One key rule in interpretation is that one doesn't look for a more obscure interpretation if the obvious one makes perfect sense.

Why would one choose, when describing a hippo, to dwell on the tail -- a feature of the hippo that is hardly the first characteristic one would note. In fact, it is one of the last characteristics one would note UNLESS one was noting that it was almost non-existant.

Why would the poet choose to describe the hippo:

"...you know, that beast in the field whose tail can bend even when it is swift?"

Why would he define the almost non-existant tail as "swift" or "bendable" when neither would bring to mind the beast he's describing?

How much less tortured to merely assume he is talking about a beast with, you know, a HUGE tail -- a tail that resembles a cedar?

If a poet was going to describe a cardinal (redbird) would he, as a point of definition, describe the cardinal as "you know.... the bird with the HUGE beak" when:

1. The cardinal doesn't have a huge beak
2. The cardinal would be best (most succinctly) described as "you know......the crimson songster"
3. To define the cardinal as the one with the huge beak would, no doubt, cause the reader to mentally picture the toucan, NOT the cardinal.


But you are asserting that the "poet" in Job chose to describe the hippo as "you know...the one with the HUGE tail" when

1. The hippo doesn't have a huge tail
2. The hippo would better be described, not as the grass eating beast of the feild, but rather as the mud-water-wallowing beast.
3. Dwelling on the tail to describe the hippo doesn't lead the reader to think "hippo".

I'm afraid that yours is tortured interpretation.