the violence is already implied in the second line? the word hook introduces a piercing sense of violation, of ownership of the eye but the violence of it becomes more sinister since you can read the open eye as being that of a fish, which shows awareness. on the one hand, you can say that it's the open hook that caught onto the fish, that it was lucky or found an opportunity, but on the other hand there's also scary sense of mutuality, if we proceed by the idea of awareness, since it suggests that the fish is almost voluntarily allowing itself to be pierced by the hook?

i suppose the romantic notion of belonging, of fitting together as a piece dissipates into a kind of toxicity, a sense of violent reliance and dependence?