One of the main common threads in this collection is the exploration of relationships; one of those relationships types being creator/creation (garden/gardener and gardener/God)

• Garden and Gardener-Poet Relationship: The garden only recognizes and speaks to the gardener-poet, not God, implying an ontological gap where the garden believes the gardener-poet is the sole creator.
• Gardener-Poet and God Relationship: Similarly, the gardener-poet only speaks to and of God, reflecting their belief that God is the highest being, without acknowledging the possibility of a higher creator.
• Ontological Parallels: This creates a parallel between the two relationships, where both the garden and the gardener-poet are limited in their understanding of the full scope of existence and creation.
• Metaphysical Layering: The possibility of a creator above God that the gardener-poet doesn’t recognize introduces a speculative, metaphysical dimension, suggesting a hierarchy of creation beyond human comprehension.
• Elevating the Poems to Metaphysical Literature: This interpretation elevates Gluck’s poems by introducing abstract, philosophical inquiries about the nature of divinity, creation, and the limits of human knowledge.

HOWEVER

This theory does not necessarily align with the concerns and intentions of the writer. This is just a theory that I had. Here are some counter-points:

• The Theological Framework: Gluck’s poetry does not overtly suggest a polytheistic or hierarchical structure of deities. The relationship between the gardener-poet and God seems more focused on the personal struggle with divine absence, rather than a structural or metaphysical layering of beings. The presence of a singular, often elusive God is more in line with monotheistic traditions, and introducing another creator might be seen as speculative rather than grounded in the text.
• Garden-Gardener Symbiosis: The dynamic between the garden and the gardener-poet is intimate and existential, reflecting the human struggle to reconcile with divinity and mortality. While the garden doesn’t acknowledge God, the gardener-poet’s direct dialogue with God might indicate that, within this literary universe, God is the ultimate creator, with no suggestion of a higher power. The focus is more on human limitation and divine silence, rather than a hierarchy of unseen creators.
• Absence of Direct Evidence: The theory of a creator above God hinges on an implicit gap in recognition. However, there is no textual evidence in the poems that points to a higher force beyond God. The metaphysical gaps in the gardener-poet’s understanding seem directed more at the mystery of God’s silence and absence rather than an unrecognized creator. If Gluck had intended to hint at such a creator, we might expect subtle allusions to another entity, which are absent.
• God as the Ultimate Creator: Many of the poems, particularly those dealing with themes of suffering, death, and renewal, portray God as an omnipresent (if not always responsive) figure. The poems often reflect a monotheistic questioning, where God’s existence and influence are debated, but never surpassed by another entity. This suggests that God, despite the gardener-poet’s frustrations, remains the central divine figure without a hinted superior.