As I said initially, this seems a fairly straightforward poem to me, using Goya's dog painting as an image to capture the sense of helplessness and abasement in a relationship where the balance of power is askew. One could read it, as Nemo suggests, as having a larger meaning, with the speaker addressing God for example. But I don't feel this. Of course I could be wrong, wrong, wrong in my interpretation but it's the one I
feel from the poem. I do agree, I think, with David when he wonders "Do the references to Dylan Thomas and Beckett come too close to overturning this frail barque?" The reference to Fern Hill, "in my chains like the sea" doesn't seem to fit with the theme and the "Happy Days" Beckett reference (which I had to Google, because I admit to having Fonzie in my head) seems like one embedded allusion too many: (the speaker feels like the dog in Goya's painting, which itself also looks a little like the buried actors in Beckett's play).
I like the poem the more I have read it. But, on the "is it too cerebral" question, well I'm kind of left with the impression that this is at heart quite a rawly emotional poem slathered with a
somewhat unnecessary sheen of allusion and intellect. To repeat myself again, something about that balance isn't quite working for me.
It's a good poem from a very good poet but it's not one of my favourites.
I now feel sorry for Cam, whose job in responding is becoming more of a task by the hour. Yikes.*
*edit: or not, of course. He could just say “thanks folks, lots to think about”.
Mark