Look again at the "Dog" in Ferlinghetti's San Francisco Poems and think again about the question that came up in lecture around Ferlinghetti's "innocence" (40).
Are the last lines of "Dog" sincere, innocent, sarcastic, all of the above? Something else?
Is the dog a hero or villain or ordinary guy? What is Ferlinghetti's stance towards Victorola Records (if he has one)? Do you ever feel yourself falling into the position of being an advertisement as perhaps, this dog does? With what tone would you propose to approach such a situation?
Is there anything that you see differently in the world after reading this poem and thinking about Ferlinghetti's stance?
* There's no right answer here.*
Your response can be analytical, experiential or created, although you need to be able explain what you did and how you arrived at that from the poem if you give yourself an experiential or creative assignment. The same goes for analytical responses.
51 comments:
The last lines of the Dog poem are, on first analysis, reflective of the innocence of the dog. He is always expecting, he is hopeful, he doesn't doubt. However, this in its self reveals Felinghetti's sarcasm. The point that F. is making here is that whilst the dog will continue to expect and hope, the "Victorious answer to everything" will never come.
The dog is the most typically ordinary creature imaginable judging on how he acts solely on his instincts. But this is what makes him a hero. He sees things exactly how they are ("Moons on trees") and so reveals himself not to be clouded by human thought and doubt and monotony. He is everything that we wish we could be: innocent and free. This I believe is Ferlinghetti's message. He is preaching to the public (as he did to young poets) to free the mind.
Judging by the continuous thread of defying authority and establishment that is present within the poem, I approach the dog looking like a Victorola advertisement as a tongue in cheek critique of big business and establishment possessing animalistic attributes.
The last lines of “Dog” make use of sarcasm and mild cynicism to comment on a very serious topic. Ferlinghetti is making a sincere statement about the nature of innocence and commodification of emotions.
The dog is an ordinary guy and a symbol for all “ordinary guys.” He represents the progress of human beings as individuals and the progress of society as a whole. The dog is innocent and curious in the beginning of the poem. He sees the world as it is through sensory perception alone. He doesn’t reason or pass judgment on the “Drunks in doorways” or bother himself with the dealings of politicians and policemen. He simply wants to see everything and live for himself. This innocence and simplicity is admirable in the dog and in society. Then, just as the dog begins to explore politics, economics, and scholarship, he is captured in a picture for Victorola Records. Any innocence he has left becomes a less admirable yet similar quality: naiveté. His innocence is commodified, and suddenly it is his responsibility to protect himself, but he doesn’t even know it’s happening. It makes him a pathetic victim instead of an innocent, lively being. It robs him of that quality.
Ferlinghetti criticizes the act of commodification, but he also comments on the dog’s participation in it. Though the dog doesn’t intentionally pose for the ad, he participates in materialism by “listening for/His Master’s Voice/and looking/like a living questionmark/into the/gramophone/of puzzling existence.” The Master’s Voice could be that of the dog’s literal master, which suggests that he has replaced his best friend and only human contact with a machine. It is a comment on the departure from a slower, more connected way of life. The capitalization, however, implies God, which suggests that the dog, who represents society, is looking toward the gramophone to hear God. Materialism has replaced religion and spirituality.
Victorola Records represents the corporate world, the evil force behind materialism and the commodification of emotion and innocence. Ferlinghetti clearly takes a hostile stance toward the establishment.
While it is quite evident that Ferlinghetti implements sarcasm towards the end of the poem, the poem also seeks to reveal certain truths that F. seems to promote.
The dog, as others have pointed out, acts as an innocent figure almost reflecting the personality of a poet as he examines the bustling city as a fly on a wall. The dog acts initially as a sort of hero figure for all poets who wish to have the freedom of unbiased observation experienced by the dog towards the beginning of the poem.
Though the end of the poem presents a more sarcastic and sardonic view on the ideals of freedom as it is viewed from these described poets, it still offers great insight into the mindset of F. in this poem. He seems to suggest the sheer inevitability of succumbing to trends as even this free dog must do. However, his language merely seems to suggest this notion rather than offer clear commentary, reflecting the very inevitability of the aforesaid concept. As this poem suggests, people will inevitably hail to some sort of fad; however it is the paths of freedom that we follow that will define our characters.
The Dog in Ferlinghetti's poem possesses an innocence but it is an ignorant sort of innocence. The Dog has something to say about reality and the nature of being, but it is not clear that the Dog ever really thinks about things. He is an observer he looks at the world around him but never seems to fully process it. The Dog in this poem serves as a figure of the everyman. Just living his life not concerned enough about anything to take real action. The Dog finds himself caught up in the sensory nature of existence. He is too busy "touching and tasting and testing everything" to spend time actually thinking about what these things actually mean (51).
This serves to make him a tragic figure, "a living questionmark / into the / great gramophone / of puzzling existence," (76-79). He is too distracted to actually think about what these things mean, or to take real action against them. He is mesmerized by "His Master's Voice" (74). He stands there frozen, waiting for instruction. He doesn't realize that this is what he is doing. He thinks "he has his own free world to live in" (41). However, he is so distracted by the things that make up his sensory and physical existence such as eating and going to the bathroom that he doesn't think too hard about anything else. Because of this the dog in the poem is easily controlled. He is a victim of behavorial conditioning simply waiting for whatever command his master gives him so that he may receive his reward. He has become an obedient and complacent figure just like most members of our society.
As a member of our society of course I see myself as falling into this trance-like state at times. I try to read during commercials in order to not be influenced by them. I try not to buy clothes that have brand name logos on them. Why should I pay to advertise their company? However, there are times when brand-names are so familiar and convenient that one feels no other choice exists. We are a consumer culture that gives in to our sensory desires all to often. We are Dogs listening for our master's voice so he can tell us what we should eat and drink, how we should live and when we should sleep.
Dana A. Campbell
Ferlinghetti sets up “Dog” as the tale of the “average Joe”. The dog is innocent and immersing himself into a world that attempts to influence his move in every direction. The way in which the poem opens creates an atmosphere where the dog is care-free: the dog “trotting freely” displays him a child-like, naïve light where the dog “sees reality”. The dog then comes across many outside sources, rather than things that directly affected him before.
The dog parallels a member of the youth in the sense that the dog has no sense of the world’s depth in the beginning of the poem: the dog sees the world superficially, like many of the youth do before they are forced to face reality. The dog, like many of the youth today, is “depressed” and “sad” because of a politician (Congressman Doyle) that says “discouraging” things, even though they live in a free country in which they have their first amendment rights and “will not be muzzled.” Towards the middle of the poem, the form changes and the dog starts to bark, simply a metaphor for the youth that start to speak freely about “free enterprise,” “ontology,” and “reality.” The dog, as anti-conformist as he wants to be, he eventually falls into the trap. The dog takes a picture for “Victor Records,” which I’m not sure if it actually exists, but from my reading of the poem, I found the record store to be a metaphor for a capitalist society and that the store was named “Victor” meaning that the store was victorious in overtaking the innocent dog. What was most interesting was the way that Ferlinghetti ties the idea of the dog being submissive to his Master at the end and living life by his Master’s command. Ferlinghetti suggests that as an audience, life shouldn’t be dictated by one’s “Master.’
