Evan+Berry

Pablo Neruda

One of the remarkable aspects of Neruda’s poetry is his ability to glorify even the simplest, most unimportant objects. In “Ode to an Artichoke,”‍‍‍‍ the juxtaposition of military imagery against the artichoke’s powerless submission to Maria brings the ostensibly insignificant growth of a vegetable to life. ‍‍‍‍ Neruda depicts the Artichoke’s attempt to be hostile through an extended military metaphor. Instead of expressing its move to the market as a normal business venture, ‍the artichoke is sent “to realize its dream: / life as a soldier” ‍(39-40). With the others, the vegetable is “marshaled” by the “white-shirted / men” in the “close formations” within crates (44-50). Although the militant description seems appropriate for the thorny artichoke, the sensual, alluring descriptions of the other vegetables planted nearby foreshadow the artichoke’s eventual death. The cabbage who “preened itself,” the oregano who “perfumed the world,” and the grapevine with “bearers of wine” suggest the plants’ acceptance of their raison d’être: to be picked and eaten (21-26). Their attempts to attract the farmers towards their fruitful growth contrasts the artichoke’s futile recalcitrance; however, because it is located in the same garden, it will ultimately meet the others’ vegetables same fate. The tone of the poem shifts upon the conjunction “but,” transitioning from exaggerated militancy to casual routine upon the entrance of Maria. The language used here is substantially more delicate than the vegetable’s prior belligerent air. Instead of tearing apart the warrior, Maria disassembles it “leaf by leaf” to “unsheathe / its delights / and eat / the peaceable flesh / of its green heart” (80-85). This action dismantles the prickly vegetable’s hostile façade and exposes a benign heart hidden beneath its armor. Neruda’s diction in this poem both inflates the grandeur of the artichoke and punctures it with its own contrasting daintiness, revealing the inherent and unexpected beauty in the artichoke’s short lifespan. || By comparing the socks to superficially glamorous items treasured by others, the speaker suggests that despite their simplicity they deserve higher praise. Just as “schoolboys / bottle / fireflies” (50-52) and “scholars / hoard / sacred documents” (53-55), the socks at first seem worthy of careful display “in a cage / of gold” (59-60). However, he soon realizes that his appreciation of socks differs from the items of scholars’ and schoolboys’ desires. Whereas the others preserve their prized possessions’ beauty for display, the speaker realizes the futility of doing the same with his socks. Although he describes the pair as “celestial” and “luminous,” revealing an almost religious devotion to them, what makes them “doubly good” (83) is not their face value, but their utility. In the last stanza of the poem, the speaker demonstrates his appreciation for the humble necessities of life through his terse definition of beauty. A mere nine lines tastefully recapitulate his aforementioned respect for usefulness and simplicity. Without ostentation or the restrained beauty of the firefly, the speaker emphasizes his affection for his socks’ service to his feet; his concise ending of the poem brings his evolving gratitude for the gift from Maru Mori full circle, finalizing his admiration for creature comforts over items in a golden cage. ‍Neruda argues that true fortune is learning to view simple woolen luxuries as jewel cases. ‍ || Neruda changed his style of poetry many times during his writing career. Compared to his epic, complex, and pessimistic poetry published prior, the odes reflect a simple happiness found in the most everyday objects. Neruda himself admitted, “My poetry became clear and happy when it branched off toward humble subjects and things” (Peden, 2). With this simpler poetic structure to be published in local newspapers, Neruda celebrates the common man by offering him poetry to which he can relate. At the beginning of his poem, the poet likens his work to the essentials and pleasures of life: “green” (2), “a round wheaten loaf” (3), “a house, abuilding” (4), “breeze, wind, radiance, clay, and wood” (14), and “a ring” (5). These gifts enable the people he admires to thrive, constructing “walls, floors, and dreams” from his texts (17). Neruda hails their simplicity just as much as they show gratitude for his works. Neruda’s tone shifts in line 26 upon the single word “then,” changing from reciprocated appreciation to reciprocated belittlement when referring to his critics. As soon as critics “take [his] poor poetry / from the simple folk / who loved it” (48-50), they abused it: They trapped and trickled it, they rolled it in a scroll they secured it with a hundred pins, they covered it with skeleton dust, they drowned it in ink, they spit on it with the suave benignity of a cat, they used it to wrap clocks, they protected it an condemned it, they stored it with crude oil... (51-60) Neruda’s depiction of the poets destroying his works starkly contrasts the way the simple people used it. Amongst his kin, the poetry had a pulse, bringing rudimentary pleasure to all who accessed it; with the critics, Neruda describes it as a sheltered, misunderstood, and inferior being, used for wrapping clocks instead of comforting the earth. His anger justifies his use of the words “mute” (27), “babbling” (28), and “blind” (29) to describe the senseless critics. Their abuse of his poetry “nearly killed it” (66), bringing him relief when he returns his work to the simple folk who appreciated it. Neruda loathed the men who tortured his poems as much as they hated his work. When the teller of this story abruptly leaves “live / forever / with the simple people” (96-98), Neruda epitomizes his appreciation for his intended audience. In his eyes, the common man is wiser than any literary scholar, knowing how to build a house from poetry instead of burn one. ||
 * < **Poems - Odes** || **Analysis** ||
 * < [[file:Ode to An Artichoke POEM.doc]] || "Ode to An Artichoke"
 * [[file:Ode to My Socks POEM.doc]] || ‍“Ode to My Socks” ‍ As a worshipper of simplicity, Neruda once again praises the items of ostensible insignificance in his poem “Ode to My Socks.” Through his gratitude for having received a pair of socks, the speaker hails the utility of life’s necessities while humbling the promise of riches and fortune.
