Discussion: The Red Wheelbarrow

[wordsheff]

I don't expect this to become a huge discussion, as this poem has been dissected ad nauseum, in forums, classes and books.

Incase anyone here hasn't read it, here it is as published:


so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

I'm wondering what makes this one of the most important poems of the 20th century, a list that also includes something as sprawling and dense as The Waste Land.

I see the power of the image: chickens and wheelbarrows are on farms and it just rained. This wheelbarrow has a lot of work to do seeing as the crops today should be plentiful.

That can't be it, can it? I've often heard about sound. Is this because the sounds are so soft until the K in the chicKens?

This is clearly free verse.

Damn. I feel like I should look at it and have a mental orgasm but I just don't. I'd love to hear what you guys think. Also, I understand if you wouldn't mind not discussing this poem ever again.

Off to class. I'll look forward to seeing what you all think!

-WS

[Unique]

Oh, no! Not this poem again! For the life of me, I can't tell you why some people think this one is such a big deal.

Every single one of Haskin's poems that I have ever seen beat this one hands down.



No, I'm not opinionated; why do you ask?

[wordsheff]

I have always loved William Carlos Williams poems. I love his economy of words. Such thought provoking imagery sprawled on the mere surface of a prescription pad. He was an expert in saying a lot with few words. His poetry is important because it reminds us of the power of choosing the right words.

well put. I'm definitely going to look for more of his stuff soon.

[ddgryphon]

Oh, no! Not this poem again! For the life of me, I can't tell you why some people think this one is such a big deal.

Every single one of Haskin's poems that I have ever seen beat this one hands down.



No, I'm not opinionated; why do you ask?

Well, I'm with you on that -- heck some of the stuff just tossed out in the Haiku threads beat this as far as I'm concerned. Unlike Webern who did a similar thing with music, this has never struck me as a big deal.

I especially hate the phrase "So much depends" as it is a completely worthless phrase offering nothing (as far as I can tell) to the overall piece. It is so general it might as well not be there.

YMMV but for me, I hate this poem almost as much as I hate "The Lovely Bones" and that's going some distance.

[emeraldcite]

Actually I love this poem.

The thing is, context helps. He wrote this after visiting a girl that he could not cure (williams was a doctor). He looked outside and this was what he saw.

So much depends on the simplicity, on the baptism, on the cleansing. The juxtaposition of the colors, bright angry red with the white innocence, really shows the battle between the girl and her illness.

Also its simplicity is excellent compared with other very complex poems coming out during the period. So much was focused on the loss of a moral center, war, destruction, and loss of innocence while williams pointed out the beauty around us.


4 so much depends
2 upon

3 a red wheel
2 barrow

3 glazed with rain
2 water

4 beside the white
2 chickens.

I love the structure, which reminds me so much of haiku. In a way, williams americanized the form and used it to his advantage.

I really admire williams' economy of word choice.

But it comes down to context, which may also be a fault of the poem.

In the end, it's fun to teach to students. At first, they say "what's the big deal." Then you reveal the subtle structure, the subtle meaning. They love it after that. It's amazing how much you can fit into such a small box.

[Unique]

"The thing is, context helps. He wrote this after visiting a girl that he could not cure (williams was a doctor). He looked outside and this was what he saw."

If a poem 'needs' a back story to get its point across, IMO, it isn't working. I fail to see a connection between a dying girl and a chicken and a wheelbarrow. (And I don't think it's anything lacking in me.)

"....really shows the battle between the girl and her illness."

It might if she were mentioned in the poem, but she isn't.

"Also its simplicity is excellent compared with other very complex poems coming out during the period. So much was focused on the loss of a moral center, war, destruction, and loss of innocence while williams pointed out the beauty around us."

That sounds like we should like it because his contemporaries were writing in a different style. I should prefer Andy Warhol because his style isn't like Vermeer?

I'll agree with you that it's simple.

But I still don't think it's all that.

[alanna]

I agree with what's been said- the economy of words is amazing the imagery wonderful. However, I'm not completely in love with this poem. Call me old fashioned, but I have a thing for puctuation and lines with multiple words. ::shrug::

And that's very interesting about the context Unique. It does put the poem in a much different light.

