neruda

Love for Another vs. Love of Everyday Things

An analysis and comparison of Pablo Neruda’s rhetorical approach

toward his works in Twenty Love Poems and A Song of Despair and Odes to Common Things

When first introduced to Pablo Neruda’s work in class this semester, I found myself suddenly in love with the impression his words left. The spell of Neruda’s choice of words has won him world wide fame as well as the respect of poets from, and long after, his time. Pablo Neruda’s celebrity is accredited to the publishing of a series of different types of writings as well as work he conducted as an influential political figure. Neruda’s love for his country and light/dark description has made him notorious in the literary world. Neruda’s efforts resulted in a Noble Prize in Literature in the year 1971. His unconventional reference to the woman’s form and variable imagery throughout his work has deemed him worthy of replication and multiple translations.

The volume Twenty Love Poems and A Song of Despair was the first of his written works that won him fame. Publishing it at the early age of 20 in 1924, Pablo Neruda declared his place in the literary world as one of a talented artist. This collection of poetry captures the poet’s youthful inclinations towards love, highlighting sexual explicitness through intertwining it with images from his native land, Chile. Neruda not only associates the woman’s body with nature, he glorifies the females form in comparison to the natural world of Chile, accrediting the woman as an indubitable agency of mother nature.

The poems within the collection Twenty Love Poems and a Song of Despair differ from Neruda’s other works in that they lack the scholarly, political voice that is predominantly displayed in his later pieces. The beauty of analysing Neruda’s work is that the audience can identify at which point in the poet’s life he had written it, through the discovering of the context of the poems themselves. Canto General, for example, is a poem in which Neruda discusses highly politically themed content that mirrors his involvement in political movements. He opens discussions on ideas as simple as food being a birthright for everyone rather than an item sold for labor as well as exposes his ideologies toward his own political stance.

Pablo Neruda’s Odes to Common Things is exemplary of Neruda’s attempt to connect to the common. The poems differ from the rest of his work because of it’s use of short simple language, forming odes to everyday things ranging from socks to an artichoke. The odes, written as a means to stray from the highly political and identify with the ordinary, in no way lack Neruda’s passion, but rather redefine how love can be expressed and the object in which it is expressed toward.

It is my intent to analyze  Pablo Neruda’s rhetorical attempt between his initial work Twenty Love Poems and A Song of Despair and later works found within his Odes to Common Things using cluster analysis, a method of criticism developed by rhetor Kenneth Burke.  Through the identification of key terms that appear either frequently or intensely within the artifact, I will discover clusters that may not have been conscious to Neruda when he wrote the poems. This finding will in turn unveil Pablo Neruda’s worldview at the time of each publication toward the referenced material and lend his audience with a wider understanding of the origins of his poems. For the purpose of this criticism, I will choose three poems from each collection, each representing different subject matter, and conduct clusters for each poem based on that content.

Twenty Love Poems and A Song of Despair

Tonight I can Write, I Like for You to be Still, Everyday You Play

The “I”s and “You”s

When looking at the poems I Like for You to be Still, and Everyday You Play, two terms appear frequently, those two terms are “I” and “you.” The two terms are important within each poem, not only because of the amount of times they appear within the work, but also as a means of placing importance upon the relationship between the speaker and their other. When looking at the amount of times the speaker makes reference to themselves in comparison to the other, the audience can grasp a better understanding of Neruda’s conception towards the relationship between the two, himself identifying with the speaker.

In the love poem Everyday You Play, the speaker makes reference to the “you” a total number of twenty six times from the beginning of the poem until it’s end. This amount is only six more than the twenty times the speaker refers to himself. These references are scattered throughout the poem and hold no concentration within specific areas, which would lead to the assumption that throughout the process of writing the piece, the lover’s affair was kept well within Neruda’s thoughts. Aside from being scattered throughout, the amount of the “I”s and “you”s used being so high within the piece indicates a means of excessive thought towards both. This would hint that Neruda’s view towards the “you” is a fixated one, that emanates how the speaker feels towards the object of his address: He is so in love with her, that even on a subconscious level, Neruda finds this individual more important than he.

Even though the number of “you”s within the poem unveil this mindset, the amount of “I”s  unmasks aspects of the poet that follow narcissism. Due to the fact that Neruda almost makes as much reference to “I” as he does to “you” in the poem shows how, although the other is important to the speaker, he/she is not winning by much. This mentality displays a narcissism that Neruda was notorious for sometimes having and such a personality is unintentionally confirmed by the poet.