 * [[file:ODE TO CRITICISM POEM.doc]] || ‍“Ode to Criticism” ‍ Through contrasting the common masses’ and the critics’ reaction to his poetry, Neruda expresses his preference of the “simple people” (99) over the vapid talking heads of academia. Instead of following the demands of scholarly talking heads, the poet chooses to maintain the joyful simplicity in both his writing and his kin.

Through horrifying and diseased imagery, Neruda portrays the once powerful church as an ailing superpower. The attribution of tradition to “dead snot” (2), “pus and pestilence” (3), “asthma” (5), and “green slugs eating graves” (7) foreshadows the death of religious institutions in Spain. Tradition’s current state resembles an infirmed person so revolting and malevolent that it can only lurk about “in the nights of Spain” (1). By likening the church to an ailing being, Neruda implies that through its own putridity it will soon decline. Although the despicable monster of the church plagues the country, there is still hope for the proletariat, represented by “the unborn flower, the secret mineral” (9). Despite tradition passing by each night to bite the proletariat, its “toothless mouth” prevents it from completely defeating the common man (8). The unborn flower symbolizes what the working class’s future impact in the revolution, having yet to show its resilient head above ground. The mineral symbolizes the unity and strength of these forces fomenting their rebellion. “Tradition” represents the contrast of many forces in Spain, including the old versus the new, the powerful versus the ailing, the ostensible versus the latent, and the growing versus the dying. Although Neruda laments the disgusting face of fascism in religious institutions, he provides hope for Spain by promoting the budding flower of the Revolution. || By suggesting that divine right lead the United States into Latin America, the poet proves that the superpower falsely justifies its business interests. This same excuse resulted in the seizing of Native American land in the 1600s and the Manifest Destiny craze in the 1800s; Neruda argues that the United States is too corrupt to be worthy of this prominence in God’s eyes. He jests: When the trumpets had sounded and all was in readiness on the face of the earth, Jehovah divided his universe: Anaconda, Ford Motors, Coca-Cola Inc., and similar entities... (1-5) However, it is the United Fruit Company who “reserves for itself” the fruits of Neruda’s homeland, “rechristen[ing] their properties” across Central America (8-11). The poet’s use of religious imagery and diction reflects a discrepancy between actual church tenets and the corporations’ claims. His mock-biblical tone shames the corporate interests for playing the role of God to gain profit. By exposing the discrepancy between a proud, booming economy and bloodthirsty dictatorial flies, Neruda also expresses his disdain towards the glory attributed to American business endeavors. To them, they “established an //opéra bouffe//” (17) with “heroes” (14) who brought “their flags and their freedoms” (16). But in reality, the ostensibly venerable image has cruel undercurrents. Nerdua likens dictators of the Latin American puppet governments to flies “dank with the blood of their marmalade / vassalage” (25-26). The corrupt leaders in these banana republics slain many, leaving the sweet blood of their inferiors to tarnish them; however, the distance between the American public and the heinous acts maintains the corporations’ charming opéra bouffe. These factors enable the “hells of our seaports” (37) to cause the silent deaths of thousands, like the Indian who “fell in the morning” (39). ‍Although Neruda hates the avaricious nature of the corporations, he inflates their feigned dignity to reveal the atrocities hidden within the lucrative fruit trade. ‍ || This is my favorite poem. Ever. It will give you CHILLS. ||< ‍“I Explain a Few Things” ‍ In this passage from //España en el Corazón (Spain in Our Hearts)//, a series of poems about the destructive Spanish Civil War, Neruda contrasts ravaged Madrid with its former prosperity. By addressing the