[emeraldcite]

Then what is the big deal about haiku? It is simple and often conveys a simple image.

I understand the idea that it's over-hyped, much of the poetry hammered in schools is over-hyped, but the poem functions on a number of cool levels.

As I said in my original post: some may consider the context issue a failure on his part, but putting it in that context is only one layer. On another level, it functions the same way as haiku.

[William Haskins]

the poem is a survivor largely because of the debate it imposes on its audience, which i would contend is one of the primary functions of a poem. had it not any suggestion of substance; had it not any intriguing aura, it would have long ago slipped through the cracks of time.

i have never been overly impressed by it, even with williams' own gloss to set the context, but i am a huge fan of his work in general.

my apologies to those who are aware of his body of work, but for the more casual folks, i'd like to offer up—just as a contrast—one of his i've always found beautifully-wrought.

To Waken an Old Lady (1920)

Old age is
a flight of small
cheeping birds
skimming
bare trees
above a snow glaze.
Gaining and failing
they are buffeted
by a dark wind --
But what?
On harsh weedstalks
the flock has rested --
the snow
is covered with broken
seed husks
and the wind tempered
with a shrill
piping of plenty.

[poetinahat]

I love this discussion. And thanks, wordsheff, for starting it off. It's like reading a tennis match or watching kids trade yo'mama insults. "Oh, good point." "Hey, you're right too." "Oh, hadn't thought of that." Good rally!

I'm torn about whether context is essential; it's only through the annotations that I was able to appreciate much of what's in the Norton Anthology. Without having the sort of classical education the Wildes and Byrons of the world would've had (which near no one has these days), the context of much of the classic works is lost.

I've only been able to make two firm conclusions:

1) I completely agree with your comment below, Dirk. That first line is a complete fizzer. Throws a mouldy funk over the rest of the piece.

...
I especially hate the phrase "So much depends" as it is a completely worthless phrase offering nothing (as far as I can tell) to the overall piece. It is so general it might as well not be there.
...

2) William Haskins is indeed a master of this style: showing us the world with a handful of words. We prattle on about you a lot, William -- probably more than you'd like -- but you bring it on yourself. Your ability is a rod for your own back.

[William Haskins]

i just can't get behind the notion that "so much depends" is a weak phrase.

it's almost a desperate reliance on the 'wheelbarrow', elevated to the point of almost sacredness.

it's such an encompassing phrase, implying something whose value can't be calculated, in the way that something like "you are everything to me", which—if you can look beyond it as cliche'—is a pretty heavy thing for someone to say if they really mean it.

p.s. poet, you're much too kind to me. and i mean that. i'm not worthy of it.

[poetinahat]

That's precisely my problem with it - I can't get past the cliche'. Or, I suppose more accurately, I choose not to. It's too much work to rearrange my perceptions so I can be moved; the observer risks spoiling the experiment.

[Bret]

So much "depends" on it because the poet says it does. "License" they call it right?

Though I'm not a fan of most WCW, I adore this poem. (After I first read it, I bought a WCW hoping for more of the same.)

I like short poems

I like poems that tinker with my brain's normal operating mode

I like poems to make wild statements

I like the way it looks, I like the way it works-slowing you down. Grabbing you by the neck and making you look at the ordinary in an unusual way.

The haiku analogy seems appropriate. And haiku, I mean a real haiku, not just 3 lines of words, operates on your brain in a particular way.

That being said, I know many fine upstanding, creative and intelligent people who are kind to animals and their aged parents who DO NOT understand haiku. They don't "get it" they are "haiku proof" individuals.

Their explanation of course is that "haiku doesn't make any sense." I beg to differ.

Adoration of the wheelbarrow is likely a similiar thing. Though I'm willing to accept the fact that people who think it's a great poem might have their wires crossed.I like it and that bolsters the "wiring" theory.:)

[poetinahat]

It's only the "so much" to which I object. The depending is fine.

[Bret]

I however, require a desperate sense of urgency when viewing farm utensils in the rain. :)

[C.bronco]

It took a long time to come over to Williams' side, especially after discovering that one could effectively read many of his works in William Shatner's voice. But I was won over after some guy brought a bunch into a poetry group. Sometimes a simple visual image can be powerful. I keep thinking of a poem I can't find which was either Seamus Heaney or Galway Kinnel, and had an image of a "tin scoop" in a barrel of oats or flour or something like that. We attach our experience to what we read in poetry, or, as Edwin Romond said, "we read a poem with our life."

