Follow on Facebook

Monday, July 1, 2013

"To a Waterfowl" A Critical Analysis


This is a critical response to the American romantic poet William Cullen Bryant’s poem, "To a Waterfowl." Although there is a creative use of allegory which depicts natural objects in the narrative as being equal in meaning to themes and subjects that are completely outside the narrative, the interplay of words, ideas, and sentiments meld and culminate in this poem as a cohesive and sustainable fountain of imagery that led me to deduce, quite romantically, that, no matter how circumstances present themselves in life, every life is directed by the providence of God. 

The central motive of the poem does indeed seem to be a moral teaching about God’s benevolent providence. The waterfowl is an allegory for heartbreak. Figuratively speaking, the bird is only used as a visual reference. Allegorically speaking, however, perhaps to people living in the city or people outside the confines of the church, the waterfowl may represent the struggle every individual who has ever existed experiences in life. It seems clear to me that the vulnerable little bird is on a journey and that he has an adversary. This adversary, a hunter or fowler, represents the pursuing threat of death or unknown peril.http://ministryofwritinghelps.com/


Uncertainty in the form of fog alludes to obscurity “through rosy depths” and “crimson sky,” whereas, “plashy brink” bespeaks water, peace, and contemplative things such as choice of direction. Life’s uncertain destination, a “pathless coast” denotes an unseen power. Is this power God? Will there be obstacles to the objective? Intrigue is a common romantic theme, one of embarking on a journey like a river progressing to the ocean. Any traveler is apt to experience weariness persevering alone, outnumbered, overwhelmed, and melancholy in the face of such adversity. “All day thy wings have fann'd.” Yet, as night acquiesces to the dawning of day, frustration and melancholy give way to thoughts of an end to toil and travel. The waterfowl triumphantly arrives at a seeming place of rest, the intended destination where undoubtedly a jubilant scream of celebration is found, albeit muted by contemplation of this illusive achievement or arrival. 


Further on, a mention of toil indicates a figurative death on the horizon with day as metaphor for life and night as that of death, the ultimate permanent end to struggle. The bird’s flight and subsequent demise culminates in the phrase, “swallowed up in the abyss of heaven.” Life, “thou art gone.” He who orchestrates all life, God Almighty, from breath to breath and age to age, through all the developmental stages of life, guides each life along its course as He dictates. I, as the reader, was directed to look literally at natural things but think very figuratively about the power of God exhibited in nature with romantic allusions to the Bible through the mention of heaven and the usage of archaic and melodious language such as “thou art gone.” One might say that, with this poem, Bryant killed two birds with one stone. The thematic focus begins with the bird through personification and leads progressively to the author who learns a lesson by witnessing the bird. In this way, Bryant makes the point that every experience counts and is significant both in nature and in life. Hence,  the poet herein makes the poem relevant to the myriad conditions of humanity, the loneliness of both the waterfowl and the author within the sovereign providence of God. 


© 2009 Brian L Hunter



21 comments:

  1. thanks this really helped my understanding of this poem, you did a really well done and indepth analyzation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Im a high school student who had no idea what this poem meant. I do now Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your analysis of this poem. It helps me to read someone else's analysis in order for me to put the poem into perspective in a way that makes sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have to write a paper on this poem and your analysis helped me understand it much better - thanks so very much.

    Joshua

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am doing a presentation about this and I really think you should put some stuff about the poetic devices to help me out a lil. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. haha thanks my teacer tryed to explain to the class but... failed

    ...thanks

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can you please tell me what literary elements are in this passage?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The literary elements are easy to identify. Here is a link that will get you started:

    http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/yorba/literary_elements.htm

    ReplyDelete
  9. this was great, it really helped me thanks so much!

    ReplyDelete
  10. this is wonderful

    ReplyDelete
  11. hard to understand this poem..:(

    ReplyDelete
  12. this really helped me a lot on understanding this poem.... it really helped me for my upcoming report....thanks...=)

    ReplyDelete
  13. thank you so much for creating such an in-depth analysis. this will definitely be put to use, as I am studying this very poem in literature at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. thank you for your explanation in this poem , I really dont have an idea about this but know I know .. thanks again !

    ReplyDelete
  15. Great analysis, I wish I could think like you. It would make my life a lot easier!

    ReplyDelete
  16. You are gracious and kind, Dalia! It is the quality of Bryant's writing that elicits such thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you! This really helped!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Superb analysis.

    A comment: I have several anthologies of poetry. In some, the waterfowl is "darkly painted on the crimson sky," in others it is "darkly seen against the crimson sky." The latter seems more apt to me, since "painted on" suggests that the bird was stationary, which he obviously wasn't. I have no idea which version Bryant originally wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Superb analysis.

    A comment: I have two anthologies of poetry. In one, Bryant's waterfowl is depicted as "darkly painted on the crimson sky," in the other as "darkly seen against the crimson sky." The latter seems more apt to me, since "painted on" suggests that the bird was stationary, which he obviously wasn't. I have no idea which version Bryant originally wrote. Does anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He changed "painted on" to "seen against" precisely for the reason you mention.

      Delete