WE. WANT. ANSWERS. To a few reasonable questions.

1) Did you purposely choose to make some of your metaphors ridiculous?- courtesy of the irreplaceable DOC

I think that this was the point of the piece. The ridiculous nature of overly metaphoric poetry that clearly just strives to be poetic has been overlooked for too long. My main man Billy is making a satirical comment on this by not using just one obscure and open-ended metaphor as many writers will, but a litany of them, one after the other in succession, until it is abundantly clear that nothing is being said at all. The fact that so many of the questions our class asked were about what the poem meant and the relationship between Billy and the subject of the poem shows that if the poem is a success at all, his goal was to border on ridiculous and meaningless to prove his point. And if not, then perhaps he's just a terrible writer. Which I don't think is the case.

2) Do you actually love the woman in the poem? - brought to you with limited commercial interruption by Nel

Have you ever read Shakespeare's Sonnet 130? It's really well-known as a comment on romantic metaphor. Read below:

"My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
   And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
   As any she belied with false compare. "

Shakespeare, In this poem, is mocking another poem that compares all of the enclosed things with the writer's love, and Shakespeare, in writing it, shows that his love is "as rare / As any belied with false compare." While the metaphors of music, roses and perfume might sound pretty, Shakespeare is advocating a more realistic look at love. Even though he is mocking this romantic writing, he is in love with his mistress. I am drawing comparison between this instance and that of Billy Collins. While Billy is mocking the writing practice, I do believe that he is looking at it in the same vein as Billy Shakes. He's pointing out the silliness associated with "love" and how unnecessary it. Shakespeare admits at the end that while his lady is not any of the metaphors above, he loves her incredibly. While Billy Collins does not do so, I think it can definitely be assumed. Or, rather, maybe Billy isn't commenting on a particular woman at all but just using one for the sake of the poem. I don't think that bully's relationship is as important to look t as the original writer's. Just because he wrote a poem and took it seriously are we expected to believe the message? Are we expected to even understand it? Not every poem is written in truth, and this may well have been one for the sake of the writer, to display his incredible appetite for seemingly meaningless, yet pretty, word choice.


3) And introducing special guest, Breen, with the question--- In the last three stanzas, what motivated you to turn the speaker’s attention to him/herself?

I actually think that this was a comment on this type of writer's (not Billy, but the one whom he rewrites) self-involvement and obsession. This self-reference and aggrandizement is characteristic of the writer that creates elusive metaphor and vague illustration. It seems as thought Billy is saying, at the end, "now, let's remember, that I am also involved in this grand world of metaphor, let's talk about me". It's the most biting portion of this piece, because it is a direct attack on the writer as opposed to the style. Needless to say, I appreciated it thoroughly.

Well, that is our show. Tune in next week for... Well, we'll just have to wait and see, hmm?

Signed,
Cassandra Rose Blaise DeMarco