[emeraldcite]

If a poem 'needs' a back story to get its point across, IMO, it isn't working.

Then you've wiped out a good deal of classic poetry, haven't you?

With that assumption, then Sappho's poetry doesn't work. In fact, anything that needs footnotes doesn't work because you need that content to understand it. You'd have to know everything T. S. Eliot knew in order for the Waste Land to work.

As I said, context helps, but isn't necessary.


"....really shows the battle between the girl and her illness."

It might if she were mentioned in the poem, but she isn't.

I'm speaking about one aspect of the interpretation from the angle of the background story. You can talk about colors and associations in a number of ways. I wasn't offering a definitive exegesis of the poem, just a point of view.


That sounds like we should like it because his contemporaries were writing in a different style. I should prefer Andy Warhol because his style isn't like Vermeer?



No, but one reason people liked Andy Warhol was because he was different. He did stuff that no one else was doing and stood out.Granted he was a great artist, but part of it was tha the was different.


I'm torn about whether context is essential; it's only through the annotations that I was able to appreciate much of what's in the Norton Anthology. Without having the sort of classical education the Wildes and Byrons of the world would've had (which near no one has these days), the context of much of the classic works is lost.

Context isn't essential, but it adds something extra to it. It's not mandatory, but it's nice to know.

As for context, Dante's Inferno is an excellent work, but without context (the politics of Dante's time), much of the irony and meaning in the punishments are lost.

I'm in no way saying this is the best of williams' work, but it's packed with meaning if you're willing to dig.

[ddgryphon]

That's precisely my problem with it - I can't get past the cliche'. Or, I suppose more accurately, I choose not to. It's too much work to rearrange my perceptions so I can be moved; the observer risks spoiling the experiment.

YES! I feel I should be drawn into the work, not forced to turn myself sideways to get through the door.

[gromhard]

Poetry is art. You guys are acting like "beauty" or "significance" actually exist outside of one's own mind. They don't. There's no universal form of "art" or "poetry" that all sentient beings no matter how smart or dull could all agree was "good."
A poem is a personal endeavor, not a sales pitch. If a poet writes a poem then his relationship with the poem has only to do with truth, honesty and personal satisfaction. If he likes the poem he has written then he has produced good poetry.
As readers we have a different relationship with a poem. For all the pomp and glitz surrounding poetry there is really only the relationship between the singular reader and the singular poem at that exact moment they're reading it, or remembering it. However the poem effects them is POETRY.
Sometimes the relationship is good. Perhaps I also enjoy the imagery of the wheel barrel. Perhaps the chord of resonance it strikes in me runs deep and I connect to the sentiments of the poem at a very root level. That's a good relationship with a poem.
However let's say I didn't like the poem at all ,didn't "get it" as it were. Or maybe I found it trite, or cliché. Maybe I've seen a billion poems before it that were exactly the same and when I read it the only memories or thoughts it conjured were negative or of the common variety. Then it's a bad relationship with the poem and I probably won't like it.

But none of this bears any reflection on the poem itself.
The fact that most people like Shakespeare's sonnets doesn't necessarily mean they're GOOD. It just means they reach a LOT of individuals. No, not good, but important? Highly. Societies and cultures are built upon such shared reactions, good or bad.
Which is why the context of read poetry can be important. Poetry isn't just a collection of words about wheel barrels or chickens. It's a snapshot of a time and place. We can see the lines and the sentiments that resonated with a people of a thousand years ago...or even twenty...or even our current neighbors.
Vocabulary is only half of comprehension. What good are all the poems in the world if they're just disembodied words floating through ether to be taken or discarded on the basis of their first appearance.

The fact that Williams liked his poem enough to get it published means it was good poetry. The fact that so many different people like it makes it important. Whether or not it has any value to you, as a reader, says imho much more about you than it does the poem or Williams.

[poetinahat]

Poetry is art. You guys are acting like "beauty" or "significance" actually exist outside of one's own mind. They don't. There's no universal form of "art" or "poetry" that all sentient beings no matter how smart or dull could all agree was "good."
Condescendingly said, but interesting. Give the people here a little more credit; if we all agreed, well, this thread wouldn't have run as far as it had.

