom she sings “Baptist hymns” because they both believe “in total immersion.

We have swooped now, slowly down, and down, and are on our knees, as the poet urges us into the water, telling us, “If you should dip your hand in, / your wrist would ache immediately, / your bones would begin to ache and your hand would burn / as if the water were a transmutation of fire.” [“Elizabeth Bishop 1: Nova Scotia” (books.substack.com, April 4, 2024]

She concludes:

The ending sends us off, as if we’ve been dunked into the water for our own transformation, our own baptism, and perhaps our own death, into the cold “element” that is thrillingly, and maybe terribly, our true home. Her confiding voice here whispers us into the deep.

Bernard eschews the epiphanic for the baptismal. Her interpretation is quite persuasive, taking its cue from what Bishop says about the seal: “He was interested in music; / like me a believer in total immersion, / so I used to sing him Baptist hymns.” But I resist it. I’m not religious. I resist interpreting this great poem religiously. 

5. Reality 

I prefer a realist interpretation. I think I’ve found one. Zachariah Pickard, in his excellent Elizabeth Bishop’s Poetics of Description (2009), points out that, even though the poem’s last stanza does “shift gears,” its description of water (and the knowledge derived from it) is still concrete: it tastes “bitter, / then briny,” and makes “your wrist” and “bones” “ache” and “your hand” and “tongue” “burn.” He says, “Far from other-worldly, this knowledge comes from “the cold hard mouth / of the world.” I agree. This great poem is grounded in reality. 

September 20, 2021 Issue

I avidly read D. T. Max’s “Secrets and Lies,” a profile of the writer Colm Tóibín, in this week’s issue. Tóibín is one of my favourite writers. I say this even though I haven’t read even one of his eleven novels. It’s his criticism, essays, and travelogues that I love. Unfortunately, the focus of Max’s piece is on Tóibín’s new novel The Magician, a fictionalization of Thomas Mann’s life. But I did learn some interesting tidbits about Tóibín’s writing process. For example: “He took me into his study. He writes first drafts in longhand, in bound notebooks, filling the right-facing pages with his squat, forward-leaning script.” And: “Once Tóibín has figured out what he calls ‘the rhythm’ of a novel, he told me, he doesn’t do much rewriting. A book’s style, he said, ‘has to seem unforced and natural.’ ” Tóibín says something similar in his wonderful On Elizabeth Bishop (2015): “Novels and stories only come for me when an idea, a memory, or an image move into rhythm.”  

On Chemo: Anne Boyer and Colm Tóibín

Bianca Bagnarelli's illustration for Anne Boyer's "The Undying"

I’ve just finished reading Colm Tóibín’s superb “ ‘It’s curable,’ he said” (London Review of Books, April 18, 2019), an account of his experience of chemotherapy. It’s the second “chemo” piece I’ve read recently. The other is Anne Boyer’s “The Undying” (The New Yorker, April 15, 2019). It’s interesting to compare them.  

Boyer’s piece is linguistically richer. For example, here’s her opening paragraph:

Before I got sick, I’d been making plans for a place for public weeping, hoping to install in major cities a temple where anyone who needed it could get together to cry in good company and with the proper equipment. It would be a precisely imagined architecture of sadness: gargoyles made of night sweat, moldings made of longest minutes, support beams made of I-can’t-go-on-I-must-go-on.

You’ll not find arresting, original phrases like “gargoyles made of night sweat” in Tóibín’s piece. His is less a meditation and more a plain blow-by-blow description of what happened to him. It reads more like a journal. Here, for example, is his description of how he felt during and after his third chemotherapy session:

Slowly, as the chemo went on, things got worse. There were a few hours, especially in the early evening, that were almost OK, but the rest of the time was grim. There was no pain again, just increasing weakness, continued lack of appetite and growing depression. Nonetheless, the hospital was almost fine, filled with distractions and things that amused me. I liked everybody there and that helped. It was the time at home that was hard. One morning, a few days after I had finished the third week of chemo, I knew that I couldn’t go on. I found it difficult to stand and could no longer leave the house. I hadn’t eaten anything for three days. I was determined, however, to follow the agreed schedule, which included a blood test the following day. If there were any real problem the blood test would show what it was. But I found myself sitting in the middle of a room in real distress. It wasn’t just the lack of energy, or the inability to think, or the sense of some vast shadow wandering in my head: it was much more active and present than that. I tried my five-minute trick. I imagined that this would last only for five minutes. All I had to do was concentrate on the next five minutes, keeping at bay the certain knowledge that there would be many such five minutes and that would include today, all day.

Chemo devastated Tóibín. It wasn’t much kinder to Boyer. While she’s recovering from one of her treatments, she counts up her wounds:

The pains in my body were not precise instructions for the future or reliable accounts of the past. The entire upper half hurt: neck arms glands abdomen back eyeballs throat face shoulder head. There was one spot, on the side of what would be my new left breast, that hurt like an emergency. There was another spot, on the side of what would be my new right breast, that hurt like a minor emergency.