The dog is at first average, with the things he sees both “bigger” and “smaller than himself.” He originally represents a specific, alternative view, an person with a sense of naivete about the world. Being a dog, he also represents someone of low poverty, such as a beatnik or bum. As a “dog” he has a sense of freedom, trotting “freely in the street” and “doesn’t hate cops, merely has no use for them.”
As the poem continues, however, we see the dog transforming from a creature of innocence and freedom until it becomes clear that the dog has worries as well. He is concerned about the politics of Congressman Doyle and seems to understand it is “very discouraging, very depressing, very absurd,” and calls himself a “serious dog.”
The dog continues to put emphasis on his freedom with his “own dog’s life to live” and how he “will not be muzzled.” Yet we see the dog getting increasingly more drawn into political human issues and “engaged in free enterprise.” It concludes with him becoming a symbol for an advertisement, a bastardization of all the freedom that the dog originally stands for. It is a sad tone, the transformation of an innocent freedom lover into a symbol and a speaker for a corporation with its “hollow horn.”
The dog initially see’s the world in a strictly relative sense. Certain things are bigger than him whilst others are smaller. Initially he acts as an unbiased observer of the reality of San Francisco, the normal day to day activities of the city. He observes sights and smells free to come and go as he pleases. The dog represents the innocent naïve belief in the freedom of our existence and in our own personal lives. Ferlinghetti is addressing these notions of innocence and the free spirit. At first the dog appears to be the “urban flaneur” not subject to regulation. As the narrative continues the dog acknowledges that effects of the Unamerican Committee, of politics and police, but while he admits the situation is “discouraging and very depressing” he believes to be unaffected by it “he has his own free world to live in” and he will not be muzzled. Perhaps this is the reflection of the ordinary man who feels distant from the politics and conflict, free in his own world distanced from such matters; an outsider able to observe and comment yet uninvolved. But as the poem continues we see that is never the case the dog is inevitably wrapped up in the politics of advertisement and manipulation. The dog responds to a master a question mark without the “hollow horn” providing an answer for everything. He looks to those in power to provide him with his responses and actions. Ferlinghetti is addressing that we are inevitably mixed up in the politics and power. Our responses and personal choices are shaped by powers outside ourselves.
Rosa Donaldson
The last lines of Ferlighetti’s “Dog” could entail more than one meaning depending on whose perceptions they are viewed from. Ferligheti and his readers know that the Victrola gramophone will not provide any sort of deep and meaningful answers as looked for by the dog, revealing a sarcasm behind the language. The spacing of the last lines serves to dramatize them and emphasize the sarcasm. However, from the dog’s point of view the lines could be construed as genuine and sincere. Ferlighetti describes him as a “living question mark” investigating everything around him. Perhaps to the dog, the gramophone really could seem as if it would give answers. He is sincere in his investigations reflecting on his innocence as a creature of instinct.
Ferlighetti’s dog could qualify as an “ordinary guy” as he seems to be above notions of good and bad or any sense of morality. Given the choice of eating “a tender cow” or “a tough policeman” the dog would choose the cow “though either might do”. His choice in this matter comments on his existence as an animal driven by his instincts. The dog harbors no ill feelings towards either of the potential prey and his preference for the cow is motivated purely by it’s tenderness as opposed to the tough meat of the policeman. Ferlighetti portrays the dog as equally capable of good and bad, depending on where his instincts drive him. He is capable of eating the policeman, but Ferlighetti points out that “He doesn’t hate cops/ He merely has no use for them” Ferlighetti also mentions the dogs lack of fear concering the House Unamerican Activities Committee seeming to place him both above the law and political systems, having no need for them. Is the dog a villain for his capacity to do harm to people out of an instinctual need to feed himself? Is he a hero for being above notions of law and government and existing as a truly free individual? I think the answer is somewhat ambiguous. He could be the hero for those afraid of government oppression, or the villain due to his lack of morality and animal nature. The dog is his own self, neither good nor bad.
As much as Ferlighetti paints the dog as a powerful and independent figure, his use of the imagery of the record advertisement demonstrates the inescapability of our media culture. The dog for all his freedom and his radically altered perceptions still ends up dumbfounded and imitating a popular commercial image. The poem itself seems to slow down and space itself out as if the fast-paced investigative spirit that the poem initially presented is coming to a grinding halt as it encounters the irresistible monotony of consumer culture. I think the poem ends on a rather bleak tone. Ferlighetti sets us up with a dog not tethered by any moral or legal restraints, demonstrating a true and powerful notion of freedom, only to have him puzzled and awaiting answers from an outside source whereas before he had “his own dog’s life to live/and to think about/ and reflect upon”
I believe the last lines of "Dog" are both innocent and sincere. A dog is a relatively primitive creature and has a certain stereotype attributed to it that allows people to see all dogs in the same light. Ferlinghetti uses this to create the feeling that all people are relatively the same. He emphasizes this with lines like "The dog trots freely in the street/
and the things he smells/
smell something like himself". Lines like these capture the essence of homogeneity in humanity that is somewhat unescapable as if we are all just unintelligent dogs.
Moreso than the sameness factor of dogs/people is the overbearing question of reality which is at the heart of the poem as expressed by the very first lines of
"The dog trots freely in the street/
and sees reality/
and the things he sees/
are bigger than himself/
and the things he sees/
are his reality"
There is an element of a question that the "dog" is posing about the world and about the various players in this world like the newsprint fishes and chickens in windows that suggests the dog feels like he is above it all or somewhat more transient, yet Ferlinghetti squashes this idea in the end of the poem. Even after the "dog" has mentioned all of the factors of life that he is cognizant of and therefore more enlightened towards, Ferlinghetti uses the situation of the dog on the corner, undoubtedly a play on the young poets who would spout prose on the street corners in San Francisco, to remind the reader that even if this dog thiknks he has some "victorious answer" to all questions of life, he would change his entire frame of mind if his "master" (people like Ferlinghetti or Ginsberg) told him otherwise. To me, Ferlinghetti sees himself a bit in the young upstarts of San Francisco and their naivete which is why I think the poem isn't sarcastic, but he most definitely is sincere in his subtle admonishment of later generations of San Franciscan poets.
The last lines of "Dog" seem to suggest a sense of innocence and sincerity. A dog is a creature that only knows what it is taught, otherwise looks at the world with curiousity. Although the dog is curious about his surroundings, it is clear that he is simply an observer just making his way through San Francisco and living his simple dog-life. He gets distracted by smells and sounds, his reality.