The original question was not whether the poem was good; it was whether the poem reached us. We've answered.

The discussion here has been around whether people liked it or not, not so much whether it was good.

It would follow, then, if beauty and quality of art are entirely subjective, there is NO basis on which to distinguish any art from any other in terms of quality. If that's the case, I can't totally agree.

The fact that Williams liked his poem enough to get it published means it was good poetry.
Don't quite agree. People can publish for any number of reasons, many of which bear no relation to how good they actually think the work is. Much less what anybody else thinks.
The fact that so many different people like it makes it important.
This statement contradicts your earlier assertion that significance doesn't exist outside our own minds.

Whether or not it has any value to you, as a reader, says imho much more about you than it does the poem or Williams.
All it says about me is that I see it differently from Williams. What does that tell you? That I'm not Williams.

What it says about Williams, and the poem, is whether they reached me. So, who do you know better now?

[ddgryphon]

the poem is a survivor largely because of the debate it imposes on its audience, which i would contend is one of the primary functions of a poem. had it not any suggestion of substance; had it not any intriguing aura, it would have long ago slipped through the cracks of time.

i have never been overly impressed by it, even with williams' own gloss to set the context, but i am a huge fan of his work in general.

my apologies to those who are aware of his body of work, but for the more casual folks, i'd like to offer up—just as a contrast—one of his i've always found beautifully-wrought.

To Waken an Old Lady (1920)

Old age is
a flight of small
cheeping birds
skimming
bare trees
above a snow glaze.
Gaining and failing
they are buffeted
by a dark wind --
But what?
On harsh weedstalks
the flock has rested --
the snow
is covered with broken
seed husks
and the wind tempered
with a shrill
piping of plenty.

Now, see, this to me is something worth looking at and spending time on, and, dog help me, IMO has more going for it than that damn Wheelbarrow poem. It isn't that I think The Red Wheelbarrow is a bad poem, I don't find it a significant poem, which is how it has constantly been portrayed to me.

This I think IS a significant poem. I understand that not only am I out of step with most of my contemporaries at the time, but even now, I'm on the outside of this discussion concerning the "wheelbarrow" piece.

With apologies to all who love this piece, but I can't help saying:

little matters
about

the lone wheel
barrow

grown over with
weeds

beside the split
coop.

[LimeyDawg]

We twist words and test the limits of meaning almost every time we put poetry pen to paper. It's accepted as license. When we critique a poem, especially when we try to assess a work's value, we are doing the same thing that the poet did. The Red Wheelbarrow means nothing to me. Probably very important to the author as someone here pointed out as "a snapshot" of life. Perhaps it was the original critic who attached the importance. Who knows? I'm just not sure that ANY value exists in addressing a person's particular opinion about a piece of poetry. Address the work, not the person.

[gromhard]

Condescendingly said, but interesting. Give the people here a little more credit; if we all agreed, well, this thread wouldn't have run as far as it had.
I didn't mean to be condescending if that matters at all.

The original question was not whether the poem was good; it was whether the poem reached us. We've answered.

The discussion here has been around whether people liked it or not, not so much whether it was good.
Other points of discussion have been brought up since.

It would follow, then, if beauty and quality of art are entirely subjective, there is NO basis on which to distinguish any art from any other in terms of quality. If that's the case, I can't totally agree.

This is a philosophical arguement as old as time. One side says "beauty is just opinion" and the other side goes "no, beauty can exist independantly" one of the sides has never been able to cite an example though...

Don't quite agree. People can publish for any number of reasons, many of which bear no relation to how good they actually think the work is. Much less what anybody else thinks.
I grant. I know nothing of Williams intentions in getting that poem published. He could have had a gun to his head for all I know.

This statement contradicts your earlier assertion that significance doesn't exist outside our own minds.

Are you just being difficult? I can't tell so I'll answer as if this is an honest assessment of what I said:
When I said that "significance" didn't exist outside your mind I meant as a stand-alone quality.
For something to be significant there must be a predicate, it has to be significant to something.
When I call Shakespeare's sonnets important, I mean they're important to us on a socio-cultural level. But as far as the sonnets themselves go, without that socio-cultural context they're no better than any other sonnets.