But as bad as it gets for Tóibín (at one point, after finishing his fourth and final treatment, he describes his condition as “like mixing a major hangover with a major flu”), he never mentions death. In contrast, Boyer’s piece is death-haunted. She writes,

My cancer was not just a set of sensations or lessons in interpretation or a problem for art, although it was all of these things. My cancer was a captive fear that I would die and leave my daughter in a hard world with no resources, a fear, too, that I had devoted my life to writing and sacrificed all I had and never come to its reward. It was a terror that all I’d ever written would sit data-mined but not read in Google’s servers until even Google’s servers were made of dust, and in the meantime I would become that unspeaking thing, a dead person, leaving too soon everyone and everything I loved the most.

I’m not sure Tóibín ever viewed his cancer as “a problem for art.” Unlike Boyer, who says having cancer opened her to “wild deathly thinking,” Tóibín repeatedly talks about his “inability to think” (“Everything that normally kept the day going was reduced to almost zero. I couldn’t think”; “I had such great resistance to thought that I didn’t even worry”). Nevertheless, both writers are artists to the tips of their fingernails (due to the chemo, Boyer’s nails actually lift and fall off). Both have produced transfixing records of their encounter with “the red devil.”

Favorite Books of 2015

Here are five books published in 2015 that I enjoyed immensely:

1. James Wood’s The Nearest Thing to Life, a collection of four extraordinary essays blending personal history with literary criticism. One of the pieces, "Why?," originally appeared in The New Yorker. (See my post here.)

2. Helen Vendler’s The Ocean, the Bird and the Scholar, a brilliant essay collection on poets and poetry, including two wonderful New Yorker pieces, “American X-Rays: Forty Years of Allen Ginsberg’s Poetry” and “Ardor and Artifice: Merrill’s Mozartian Touch.” (See my posts here and here.)

3. Julian Bell’s Van Gogh: A Power Seething, a superb, concise, stimulating study of Van Gogh’s life and work by one of my favorite art critics. (See my post here.)

4. Michael Hofmann’s Where Have You Been?, a delicious collection of essays on James Schuyler, Elizabeth Bishop, Robert Lowell, Zbigniew Herbert, Adam Zagajewski, and Les Murray, among others. It also contains an excellent piece on my favorite Canadian poet, Karen Solie. (See my post here.)

5. Colm Tóibín’s On Elizabeth Bishop, an exquisite study of Bishop’s poetry, including her great New Yorker poem, “At the Fishhouses,” which Tóibín ingeniously connects with James Joyce’s “The Dead.” (See my post here.)

Correction: I see now that Michael Hofmann's Where Have You Been? is not a 2015 book. It was published in 2014. But I read it this year, and so I'm going to keep it on my 2015 list. 

Elizabeth Bishop - Poetic Trickster?

Colm Tóibín, in his absorbing On Elizabeth Bishop (2015), calls Bishop’s habit of correcting or qualifying herself a “trick.” He says,  

The enacting of a search for further precision and further care with terms in the poems (and maybe in the letters too) was, in one way, a trick, a way of making the reader believe and trust a voice, or a way of quietly asking the reader to follow the poem’s casual and then deliberate efforts to be faithful to what it saw, or what it knew.

I’m not sure “trick” is the right word. It connotes insincerity. It’s too cynical. When Bishop, in her great “Santarém” (The New Yorker, February 20, 1978), says, “In front of the church, the Cathedral, rather,” is she trying to trick us into trusting her voice, or is she simply trying to be as accurate as possible? Tóibín further says,

The trick established limits, exalted precision, made the bringing of things down to themselves into a sort of conspiracy with the reader. But she also worried about anything that might be overlooked (“no detail too small”), or not noticed properly, or exaggerated, or let too loose into grand feelings, which were not fully to be trusted.

I agree with the “no detail too small” part of this observation. Bishop was a meticulous observer; she relished visual accuracy. Seamus Heaney, in his “Counting to a Hundred: On Elizabeth Bishop” (The Redress of Poetry, 1995), refers to her “obsessive attention to detail.”

But Tóibín has spurred my thinking. Why enact the qualification? Why not, in “Santarém,” for instance, just delete “church” and insert “Cathedral”? Why show both the first word choice and the more accurate second one? I think this is attributable to another element of Bishop’s style – her Hopkinsian aim to portray, in her words, “not a thought, but a mind thinking” (quoted in James Fenton’s “The Many Arts of Elizabeth Bishop,” The Strength of Poetry, 2001). As Fenton says, she shows “the feeling mind, feeling its way to thought.” One way she does this is by showing her hesitations, corrections, and qualifications. For example:

                                           Oil has seeped into

the margins of the ditch of standing water

and flashes or looks upward brokenly,

like bits of mirror – no, more blue than that:

like tatters of the Morpho butterfly.