generals who fractured his country with the Spanish second person plural “vosotros” form, Neruda explains the origin of his nation’s suffering and the pain and loss he has endured himself. Through the juxtaposition of past happiness with the blood of children presently staining the streets, the author paints a gruesome picture of his destroyed land. With mournfully nostalgic retrospection, Neruda describes his quarter of Madrid in terms of food, friendship, and flowers to gauge its happiness in the past. He explains, “My house was called / the house of flowers, because it was bursting / everywhere with germaniums: it was / a fine house / with dogs and children” (13-17). In Madrid, “the olive oil reached the ladles / a deep throbbing / of feet and hands filled the streets” (29-31). Neruda summarizes the pulse of his city with the phrase “essence of life” (33); he depicts Madrid as a bustling community enjoying the beauty of life’s simple treasures. The scene he describes is full of color, warmth, and culture, vividly describing the pleasures he witnessed years prior. But when he asks, “Raúl, do you remember? / Do you remember Rafael? / Frederico, do you remember” (18-20), Neruda ‍foreshadows the destruction of his neighborhood he loved ‍. These are the names of three writers killed by the fascists, including Frederico García Lorca, a good friend of Neruda (Walsh, 257). After his bout of nostalgia, the poet goes on to describe the city’s demise: And one morning it was all burning, and one morning the fires came out of the earth devouring people, and from then on fire, gunpowder from then on, and from then on blood. (40-46) Neruda’s recollection likens the devastation to a breach in the boundary between Hell and earth to stress the heinous acts of the fascist forces. When addressing the “Treacherous / generals” (60-61), he speaks for his whole community with bitter lament: Facing you I have seen the blood of Spain rise up to drown you in a single wave of pride and knives! (56-59) Further he warns the generals: ... but from each dead child comes a gun with eyes, but from each crime are born bullets that will one day seek out in you where the heart lies. (68-71) Neruda uses the death of his fellow Spaniards to answer the generals’ questions in the first stanza of the poem. He blames them for the death of his friends and the children of Madrid. Because of this destruction, the ones who witnessed these atrocities will forever abhor the generals, sacrificing their own blood to drown the men who slain their beloved community members. Instead of answering the generals’ questions bluntly, Neruda harnesses the power of his lurid personal accounts to depict the extent of the bloodshed, inviting the audience to see the horrors for themselves. The poem ends echoing the line “Come and see the blood in the streets” (75) to explain everything: why the natural poppies no longer thrive, the emotional and physical scars of his people, the Spanish people’s hatred towards the fascists, and the reason why Neruda is not writing about “sleep,” “leaves,” or “the great volcanoes of [his] native land” (73-74). This poem is essential to understanding the inspiration for much of Neruda’s work. The Spanish Civil War left a lasting imprint on his poetry, haunting his audience through the horribly beautiful depictions of atrocity. ||
 * < **Poems - Political** ||< **Analysis** ||
 * < [[file:Tradition POEM.doc]] ||< ‍“Tradition” ‍ As a champion for the proletariat during the Spanish Revolution, Neruda voiced his support for the workingman through his poetry. At the time when he wrote “Tradition,” Francisco Franco’s forces had entered Spain to overthrow the unstable republic. Thousands in the Spanish working class retaliated through an attempt to dismantle social hierarchy; they seized factories, collectivized land, and assembled workers’ militias to fight (Rosemont). In this poem Neruda refers to the church as “tradition,” portraying it as a ruthless, disgusting monster. His sentiments reflect his opposition the openly profascist and anti-proletariat church, which was demolished by the Spanish people during the Revolution.