All it says about me is that I see it differently from Williams. What does that tell you? That I'm not Williams.
What it says about Williams, and the poem, is whether they reached me. So, who do you know better now?
Exactly. Now let's follow that logic some.
You're not just different than Williams, you're different from John Smith over there who DOES like Williams' poem.
And if a football arena of people like that poem then you're different from all of them...and if I like the poem you're different from me.
If the poem makes me feel then you're unfeeling to me.
If the poem makes me happy then you're cynical to me.
If the poem strikes me as holy then you're evil to me.
Now this all seems overblown right? This seems like I'm reading too far in. Yet, now instead of Williams, imagine we're talking about the poems that make up the Psalms.

We DEFINE ourselves by the poetry and art we read or do not read or understand or do not understand.

[kdnxdr]

lololololololol..........oh my gosh.....I can't breath......lolololololol...........okay......lolo lololol.......I want to jump into this wheelbarrow......heheheheheh.......I just love these conversations.....okay.....white chicken, red wheelbarrow.....I see capitalism vs. communism.............that's it............it's a labor union manifesto for me!..............Power to the people!............it all depends on our ability to reach consensus, We the People against the State!!

(no offense to cw/sick friend)

often times, it's difficult for the reader to fill in the blanks.......you guys have gotten me for that numerous times! And, I thank you for it. Because, I, as I'm sure all artist will, write from my perspective, from my personal angst, for my own relief, condemnation or hope. I wield my "pen" and make the world suffer my delusions. Beg all to see my evident revelations.

I write because I am an addict to writing, even as it consumes me in all it's terribleness. If saint, you suffer noblely with me. If devil, you destroy.

I love you all for all you are and pray you write much more.

[poetinahat]

I didn't mean to be condescending if that matters at all.
Actually, to me, that matters a lot. Thank you.
This is a philosophical arguement as old as time. One side says "beauty is just opinion" and the other side goes "no, beauty can exist independantly" one of the sides has never been able to cite an example though...
Okay. To me, comparing Piss Christ with the Pieta' would seem a lay-down misere. I'm happy with unending philosophical arguments; they make the world go 'round. Maybe they become annoying sometimes, but debate is good.
Are you just being difficult?
No, not trying to anyway. I spotted a contradiction and pointed it out. I don't see where that's being difficult. We're having what I hope is a good-natured debate.
We DEFINE ourselves by the poetry and art we read or do not read or understand or do not understand.
Hmmm. I'd say those things define us in relation to others, so I basically agree.

I still love this thread -- even more now. It gets boring when we all agree.

But, back to the topic: I also see a haiku-like quality in the poem, but the "so much" rankles; to me, it's lazy work. I'm not going to rave about how much the poem affects me, but I think Mr Haskins makes a good point: regardless of how it reaches people, it's significant in that the debate over it has lasted so long.

Will Piss Christ last as long for the same reason? I wonder.

[jst5150]

Lurked around this thread long enough. Some thoughts constructively directed (and coming from me, hardly educated enough to rate) toward this thread's interested gallery:


Backstory: Interesting comment, but misdirected. As with almost any creative work, the patron should be allowed to create -- via imagination -- his own backstory. Your poem may have ignited concrete imagery in your mind, but what's conveyed should resonate with others, too. For instance, my "what's Mona Lisa thinking" (to use another medium) won't be your "what's Mona Lisa thinking." In any case, if you're cramming too much -- forcing the story -- then it becomes something else -- public relations, propaganda or something contrived. On Mr. Williams' poem, after I read it a few times, a back story resonated for me. Here it is: so much depends on the wheelbarrow because it hauls feed, manure and hay around that farm. It feeds the animals and provides a lifestyle for whomever it belongs. It keeps the animals alive until slaughter or milking. The rain is going to rust the wheelbarrow (thus justifying the "so much depends" part) and render it useless. Another means of moving food and feeding the animals to continue living may be necessary. I'd bet yours is different.


