I think it's talking about food (dead animal) swimming in your stomach (body) and you go for a run to burn the calories.
I just don't know what the mailbox was about.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about what this work is or isn't. And, it is great to have this discussion. To start, it's categorized properly. If you aren't sure what transgressive poetry is, this is an example.
It's important to remember that there are many artists we tout as genius' today that were thought to be making a muddled mess in their time. Artists see the world in a new way first and express it. Then, science follows. Then, the rest of the world (kicking and screaming, but eventually). When confronted with a work that irks you or confounds you ~ look deeper. You will either find why it bothers you and this will only help your own work. Or, you will find why it confounds you and it will help you in living your life more fully.
It's not the work that is the issue. It is the observer. And, every work of art needs you to pull your weight when viewing or reading it. It's not a one-sided discussion. Questions are posed. It is your job as the viewer/reader to hear them and then to ponder them.
You can still hate the work. But, for fucks sake, try to find something beyond the nearest rock to throw at what doesn't please your senses straightaway.
Art should be disturbing and difficult whenever possible. And, this work is definitely pushing a lot of buttons for some reason. I hope those who feel their buttons being pushed dive a bit deeper and figure out why. Because that will be truly interesting to see expressed.
This is more poetic than prose for its key inflection is imagery versus descriptive expression. Transgressive poetry is meant to violate superficial boundaries. And free verse transgressive poetry is just that ~ an open form not bound by any specific shape or form. In fact, it can sound like prose to someone that is only looking for surface rhythm patterns. This is poetry. It's just not Dr. Suess.
"dead animal can swim."
Is "animal" supposed to be singular or plural?
Singular: "A dead animal can swim." or "The dead animal can swim."
Plural: "dead animals can swim."
It is called free verse for a reason ~ there are no rules. The writer is expressing something. Not everyone will understand what the writer expresses any more than everyone understands the nightly news or Nietzsche or Van Gogh in the same way. You see incoherence ~ I see simplicity and longing.
The writer of this piece isn't playing it safe. Anymore than Van Gogh played it safe. No one that ever does anything interesting plays it safe. Perhaps you prefer linear pragmatic thoughts with by-the-book grammar and walk-the-line imagery. You are entitled to write what you want and to read what you want and to think everyone else has nothing to say if they aren't expressing it the way you would. But, may I be so bold as to suggest that you dive a little deeper and see if you find something else?
Only viewing the surface of something will leave you frustrated most times. And, your need to call something you don't understand incoherent is something you should perhaps explore a little more. Maybe, try being a bit more like Diane Arbus when she photographed her images. She rearranged herself before her subjects instead of expecting her subjects to rearrange before her. This is good advice on so many levels.
My aunt was a well-respected early post-impressionistic painter and contemporary of Charles Reiffel and Donald Hord. As a child, my mother used to watch her paint and she always saw her aunt lift up her long skirt and look between her legs at what she had just been painting. She told my mom that it was always good to get a different perspective.
Might I suggest you do the same and read this once again.
Do you agree that literature is a written form of art? And, that art is in the eye of the beholder?
While this is not in some traditional form of poetic verse, it is still more poetic than prose for its key inflection is imagery versus descriptive expression.
And, if you will notice that after poetry, the writer categorizes this work as "transgressive." Transgressive poetry as you know is meant to violate superficial boundaries. You have already stated that you quite agree with this when it comes to this work of art.
And, free verse transgressive poetry is just that ~ an open form. Not bound by anyone else's idea of how something "should" be.
So, this work of art is categorized as it should be, it is a transgressive poetry in free verse.
The problem is that you just don't care for it. It's not a problem with the work itself. You don't have to throw as many stones as you can at it to justify your opinion. Instead, just state that it isn't your cup of tea and why.
Try being constructive versus destructive.
But, as far as your main argument for disliking this work, it doesn't hold water. This work is categorized properly. Maybe, not in your opinion, but in the authors. And, that's all the really matters. Especially, in free verse.
Also, art is about ideas. I'm not the grammar police. If I see a typo when I am providing an in-depth critique, I'll point it out to be HELPFUL. Not for any other reason.
Spoiler Alert: you don't know it all. None of us do. Art is one of those things that you can't really definitively say is "good" or "bad." You can just say what you like or don't like something and why.
None of us are the ART POLICE.
I hear you trying so hard to be right in your assessment instead of just expressing what you see and feel. Neither of our opinions are going to define this writer any more than they could Virginia Woolf or William Blake. What our opinions of another's art are meant to do is to define who we are as artists.
So, did you get anything out of your discussion of this work that is going to inform your own work?