How would you interpret the following poem?I’ve justnever knownwhatto callthat country.If I sayEnglandI don’t thinkI sound sosmart. I...

First, as I am sure you are already aware, this is a poem by a University of California professor named Eileen Myles called "That Country." I am not saying that everything poets in respectable positions produce is good, but I do think that she deserves the benefit of the doubt and the consideration that there may be more going on here than meets the eye.

This is definitely not a classically constructed poem (or even one that easily fits the mainstream definition of poetry) but that is part of its charm (or it's horribleness, depending on your point of view.)  While I don't agree with johnmiltonwesle in his assertion about not calling it a poem, I would agree that it has the definite "steam of consciousness" feel to it.  Maybe that's all there is to it (I for one would feel cheated, but I am not a connoisseur of poetry) and maybe it is more "constructed" than it feels.  Again, I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she is not just jerking my chain with self-glorified "everything I write is great" BS.

So what is it about?  Hell if I know, but I can sus out a few things here and there.  It would be interesting to email her and see her take on it...

From what I can gather, the poem is more about language than about places.  From my perspective, the poet seems to be commenting on sort of a "post modern" idea about the function and usefulness of language.  She seems to have three strands going:

1. Language is imprecise:  She talks about England, Britain, and the UK and how none of them means what she thinks of when considering the place, which focuses on London.  In fact, saying "England" is so imprecise that she is embarrassed because it is so close to "English."  It goes along with the idea that something may have a name, but that name is not that something.


2. How language changes, adding to its imprecision: She seems to be saying that the American bastardization of "English English" is both a horrible and beautiful thing.  She takes some joy, it would seem, in mauling the "proper" English spoke by natives of England.  The language, it seems to her, is in flux and carries with it a social connotation (if I am making any sense.)


3. There seems to be a little jibe in there at how words are constructed, such as "really."  Why are 2 "l's" needed in the word when just one would do?  This is another example of form versus function, sort of like "proper" English versus "conventional" English.

That last bit about the coin...well, that's anyone's guess.  Is she saying that conversational (American?) English has an "edginess" to it that proper English does not?  I can't help but see the image...a quarter.  That is an "edgy" coin because of all the ridges.  Speaking up?  This usually means to talk out against something you feel is unfair.  Is that the point of the poem?  Perhaps.

So, as you can see, this is a tough one.  Good luck!