A Poem’s Speaker

THE SPEAKER

 

The speaker is one of the most important aspects of a poem. If your speaker isn’t complicated or complex, who’s going to care? Poems that fall short, fall short because their speakers fail to be complex. The speaker, in many ways, is a god-figure, in that everything within the poem is siphoned through it/him/her. Take this example from Williams’ “This is just to say”:

 

I have eaten

the plums

that were in

the icebox

and which

you were probably

saving

for breakfast

Forgive me

they were delicious

so sweet

and so cold

 

Though this poem is incredibly small, what sells it is the complication of the speaker. “I have eaten that…which/ you were probably/ saving…Forgive me”. The speaker doesn’t just eat the plums here, he knowingly eats them when he probably shouldn’t. As if that wasn’t enough he asks for forgiveness. Each stanza further complicates the speaker and in turn, complicates the poem. Imagine if the poem read like this:

 

 

the plums

that were in

the icebox

 

they were delicious

so sweet

and so cold

 

The poem just isn’t as interesting because there is no conflict. By removing the speaker we only get the straight image, although it’s a great description, it cannot stand alone. As readers, we are fixated by the need for agency or consciousness in a poem. When this element isn’t present all we are left with is a list or description of objects. Objects can only propel a poem so far. For example, in this edited version of Williams’ classic poem, the speaker is still present in the adjectives “sweet” and “cold”. These are the sensations of the speaker, but they are without consequence. The poem ceases to do anything to jar us. If anything, the reader becomes complacent stating: “yes, I believe that’s a pretty accurate description on how plums may taste”. Poems aren’t supposed to just tell us things we already know (what would be the point?) But this is as far as the poem is allowing us to take it. By incorporating notions of forgiveness and blatant disregard for others, Williams is loading the object (plums) and action (eating the plums) with baggage that works to the advantage of the poem. It deepens our meaning of the poem and allows us to make a judgment (i.e. ‘what an asshole’ or ‘I would’ve done the same thing if I was hungry’).

Poems that lack an engaging speaker lack an engaged reader. While there is no such thing as a speaker-less poem, there is certainly a thing as a poem that has an underdeveloped or incomplete speaker. These poems generally will look like poems, and sometimes act like them, but will never be a completed or excellent work of art. They will be a flat list of objects, with little to no agency acting on them. As a poet, it took me a long time to learn this fact, but once I learned to add depth to my speaker, depth to my poems followed.

The speaker is the consciousness of a poem. The speaker makes the poem breathe and move. The speaker has dominion over syntax, stanza breaks, line breaks, diction, sound, punctuation…etc because all of these, when used properly, complicate and enrich the speaker, these become tools that ultimately enhance what the speaker is saying. However, it’s impossible to use these things effectively if you do not have a solid and complex speaker.

 

[Note: Though I used the Williams’ as a model, there are countless ways to give a speaker depth. Even a poet refraining from using pronouns excessively (or at all) will reflect the tone and complications of the speaker through adjectives and verbs (with the exception of nouns as they are what is being act-upon).]