The dog is portrayed as an ordinary person, and maybe an example of how people should act. He's free to do anything, he doesn't hate anyone, and has no fears. At first the dog is presented as simple-minded and irrelevent, however towards the end of the poem, the dog becomes mixed up in politics...something he has no use for, just like the cops he mentioned earlier in the poem.
Ferlinghetti views Victorola Records as being a corporate bully forcing society into materialism.
By the way this is my first blog ever...
As Ferlinghetti begins his poem, the dog presented seems to have a broad scope of reality beyond that experienced by ordinary U.S. citizens. He is able to “trot freely in the street” without thoughts of being muzzled by hostile politicians or corporations; in fact, part of his heroism lies in his ability to shy away from these entities. Rather, the dog basks in pungent smells wafting through the air, gazes up and down city streets as sights shift, and takes in disheartening words spoken by a Congressman.
Then the dog recognizes that he has his own life to live, “his own fleas to eat,” and ultimately becomes engulfed by a corporation – Victorola Records. Thus, there is something sardonic to Ferlinghetti’s last few lines, which seem to assert that no answers exist. What follows industrialism is a giant question mark, like the dog, leaving society with mere advertisements of what everyone in the nation should aspire to. Here, Ferlinghetti targets big business as part of the problem, but not necessarily the source. Greed and self-absorption spur industry onward while the rest of the population is sucked into new fads or trends.
At times, I do feel myself falling into the position of being an advertisement. In today's world it's difficult to buy anything without a corporate logo or some symbol of capitalism. We're all so immersed in this system of power that some even go as far as expecting other nations to align themselves with our standards of "progress," which is ridiculous, in my opinion.
I feel like the last sentences show the innocence of the dog, the simplicity of the dog's life in what he sees and what he wants/ he is looking for (his master). There is innocence in the last lines in that dog is a "real realist," meaning he only sees what is real, sees what is the truth. I also feel like the dog is neither hero, villain, nor ordinary guy...he is just a dog who sees the world through unbiased eyes-an animal of pure observation without critical opinion. I kind of see how the dog was an advertisement when he is posing as if his picture is being taken for Victor Records, but its kind of vague. And yes, sometimes I do feel like I am falling into the position of being an advertisement...and I don't think there is any way of escaping it because we live in a capitalistic society...everyone is like an advertisement. For example you have your vegan/hippy person who advertises a certain way of eating (advertising shopping at New Leaf or farmer's markets) and a certain way of dressing (advertising second-hand stores). Because the dog is posing with his head cocked sideways, he has a look about him (an essence) of being the symbol (the advertisement) of Victor Records. I see the process of observation differently after reading this poem. I feel like when we sometimes observe or investigate things we rush to make a biased opinion of our findings, instead of looking at things unbiasedly, like the dog: "but he's not afraid of Congressman Doyle/although what he hears is very discouraging/... Congressman Doyle is just another/ fire hydrant/ to him/...the dog...has his own dog's life to live..."
In Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s “The Dog,” the lifestyle and concerns of the artist of San Francisco are illustrated through the interests and encounters of a “freely” trotting dog. As the poem opens, the dog is portrayed as a free-floater exploring the familiar streets of San Francisco, “the dog trots freely in the streets” (37). This line is later echoed further exemplifying the dog as a drifter comfortable with the area of San Francisco (37). Indifferent to the mundane, corporeal aspects of the city such as the police and Congressman Doyle, the dog appears more interested in the broader pictures as well as the smaller details.
The speaker describes the dog’s disinterest in policemen as having “no use for them,” while also stating that the dog “is not afraid of Congressman Doyle/although what he hears is discouraging,” to him “Congressman Doyle is just another/fire hydrant” (38). Ferlinghetti thus illustrates the lack of fear of the Unamerican Committee through the lack of fear of Congressman Doyle from the dog’s perspective--the dog, like the artistic community of San Francisco, “will not be muzzled” by the threats of the governing authority (38).
Despite this sense of defiance, the dog is not characterized as a hero, but rather a thinker and observer of things large and small, “the things he sees/are bigger than himself...moons on trees...the things he sees are smaller than himself/fish on newsprint/ants in holes...” (37). The dog’s reality is encompassed in the beauty of the simple--often unnoticed or unappreciated--aspects of San Francisco. By not being absorbed by the political concerns, the dog is free to roam and appreciate as he pleases “touching and tasting and testing everything”-- “a real realist,” a “democratic dog” (39).
Thus far, the poem has developed the dog into the artistic epitome, and yet the last stanza of the poem complicates this illustration by tying in the commercial side of representation and art with the introduction of Victor Records. The dog, similarly to the beat poets, quickly becomes commoditized as an image for “Victor Records/listening for/His Master’s Voice” (40). How could this dog--or a “real realist,” a true artist and thinker--be mastered by an image as feeble and commercialized as a music record company?
The dog in Ferlinghetti’s poem is portrayed as a harmless creature subjected to the control and greed of human beings. Throughout the majority of the poem, the dog wanders through the streets of San Francisco completely on his own, free from the control of any master. Towards the end of the poem, the dog’s master appears as an agent, directing him during his photo shoot for Victorola Records, and clearly imposing his/her control upon the animal. In the last lines of the poem, the dog is “listening for/ His Master’s Voice”, clearly unable to make his own decisions at this point (40). If anything, the dog is a pawn in the greater workings of big business, for as he tilts his head at his owner’s command, he truly has no idea as to the purpose he serves for Victorola Records.
Although the closing line of the poem is readily tinged with sarcasm, an adequate argument is made by Ferlinghetti in concluding his poem. It is apparent that there is no “Victorious answer/ to everything” in the real world where the dog has roamed, but in the business world this notion is readily marketed (40). While it is obvious that no universal solution to all problems exists, it is comforting to be carried away by the idealistic notion that such things are possible. By comparing the innocence and overall naivety of the dog to the power hungry record corporation, Ferlinghetti heightens the opposition between the consumer/producer relationship which is so common in capitalist America.
Ferlinghetti uses the "Dog" in his poem to represent the everyday "ordinary guy" who wanders around experiencing the world through his eyes. He begins by describing things just the way they are, "fish on newsprint/Ants in holes/Chickens in Chinatown windows" but then continues to make more meaningful observations, particularly about cops who are no interest to him, but who he is not afraid of either, for he would eat "a tough policeman" if he had to. The Dog continues trotting along until he is disappointed by "Congressman Doyle," though it is alright since "he has his own free will to be in." Although the Dog remains innocent, the world around is not. The world around him can be ugly and disappointing. With mentioning that the Dog is free in his own world anyway, Ferlinghetti is appealing to the readers of his poetry, telling them to go out and be free from the constraints of the world. The again, as the poem continues, Ferlinghetti uses sarcasm to point out that one should be careful when freeing oneself, for it's one thing to be free, it is another to be downright naive. The last lines describe the Dog as a "real live barking democratic dog," fighting conformity left and right (or so it seems like it). In the end however, he too is trapped. He is trapped by what it seems we are all trapped by in the end, capitalism. The Dog becomes an advertisement, posing for pictures, "listening for His Master's voice."
