“Sweetness, always”: A Dichotomy of Vanity and Mundanity

XXXXXXXX
Dr. Nicole Camastra
ENGL1060H
30 August 2013
“Sweetness, always”: A Dichotomy of Vanity and Mundanity
Vanity is nothing new in human society. In fact, it is more common than not. Entire industries are based on the goal of making a person more beautiful, more sophisticated, and more attractive. In some situations, this vanity knows no bounds. People have been known to completely change their appearance and actions in order to gain access into an exclusive club at the top of whatever social hierarchy they which belong. Yet their main goal is not merely to join a specific group. They seek to distinguish and separate themselves from the people who used to be their peers, the people who are now seen as beneath them. Poets, as a group, are not exempt from the societal trend. Pablo Neruda explores the selfish tendency of poets in “Sweetness, always” while also offering a solution to the issue and calling those selfsame poets to action. Through the use of clashing imagery representing the problem and solution in poetry, the speaker demonizes and alienates the vain poetry while sanctifying the more humble, everyday poetry.
Throughout the poem, the speaker compares both sides to two separate groups of real world items. The speaker argues that the vain poetry is unnatural. He argues that the importance lies in the ability of the poem to relate to all people. The speaker likens these pretentious poems to a “pyramid” and a “tower” (586: lines 27, 28). He uses these imposing images to show that these poems are cold, unfeeling edifices whose only power is derived from public fear. These complex structures have little value as poems to poets and even less to the common masses. The speaker contrasts these numb images with more identifiable feelings that represent the other, more sensuous form of poetry He compares these poems to the “felt,” “feather,” and “the intimacy of beds” of everyday life with which people are well acquainted and have a deeper, more intimate understanding (586; ll. 6, 8). He argues that these seemingly mundane objects hold far greater meaning than those on which great importance is arbitrarily placed therefore declaring that poetry should return to the more basic, accessible sensuous style.
Continuing to contrast the two models, the speaker juxtaposes two sets of natural objects. He equates the vain poetry to “rubies” and questions why “must poems be dressed up in gold” (586; lines 30, 4). The speaker aligns these two substance with the numb man made structures representing vain poetry. He argues rubies and gold, too, hold no practical value and only derive their value from misplaced public admiration. These useless objects are used to merely symbolize the status and opulence of the elite societal club. This unnecessary gratuitous showcase is what the speaker believes the vain, overcomplicated poetry to be. He contends that the time for the importance of these items and this style itself to have passed maintaining that they are both “medieval and yellow” (586; l.32). The speaker finds the solution to these outdated, overvalued materials in more common, practical items. Throughout the poem, the speaker calls for poetry to be “pastries” and “hearts of sugar” (586, 587; l. 24, 48). He argues that poems need to be more real, more tangible, and more accessible than not. He argues that to truly connect with poetry people need to be able to feel and consume the verses and stanzas. The speaker wants poetry to permeate every part of a person. He wants poetry to be part of a person. He wants poetry to, like “air and water,” nourish the soul nourish the body (586; l.14). The speaker wants poetry to be pure and accessible.
Bridging the gap between material and man, the speaker translates his argument into another form by contrasting different societies. The speaker maintains the numbness of vain poetry when he compares their formation to a “construction” in “Madras” (586; l. 30, 26). This industrial city connotes the feeling of disconnected production that the speaker associates with the creation of prideful poetry. He reasons that the poets who participate in this industrious style of production do so only to create a social profit. The cities he offers in contrast to this opportunistic style are found in similar, developing areas. However, the culture found in “Medellin,” “Veracruz,” 'Abyssinia,” and “Antofagasta” is completely different. While all are equally hardworking, the people in these newly presented cities work with their hands. They are rural. They are farmers. They are craftsmen. While advanced technology would increase profit, these people have no need for “harsh machinery” (586; l. 1). These people know that life is more than just about any type of profit. The speaker argues that poetry is not about profit, nor is it a business. The speaker is seeking a return to the main, pure purpose of poetry. He wants poets to communicate human feelings and emotion rather than archaic words in some indecipherably rigid structure.
In his final comparison of the two sides, the speaker evaluates the perceived position of the self indulgent. Placing themselves on pedestals, the speaker claims that “vanity keeps prodding [poets] / to lift [themselves] skyward” or to venture too deep and make “useless / tunnels underground” (586; ll. 18-11). In either case, he is asserting that the poetry is too inaccessible and not related to the emotions of everyday life. Whether too highbrow or too profound, this poetry serves no real purpose. The only accomplishment of this type of poetry is the distancing of the poet to the rest of the world. No one gains anything positive, only seclusion. The speaker pleads with these poets to return to the “equinoctial pastry shop” so that their poetry may be useful and accessible to everyone (587; l. 42).
The speaker does not claim that all poetry should be peaceful, lovely, and nice. When he is asking for sweetness, always, he does not, therefore, expect all poetry to be gentle. No, he expects it to be like a sweet. Tangible. Accessible. Not every piece of food is delicious and poems are not always easy to accept, but both are easy to connect to. By contrasting the two sides, the speaker calls all poets to the side of accessibility and to once again use poetry as a means of communicating human experiences and emotions throughout the world.

Works Cited
Neruda, Pablo. "Sweetness, always." Portable Legacies: Fiction, Poetry, Drama, Nonfiction. Second Edition. Lynne Crockett, Jan Zlotnik Schmidt. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2013. 586-587. Print.

Cited: Neruda, Pablo. "Sweetness, always." Portable Legacies: Fiction, Poetry, Drama, Nonfiction. Second Edition. Lynne Crockett, Jan Zlotnik Schmidt. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2013. 586-587. Print.