[from “Under the Window: Ouro Prêto,” The New Yorker, December 24, 1966]

No, more blue than that – this instant qualification isn’t a trick; it’s a habit of mind – “a feeling mind, feeling its way to thought.”

Notes on James Wolcott's "Critical Mass"

James Wolcott, in his delectable essay collection Critical Mass, describes John Updike’s Hugging the Shore as being “crammed with goodies.” The same can be said of Critical Mass. One of its most enjoyable aspects is Wolcott’s Kaelesque ability to pin his subjects with arresting, sharp-eyed, sharp-tongued appraisals. For example, he says Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s “conveys the champagne fizz and sparkle of fashion magazines in the fifties, the infusion of frisky new energy into old money. It’s all surface, but the surface dances.” He calls Capote’s “La Côte Basque, 1965” “a cutthroat string quartet.” He says of William Shawn, “His desk was an altar where the ideals of accuracy, clarity, and understated elegance were held sacrosanct. Every article, no matter how ephemeral, was groomed like a French poodle.” Of Norman Mailer: “The crippler is that in his writing Mailer was psychologically, creatively, empathetically tone-deaf when it came to women, his female characters a creamy mélange of angel-whores whose lipstick was ripe for smearing – a Playboy Bunny mansion of haughty bitches and breathy ditzes whose dialogue bore no resemblance to indoor speech.” On William Styron: “My own problem with Styron’s ennobled potboilers was not his subject matter, point of view, historical accuracy, pale-male effrontery, or any other heavy carbs, but the sheer awful self-conscious succulence of the prose, a fruit-orchard in every scene-painting description.”

Wolcott doesn’t analyze at the level of language the way James Wood does. His hands aren’t as inky with text (to steal a phrase from Wood) as Wood’s are. Both critics are incredible metaphoricists. Wolcott mixes his metaphors more than Wood does. His writing is fizzier, more audacious. In his piece on Marvin Mudrick, Wolcott says that Mudrick “turned litcrit into a spinoff of stand-up comedy.” The same can be said of Wolcott. Like Kael, he’s a master of the parenthetical wisecrack. His inspired “Ved, have a melon ball,” in “The Love Bug,” makes me laugh every time I read it.

Reading Wolcott, I’m sometimes reminded of Wilfrid Sheed, except he doesn’t treat criticism as a game the way Sheed did. Sheed’s reviews were all about how witty he could be. Wolcott is more attentive to his subject, more descriptive. When he’s really digging his material, he can strike some wonderfully surprising, surreal word combos. Consider this beauty from Wolcott’s superb “Manny Farber’s Termite Art” (included in Critical Mass):  

His McCabe and Mrs. Miller features a broken bar of Hershey’s chocolate, and The Films of R. W. Fassbinder so trims the fat from Fassbinder’s blobby corpus that what’s left is a pair of toilets, a telephone cord and receiver stretched across an empty bed, a giant beer bottle, and a magazine spread on Hanna Schygulla.

When was the last time you saw “McCabe and Mrs. Miller,” “Hershey’s chocolate,” “R. W. Fassbinder,” “blobby corpus,” “toilets,” “telephone cord,” “empty bed,” “giant beer bottle,” “magazine spread,” and “Hanna Schygulla” conjoined in the same sentence? I’ll bet, never. It’s the prose equivalent of a ravishing Rauschenberg combine. I love it.

Wolcott doesn’t treat Capote and Cheever as failed saints the way (say) Daniel Mendelsohn and Colm Tóibín do. “Liar,” “failure,” “snob,” “drunk” occur so often in Mendelsohn’s “The Truman Show” (included in his How Beautiful It Is and How Easily It Can Be Broken, 2008) and Tóibín’s “My God, the Suburbs” (London Review of Books, November 5, 2009), I found myself thinking, these guys enjoy using these words. It’s tonic to read Wolcott’s Capote and Cheever pieces because he avoids Mendelsohn’s and Tóibín’s moralizing, prosecutorial approach. Wolcott relishes Capote’s and Cheevers’s complex, tormented personalities. He says of Capote:

For many, the fizzle of Answered Prayers and his personal tailspin offer a spectacle more engrossing than the arc of a distinguished life. A dignified exit may be desirable in principle, but if you can have your subject bumming around in his bathrobe in public, then you’ve got yourself a Cautionary Tale. There but for the grace of God and an empty liquor cabinet go I.

On Cheever, he writes:

Our literary life would be poorer without its theatrical touch-ups, and Cheever’s are no more to be begrudged and censured than the pile of buttermilk batter that James Dickey became or Isak Dinesen’s eye shadow.

I agree. The essence of being human is that we screw up. I applaud Wolcott’s humanism (and humor). Dan and Colm, have a melon ball.