Ferlinghetti's last couple of lines are heavy with sarcasm. The picture of the dog represents the answers the we are constantly looking for and are sometimes promised. By moving through life the way the dog has and eventually falling into the same pitfalls, there is not way we would be able to every find that "victorious answer to everything."
The dog which Ferlinghetti writes about represents the many different vantage points, experiences and existences which exist in the Imperial City. Everything that the dog experiences and sees around him is written and can be read through our humancentric and western way of analyzing emotions, motivations, etc. While the dog is in San Francisco, he is in a different SF than you and I would be in because the lens through which he views things is refracted to fit his own self. When referring to the dog, Ferlinghetti says that "he has his own free world to live in". his own world includes all of the stimuli that others (humans) experience, but he does not imagine them in the same way as humans nor do they carry the same meanings. For this reason, he is a rebel. He defies common sensibilities and views the world around him through an uncommon lens.
The last lines of "Dog" show the honesty and integrity of the dog. Throughout the poem, the dog stays true to his nature and self. He is wholeheartedly aware of his relationship to man and man's creations, yet many of those creations do not concern him. For example, the dog is afraid of Coit tower, yet completely unintimidated by Congressman Doyle. Coit Tower, a man made monument, is more unfamiliar and daunting than a mere man to the dog.
Ferlinghetti's decision to depict the dog in a true and honest manner is in keeping with the message of the preponderance of a multitude of personal relationships and experiences that people have to SF. One shared experience held by every being (human or not) in SF is that they are IN San Francisco. It is this common ground where we begin to see the universality of the notions of a common "puzzling existence" which EVERYONE experiences.
I see the dog in Ferlinghetti's poem as innocent with a touch of ignorance as well. To me, the dog creates his own reality out of what he sees around himself and nothing else such as when Ferlinghetti writes "the things he sees are his reality" (37). He focuses on himself and what is in his environment to develop his own consciousness and ideologies. Linking what he smells to his own smells, he aligns himself with his perception of the world (37). I see the dog as being able to trot "freely" because of his lack of concern and naivety. He, like the youth of America, choose to marginalize themselves into a sort of downtrodden, misunderstood people which is, in fact, playing into the corporate need for this "alternative" group to market to, such as through Victrola Records. The youth, and thus the dog, both hate the record company as a sign of capitalism and materialism and feed it buy playing into its target market.
I see the dog as a symbol of American youth especially in the time Ferlinghetti is writing, but also in the present.
The last lines of the "Dog" are sarcastic in implying that some non-existing element holds the key to all society's problems. He implies that the gramaphone is "hollow" indicating it is filled with nothing which seems to present that the gramaphone, the higher existence, does not have anything for us. However, we as humans often tend to look to something bigger than ourselves for the answers and struggles in our lives. We choose to project our worries, fears, and hopes onto something else thus giving up a sort of personal responsibility.
To me, the dog is more ignorant than innocent and reflects a sort of shallow American way of knowing the world.
The subject in Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s “Dog” is a mediocre character with hopes of grandeur. He trots along the street observing his banal surroundings attempting to focus on current events he does not really care about or understand or already has opinions on. He had wishes and desires to be something great.
In the final moments of the poem, the speaker informs the audience that the dog, being like all other dogs, is one with a story and beliefs. He is a dog that can look into the mystery of the world and hope for some form of reconciliation. There is no sarcastic or innocent twinge to the final lines, they are simply a record of the dog (reflecting the normal mediocre modern American) and his idealistic perception about all the world is and can be.
I wouldn't call the dog 'innocent' so much as 'indifferent.' He seems to know things that humans can't possibly know, and he is quite unaffected by the cultural, social, mental and even physical restraints of contemporary human existence. He cruises the streets without pausing to acknowledge the policemen or the congressman or the chickens or the factories and business buildings, which serve him no purpose in life. He simply observes his surroundings with mild interest, seeing the world almost as if through the eyes of a child, "touching and tasting and testing everything/investigating everything." Ferlinghetti wants to show his readers that we can learn something from this dog, this vagabond, transient being who "has something to say about reality." Naturally everybody has a different perspective on reality, sees things through their own eyes, but can still learn something from this creature who wanders the streets without a care in the world, inhibited by nothing, not even the authoritative figures we humans know as "the cops." He instinctively, almost unknowingly, holds the secret to ultimate freedom of mind, body and spirit. The ending lines could be perceived as ironic because the dog winds up being transformed from the ultimate bohemian free spirit into one of the most iconic symbols of American mainstream media. Perhaps Ferlinghetti is trying to say that the dog is not so free after all, or that freedom is merely a state of mind. Perhaps he is trying to say that even the creatures who seem like they have figured out how to truly live are still just as confused as the rest of us, as the iconic dog sits patiently, "looking like a living questionmark/into the great gramophone/of puzzling existence."
The dog trots freely through the street, “touching and tasting and testing everything / investigating everything / without benefit of perjury.” (39) The dog passes by San Francisco landmarks and social institutions and barely analytically engages with them. He sees everything and makes his mental notes, but neither the hung-up dead animals nor the imposing figures of a police officer and a congressman seem to have much effect on his mood or his emotions. As Prof. Wilson said in class (10/02), the dog “is not subject to regulation,” which seems a lot like how I’ve come to understand the Buddhist-saint Beats tried to live in the city. Considering themselves separate from the realities of consumerism, anti-Communism, and media advertisements, the dog and the Beats wander (subsconsciously?) guilty through the city of free enterprise.
All of us “regular guys” who benefit from the social, economic, and educational systems which place Caucasian males in control may realize how we keep oppressive institutions running, or we may not. I think a big problem is the people who benefit the most from these systems tend to be apathetic towards those disadvantaged by the systems, and would rather deny culpability than accept responsibility. The dog “has his own dog’s life to live / and to think about / and to reflect upon” (39), and since he can trot freely through the streets, why should he or we or Ferlinghetti care about the drug-addicted homeless veterans we step over in the streets? Does it matter how people become human garbage to those of us who buy Victor Records?
The dog, and Ferlinghetti, and visitors to and residents of San Francisco who remember Candlestick and Tony Bennett may have fog in their eyes when it comes to comprehensively recapturing that long lost city. Wandering like a ghost, disapproving but detached, and writing about it, can only do so much . . .
