A recurring theme in Dickinson’s writing is ambiguity and the often contrasting interpretations that can be born from one work. Some of her poems are more straightforward, but others, like I Dwell in Possibility, are not as such. Upon my initial reading, I believed the poem to be a critique of prose and structured writing. I interpreted “a fairer house than prose” in the sense that the house was just being used as a metaphor for the structure of prose and that possibility or poetry was a second “house.” After finishing the second line, I took to the interpretation that possibility was a representation of poetry, and her use of the word was to suggest the openness and unrestricted nature of poetry and also establish the author’s or that of the character the author had created, love and respect for poetry. I believed the numerous windows and chambers “impregnable of eye” were both metaphors for the openness of poetry and also its abstractness. The “this” is the final stanza spoke of poetry and this whole poem was Dickinson’s nod to her favorite pastime and her rejection of conventions, which was reinforced by her capitalization of improper nouns and frequent use of dashes which were not common or considered acceptable according to the customs of the time. But upon a second and third and then fourth reading, this poem becomes less about poetry vs. prose and more generally about openness vs. traditions and conventions. Her rejection of a steady rhyme scheme and common meter is to make a broader statement about an unrestricted open state of mind that reaches infinitely into the sky. Or at least that it is what is can be seen as. This is not just a critique on prose or just a rejection of tradition or just a combination of only those two. There is an openness in her writing. She doesn’t over explain, and infact, does quite the opposite, which leaves us, the readers, to try to interpret what she means.
The overall message of the poem is not the only thing up to interpretation. There are many individual word choices that I believe were purposefully left ambiguous. There is a lot more “room” in poetry to leave things open. Take the last line of stanza one for example: “Superior-for Doors-.” I know it was not just me who wondered what in the world she was talking about. Was the house superior for having doors? Does this mean that the house/ possibility/open-mindedness/poetry has restrictions and that not everyone can get in? Or are the doors themselves superior and if so, why? Is it because they hold possibility? Is it because they are strong enough to withstand prose/restrictions/ conventions/ tradition? These are questions that Dickinson left unanswered. We have to figure them out for ourselves. We can look at the context they were written in or we can just interpret them as we see them, which is perfectly legitimate because this poetry is now for us and serves no other purpose than to be read. There are several other phrases in the poem that cause a torrent of questions when it comes to their interpretation, like “Visitors-the fairest-” and “For Occupation-This-.” What is “this”? Are the visitors fair or is the entry process for them what’s fair? These small questions,depending on your answer, can make the “house” seem more elitist or very open, consequently changing the poem’s tone.
Dickinson’s I Dwell in Possibility, cheesy as it is, is chock full of possibility, which I think is kind of the whole point. Emily Dickinson could have meant it as a criticism of prose or conventions in general, but why it is still regarded as a work of art is because it continues to be applicable and not to just those interpretations. The ambiguity in her writing can go beyond general message or individual line interpretations and into applications. “Paradise” is relative and so is the meaning of the poem. We can all see that it is about rejecting something more ordered for possibility, but that’s more open than some might believe. Possibility can be seen as a new job or a new relationship or a new way of thinking and prose can be interpreted as any opposing force to that new thing. These visitors can be seen as people who agree with and support your decisions or as all of the people who are rejected by this new thing out of “fairness” to its greatness. The “this” that you spread out your hands for, the “paradise” you wish to hold,” can be any of these new things. This ambiguity in application, defining lines and stanzas, and interpreting tone and overall message leads me to strongly agree with the idea that “poets often withhold certitude” because uncertainty is what allows- “empowers”- creative thinking in their audience. Poets are more open by definition and having restrictive interpretations contradicts their craft in some- but not all- cases. I think, Dickinson especially, would find any other way restrictive- that house of thinking, to her, would have no “everlasting Roof” reaching to the “Gambrels of the Sky,” or any of whatever than means because after all, who really knows?
No comments:
Post a Comment