 * < [[file:The United Fruit Co. POEM.doc]] ||< ‍‍‍“The United Fruit Co.” ‍‍‍ As a prominent voice for social justice, Neruda frequently addressed issues in Spanish-speaking countries. In the early 1900s, the United Fruit Company exploited corrupt dictatorial regimes in Central America to maximize its profits in the food industry. This resulted in the deaths of thousands all at the cost of corporal imperialism and its puppet governments abroad (Kurtz-Phelan). ‍Neruda portrays these companies with mock-justification, sarcastically legitimizing their exploitation of the natives. ‍
 * < [[file:I Explain a Few Things POEM.doc]]

Upon inspecting the poem further, I realized that the speaker’s detached tone is consistent regarding all subjects of the poem. Although the female is merely the “body of a woman,” the male speaker refers to himself as a “rough peasant’s body” as well (3). By stripping the man and woman of their individuality, Neruda’s portrayal of sex objectifies both genders to make the subject more universal. The speaker’s comparison of the woman’s body to the earth reflects a romantic glorification instead of female materialization driven by male chauvinism. Her “white hills,” and “body of... eager and firm milk” symbolize the grace and purity in her physique, unlike the roughness of the lowly male peasant (10). The metaphor of terrain serves a double function; words like “roses” (12), “moss” (10), “hills” (1), and the verb “to dig” (3) give her body texture and shape. However, by comparing a woman to the esoteric beauty and importance of the earth, the speaker expresses his respect for his lover. Neruda depicts sex as a beautiful union that “makes the son leap from the depth of the earth” (4). Because he woman is an essential part of procreation, her physique and child-bearing ability make her all the more attractive in the speaker’s eyes. He furthers his praise by also expressing his dependence on the woman. With a hint of desperation, the speaker admits, “I was alone like a tunnel. The birds fled from me, / and night swamped me with its crushing invasion. / To survive myself I forged you like a weapon” (5-7). Neruda paints the speaker’s dependence on the woman through his dark loneliness only escapable through romance. Only a lover quenches “My thirst, my boundless desire,” and without her, man is miserable. Although “Body of a Woman” objectifies a woman, only focusing on her physical characteristics, it simultaneously reveals man’s weakness without a female counterpart, reinforcing the beauty of sex through the feminine mystique. || By describing her eyes with an extended metaphor for the ocean, the speaker shows his desire for a woman’s reciprocated love. He captures his own passion through fire imagery; his solitude “lengthens and flames” (3), he attempts to send out “red signals” to his subject’s eyes (5), and his soul “flashes” when he loves her (12). Contrasting this fiery passion is his futile attempt to be loved back, expressed by the woman’s darkness and distance. Despite the speaker’s “highest blaze” (3) and the casting of his “sad nets towards [her] oceanic eyes” (1-2), the only response from the “distant female” is the emergence of “the coast of dread” (7-8). The passion-filled efforts drown in the oceanic vastness of the woman’s eyes, causing the speaker’s desperation. Eyes in this poem symbolize his subject’s affection and attention to the speaker. As the suppliers of vision, they are the necessary tools for acknowledging others and detecting emotion. For this reason, the speaker is trying to capture the woman’s eyes so she can see the “flash [of[ his soul” when he loves her (12), as well as his desolation when she is distant. His desire to capture her affectionate gaze increases his desperation when Neruda compares employs oceanic imagery to depict her eyes. The ocean intensifies his hopelessly amorous tone due to its uncontrollable and sometimes violent nature. With the fluid properties and sheer volume of the water, the speaker’s attempt to cast his nets to capture his subject’s eyes are virtually useless. The power of the sea is too difficult to control, causing the man’s passion to grievously drown in the currents of his lover’s eyes. Neruda’s display of hopeless love in this poem reveals the ‍painful dejection ‍that is often paired with infatuation. ||
 * **Poems - Romance** || **Analysis** ||
 * [[file:Body of a Woman POEM]] || ‍‍‍“Body of a Woman” ‍‍ ‍ The first time I read this poem I interpreted it as a major loss for the feminist cause. When engaging in sex with his partner, the speaker seems to pay no attention to the individual herself, only noticing her body instead of addressing her in the second person. He hails the physique of “my woman,” indicating possession to satisfy only “My thirst, my boundless desire” (13). This ostensible male chauvinism led me to believe that the speaker views the female body as a mere object.
 * [[file:Leaning Into the Afternoons POEM.doc]] || ‍“Leaning into the Afternoons” ‍ As strong indicators of emotion, the eye often symbolizes awareness or a passageway into one’s true feelings. While observing his lover’s eyes, the speaker in “Leaning into the Afternoons” expresses conflicting passion and desperation by likening his lover’s eyes to a vast, unforgiving sea. Although this is a love poem, it is marked by desire and admiration just as much as it is by heartache.