The dog in this story seems to be the average person around Santa Cruz or San Francisco. The dog character begins with initially walking in a street observing the world around him. There are things larger than him, such as the drunks in doorways. These are his reality and are larger than him because he knows there is nothing he could do about them. The problem of the homeless is too much for him to handle on his own. There are also things smaller than him, such as the poultry hanging in a dining window. The conditions in which livestock are taken care of, he realizes are terrible, but the problem isn’t important enough for him to really be bothered by it. Finally there are things that he finds commonalities with. What is interesting about this section is Ferlinghetti doesn’t actually say what the dog smells; we are left wondering. This is done to interact with the reader on a personal level. I may read it and interpret the smells as other people walking by, but someone else may read it and talk about car pollution (both valid interpretations).
Next the dog seems to analyze the world around him, just as many of the locals seem to do. He talks about animal rights again with the dead cow, tough policemen he doesn’t want around unless he needs them, and just another corrupt congressman. But with all these negative issues around him all he continues to do is walk down the street and think. There is no action, he “has his own dog's life to live and to think about and to reflect upon.” He is really out to take care of his own problems and watch out for himself. He attempts to justify his thought process by saying he will not be muzzled. Fair enough, he is saying what he wants to say. But because of his lack of action he is turning in his muzzle for a short leash. He isn’t going out and doing anything about the issues he sees around him. He just complains; he just “has something to say.” And the climax in this poem is when the dog admits to really be waiting for his Master’s Voice. He is free to think about all these things that are larger and smaller around him but he will snap into action and come running back at the sound of his master. The voice can be anyone in power in our society, and when it sounds, most people react to it, just like a dog to its master.
Sadly, I see this type of “dog” all over Santa Cruz, San Francisco, and the country. People speak, debate, complain, argue, and even have tantrums over things going on in our world but they rarely take action. People sitting in trees don’t get things done, just ask the sitters up in Berkeley. Four days after they came down from their 22 months in the tree, they were arrested and the trees were cut anyways. Even then they were better then most of us who just complain, at least they took a step (albeit a not very effective one). I would hope people would read this poem and realize that if they want to complain about something and be heard, they can’t just walk by the issue, they have to stop and take action.
Ferlinghetti’s poem “Dog” has an innocent sincerity to the text. A dog in America represents loyalty, humanity, domination and many other things associated with control. The ending of this poem seems to be a sincere comment from a 3rd person narrator. The ‘master’s voice’ has such wisdom (seemingly) only because he has control over the dog. The narrator realizes this and treats it like a voice echoing above the dog telling him how things are. Of course, the dog being loyal and trusting, sees the voice as how it is, therefore he takes it for the truth.
I think the dog is most like an ordinary guy in the poem. He wanders about, being who he is, no matter what is going on around him. He has his own ideas, like those about cops and Congressman Doyle, yet he still does his “dog-ly” activities. He has a “dog’s life to live” and a “real tale to tell”. I think the juxtaposition Ferlingehtti uses with the “real” life of the dog and the actual lack of control he has because he is a dog shows something unique about San Francisco and the people that reside in it. It is almost like no one there is quite aware of the world around them that is in control, as far as corporate polices and government goes i.e.; Victor Records.
I think at points we all feel like advertisements because we all have to live in a world and use things that represent something to someone. Nothing is free from a label or idea associated with it. It seems like being controlled in something that everyone experiences, whether you are a dog, or a person living in the city.
I feel like the last sentences show the innocence of the dog, the simplicity of the dog's life in what he sees and what he wants/ he is looking for (his master). There is innocence in the last lines in that dog is a "real realist," meaning he only sees what is real, sees what is the truth. I also feel like the dog is neither hero, villain, nor ordinary guy...he is just a dog who sees the world through unbiased eyes-an animal of pure observation without critical opinion. I kind of see how the dog was an advertisement when he is posing as if his picture is being taken for Victor Records, but its kind of vague. And yes, sometimes I do feel like I am falling into the position of being an advertisement...and I don't think there is any way of escaping it because we live in a capitalistic society...everyone is like an advertisement. For example you have your vegan/hippy person who advertises a certain way of eating (advertising shopping at New Leaf or farmer's markets) and a certain way of dressing (advertising second-hand stores). Because the dog is posing with his head cocked sideways, he has a look about him (an essence) of being the symbol (the advertisement) of Victor Records. I see the process of observation differently after reading this poem. I feel like when we sometimes observe or investigate things we rush to make a biased opinion of our findings, instead of looking at things unbiasedly, like the dog: "but he's not afraid of Congressman Doyle/although what he hears is very discouraging/... Congressman Doyle is just another/ fire hydrant/ to him/...the dog...has his own dog's life to live..."
Ferlinghetti’s poem “Dog,” a tale of freedom vs. conformity, is timeless, applying to both our generation and the generation in which it was written. I personally view Ferlinghetti’s dog as a young man, opening his eyes to the world for the first time, and anxious to learn. The lack of action in the beginning of the poem indicates the dog’s desire to observe rather than react. Noticing very powerful images of binge drinking and death, the dog holds back, not wishing to join the drunks in their downward spiral. Furthermore, by viewing the dead chickens and “cows hung up whole,” the dog sees another fate to avoid, and remembers to move on, and not let himself get “hung up” on the politics of Congressman Doyle or the world. However, “looking like a living questionmark into the great gramophone of puzzling existence,” the dog continues his journey down the road, trying to gain a greater understanding of his place in society.
Ferlinghetti initially brings up the dog’s freedom, but then contradicts himself when discussing The Master, who the dog turns to for guidance. It remains unclear whether The Master is merely an intangible figure of positive support and direction, such as a religion, or a more concrete body with less benevolent intentions, such as society or the media. Nevertheless, though the dog considers himself to be free, he is directly influenced by another form, and we are not sure how much power and control this Master has over the dog. I believe that the last lines of Ferlinghetti’s poem indicate the dog’s ability to choose to follow either the voice of the “great gramophone with its wondrous hollow horn” or his freedom, which gives him his tale, his bark, his voice. Ferlinghetti’s poem is still relevant today, encouraging its readers to listen to The Master--and themselves--and come to their own decision, through experience, about their place in society, and the way they want to influence it.
The final lines of Ferlinghetti’s “Dog” poem seem to be sincere by the manner in which the dog truly is “engaged in real/ free enterprise” living his life freely. Being a passive observer he is not allowing people like “congressmen Doyle” to get him down. This stance on life is what Ferlinghetti is trying to convey through the dog. The dog really does have “something to say/ about reality”.
The dog is like a portrayal of an ordinary person walking through the streets of San Francisco. It is the sense of positivism that the dog evokes as he “trots freely in the streets” being bombarded by all these images and smells and sounds taking it all in with joy. The dog is just part of the “great gramophone/ of puzzling existence.”
