Hmm, so I have been challenged...or so I believe it might be true. Either way, I always hate to disappoint, and this is no exception. Recently the poem (not sure what the name is, so I will call it) "when god decided to invent" was posted on someones blog. A challenge was posted that there may be interest in knowing what those who like to dissect things (and, other than animals, I love to dissect everything) think of the poem. Well, I am never one to shy from a challenge, so...here is the poem, and than my response. I must admit, I have no "conclusive" theory, so if I seem to rant in my response...its true, I'm just stalling. :p
when god decided to invent
everything he took one
breath bigger than a circustent
and everything began
when man determined to destroy
himself he picked the was
of shall and finding only why
smashed it into because
A short poem, but one that is "bubbling" with contents. I will begin with the first verse...
EE Cummings (and this is not the only poem where he does it) loves to play with a stanzas "order", and in doing so adds depth to the pieces. In this example, if one was to read the poem "straight", it may not sound normal. I mean, "when god decided to invent" does, but what does "everything he took one" mean? Or what really is "breath bigger than a cirustent" unto itself?
I would argue that its not supposed to make sense...or rather, that it is meant to suggest a state of "orderly disorder". The poem itself makes sense, but not in the conventionally read "straight" form. The value of "orderly disorder" is heightened by the topic. The first verse talks about creation, while the second verse talks about destruction (or does it?!). EE Cummings often used the form of a poem to make points. There is a famous poem by Cummings about a falling leaf, where the words are stacked, as if to suggest they are falling. The form is not meant to be apart of the "meaning itself" (the literal words), but rather an ancillary aspect of the whole effect of the poem...and yes, I guess in that sense, the meaning itself.
So than with that in mind, what do the words themselves display. The first verse suggests that when god decides to invent, he/she/it (the poet uses "he", but I do not agree with this. I will not be so presumptive as to suggest I know the gender of "god"...or for that matter, to suggest that there is in fact a gender whatseover) acts, and it occurs. It is as simple as taking a breath...yet, as difficult as taking a breath the size of a "circustent". For human-scale, this is quite a preposterous feat. I guess that's why "he" is "god"! The use of the word circustent is interesting too. Circustent is properly spelled as two words: circus tent. Why would the poet choose a contracted form? To be completely honest, I can not surmize a reason.
The first verse therefore talks about the will of god, and how deciding to invent and doing so were of simple will. It shows: 1. the ability of god...that once the decision is made, the ability to do so is facile. 2. that god willed it to be.
The second will is about man, as opposed to god. Notice how when man decides, it takes longer. It is not of simple will, but requires far more energy. Man is clearly not as "capable" as god, and therefore can not just "take a breath and make it so". Notice also what man does. Man picks the "was of shall" (or thats how I read it). Well, what is "the was of shall"? I would argue that the "the was of shall" is that which WAS that made man say SHALL. It is that innate reason that makes us say "I SHALL do this". Notice how god decides, and than does...and in doing, invents. Man, instead, chooses to destroy, not create...and the vehicle of destruction is picking the "the was of shall". Man only finds why. Finding "why" when one looks (contemplates) into "the was of shall" means that man realized WHY there was a WAS, that created a SHALL. What is mans response to this realization?...smashing "it into because".
Well what is "it"? (HAHA, is the song "Epic" by Faith No More referring to THIS poem when the line "What is IT?" is constantly repeated?! Ok, now I'm really looking into things). IT can either be "the was of shall", or "because". If it is "the was of shall" than the verse suggests that man realizes why, and therefore that realization makes him destroy the reason behind his SHALL, with a because. Well, because is a very blunt response. It is a I WILL IT response. It is quite similar to "god invented...and everything began". On the other hand, if IT is the "because", than the verse suggests that the why makes man destroy the "because"...as in the questioning itself. Which one it is, I'm not certain, but I suspect it is the first one actually.
If indeed it is the second one (that man destroys the "because"), well than it suggests that man fails. That mans will is not strong enough to act, and succeed. Does this mean that man fails in destroying himself? Or perhaps it suggests that is the ACTUAL vehicle of destroying himself...the failure to succeed in acting?!
There is more to the form itself though actually. Notice how the 1st verse has a 8-7-8-7 scheme. Well, I'm not sure what the 8 is about, but 7 is considered "gods number". The second verse is a 8-6-8-6 scheme. Again, I don't know what 8 is about, but 6 is considered "the number of man". Is it a coincidence that the first verse is about god, and the second is about man? I think not!
This scheme actually makes me questions whether the IT is not the 2nd one (the because), since man has not ascended into a 7 syllable line...but stays at the 6 syllables.
In the end, I think the poem is showing how WILL itself is what makes god...well, god. God wills, and it becomes....and its not difficult to god at all. Whereas, for man, acting itself is work...it is not easy. Yet, in the verse, man recognizes, realizes, and acts god-like, in that the WHY is what allows man to act WILLfully. In the end, BECAUSE signifies a power of will, and the determination of action itself.
I hope I have passed the test by the way. :p