Through contrasting the mermaid’s mysticism with the vulgar drunkards’ cruelty, Neruda cautions his audience against the abuse of women. The mermaid’s nudity, emotional ossification, and cultural illiteracy portray her innocence and powerlessness. Regardless of her purity, the mermaid still falls victim to man’s vices; as “they began to spit” (3), as “insults flowed down her gleaming flesh” (5), and as their “obscenities drowned her golden breasts” (6), she could do nothing more than be “blackened” by male irreverence. Neruda suggests that women, intrinsically virtuous and beautiful, do not deserve the cruel treatment of the drunken man. Although the mermaid could cleanse herself of the men’s abuse in the river, ultimately her experience made her “[swim] towards emptiness” and “death” (20). The loss of hope for the mermaid signifies the lasting negative impact of male chauvinism on women. If the mermaid represents nature, Neruda’s fable reflects a rocky confrontation between the natural and civilized world. By describing her with organic adjectives like, “golden” (7), “white topaz” (14), “coral light” (15), and “white stone in the rain” (18), Neruda portrays her as the epitome of natural beauty. The longer she spends with the drunkards, the more they “blacken her with burnt corks and cigarette buds” (10). In the end, the mermaid leaves the bar to purge herself of the men’s destruction, but ultimately swims towards death. By having her leave the tavern, Neruda displays the inability for nature and vulgar civilization to mesh seamlessly. Man’s abusive nature of his ecosystems eventually sends nature retreating to its river of emptiness and death. Neruda’s poem serves as a typical fable, containing personified elements of nature and the various conflicts they encounter. In the mermaid’s case, her story provides a distinct moral through the drunkards’ abuse; either the effect of male dominance on women tarnishes their natural innocence and beauty, or man’s treatment of nature prevents the two from ever living harmoniously. || Early in the poem, the soldier stumbles at “the foot of that Providence, the plumed and omnipotent God” (4). While the soldier is described as weary and “derelict” (1), adjectives like “plumed” and “omnipotent,” represent his almighty counterpart. Further, the soldier’s position at his God’s foot physically symbolizes his inferiority to the Supreme Being. Marked by an indentation in line 7, the soldier’s weakness when in God’s shadow changes as the speaker begins to criticize Providence. By having many “zones / in the darkness” (14-15), the speaker argues that God does not have complete control over his alleged domain. He describes natural elements and human beings as uncontrollable: What a chaos of lunatic water, nocturnal ferocity, what ravening troughs for the light, unregenerate yet, what crazed fermentation of lives and destructions, what bran of fertility, before the decorum could come … (18-22) The speaker’s use of intimidating and disorderly adjectives reveals God’s weak authority over a conflicted world. He continues to criticize: still unmoved and obscure in the stone of its cosmic investiture, unable to stir in a fang or a claw, a river, a temblor, a meteor’s hiss through the pit of his empiries… (35- 40) Stone in this poem symbolizes God’s creations and their protection from their creator’s influence. The speaker expects there to be order in the dominion of a Supreme Being, yet God cannot even “stir in a fang or claw” over his kingdom. If He had any power, “decorum” would have already come to earth, the elements like “lunatic water” would be controlled, he could intervene with a “fang or claw” whenever necessary, his creations would not be resilient like stone, and most importantly, the weak soldier would not be dying before his divine eyes. At the end of the poem, the speaker demonstrates God’s inaction when “Beltrán of Córdoba slept on” (42). Instead of admittance to Heaven or banishment to Hell, the wounded soldier merely stays asleep in eternal repose. Like a stone, he remains resilient to God’s presumed authority. The soldier, along with the rest of the world, has ‍power over divine powerlessness ‍, passively denying the existence of an omnipotent God above us. ||
 * **Poems - Neruda's Principles** || **Analysis** ||
 * [[file:Fable of the Mermaid and the Drunks POEM.doc]] || <range type="comment" id="21142">‍“Fable of the Mermaid and the <range type="comment" id="332838">‍Drunks ‍” ‍ Neruda, an expert at glorifying nonhuman subjects, provides the beautifully painful story of an innocent mermaid thrust onto vicious terra firma. Because of the nature of fables, it can be interpreted multiple ways due to its ambiguous moral and the possibility of it being an allegory. I see two interpretations to this fable; one is the unjust submission of women to male dominance, and the other is the destruction of nature as a result of mankind.
 * [[file:Soldier Asleep POEM.doc]] || <range type="comment" id="17237">‍“Soldier Asleep” ‍ Through a comprehensive evaluation of God’s alleged powers, Neruda’s speaker analyzes the existence of a Supreme Being through the death of a solider. His critical lamentation of war exposes the errors in God’s creation and his feeble control of mankind, making him question his faith in Providence. Neruda portrays the soldier and God both as powerless entities, providing a subtle jab at the universe’s creator.