Talk:The Red Wheelbarrow

Background to this poem...

...I recall reading somewhere years ago that the real inspiration and background to this piece is that Dr. Williams was attending to a patient at the house where he observed the red wheelbarrow, white chickens, etc. The patient was a gravely ill young child, and having this knowledge gives the poem more depth than its surface meaning alone provides--although the poem is enjoyable with or without the knowledge of what prompted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jnpoet (talk • contribs) 9 July 2006.

I remember my teacher talking about the colors of the poem, red for the wheelbarrow, white for the chickens and blue for the water (although water has no color, we associate it with blue), these are the colors of the american flag. Also there is a very inspiring essay right after this poem that throws out meaning side by side to this poem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.67.113 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2006.

Is that reference to a horse's BRC supposed to be there or is that someone's idea of a joke? (If serious, it needs an apostrophe.) Myself, I always thought this poem was in the form of a medieval-style kenning riddle, the answer being "tongue in mouth surrounded by teeth". Asat 08:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Red Wheelbarrow" skit on youtube by Bennetteam is the greatest thing ever and accurately portrays the background behind the poem. Visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq7KHq-PZPI

Reading the poem, I could not help but ask what depends upon the red wheelbarrow and why the word wheelbarrow is a single word in the title and broken up in the poem. The best answers to these questions are: First, the poem is the only thing that truly relies upon the red wheelbarrow. Other things could go on without this wheelbarrow but the poem would not exist. This supports Willams belief in the matirial supporting the arts, in other words, there would be no art without objects. To answer the second question, the word wheelbarrow is broken up showing the final result of the four stanzas each looking like the profile of a wheelbarrow. 70.126.223.120 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even noticed that! Wow. Now THAT'S art. -BlueNight 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: "You can also see the wheelbarrow as a reference to the circle of life/death and the forces of creation or transformation (so much depends/upon), though it should be duly noted that one can also see the poem itself as a cheap fraud." What is meant by this last part? A fraud of what? This is perplexing without more detail.

"The poet may be claiming that, thanks to the creative power of living organisms, the existence of things as different as a poem (beside the white) or a chicken are made possible." This feels like a stretch. If nothing else the significance of 'glazed with rain/water' in this interpretation should be clarified. Talnova (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just listened to a radio programme about Carlos Williams. I think the whole idea that Williams wanted to make deliberately obscure poems that you could only understand if you are part of a literary elite is totally off beam. From this programme, it seems Williams wanted to make a distinctively American and democratic poetry that DIDN'T depend on you knowing Greek stories or being part of an elite, like Aaron Copland wanted to make distinctively American music - the whole thing he was reacting against was the TS Eliot stuff where you need baffling footnotes to understand the allusions from the wasteland. This programme included contributions from a poet who was an undertaker, and he perpetuated the idea that it was to do with a sick child by relating his own experience of dealing with the funeral of two young brothers who had drowned in a frozen river, saying he stared out of the window and could have done with a red wheelbarrow to stare at in that moment. But I would have thought that the meaning of the red wheelbarrow is more likely to be... a red wheelbarrow. Just something that he noticed and wanted to make a poem out of the moment of noticing that. I mean the details that are referenced in this article, of the local man who he knew and liked, and the red wheelbarrow being something from his yard are interesting. But if you are going to make a democratic poetry of moments and things, I guess there is the essential mysteriousness of just ordinary things. But I think we'll be going down the wrong track to try to build elaborate theories on this simple poem, when the meaning is more likely to be the simplicity and the awareness of things in the moment. --PaulHammond (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stress

