Poetry and Poetics–Lit 204

Dickinson’s poem “There is a certain slant of light” explores the negatively divine roots of despair in humans. Despair is widely understood as a ‘constructed’ emotion– humans had to learn about their own existence in society in order to feel despair. Dickinson potentially argues that the real reason behind human suffering is a far too extensive knowledge of one’s own insignificance in relation to divine things.

I interpreted the beam of light in the cold winter day was as a mockery or trickery of whatever entity created it. The cold sun is a sort of unattainable piece of hope that merely shows that humans are subjected to these forces that are beyond their control, as in God, most likely. The comparison between seeing the slant of light and hearing the “Heft of Cathedral Tunes” (3-4) shows that the way in which people become overwhelmed by the divinity and powerful orchestra in church relates to seeing this evidence of a sun despite the cold. Both are reminders of insignificance. Potentially, this poem could be interpreted as a hesitant criticism or a jealous statement towards Heaven and the everlasting sun that they are granted, while the humans on Earth suffer through winter each year. The heavenly light of the sun only shows what the humans are missing out on, rather than providing any actual warmth. 

Overall, “There is a certain slant of light”, views religion and divinity in a negative way, while still acknowledging its existence. Dickinson seems to believe there is something out there controlling this light, but she doesn’t seem entirely happy about it– and she argues that in reality, nobody is happy with it. She claims that acknowledgment of such great power only makes humans experience more despair, not less. 

Today,  I wanted to use my blog post to compare the two different versions of “Safe in their Alabaster Chambers” by Emily Dickinson. These two poems sparked my interest because of their similar beginnings yet drastically different ends. I was curious what inspired Dickinson to later write a second version, and why she chose to change the pieces that she did. In the Norton Anthology, there is a footnote explaining that the first version of the poem is from 1859, and the second version is the result of suggestions from her sister-in-law. What did her sister-in-law say to Emily Dickinson about her first poem to cause her to so drastically change its ultimate message?

Both versions start with the lines “Safe in their Alabaster Chambers – / Untouched by morning / And untouched by noon – / Sleep the meek members of the Resurrection -” (1-4). “Alabaster” is a translucent white material according to the anthology, and upon further research, I found that it was often used to carve sculptures. In fact, cultures like Ancient Egypt and Medieval Europe often used Alabaster to carve out statues for tombs, meaning that an “alabaster chamber” likely references an adorned tomb. The fact that the people are “untouched by morning / and untouched by noon” implies that they are not phased by the passing of time, but rather frozen in it, waiting for judgement day. This first part of the two poems implies that the subject of the poem are stuck in a liminal space, waiting to see what death will bring them. 

The first version then moves towards a more uplifting second stanza, discussing how the bee “babbles” and the “sweet birds” “pipe” about the “sagacity” of the person who died, implying that the natural world on Earth, a world that knows time and will continue to move forward, remembers the dead and carries on their legacy. However, the second version ends on a much more depressing note that seems to argue humans’ insignificance in the face of time, saying “Grand go the years, / In the Crescent above them / … / Diadems – drop – / soundless as dots on a disc of snow. I really want to know what it was in her sister-in-law’s critiques that caused Emily Dickinson to change her speaker’s attitude towards death & what happens to humans after their souls escape the liminal space of their coffin! What do you guys think? 

In all honestly, I’m pretty confused by “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry,” and what the speaker’s conclusion is at the end. The speaker begins by describing the similarities in experience between himself and his audience, which is future generations of readers. He does this by comparing his observations and feelings while crossing the Brooklyn ferry with those of future generations. The speaker uses vivid imagery to do this, and several instances of repetition in the scenes he describes, such as “the big steam-tug closely flank’d on each \ side by the barges, the hay-boat, the belated lighter” (47-48), and “The sea-gulls oscillating their bodies, the hay-boat in the twilight, and the \ belated lighter?” (93-94). The speaker repeats ideas and images, but not compete phrases as we see in this example. This repetition reinforces the similarities between the speaker’s observations and those that he expects future generations to have. The speaker attributes these similarities to the power of the river itself, saying “Flow one, river! flow with the flood-tide, and ebb with the ebb-tide” (102). 