Beauty: Beauty is solely based on opinion? I'd disagree. There are imagery, noises, tastes and sensations that human beings are programmed to react to more favorably than others. For instance, symmetry in body parts is more favorable then not. Reubenesque figures. Iambic pentameter. Oversimplified, we are plants reacting to light. The communicator through whatever medium uses those sensations to leverage his message. Mr. Williams probably understood this. He also understood that, to a large degree, an economy of words resonates longer than a [ahem] wheelbarrow full. Example: which do you recall with greater clarity, 1.) Kanye West's, "George Bush hates black people," or 2.) Mr. West's acceptance speeches at the Grammies? Note that both used the same medium and system of delivery. So, while Mr. Williams could have put more paint on the canvas, would it have necessarily made for a more glowing portrait? It's up for debate, and perhaps that's where opinion takes hold and the programmed norms fall away. Whatever the case, I'd argue that beauty is not solely in the formation of opinion. If that were the case, then I'd further argue that there are a great many people denying sub-consicous, primal programming for the selfish sake of raising something to "beauty."


Imposed debate: Mr. Haskins makes a fantastic point here. But there's a grain of fact here that goes unnoticed -- this poem has an audience for debate. Scholars, poets, students and so on. We can lob nine thousand poems onto this board, glean a few comments, and get about two weeks of traction from them, but that's about as long as they'll echo (unless we're hustling them elsewhere). There's something to be said about the poet's ability to market his work to the largest audience. The most extreme example of that could be Dr. Seuss. Another could be Shel Silverstein (a genius). In the media cookery we call American society (and, to a great extent, other Colonial driven societies like the UK, Oz and elsewhere), without exposure, imposed debate ceases to exist. At least, until you're dead. And then, you'd better hope you've got an intellectuoti (just made that word up) on your side to carry your legacy into University, publisher or high-class social circle. Otherwise, your effects are distributed by the state.


Finally, to bring it back around to the poem itself, I liked it. Loved it, really. Instant imagery snapped into place for me. I caveat this by saying I'm the guy who rarely catches the intended imagery, syntax or aural metaphors in movies, poems or music. However, Works like this are very much are like the kind I see on our beloved AbWr poetry board; and the metaphorical square dances they emcee are amazing. Truly.

Will Piss Christ last as long? Well, Buddy Christ is still around ...

v/r, Jason

[pconsidine]

I'm not even going to touch the greater "philosophy of aesthetics" debate. I've spent far too much time dealing with my art school bitterness to want to deal with that one again.

But I do find the conversation about "Red Wheelbarrow" interesting. I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the context where one first encountered the poem. Sometimes, when we aren't coming to something of our own volition, it colors the experience. The same goes for the continual analysis and deconstructing of a piece, such that we can't see the piece without all its accompanying footnotes. I have some recollection of reading this piece ages ago, but it's so long ago, my reading it in this thread might as well have been the very first time.

In that context, I found this poem incredibly inviting. Maybe I'm just in an especially receptive mood, but I found myself wondering just what does depend on a wheelbarrow. Images of weight being borne, of work being done, of the passing of the agrarian lifestyle - all these things came to my mind.

I think that if we judge poetry by its effect on the reader, I'd have to call this a very good poem. But then, I might just have been in the right frame of mind for it to be so.

[ddgryphon]

for odd commentary that fits here as well check out my post in the Modern Poets thread over in the "Poetry Critique" area.

Linky: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=698870&postcount=26

[jjblue]

Nothing new to add, but thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. Wordsheff has started others that made me think, garnered much interest. Thanks!

[LimeyDawg]

K (or can I call you TC?),
I wholeheartedly agree. I made the mistake of posting to a supposed poetry workshop, only to have my work (probably deservedly) trashed as cliched and "mistaking the nobility of the cause for the strength of the poem". It got me thinking.
Isn't poetry about life and it's nuances. By definition, everything that is written can be categorized as cliched and trite and yada yada yada. I'm with you on this. Poetry either touches you or it doesn't. That's all there is. The pedagogues can argue over whether the poem is good or bad, but the chatter is inane and worthless because nobody is good enough to be a critic about another person's intimate thoughts put to paper.

[kdnxdr]

yeah dawg, power to the poets!

[wordsheff]

I'm not one to memorize poems so I have them readily available to quote, but this one snuck in there because after a few readings it's so hard to forgot...

