I wrote the following for my application to University College London. Find the poem I analyse in this essay here: https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/overheard-on-a-salmarsh/
‘Overheard on a Saltmarsh’ explores the idea that the boundary between illusion and reality is precarious, disquieting the reader’s confidence in truth.
The conversational structure of the poem challenges the limits of reality and fantasy; the reader is hearing, not seeing, the events that unfold, intensifying the sense that reality isn’t fixed, as even as readers we eavesdrop on a conversation from a world inhabited by “goblins” and “nymphs”.
This depiction of flexibility between the fantastical and the real, an unreality the reader is forced to experience by being privy to an exchange between mythical creatures, is further expressed in the setting of the poem. The imagery of a saltmarsh - which in itself represents a blurring of the distinction between land and sea - which is a familiar geographical concept in what we consider as reality, with its “reeds” and “mud” contrasts the unfamiliar mythical presence of a “nymph” and a “goblin”. The writer exhibits a world in which the real and illusory combine, and in doing so makes us question the bounds of reality.
The characterisation of the goblin and the nymph also draws us to question truth as we know it. The reader jumps to preconceptions of the creatures as both “nymph” and “goblin” are repeated throughout the poem. The lack of description of both of them - due to the structural feature of the poem being “overheard” - means that the reader imagines a traditional nymph, the image of feminine beauty and submission, and a traditional greedy, mischievous goblin. The writer allows us to form these preconceptions and then undercuts them, as the goblin initially speaks with linguistic naïvety with his repeated demands (“Give them me.”) but goes on to speak poetically, using rhyme as he appreciates the beads as “better than stars or water”, even personifying the “winds” as “voices...that sing”. The poet undermines our preconceptions of the nymph in the same way - she is anything but docile, refusing to satiate the goblin’s “desire” for her “green glass beads”, repeatedly saying “No” to his demands. This challenges what we consider as real beauty, once again disputing the fine line between appearance and reality, as we consider the traditional nymph beautiful due to their feminine fragility, yet within this poem, the nymph is anything but these qualities. This mirrors misconceptions between appearance and reality even of characters within the poem, as the goblin desires beads that he considers beautiful for their “glass[-like]” fragility; the poet is asserting that we can’t even rely on the “beads” central to the poem as beautiful. Much like the nymph, they may appear fragile and beautiful but this could be yet another illusion. The idea being expressed is that something can be desired without necessarily being beautiful. The poet, much like the nymph, denies us satisfaction by undermining our preconceptions even of the seemingly inconceivable fantasy setting of the poem. This is emphasised by the interrogatives in the first stanza which immediately establish a sense of uncertainty. Thus the writer has destabilised even the realities we think we can depend on of the mythical world.
The form of the passage, as a poem, contributes to this interpretation of it as a challenge to our worldly certainties. The poem initially appears to portray a mythical idyll, starting only with a question-based conversation between a nymph and goblin; this is quickly subverted as soon as the goblin demands the beads, and the poem rapidly becomes a transcript of a squabble. The writer’s form subverts expectations, emphatic of our inability to rely on what we know to be true as readers. Even what initially appears as the goblin’s greed for the beads becomes a desire, even a “love” for their beauty while the nymph’s possession of them becomes corrupt - “I stole them out of the moon.” The poet constantly subverts what we rely on as reality in the poem.
In doing so, ‘Overheard on a Saltmarsh’ articulates that everything we take as truth has the possibility of being illusion and vice versa. The writer is presenting us with the idea that boundaries of reality are insubstantial, a concept that seems absurdist in nature, paralleling Camus’ assertion in The Outsider: “Everything is true and nothing is true”.
Comments