The Fall Of Icarus

Interpretations of the Fall of Icarus Different descriptions of one story can determine the impact forced upon one’s heart, mind, and soul. Brueghel, Auden, and Williams, composers of three divergent interpretations of the fall of Icarus, illustrate and explain the central thought of man’s failure. Brueghel expresses the lack of concern the surrounding people possess for Icarus though his illustration, while Auden generally states that tragedy occurs. As for Williams, he vaguely interacts with the horrendous accident of Icarus, and simply states the story as it has been told before. The nuance between the multiple narrations of Icarus’ fall directly assist the interpreter in ultimately discovering man’s defeat. Traditionally, an author enforces certain literary devices when explaining their work. Pieter Brueghel, painter of The Fall of Icarus, presents the tragedy of Icarus through imagery. Icarus was irrelevant to the laboring people in the village. According to the depiction, it is spring time, the sun is shining, and the people are tranquil. In the bottom right-hand corner, Brueghel introduces the chaotic vision of Icarus drowning in the water. However, Brueghel
Williams simply defines what he visualizes and vaguely delivers his perspective precisely. He repeats that “…it was spring, a farmer was ploughing his field…” Williams engulfs the obvious tasks being complete as well as the “sweating sun that melted the wing’s wax…” The sun is beaming down on the world and only affecting Icarus negatively. Stanza five plainly states, “insignificantly” and stanza six expresses “unnoticed.” Both terms are portraying negative feelings and presents Icarus as being unimportant. Williams closely examines Brueghel’s interpretation and expounds his words through poetry. William Carlos Williams’ explanation of Icarus is bluntly shown through diction and