Esoteric Paragraph 03, The meaning of ‘Something like hundreds of jellicate teeth’ and others

Esoteric Paragraph 03, The meaning of ‘Something like hundreds of jellicate teeth’ and others

The passage below is from Fathoms: The World in the Whale Hardcover by Rebecca Giggs.

?What it is, is then: bewildering, surely. ?A whole hut of flesh. ?Something like hundreds of jellicate teeth in linen. ?An immense fleece coat on struts, oddly snapped — like a garment off the back of Genghis Khan. ?A rill of organs inside weird, bog-man leather. ?And macro bones, too huge. The bones of a behemoth, a titan, a troll, all those giant things brought into existence to assume the excess of our selves. The mega-hominoids. ?Or, is it a crate of poached tusks, maybe, flung overboard or returned from a shipwreck, bundled in sea chunk. ?Junk: the term people once used to describe the tissues inside the head of a sperm whale — the junk. ?Eggs there, or maybe eyes? Shouldn’t the ability to discern an egg from an eye be drilled by primeval instinct? ?How hard is it to separate the unborn from a look? ?The monster has no face. But if there is a dog, the dog’s face is barking.

?What it is, is then: bewildering, surely.

What is this then? (Don’t know what it is) but surely it’s embarrassing. (Am I right?)

?A whole hut of flesh.

It seems like a cottage made of whale flesh (or whale skin). And it probably talks about whale’s skeleton being the frame and beam of the hut, and its skin and flesh encrusting the frame and beam of the skeleton. (Am I right?)

?Something like hundreds of jellicate teeth in linen.

(At a close range) the entire body of the whale collapsed with its own weight (with time and pressure). (Am I right?) Here jelicate teeth seem to refer to whale’s bones broken out of its flesh, and linen seems to allude to the whale’s flesh or skin. (Am I right?)

?An immense fleece coat on struts, oddly snapped — like a garment off the back of Genghis Khan.

This sentence seems to expresses the same idea of ?, but with different expression. ‘An immense fleece coat’ seems to express the stranded whale flesh. (Am I right?) ‘On struts’ seems to mean the stranded whale’s flesh being on struts like coat hanger.

‘Oddly snapped’ seems to mean the coat (of whale flesh) does not hang in a neat order but hang in a way someone tried to take it abruptly and hastily then give up and leave it as it is. (Am I right?)

‘Like a garment off the back of Genghis Khan’ seems to express the disorderliness of the whale flesh ‘coat’ comparing it to an outer covering crumpled by the weight of Genghis Khan. (Am I right?)

?A rill of organs inside weird, bog-man leather.

Dictionary says ‘rill’ means stream. Here it seems to mean ‘the state of the whale’s inside organ rotting to become sticky liquid.’ (Am I right?)

‘bog-man’ is said to be an ancient man exhumed from a bog. (Am I right?)

‘weird, bog-man leather’ literally seems to mean the skin of that man and implicitly to express organs pouring out from the whale flesh. (Am I right?)

This sentence seems to mean another way the author is trying to express the state of the stranded whale’s figure. (Am I right?)

?And macro bones, too huge. The bones of a behemoth, a titan, a troll, all those giant things brought into existence to assume the excess of our selves. The mega-hominoids.

The whale’s gigantic bones remind the author of the bones of all imaginable giant things. But the author’s point of this reminding is to talk about human arrogance, super over-blown human self. (Am I right?) Here ‘to assume’ seems to mean ‘to satisfy’. (Am I right?)

?Or, is it a crate of poached tusks, maybe, flung overboard or returned from a shipwreck, bundled in sea chunk.

If the unidentified gigantic lump on the shore is not a stranded whale, it seems to be ‘a wooden box with hunted animal’s pointed long teeth thrown away from a wrecked ship, which is bundled together disorderly with a thick sea mass. (Am I right?)

?Junk: the term people once used to describe the tissues inside the head of a sperm whale — the junk.

I have two ideas on this sentence as follows:

?Or it’s just junk, or waste, though junk once used to refer to a par of a whale. But it’s just the junk.

?Or is it the junk, or the fat tissue poured out from the a sperm whale’s head?

Which is right? Or am I wrong in both ideas? Then could you tell me where I am wrong?

?Eggs there, or maybe eyes? Shouldn’t the ability to discern an egg from an eye be drilled by primeval instinct?

(It seems to be continued from ?.) In the junk, there seems to be something to look like eggs or eyes. The witness is not sure about it, so he or she accuses of the inability of distinguishing one from another. (Am I right?)

?How hard is it to separate the unborn from a look?

And with an abrupt turn of the thought, the author goes to the matter of distinguishing the unborn living thing at a glance. (Am I right?) But if I am right I still don’t get the sense of this sentence. (Maybe you, too. But still I need your assurance that I am not the only one bewildering of this mysterious sentence.)

?The monster has no face. But if there is a dog, the dog’s face is barking.

Another mysterious one and the LAST one, Literally it’s not difficult. But again I don’t make any sense of this sentence. But let me try as best as I can. The MONSTER has no face. But if the witness brings a dog with them, the dog is barking at the gigantic lump. (Am I right?)

Thanks a gazillion. (Again sorry to bother you.)