[Carl Copeland]

I’m enjoying this tale too, James. The figurative oddness of it intrigues me, though I agree with Richard that “undercarriage” breaks the spell a bit. Is “underbelly” really too straightforward? While I search for something more perceptive to say, I’ll offer a few unpoetic quibbles:

the tree had made itself for climbing and the boys to climb it

Grammatically unpacked, this comes out “the tree had made itself for climbing and [had made] the boys to climb it” or, more shakily, “the tree had made itself for climbing and the boys [had made themselves] to climb it.” It’s clear enough what you mean, but do you really want smart alecks picking the grammar apart?

I’m with Richard again on “muscled because.” For me, it’s not so much the announcement of an explanation as the fact that you don’t explain anything after announcing it. How do fish make a stream muscle-like? It’s an intriguing metaphor, but doesn’t cut it as an explanation. Who knows, though, maybe that’s the point …

all of these not yet were nipping, gnawing …

To me, this says the fish weren’t yet doing any of the things you describe. What am I missing?

I love “it seemed to sit and sitting sang” and its echo of Stevens: “Except the one she sang and, singing, made.” On second thought, though, how does one “seem to sit”? Is it an inversion of “it seemed to sit on long fingernails”?