Simply reading the poem, I don't agree with the stress analysis presented on this page. I realize it comes from a published paper, but is there some alternative analysis out there? At least with the first line, I just can't imagine that it was meant to be read that way. 72.129.0.10 (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who put the stress analysis from the paper in the article. I'll see if I can find an alternative opinion, but since the current analysis is from a reliable source, I'm going to leave it in the article for now.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, this stress analysis is deeply problematic. The claims that it make concerning the "S" or strong stresses seem entirely arbitrary. Someone over the years must have given another good stress analysis that can be presented as an alternative! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbycairo (talk • contribs) 04:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to come back to the Stress debate. I have a serious problem with this sentence: "The work seems to attempt to reach a specific combination of stresses, but purposely misses each time." On what authority is this based? Did Williams himself state this at some point? How else could you possibly deduct that the author (not: the work) attempts something but fails on purpose? I would strongly suggest deleting this. And yes, I have read the paper this comes from. I would not call it a reliable or high-quality source... 2A02:8108:140:38:74DB:1607:CA0D:50FC (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research Tag

Removed the original research tag. Logic follows:

In general the article appears well referenced
The one section which appears to be potentially original requests a citation
WP:Cite does not suggest multiple tags for a single annotated sin.

Please document your concerns here if you believe the original research tag should be restored.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember trying to find a citation for that one paragraph when I was adding to this article originally. I agree with your removal of the citation needed tag, and I'll see what other improvements I can make.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reference for the spot that needed it.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there really a sick child?

What does "confront the text" mean, anyway? There was an article online -- I can't find it now -- in which the author claimed that the "sick child" backstory was made up by Williams devotees and that Williams himself had just been experimenting with images, or even having us on with the "so much depends" business. Thousands of English students wrack their brains over this poem, all to no avail if you don't know the backstory: was it supposed to be known only to the literary elite, or was he engaging in an early form of conceptualism? If we accept the idea that writing cannot be considered good literature if it is easy to understand, well there go Homer and Mark Twain, among many others. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the poem text viz. fair use, copyright, and WP:NFC (DO NOT ARCHIVE)

Since the the poem was first published in 1923 and the poet died in 1963, in case anyone has any questions about the copyright status, I have added the analysis and rationale below. I am unsure if the poem is in the public domain, so providing a rationale for fair use for the poem's text within the article is necessary, and I assert herewith why I believe that its use is permissible under the fair use doctrine and the policies and criteria discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the criteria at WP:NFCCP

(1) I do not believe there is a free equivalent available;
(2) I doubt that it will undermine Williams' commercial opportunities as (a) this poem is ubiquitously published and cited in a myriad of works about Williams and his work, it appears on public monuments (including in the NJTransit section of New York City's Penn Station).
(3) The poem's brief text will be used once only in the article on the poem itself. It cannot be broken into a portion since the work is so brief.
(4) The poem has been published in a ton of places--more than anyone could count--in print, online, carved into stone.
(5) I believe its use meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic, and will facilitate an appropriate analysis and understanding of the poem through its article.
(6) I think this poem's inclusion meets WP:NFCCEG on the acceptable use of text, and conforms with WP:LYRICS.
(7) The poem's text will only be used in the article about the poem, to wit: The Red Wheelbarrow.
(8) It is hard to aid a reader to understand this exceptionally brief poem without them having the poem in front of them.
(9) See #7 which applies herewith.
(10) Does not apply since this is not an image, however full attribution is given within the article for the poem text included.

Agreed. This article makes no sense without quoting the actual poem, which is freely done across the web.[1]

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

What part of that could we omit while providing critical commentary about the poem itself? As it stands the article is mostly useless because it does not convey any significant understanding to the reader. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poem Text Correction

There are two small inaccuracies in the text of the poem presented here, which vary from the version published in Spring and All (1923). The words are correct, but there shouldn't be a capital letter in 'So', nor a full-stop/period at the end of the poem. The poem is printed with no capitals or punctuation in other Collected Poems published in Williams' lifetime and most places since, including the 2011 Spring and All facsimile edition.

The article itself also incorrectly states that the poem was 'originally published' in Spring and All with the title XXII in 1923. It actually first appeared in April 1923, earlier that year, in the pamphlet Go Go (Manikin: Number Two), published by Monroe Wheeler in New York, before the longer book was published in Paris. Curiously, the poem does have the capitalisation and full-stop there, along with the title 'The Red Wheelbarrow'. I'm not sure whether this is essential information for a general entry, however, since Spring and All is still its best-known context.