Anyway, when I realized I accidentally memorized it, I began playing it in my head on the way to class yesterday, and I noticed something about the sound of the poem:

So much depends
upon

the red wheel
barrow

For some reason, reading it aloud, you get a sense of release at the second, shorter line of each stanza, as if you've just unloaded what it was you were carrying in the first, longer line, and this completely complements the idea behind the poem and the work of a wheelbarrow. Walk walk walk, dump (sorry I couldn't think of a better word :) ) walk walk walk, dump.

I've checked out the complete works of WCW from the library, filled with small free verse poems like this, most of them not much longer than this poem, and I'm still trying to analyze what else he put into these things, because on the surface they are so simple.

Anyway, I'm glad everyone has enjoyed talking about this. It's good to dissect the hell out of what's considered one of the most important poems of the century.

Just remembered this one by Ezra Pound, supposed to be in the same school of poetry as TRW:

IN A STATION OF THE METRO


The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet black bough.

---

I've seen this one several times...hmm.
-WS

[Good Word]

How odd. I started a thread in this forum, and didn't notice this one until I came back to see if anyone responded to mine yet. It's like deja vu all over again.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37674


I haven't read a lot of Williams, and none recently, but I always liked this poem for it's simple crisp imagery. Nothing more, nothing less.

ETA: Well maybe a little more--there's a simplicity of life to it.

That is all.

[kdnxdr]

when I wrote my piece by using different word definitions for what is the essence of Williams' red wheelbarrow poem, (my bad for leaving out the rain concept), it became an exercise for me to "look out the window" and see the concepts in a different arrangement.

I especially liked the approach of splitting the compound of wheel and barrow and discovering their individual concepts. Barrow became a very fascinating word : underhill accomodations, the grave and the castrated pig. As a sidebar: I realized that the spanish concept of barrio, neighborhood, meager living conditions, probably had a linguistical link to barrow. Wheel was "pivots in dance" and "the roulette". Each line attempted a definition.

Symbolically, the castrated pig worked for my piece in that I used the pig as a stereotipical representation of a greedy, thoughtless man who squandered his fortune. The fact that he was castrated symbolically spoke of loss of power or abilities.

Dependency was his "looking to" the roulette.

I make mention of my 'transformation' of Williams' piece to simply say that it is always interesting and challenging to look at anything from varied perspectives to get a more developed understanding of what something is and what it is not. Comparing and contrasting is a wonderful mental exercise and just fun way to follow a prompt.

[pea]

I do think that looking at the historical literary context for this one helps. Williams himself called for "no idea but in things". He wasn't interested in huge abstract concepts but in having descriptions of objects themselves create the meaning. To me, this poem captures that idea in such a pure way.

Also, I love that each stanza is shaped like a little wheelbarrow (blur your eyes a bit and you'll see it). The other thing that I really like about this poem is the surprise of the chickens. The line breaks on all of the stanzas except the last one are phrases that you hear together all the time: depends upon, wheelbarrow, rainwater. But white chickens? That just makes me smile.

Is it my favorite poem? No. It's not one that gives me gooseflesh or blows the lid off my skull, but there is more to its simplicity than people give it credit for.

I love talking about poems though. What fun!

[kdnxdr]

Hey Pea,

Welcome!

[wordsheff]

there is more to its simplicity than people give it credit for.


Ha...what??? More credit to The Red Wheelbarrow?

Yeah, people don't give enough credit to Jesus, too.

Jk I'm just messin with you, welcome to the forum, Pea...I love talkin about poetry too...glad you resurrected this one...Jesus??

WS

[pea]

Ha...what??? More credit to The Red Wheelbarrow?

Yeah, people don't give enough credit to Jesus, too.

Jk I'm just messin with you, welcome to the forum, Pea...I love talkin about poetry too...glad you resurrected this one...Jesus??

WS

Valid point. I should have clarified. *Some people* don't give it enough credit because they've seen it so many times that they no longer see it.

Resurrected...hahaha. Love it.

[wordsheff]

I like ur point about the SHAPE of the wheelbarrow...

I've always thought reading the first line of each stanza the beat moved as if the reader were carrying a load and then with the second stanza it felt as if that load were being released...idk how to explain it but just the breathing pattern or something, the second stanza is a load off...like rollin a barrow then dumping the payload... good catch with the shape.

WS