Elizabeth Bishop (8 February 1911 – 6 October 1979 / Worcester, Massachusetts)

May I ask you why you wrote this comment from the movie ''In her shoes''(2005) ? It was Maggie's(Cameron Diaz) speech in the movie.

Elizabeth is talking about a friend in this poem. At first, she talks about the loss of real things, i.e. keys, a watch. She then talks about things that you can't get back, i.e., a continent, river. She tries to use the tone that she's detached, as if it doesn't matter, but in fact it does. It's the not the loss of a lover, but something more dear to her; it's the loss of a friend.

There should NOT be an a before disaster in the last line. Please make this critical correction.

I can see why this poem gets such high ratings and it is good. For me personally it is still one step away from perfection because the form of a Villanelle hasn't not quite been followed through with.

The writer is going around in pretension shamming indifferent to the loss of all these things mentioned, which might be true, to some extent, but the only real loss she's referring to - with (even you) is the cause of all this mayhem and the one that really counts with her, and it's obvious to be a friend, a dear, or the dearest friend. because only really dearest ones can provide fuel for this massive poetic ignition.

every day you lose something, small things such as car keys. little things that doesn't make your day or life a total dissaster. then one day it could happen to you that you would loose something valueable. something that will make you life a dissaster. it might not take a day. day after day you will loose this thing bit after bit and suddenly it dissapears. this thing is called love. it's not the love to a lover. it's the deepest love of all. it's the love to a friends. Think about how it would be to you, loosing your friends joking voice, or your friends smile, the little things there is with this person that makes you love that person even more. that would be a dissaster, wouldn't it?

I know what elizabeth means in this pome becuase i feel this exsact way at the moment. i havent figured out if she is talking about a friend or a lover but i am sure that she mean no matter what you lose in life rather it be material things or a real connection as ie a person who u loved dearly that is more evident that the person is takeing presedent over material things. She implying she can cover her grief mostly through most losses in life but in the last loss that this one will be harder to cover ie write it :) just my thought..

I'm doing a project for school about Elizabeth Bishop (specifically this poem) and I had to disagree with what most people have said. Has anyone actually researched her life? You might know that Bishop was a lesbian, and her partners could have been both friends and lovers. And why would you think a lover wouldn't have a lasting effect on her? This poem (actually the last stanza) lines up with her life and makes more sense if you look at it in that context.

I think she's talking about a friend in the last stanza because she's trying to sound more indifferent, although where she says (Write it!) its evident that losing that person really is a disaster since she has to push herself to write the last two words. It seems that the person she's losing will have a long-term effect on her and that she knows the person very well by the (the joking voice, a gesture I love) . If it was a lover, it wouldn't sound like losing that person would have a lasting effect on her. She would have been able to get over losing a lover fairly quickly, but it takes longer to get over losing a good friend.

Why do you guys think that she loses a friend not the lover for the last stanza?