Hot dog water - there’s a Tumblr post out there I’ve seen saying hot dog water is the opposite of holy water, due to the fact that a single drop of it will contaminate what it touches. I assume this was partly inspired by this allusion but who knows for sure.
Also the the idea of holy water as inhuman and cleaning vs hot dog water as the remains of feeding someone - often a child - and entirely human. It may be dirty and I do not want it on me but God hot dog water has some memories. You will not wash away my sins. They’re mine. Also, anyone can make hot dog water but holy water is refined, restricted (yes anyone can make it in an emergency but lay people are restricted from it)
“you and I both know”
Unlike baptism for babies, this one is done between two people who are both aware of what is happening. The one receiving the baptism gives the orders about what they want to happen. The giver and receiver are portrayed as equals. They are equally aware of their humanity.
“the holy stuff won’t take”
Ooof heartbreaking, amazing line. Raises so many questions. What does it mean when the water “takes”? What has the receiver done that makes them unfit for holy water? Or, what has the holy water done that makes it to weak to help, to be a part of your life?
The poem as a whole - I love the lack of capitalization. It adds a sort of intimacy to the poem, and the statement from the speaker. The high words “baptise” and “holy” being offset by “take” and “hot dog”. Also “hot dog water” vs “holy stuff.” The cadence! I would lick it.
I love the serious analysis, and I think I find it persuasive.
This also sheds a lot of light on some plot points in Scooby Doo! Mystery Incorporated.
Not to turn this into another house full of chintz, but I'mma fuck this poem on the floor.
Meter
There are two readings of the poem’s meter that I immediately identify, the first is how I’d want to read it, and the second is how a normal person would probably read it, but both make the same point.
In my interpretation (left), the first line is four wholely irregular feet: an iamb into a dibrach into two trochees; The second line is two trouches into a hanging stressed syllable; And the third line is three iambs.
In the more normal interpretation(right), the first line and second line are six trochees all together plus that hanging syllable in ‘knowing’ which transitions the poem to iambic trimeter.
And look at the interesting result of that laid bare:
In English poetry there’s a tradition, all other things being equal, that iambs are considered the sophisticated foot with trochees often being contrasted as the vulgar or common foot.
The vulgar in specificity “hot dog water” is put in trochee, while the respectably vague “the holy stuff” is afforded iambs. Without the poet having thought of the stress things the pattern actively, this incapulation of the English poetic tradition is astounding. Especially when you consider the
Chiasmus
Chiasmus is a figure of rhetorical construction, in which two pairs of ideas are laid across each other, A B B A. It’s one of the more popular figures of rhetoric and if you’re looking for it you’ll see it everywhere.
In the most literal sense, it’s about repetition; but, you can apply it more liberally to ideas, thoughts, or in this case, parts of speech:
The nouns and verb pairs in the first and third lines crossover each other. They are in chiasmus. Structurally, the inversion makes the poem feel more solid, while still furthering emphasizing the contrast between the idea of hot dog water and the holy stuff.
Opening with a command and closing with a result.
Poetic formalism happens because it merely describes the kinda stuff our brains spew out anyway. :)
Anonymous