The situation between the “I” and “you” in the poem I Like for You to Be Still is different than the poem that was previously mentioned. This poem differs from the other even though, as in Everyday You Play, the “you” is referred to the most. It is different because the speaker of the poem makes twenty one references to the you in I Like for You to Be Still and only twelve towards himself. The idea that Neruda has used so little references to the speaker lends light on how the poet sees the situation between the two lovers. Although the speaker is still very much in love with the “you,” indicated through his excessive references to her, in this poem, he feels the need to place less importance on himself. This theory would be easier to accept if the audience were to consider the foreshadowing of the failed relationship, indicted by the song of despair within the title of the collection of works. With this consideration in mind, one may conclude that perhaps the speaker has a lower opinion of himself because of the emotional toll the relationship has taken on him, or that, aware that their time is soon ending, the poet carries a desire to celebrate his love as fully as he can before he can do so no longer. In I Like for You to be Still, an analysis of the use of “I” and “you” shows it’s audience how Neruda’s expression of the relationship is one that does not involve the speaker as much as in Everyday You Play, but still lovingly places the “you” in high regard.

“You” vs. “Her”

In the song of lovers lament, Tonight I Can Write, Pablo Neruda takes an interesting turn with his word choice to display the relationship between the two lovers. The presence of the “I” is still notable and referenced a total number of twenty nine times during the poem. As mentioned previously, this would confirm that the writer has placed himself in an higher elevated state of confidence than was shown in I Like for You to Be Still. Being that this poem was one written at the end of the relationship, such an attribute would imply that the speaker has undergone some sort of change during the relationship that has regained his sense of self-admiration. This change could be deducted as either an over compensation of reference to self to aid in the speaker’s confirmation of his worth or a declaration that the speaker has regained his ego, previously crushed by his ex-lover.
What makes Neruda’s use of rhetoric in this poem interesting is the change of reference from “you” to “her” he uses when writing the song of despair Tonight I Can Write. I find this small change reveals so much about the poet’s idea towards the other, now that the relationship is over. The change from “you”, which indicates that the speaker addressing that person specifically, to “her,” referring simply to a female person, sucks away the intimacy shown in previous poems. This shift in use of words aids the audience in revealing how the speaker no longer places the other above himself. Neruda instead, creates a sense of separation through the use of a simple proposition, making the lovers strangers to one another. This sense of strange confirms for the reader that the speaker identifies with the relationship ending and has accepted letting the other go.
The use of the “I” and “you/her” within the three poems, and how frequently they were used, are a subconscious indicator of the way in which Neruda himself viewed a love affair. Although the poet carefully deliberated on which words to use in his poetry, he could not have fully been aware and in full control of the terms he used and how often he did so. It is elements like these that allow audiences to peer into the subconscious of the rhetor and identify their outlook on the situation of the material.