The dog for which Frelinghetti's poem is named is carefree. He has no worries about society: "He doesn't hate cops/ He merely has no use for them" He is innocent. Throughout the poem, the dog goes about living his life, caring only about what is necessary for him: "The dog trots freely in the street/ and has his own dog's life to live"
With this poem, I believe Ferlinghetti is trying to show us an ideal of life, and what's really important. With the end of the poem, Ferlinghetti tells us that it is easy however, to stray from what we should be doing, when big business and enterprise and corruption are so prevalent in society. We may find ourselves "trotting freely in the street" only to wind up entangled in the darkness of society. The dog only cocks his head sideways and is perceived as the mascot for Victor records. I believe that this is Ferlinghetti telling us how easy it is to fall into things that are unimportant in life.I find it interesting that at this point in the poem, the tone changes and the stanzas aren't as simple. The dog no longer thinks about what he needs to do. His existence is "puzzling". The dog is now a victim of society.
What matters is that we pay attention to our surroundings and remember what's important.
I think the dog is the perfect american and that we all would do well to take example from him. He is completely without prejudice, takes as equal everything that is exhibited to him, doesn’t discriminate between people and objects, let alone people and people. He sees with the eyes of angels, purely and innocently. I know I am going to far but I think we can connect with the dog ideas of Democracy, Innocence and Heaven.
But Ferlinghetti doesn’t seem to be at all satisfied with leaving the dog alone with its innocence and purity. Poor dog. More corrupt, more cynical people will take advantage of you, turn you into some profitable advertisement, see your harmless inquisitiveness and (almost impossibly, it blows my mind) mutate it into something bad, like Ferlinghetti shifts his lens to a blaring, pessimistic red in the last section of the poem. He stops speaking for the dog, but through the dog, and his voice which is the voice of god transcends the reliable, steady leftward margin and floats anchorless in disreality. (Sorry if I am not making much sense.) But Ferlinghetti seems to favor the unreal: his pervading connecting of San Francisco to the mythical, the Greek, the white-masted ship that sails the ocean far away from all land and grounded things. (He wrote elsewhere that William Carlos Williams’s “‘No ideas but in things,’ is OK for prose, but lays a dead hand on lyricismm, since ‘things’ are dead.”) The unreality he seems to favor is ideality, which fits nicely with the progressive-minded SF.
Ferlinghetti speaking through the dog turns his innocence into a bad thing: ignorance. But I cant help but interpret this last bit of the poem as Ferlinghetti projecting his own feelings onto the dog, embodying that animal and using him to make his last despairing point (At least I think it is despairing.) If this is right, then Ferlinghetti is using the dog for his own purposes, in a sense taking advantage of the dog. So what makes him better than Victor Records?
Ferlinghetti reveals an interesting perspective into the relationship of knowledge and power. After all, how the fuck can anyone really know what the dog is thinking? All opinions are biased, in a way we all take advantage of ideas and spin them to suit us best. Just look at what I have done with this poem.
test
Looking at the last lines of Ferlinghetti's "Dog," the tone is sarcastic and cynical. Ferlinghetti may want to show the dog's innocence in the beginning of the poem, but by the end the dog has been corrupted by certain aspects of the city. The lines leading up to the end of the poem discuss politics and the idea of freedom of speech. The dog will "not be muzzled" as he has "something to say" (38-39). While the first part of the poem only discusses what the dog sees, the middle of the poem shows that he now wants to talk about what he has seen. Once politics are brought in, the dog is no longer innocent. By the end of the poem, Ferlinghetti shows that the dog has been corrupted by capitalism because of the things around him which is why he references Victor Records, a huge business. The dog is now concerned about politics and capitalism which ruins his innocence. Since the dog loses his innocence because of materialism, it seems that the city does as well.
It is apparent that Ferlinghetti feels the city has changed. The surroundings of San Francisco are ordinarily described in the beginning such as the “drunks in doorways” and the “chickens in Chinatown windows” (37). As the poem continues, reality is brought in as well as the politics and capitalism previously discussed. Ferlinghetti feels the city has been corrupted through big businesses such as Victor Records. While capitalism may have a “Victorious answer to everything” Ferlighetti feels it will not.
I feel that the "dog" Ferlinghetti speaks of does represent his view of an ideal American, that is, one that is aware of the hard truths of reality and one that ignores the artificial enforcement set in place. Through the dog's ironically enlightened sense of reality and the world around him, Ferlinghetti also highlights the degradation and deception that the whole of America. Americans are susceptible of the insignificant things that the dog views and chooses to walk by effortlessly. When first reading this poem, I picture a dog literally walking through a crowded street in San Francisco; perhaps he is over-looked, or perhaps a few people take notice of him and keep walking by, much like any individual walking through the streets of San Francisco. Though the dog is not bombarded by objects, people, law enforcement, or government restrictions like the American man Ferlinghetti is critiquing. Instead, he "trots freely" and "he will not be muzzled" by these conflicting objects, such as "puddles and babies / cats and cigars / poolrooms and policemen." Therefore, Ferlinghetti is transforming the image of the dog as an ideal, free, individual American further to show that Americans are not as free as they think. The American man is bounded and limited by figures like "Congressman Doyle," but the dog wisely associates him (quite sarcastically) as "just another fire-hydrant," thus only equating this object of enforcement into an image of waste and nothing of any importance, as the average American man might consider him to be.
The dog is the individual in a crowded, chaotic society. This individual can distinguish between the "cops" and "the dead cows hung up whole in front of the San Francisco Meat Market," but he explains that he would "rather eat a tender cow / than a tough policeman / though either might do," which I feel reflects Ferlinghetti's negative outlook on how the United States is governed and how the role of the government is almost as powerful (or rather, as powerless) as the dead cows on display in the market.
By using the image of the dog as something more wise and aware than the average American individual, it forces one to reconsider his or her role in such a chaotic and contradictory society. He is "not afraid of Congressman Doyle / although what he hears is very discouraging / very depressing / very absurd / to a sad young dog like himself / to a serious dog like himself" which humanizes the dog into the image of a thinking and feeling individual, rather than a simplistic animal as most take him for. What Ferlinghetti is then asserting is that we need to change our view of the world, for perhaps we are the simplistic beings instead than the dog. Ferlinghetti asks us to question the artificial things and people in place that we allow to limit and restrict our lives, and especially question how democracy functions in our world. For this animal which people overlook on the street does in actuality have "something to say / about ontology / something to say / about reality / and how to see it / and how to hear it" but those above him feel he has nothing of any importance to say about how society and the world functions, which is entirely untrue. He should be heard, listened to, and respected for any change to take place.
As to the questions that Diegosf raised in his interpretation of the dog my response is as follows.
I do not see the dog as a villain for his potential to do harm to other people in his need to feed himself. All people have that potential, it is part of being human, and the dog choose to eat "the tender cow" not the "tough policeman" (28-29). Showing that while he has the potential to harm other human beings to satiate his hunger his reason guides him not to do. It is not the potential one has that makes them a villain or a hero, it is the actions one takes.
