Analysis Of The Poem 'The Man Who Spilled Light'

People have individual strengths, weaknesses, and individual capabilities, all of which are dependent upon human nature. While these characteristics are often difficult to alter and influence, humans, nevertheless, wish to change them. They are never satisfied with their appearance, never content with their lives, forever attempting to change, but in the end, always find themselves at the starting point, realizing that they, in fact, have not changed at all, for they have not accepted what they want. The citizens in David Wagoner’s narrative poem, “The Man Who Spilled Light” are no different. How do they face change which they cannot accept?

Beginning in media res, the poem starts out recounting the situation where a man brings light to his city. After he sees fear among the people, who claim that the shadows in the dark are “dangerous”, thereby “crouching” to hide themselves from the darkness, the man goes to help them overcome their terror. Later, he realizes that their fear of darkness ultimately leads to their yearning for something different: light. He, who can be seen as an altruistic, but spontaneous man, sees their desire for light,
their desire for change from a world of darkness, and decides to give them such change. In a “hurry to bring it to the city”, the man is not careful enough, and acts too rashly, spilling the light everywhere. Symbolically, truth, represented by light in this poem is something the people did not have, but was able to accept.
When the people are forced to face light, however, they find its various forms too overwhelming, as it exists in “star-….”.
At first, they try to adjust, try to accept as they “[line] up with their backs to the walls”. Later on in the poem, however, they appear they are not ready to, as they are merely “dazzled” by such overwhelming knowledge. Wagoner demonstrates irony in the poem, as the people, who were accepting, did not accept the truth in the end. However, such rejection can not be blamed upon solely the people themselves. Would the people have reacted this way if the change was slowly enforced? Would they have “squinted their eyes, [and try] to make darkness all over again” if the man had poured the light out piece by piece? No, they probably would not have. The light, at first, is simply too bright to look
at. The people of the city are not unwilling to accept light, just not yet ready to accept such big change. The man, who obviously does not see this, takes back the light right away. He “pities” them that they do not want this light, which symbolizes knowledge or truth; he believes that they are ignorant people who choose to stay ignorant.
The symbol of light, representing knowledge or truth, contrasts with darkness, representing ignorance. They, actually, should accept reality, accept themselves, in order to accept
If the light, symbolizing knowledge or truth, is presented slowly, the people are more likely to accept it.

“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” (English idiom) Explored in “The Man Who Spilled Light”, the altruistic man brings light to his people, expecting them to accept change instantaneously, without realizing that they need more time to absorb it. Abrupt change would result only in nihility. Therefore, change must be inflicted upon gradually to achieve effect. The human condition suggests that people turn away from adjustments too quickly, thereby do not take the time to understand them fully. They must, instead, resolve to take change bit by bit, until full acceptance and comprehension are attained, while an observer, such as the man who spilled light, waits patiently.

http://bbs.creaders.net/iwish/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=267509