Odes to Common Things

Ode to the Artichoke, Ode to the Dog, Ode to a Pair of Socks

The terms clustered around the image of the dog in Neruda’s Ode to the Dog reveal fascinating ideas Neruda displays about the animal. In the poem the terms clustered around the dog image are separated into question and action words. The words that are under the question category include: question, question marks, inquiring flames, asks, why, wandering, and asks questions. These terms all in someway connected to the idea of question, being clustered around the image of the dog show the audience that Neruda most likely has an unsure relationship with the animal. Although he goes out of his way to glorify the dog and appreciate the animal, he may on some level be unsure of them. Another theory of the dog is that Neruda sees the animal, though beautiful, as a stupid one. The dog is portrayed as one that is unknowing in the eyes of the speaker, this portrayal indicates that Neruda does not see the dog as an animal that is intellectual and aware with the ways of the world, but one that is still worthy of appreciation.
When looking at the action terms surrounding the word “dog”, the audience will notice that these words, for the majority of the poem, are used in direct connection to images of the natural world. These pairings are as follows: dashes/countryside, roam/open countryside, jostling clover, chases/bees, leaps/water, pees/rock, dog/dew, and wagging its dew-wet tail. Although dogs were animals that were kept indoors as pets, Neruda glorifies the animal within a natural environment and creates a feeling where the dog is comfortable in his natural surroundings. This pairing of images surrounding the action terms indicates to Neruda’s audience that the writer considers the dog a creature that is best appreciated in a natural environment where the animal can interact with a world where he belongs. The natural images of Chile (as well as the reference to the country in the poem) confirm Neruda’s love for his country as well, and how the appreciation for the images are embedded within the poet.
The word choice used in Ode to the Artichoke is a selection that integrates ideas of war with the natural purpose of the vegetable, which is to be picked, bought and consumed. Neruda integrates these two categories of ideas throughout the poem in direct reference to the artichoke as he narrates the life of it. To the reader, the poem appears to be an entertaining image system that curiously describes the life of the vegetable from it’s beginning in the market to it’s end in the kitchen of a woman named Maria. The terms that are separated into ideas of war include: warrior suit, war, proud, marched, soldiers, warlike, officers, formation, drill sergeant’s scream, and armored. The terms that are in relation to the purpose of the vegetable as a food are: sweet, market, vegetables, egg, buys, sticks in her bag, drops it in pot, delicious flavor, devour, dough, and green heart. These terms are intertwined throughout the poem to directly describe the artichoke and it’s interaction with the world in which it exists in. The images depict a vegetable that accepts it’s fate, and dies with a sort of honor. This image system combined with images of war reveal how Neruda, although writing the odes to appeal to the common, still has strong subconscious ties with political ideas. This insight on Neruda’s political thoughts go a step further when combines with the artichokes acceptance of the fate in which he dies. These two combined together indicate that Neruda has opinions that involve those who are destined to be something, should accept that fate. This opinion was most often heavily influenced by Neruda’s affection towards Marixism. Neruda through his depiction of war images and the artichoke, reveals ideas that make the audience assume the poet had strong opinions in favor of the acceptance of one’s purpose in life, without question.
In Ode to a Pair of Socks two terms appear frequently: socks and feet. At the beginning of the poem, Neruda establishes that the socks were a gift from a woman, Maru Mori, and because he does so, rhetorically, the symbol of the sock should be in connection to the referenced woman. The foot that the rhetor is referring to the speaker’s foot, which for the sake of this criticism, will be argued as who Neruda identifies with. The terms that are clustered around the sock include: pair, soft, rabbit fur, little boxes, threads of sunset and sheepskin, outrageous, gangly, navy-blue, impaled, golden thread, giant blackbirds, cannons, heavenly, beautiful, incandescent, jungle explorers, gorgeous, wool, and good. These terms contain both good and awkward images in relation to the socks which shows Neruda’s feelings toward the woman. The poet sees the woman on a positive note, but still cannot ignore how awkward and odd she comes off. By associating such descriptive words with the gift she makes for him, Neruda exposes how his opinion of the individual bleeds into the way the speaker describes the socks.
The terms that cluster around the image of the speaker’s feet are: thrust, fish, sharks, honored, unlovable, crusty old firemen and unworthy. The speaker relates his feet as unworthy of the socks made for him by this woman. The words surrounding the speakers feet, describing them on such a note demonstrate to the reader that Neruda does not have strong opinions towards himself in relation to this woman, he most likely feels unworthy of her kind act. The concluding stanza would confirm this theory because it discusses how one should be grateful of the goodness of warm socks in the dead of winter. This feeling combined with the theory mentioned earlier strengthen the evidence toward the argument that Neruda felt ungrateful, and unworthy of the person/object on his mind during the writing of the poem.
Pablo Neruda reveals to his audiences variable opinions and worldviews within his poetry. The love poems and song of despair are conversations regarding two lovers and go not go further than their relationship infused with Chilean references. The odes are a lot more complex and communicate on ideas that concern an adult mindset which is indicative of how much the writer has matured since the publication of his first collection of works. The love poems do not focus on more than the naive connotations of love, they display a mentality of the poet that he may not have wanted to portray. As Neruda grew and his experiences led him to gain insight and opinion, so did the content of the rhetoric of the poems. The poet uses an approach that combines all his passions and stimulates discussion that involve more than a narcissistic notion of love. Neruda shows candidly through his selection of word choice in his poetry exactly where he stands in the world surrounding him, what ideas never escape the man and personal inclinations as to who he is.

Works Cited

A., Karen, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. 3rd edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Pr Inc, 2002. 187-232. Print. - Used to gather background information on Kenneth Burke’s Rhetorical Theory.

Bogen, Don. "Selected Odes of Pable Neruda." The Nation 254.3 (27 Jan. 1992): 95.
Rpt. in Literature of Developing Nations for Students: Presenting Analysis, Context,
and Criticism on Literature of Developing Nations. Ed. Elizabeth Bellalouna, Michael
L. LaBlanc, and Ira Mark Milne. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale Group, 2000. Literature
Resource Center. Web. 4 Apr. 2011. - I used this source as a research aid in gathering overall background information on Neruda as well as whatever rhetorical methods he could have attempted.

Foss, Sonya. Rhetorical Criticism. Fourth ed. Long Grove Illinois: Waveland Press, 2009. 209-266. Print. - Used to gather background information on Kenneth Burke’s Rhetorical Theory and how to apply it.

Natella, Arthur A. "Ode to an Artichoke." Literary Reference Center. Literary Reference Center, Jan. 2002. Web. Feb.-Mar. 2011. <ttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=103331POE18950051000231&site=lrc-live>. - I used this source as a research aid in gathering overall background information on Neruda as well as whatever rhetorical methods he could have attempted within the specific Ode to the Artichoke.

"Pablo Neruda." Poetry Foundation. Poetry Foundation. Web. 3 Apr. 2011. <http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/pablo-neruda>. - Used to gather biographical information on the poet, his works and other useful elements.

The Poetry of Pablo Neruda, edited and with an introduction by Ilan Stavans, Farrar, Straus (New York, NY), 2003. Used to gather biographical information on the poet, his works and other useful elements.