Diana Manister wrote:
> Nancy, the whole notion of the Fisher King is based on the
> vegetative/fertility myth, and it's a commonplace that this comprises
> at least one subtext of the poem. It's the Fisher King, though, not
> the Fisher Queen, so it's a guy thing - i.e., semen. The potency of
> the King determines the land's fertility, i.e. good crops, successful
> planting. It's a one-to-one correspondence in the myth. Diana
But what does all this _do_ in the poem (aside from providing filler in
the notes and endless fodder for Notes& Queries. Rebirths are a dime a
dozen, and fit Frye's tautological classification of stories.
1. Hero starts up & stays up. (Up = more or less linked to his/[her]
2. Hero starts up and goes down.
3. Hero starts down and goes up.
4. Hero starts down and stays down.
I mean it's cute to talk about rebirth in commentary, then in effect do
a close reading of one's own initial statements (male = semen), then do
a further close reading of one's first close reading of one's first
statement. But does it link the poem to anything that's active in the
poem. That's how really long books about short poems get created.