On the same note simply seeing himself as above the law does not make the dog a hero. He doesn't care about rules or regulations. It's not that he is taking direct action to subvert those rules and regulations he sees as wrong. Rather he is taking no action because they do not concern him. He finds what he hears about Congressman Doyle "very discouraging / very depressing / very absurd"(36-38). However, he doesn't take action against Congressman Doyle. This is because ultimately "he has his own free world to live in" (41). The dog is selfish he doesn't concern himself with what Congressman Doyle's actions could mean to others. Therefore the dog cannot in this sense be a hero because he is consumed by his own self interest.
The questions you have raised are thought provoking but ultimately we have to take what Ferlinghetti writes as what the dog does. His potential to be either a hero or villain is there but he does not live up to either of these potentialities. It is through his own inaction that the dog falls into neither of these binary categories.
Superman—
I think you’re interpretation of the “dog” as a Santa Cruz local is very interesting! The only hole with the theory is imagining dead cows hung up whole outside of shops in this town—I don’t think people around here would go for that. On the other hand, I think your response to the drunks is dead on, as well as your response to the policemen and congressmen. However, I don’t know if the dog finds the conditions of the chickens and cows terrible (after all, he contemplates eating the cow); I think he merely acknowledges them and moves on with his day.
The rest of your response about talk without action is sadly true about most people (I can’t say I’m that much better), and it’s easy to imagine the dog as any one of the locals here.
Addie/"Dog" and Capitalism
I really like this interpretation of the poem, as while it picks up on Ferlinghetti's cynical tone, it also highlights how Ferlinghetti effectively piles language to show the degradation of the free, peaceful, and community-oriented San Francisco of the past in relation to it's present state. In this respect, the dog does indeed begin as an innocent being, with a mind capable of seeing and observing reality, as "the things he sees/are his reality/Drunks in doorways/Moons on trees." This is not an extremely disturbing image, until the dog then moves further down the street and his reality then includes an even bleaker image of "fish on newsprint/Ants in holes/Chickens in Chinatown windows/their heads a block away." These are all different types of animals, scattered across San Francisco, much like people in San Francisco are. The animals are made into commodities to be sold, just as the people are being transformed into products of consumption by those he critiques such as Congressman Doyle.
The dog "trots freely in the street" but I see now after reading Addie's post that this image does take an even more cynical turn away from the concept of freedom, as perhaps instead of asserting that the dog is untouched and unaffected by the chaos of the changing city and the corruption of capitalism, the dog is restricted from having "his own dog's life to live/and to think about/and to reflect upon/touching and tasting and testing everything/investigating everything/without benefit of perjury" because of this capitalist system. Even though the dog dismisses men in power like Congressman Doyle as something insignificant, he is still in control and retains power. The Coit tower scares the dog, but it is those who are in control of big-buisness and the government that needs to trouble him, as it is this combination that will continue to limit and restrict his life and freedom.
For further analysis, I think for this argument it would be interesting to think about the who is speaking in this poem. It is not the dog who speaks, but instead Ferlinghetti speaking on behalf of the dog, and if we consider the dog to be a representation of Americans limited by capitalism that ruin their innocence and wonder about the world. I think we can tie that back into the idea that Ferlinghetti is trying to deliver a message to all Americans with the potential to embrace their innocence and freedom and reject the political restrictions that drain this innocence. I feel that Ferlinghetti gives the wandering people with a confused sense of freedom a voice in the hopes that they as a large and diverse group of people will speak up against this system and make a change.
Amanda-
I found your interpretation of the dog as a member of today's youth very effective in analyzing the poem's overall message, and viewing the dog as a symbol for young adults slowly beginning to assert their own opinions. Do you feel this occurs at the end of the poem when the dog barks? I felt like the dog was essentially speaking on behalf of the company and his owner, rather than truly speaking out on issues of free enterprise and the like. Could this show the continued influence of corporations on the youth/innocence of today?
In response to Sadie's post:
Your interpretation of the poem was very similar to my own. I also agree that the last lines give off a tone of sarcasm and feel that the dog does seem innocent in the beginning of the poem. The dog seems to live a simple life by admiring the things around him and viewing them as simple. As the poem progresses, the dog's innocence vanishes as he becomes more enthralled with a capitalistic society. I thought your interpretation of the dog becoming naive was interesting because I interpreted it as him becoming more a part of society and a part of capitalism. I also thought your analysis of materialism taking over religion was engaging as I had not seen that in the poem at all. It is definitely apparent by the end that Ferlinghetti has a sour taste in his mouth towards the industry as you point out at the end. Materialism is obviously a huge issue to Ferlinghetti and he points this out through Victor records. Through his language, he makes it seem as if people who live simple, ordinary lives will eventually become corrupt because of the government and capitalism.
Aaron-
I would agree and disagree with you in your idea of the dog being the perfect American. He has all the makings of one: he observes the world around him and is critical of it and he does not discriminate but merely categorizes. My disagreement is actually in your idea of what a perfect American is. The dog here is observant, yes, but does not take action. He simply observes. We are a country based on action. Where would we be without men and women who stopped speaking and took action? The dog is an American but the typical one, not a perfect one. If he took action in his thoughts you would be right. The sad part to this is in the end where the dog seems to admit that he would react to his Master’s voice. I think Master in this is just another version of Big Brother. Have you asked yourself why Ferlinghetti used a dog as the main character and nothing else? Dogs are happy go-lucky creatures that jump at the command of their owner and are happy for it. I think instead of making the dog look American, he was making Americans look like dogs.
the above statement is mine, i dont know why it came out as Theta Chi
Emily -
I agree with your description of the dog as a representation of an "ideal American," in its very awareness of reality.
The dog is definitely a representation, if not a metaphor, for a certain concept or ideal Americans can associate with.
Ferlinghetti accurately uses the dog as a vehicle to express not only ironic concepts (as you mentioned) but as a sort of poet/American figure, which you also touched upon.
Emily – Innocence of Humanity
I agree with the idea that Ferlinghetti’s “Dog” initially is about an ideal, typical American. I think he is making a strong point that many Americans use to be unaware and felt uninvolved or “free.” Many people feel very small and insignificant, especially now in California with the election coming I continue to hear, “it doesn’t matter how, or if I vote we’re in California Obama will win.” Until recently so much of politics felt so very distant and abstract but now at the heart of war and in the worst economic situation in decades we are being forced into reality. A few hundred votes will decide the way whole states will turn in this election. Just as Ferlinghetti’s dog begins to realize his role in the “chaotic and contradictory society” so must the reader.
Rosa Donaldson
Response to Lisa:
Your response sparked a process in my mind that I had completely (stupidly) ignored before: the symbolism of the dog itself. As you say, the dog is a symbol of loyalty and simplicity. You're right in saying that he represents the average young American. Ferlinghetti's choice of the dog as a symbol reflects his opinion of young people. The innocence of a dog is something we, as as society, value and encourage. Blind trust, loyalty, and willingness to please people are admirable. Admirable in a dog, that is.
