“As from a Quiver of Arrows” by Carl Phillips: A Critical Analysis

What do we do with the body, do we

burn it, do we set it in dirt or in

stone, do we wrap it in balm, honey,

oil, and then gauze and tip it onto

and trust it to a raft and to water?

What will happen to the memory of his

body, if one of us doesn’t hurry now

and write it down fast? Will it be

salt or late light that it melts like?

Floss, rubber gloves, and a chewed cap

to a pen elsewhere —how are we to

regard his effects, do we throw them

or use them away, do we say they are

relics and so treat them like relics?

Does his soiled linen count? If so,

would we be wrong then, to wash it?

There are no instructions whether it

should go to where are those with no

linen, or whether by night we should

memorially wear it ourselves, by day

reflect upon it folded, shelved, empty.

Here, on the floor behind his bed is

a bent photo—why? Were the two of

them lovers? Does it mean, where we

found it, that he forgot it or lost it

or intended a safekeeping? Should we

attempt to make contact? What if this

other man too is dead? Or alive, but

doesn’t want to remember, is human?

Is it okay to be human, and fall away

from oblation and memory, if we forget,

and can’t sometimes help it and sometimes

it is all that we want? How long, in

dawns or new c**ks, does that take?

What if it is rest and nothing else that

we want? Is it a findable thing, small?

In what hole is it hidden? Is it, maybe,

a country? Will a guide be required who

will say to us how? Do we fly? Do we

swim? What will I do now, with my hands?

·         How does the poem grapple with the tension between physical objects and memory?

• The poem explores the tension between the physical remnants of the deceased and the intangible nature of memory. In lines such as, “Does his soiled linen count? If so, / would we be wrong then, to wash it?” (lines 15-16), the speaker questions whether these physical objects hold any meaningful connection to the person who has died. The linen, mundane and “soiled,” represents the material reality of death, but the speaker wonders if preserving or cleaning it would alter its significance. This tension reveals the emotional struggle to find meaning in the physical traces left behind, while simultaneously grappling with the ephemeral nature of memory and whether these objects truly help preserve the essence of the deceased.

·         How does the poem reflect on the limitations of human memory and the desire to preserve it?

• Throughout the poem, the speaker demonstrates a sense of urgency about preserving the memory of the deceased. In the lines, “What will happen to the memory of his / body, if one of us doesn’t hurry now / and write it down fast?” (lines 6-8), there is an implicit fear that memory will fade if not captured quickly. The use of the word “hurry” suggests the fleeting nature of human memory and the anxiety surrounding its loss. The act of writing down the memory becomes a metaphor for an attempt to solidify the transient and ensure that it endures beyond the body’s physical absence. However, the repeated questions throughout the poem reflect the limitations of this endeavor, suggesting that no matter how quickly or earnestly we try to preserve memory, it may still fade like “salt or late light” (line 9).

·         How does the poem question the role of rituals and traditions in dealing with death?

• The poem frequently questions traditional practices surrounding death, asking what the proper way to handle a body or the deceased’s belongings is. In the opening lines, “What do we do with the body, do we / burn it, do we set it in dirt or in / stone” (lines 1-3), the speaker contemplates burial, cremation, and entombment—rituals steeped in tradition. However, the poem is filled with uncertainty about the appropriateness of these customs, as seen in questions about how to handle personal effects: “how are we to / regard his effects, do we throw them / or use them away, do we say they are / relics and so treat them like relics?” (lines 11-14). This questioning suggests a deeper critique of the limitations of ritual in making sense of death and grief. The poem implies that these practices may be inadequate in addressing the personal, emotional weight of loss.

·         What does the poem suggest about the human desire for closure, and is closure ever truly attainable?

• The speaker’s many questions throughout the poem indicate a search for closure that remains elusive. For instance, the lines “What if it is rest and nothing else that / we want? Is it a findable thing, small?” (lines 35-36) express a yearning for peace or resolution after loss. The reference to “rest” suggests the speaker’s desire to move on, to achieve a state of finality. However, the poem’s structure—built entirely on unanswered questions—suggests that closure may be unattainable or at least ambiguous. The speaker’s ongoing uncertainty about how to remember the deceased, how to handle their possessions, and even whether it’s acceptable to forget, reflects the human struggle to find a definitive way to deal with grief. The final question, “What will I do now, with my hands?” (line 40), leaves the speaker in a state of unresolved grief, highlighting the impossibility of true closure.