The most interesting part of this poem to me, is the apparent identity crisis that the speaker goes through. The speaker says “I too had receiv’d identity by my body. \ That I was I knew was of my body, and what I should be I knew I should \ be of my body” (63-64). The use of past tense here makes it seem like the speaker is talking about himself from an out-of-body perspective, and makes this statement even more bizarre than it already sounds. The lack of punctuation and confusing syntax in these two lines makes their interpretation tricky, but what I think he’s saying is that his past and future subjective identity are both based in his objective body and actions. The speaker also talks about his “nighest name” several times. He says “Was call’d by my nighest name by clear loud voices of young men” (79). This statement is ironic, because nighest implies that the name he was called was close, but not quite his true identity. However, these young men seem confident in using their “clear loud voices” to call out the speaker. The speaker also discusses “roles” in reference to the lives that we create for ourselves. The speaker overall speaks from a perspective looking forward to the reader’s experience, but also reflects on how the reader will view him. In this way, the poem seems to express a true identity crisis with respect to time, and I’m not entirely sure what to make of it.

Reading this poem, I felt touched by the beautiful and tranquil atmosphere that Emily Dickinson created while talking about death. The word “safe” is one of the primary devices that adds to tone, and allows for incredibly descriptive imagery of the marble tombs. What really makes this such a successful poem is its second stanza — which is why it’s so interesting to compare the first and second version. The second poem uses a larger amount of caesura (“diadems – drop – and Doges – surrender”), which stretches out the poem. The second stanza feels long and airy, which embodies the lengthy time that is expressed in the poem. Dickinson discusses how the dead are safe and untouched by the world above, who are unaffected by stretches of time as rulers are defeated (11) and kingdoms fall (10). The insignificance of the living world to the dead is compared to snowfall on the ground, which is a metaphor that adds to the calm and tranquil tone. The first version seems to have a clearer message, as its last line remarks on the amount of intelligence (sagacity) that has been lost with the dead. The second version has more ambiguity over its message, as the dead are described as safe and peaceful but also insignificant. They are completely untouched by the living while they wait for the “resurrection”. While they are sleeping and sound, they also have no importance in this world. Whether Dickinson wrote this with the intention of saddening her audience or lifting their spirits by reminding them that nothing matters in death, the peaceful tone of this poem will lift the spirits of many readers over a subject that can be looming and debilitating.

At first glance, Hopkins’s sonnet is merely a verbal dump of his own depressing feelings; however, in my interpretation, Hopkins is attempting to teach a pessimistic lesson to humanity. 

In accordance with the structure of the Petrarchan sonnet, the poem takes a turn between the octave and the sestet. In the octave, Hopkins portrays his own feelings of unavoidable and intense despair while calling out for figures like Mary, God, and “Fury” (7) to help. The poem continues with the same tone through the sestet, but shifts into a commentary on society. He argues that people experience immense amount of pain by metaphorically comparing the mind to a range of mountains with never ending cliffs we are just constantly hanging off of, and our “Durance” (12) can’t handle those anguishes. In the last two lines, “Wretch, under a comfort serves in a whirlwind: all / Life death does end and each day dies with sleep”, Hopkins makes his last argument– society cannot function without the comfort of mortality and termination. We survive because we know eventually we will die. 

This poem is morbid and hard to read, not just because of the empathy we as readers feel for the hopelessness and despair that Hopkins illustrates, but for the existentialist viewpoint that nothing matters because we all just work to die and there is no greater purpose in life. Additionally, it’s hard to come to terms with the fact that Hopkins frames this as a form of comfort– that life is so depressing that we should be grateful that it ends; rather than scared of it.