The dog begins the poem as a true dog--sniffing the doorways and taking in what his senses will allow. When he starts having thoughts about ontology, politics, and capitalism--becoming more human--he is suddenly incapable of taking care of himself. He is used as an advertisement and searches in vain for the Master's Voice that once told him how to survive. His dog's instincts are not enough to protect him in the human world. He must change or be consumed by it. Similarly, a young man cannot get involved in the world of politics and capitalism without becoming somewhat jaded or he, too, will be consumed. He must abandon some of that innocence that we so admire in him if he hopes to survive.
Whether Ferlinghetti is commenting on capitalism, religion, or simply the harshness of the modern city, he clearly understands that a dog's innocence is only worthwhile in a dog's life, not a man's.
"Dog" speaks about the individual in different ways. In the beginning of the poem, the dog is a small piece of a larger existence: a normal guy. His innocence is reflected in "the things he sees/ [which] are bigger than himself/ Drunks in doorways/ Moons on trees" and he trots through his reality as a piece of this larger puzzle, but a piece as significant as those bigger than himself (37). The dog coexists with bigger things than himself, and shares with them a right to be. But some of "the things he sees/ are smaller than himself/...Chickens in Chinatown windows/ their heads a block away" (37). The compartmentalized structure of capitalism is also part of his world, but he passes it by, free to trot and look for life's explanations elsewhere.
Like many of us, the dog is looking for answers to life's great questions. By the end of the poem, he encounters a dystopic solution. The commercial gramophone provides a horn through which consumer culture can be piped to distract him from his quest. As I sit writing this, my friend is watching TV next to me and I feel much like the dog. It would be easy to settle in and recieve life as it comes projected at me. Ferlingetti effectively mocks RCA Victor's tagline, portraying the dog "listening for/ His Master's Voice" as if the horn is "just about to spout forth/ some Victorious answer/ to everything" (40). I see the dog falling into the same state of acceptance that threatens to neutralize me, but this final line serves as a warning. The dog and I are left with a choice: sit and wait for the answers to appear pre-packaged and ready to swallow or continue trotting freely, seeking answers out.
The domesticated dog is an extremely American image--man's best friend, the most loyal companion--and Ferlinghetti's use of this image to represent the everyday American male is clear. I don't think there is a heroic figure here, though. There are no pressing concerns for this dog: there is day-to-day existence, there are his observations, and there are his interactions with daily life. He exists on the street of this big city, much like the average citizen does: not particularly worried about the police officer on the corner, not particularly caught up in the political scandal in the head lines.
Towards the end of the poem, Ferlinghetti writes:
"The dog trots freely in the street
and has his own dog's life to live."
With the tumult of the city surrounding him, with the millions living their lives on either side of him, the dog navigates his life easily and almost introspectively. There is the city, and there is the dog--there is San Francisco, and there is the citizen.
In response to Brittany Alyssa's comment:
I like that you included the relationship of the dog to other animals. You say "by viewing the dead chickens and 'cows hung up whole,' the dog sees another fate to avoid, and remembers to move on, and not let himself get 'hung up' on the politics of Congressman Doyle or the world." You highlight the fact that the fate of other animals could be the dog's own fate. I suppose he could be sold off like the other animals, but I thought he shared more with people. It is easier for me to read the dog as a human being because he is so personified throughout the poem, but animal or human, your analysis still fits. People, like dogs, can be bred to fit a role in society. I hadn't thought of the poem in that way until I read your analysis.
I want to know though, have you thought any more about "whether The Master is merely an intangible figure of positive support and direction, such as a religion, or a more concrete body with less benevolent intentions, such as society or the media"? Can it be both?
Response to Nick Furnal:
I think your analysis of the dog as being like a poet is very intriguing. I like the idea of poets being able to have an unbiased point of view and merely reflecting the environment around them.
Your point about the poems offering great insight into the mind of Ferlinghetti really resonates with me as well. Whenever I'm reading Ferlinghetti's poems, I feel like I have a strong sense of who he is and I usually get a somewhat playful and sarcastic sense of him. He almost seems to be playing with the idea of poetry and being a poet.
Your point about the inevitability of succumbing to trends also peeks my interest. I feel as if trends are something no one can resist even if they try because no one, in America at least, can live outside of the culture. Even if you resist the "popular" trends, you align yourself with the "alternative" trends which are just as much trends in themself.
In response to Tifany's post:
I agree that the dog is cast as an ordinary person. His ability to remain free of societal constraints allows him to experience the city for what it truly is, for this is his daily reality. The dog’s integration into the world of corporations and politics just makes his role as a typical, every day individual that much more convincing. He can’t resist the tug of capitalism anchoring his once naïve perceptions.
Response to Superman's response to me,
Yes, you bring up a very good point and I think you are right. Why else would Ferlinghetti choose a dog but to condescend? The perfect American would be more interested in his world and invested in his or her liberty.
In response to Stacy's post:
I really like way you referenced the dog very literally to the San Francisco artist, a “free floating” drifter of the city. It didn’t occur to me that the dog characterized values of an artist, with more of a focus on the observer of under appreciated beauty than politics or police men. I feel like this embodies the values of an artist and the values of San Francisco alternative culture. Along the same lines, maybe being turned into a Victoria Records’ label is Ferlinghetti’s way of saying that the artists have sold out…. turned from being freedom loving realists into a symbol for cooperate America. This would certainly fall in line with many of Ferlinghetti’s comments in his other pieces about the degradation of San Francisco in an artistic sense.
As a reponse to Stacy's post:
I enjoy how you imagine the dog as a drifter that is able to roam about the streets and be like an artist.
I viewed the dog as a bit of a average joe, but now that I take a look at your interpretation, I see it as more of starving artist, which is a huge contrast to Ferlinghetti's poem called The Artist.
The animorphism of the Dog is a reflection on the nature of man. The context of the speaker's tone is not one of a feral animal. In fact, the speaker describes a analytical dog that dissects the world around him, "He doesn't hate cops/He simply has no need for them." As man's best friend, this choice to use a dog is one made to more easily symbolize man's own loyalty to authority figures. Men are dogs and in this case it is literal. The obident dog is brought in to parallel the complacent man in the world. Throughout the poem, the dog wanders the world looking at "drunks in doorways" and "tough policemen" but does nothing. The dog is waiting for "some victorious answer/ to everything." By the third page there is a line break with a change from traditional line form to a more avant-garde style of line ordering. This is also meant to symbolize the change in narration and also thought. The wandering dog becomes a "barking / democratic dog." The poem becomes increasing scarcastic and darker in it's message about societal obediance.
Post a Comment