How to Deconstruct a Text : Deconstructive Reading of Three Poems by Shakespeare, Ezra Pound and William Carlos Williams

This blog is part of an activity titled How to Deconstruct a Text. In this activity, we will closely analyze three poems written by William Shakespeare, Ezra Pound, and William Carlos Williams. We will use a method called deconstruction, which was developed by the philosopher Jacques Derrida. This approach helps us explore how the meanings of texts are not fixed or stable. Instead, it shows that the meaning of a text can change depending on how it is read and interpreted by different people.

Poem : 1 Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?

Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,

And summer’s lease hath all too short a date;

Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,

And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;

And every fair from fair sometime declines,

By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm'd;

But thy eternal summer shall not fade,

Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st;

Nor shall death brag thou wander’st in his shade,

When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st:

   So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,

   So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

A deconstructive reading of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18 focuses on how the poem’s meaning is not as clear or stable as it first seems. At first, the poet compares his beloved to a summer’s day, but then says the beloved is actually “more lovely and more temperate.” This creates confusion—if summer is so nice, why is the beloved better? The poem also promises that the beloved’s beauty will never fade because it is captured in the poem’s words. But deconstruction asks: can words really stop time or death? Can poetry really make someone immortal? The poem seems to say yes, but it depends on language, and language is always open to different meanings. Deconstruction shows that what the poem says and what it actually proves are not the same. It also questions whether this poem is really about the beloved, or if it’s actually about the poet showing off his writing skill. In the end, a deconstructive reading doesn’t try to find one clear message—it shows how the poem’s meaning keeps shifting, and how the message falls apart when we look closely.

Poem : 2  "In a Station of the Metro" 

"The apparition of these faces in the crowd;

Petals on a wet, black bough."

Poem : 3 "The Red Wheelbarrow"

"so much depends upon a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens."

Poetry doesn't just describe real things. It uses words (called signifiers) to create images and feelings in our minds. Even if we don’t see the actual object, the words help us imagine something beautiful, emotional, or powerful. Poems connect different ideas and invite us to think in new ways.

Example 1: Ezra Pound’s Poem

In the poem “In a Station of the Metro,” Ezra Pound compares people’s faces in a crowd to flower petals on a wet tree branch. These are very different things, but the comparison feels right. The poem doesn't show real people or flowers—it gives us words that create that picture in our minds. The word "apparition" adds a ghost-like feeling, and the rhythm and short lines make the poem feel soft and magical. This shows how poetry uses signifiers to make meaning, not just to describe real things.

The Power of Sound: Kristeva’s Idea

Julia Kristeva says that sound and rhythm in poetry can give us feelings, even before we understand the meaning. She calls this the semiotic. It's like when babies make sounds before they can speak—those sounds still show emotions. In poetry, rhythm and music can break the usual rules of language and make us feel something deep and personal, beyond logic.

Example 2: The Red Wheelbarrow

In the poem “The Red Wheelbarrow” by William Carlos Williams, the poet names simple things: a red wheelbarrow, rainwater, and white chickens. At first, it seems like he’s just describing real objects. But when we read closely, we notice the poem feels clean, pure, and perfect—more like a picture in a children’s book than a real farm. The poem uses simple words and repeating rhythm to create a calm and innocent feeling. It reminds us that even simple things in poems come from language and imagination, not just from the real world.

Who Is Julia Kristeva?

Julia Kristeva is a famous thinker from France, originally born in Bulgaria. She studies language, psychology, and poetry. She believes that poetry has the power to go beyond normal meaning through sound and rhythm. Her idea of the semiotic shows how poetry can touch our feelings even without clear meaning, and this is why poems are so special and powerful.

Poem : 4 A Refusal To Mourn The Death, By Fire, Of A Child In London

Never until the mankind making

Bird beast and flower

Fathering and all humbling darkness

Tells with silence the last light breaking

And the still hour

Is come of the sea tumbling in harness

     

And I must enter again the round

Zion of the water bead

And the synagogue of the ear of corn

Shall I let pray the shadow of a sound

Or sow my salt seed

In the least valley of sackcloth to mourn

     

The majesty and burning of the child's death.

I shall not murder

The mankind of her going with a grave truth

Nor blaspheme down the stations of the breath

With any further

Elegy of innocence and youth.

     

Deep with the first dead lies London's daughter,

Robed in the long friends,

The grains beyond age, the dark veins of her mother,

Secret by the unmourning water

Of the riding Thames.

After the first death, there is no other.

What Do Post-Structuralist Critics Do?

Post-structuralist critics believe that language is not always clear or reliable. They think a text can have many meanings, not just one. So they try to find hidden meanings, contradictions, and strange parts in the writing. Sometimes, the deeper meaning is completely different from what the text seems to say on the surface.

They pay close attention to how words sound, what the words originally meant, or old-style comparisons (metaphors) that may not work anymore. They also look for breaks or sudden changes in the text—these are signs that something important is being left out or not said clearly. These breaks are called “fault-lines”, like cracks in rocks that show something happened under the surface.

What Is Deconstruction?

Deconstruction is a method used by post-structuralist critics. It doesn’t destroy the poem or story—it takes it apart to show that the meaning is not simple or clear. It shows that words can mean many things, or even the opposite of what they first seem to say.

Deconstruction has three main steps:

-The verbal stage

-The textual stage

-The linguistic stage

We will explain each one using the poem “A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London” by Dylan Thomas.

Step 1: Verbal Stage

In this step, we look closely at the words in the poem. For example, the last line of the poem says:

“After the first death, there is no other.”

This doesn’t make sense. If it’s called the first death, then that means there should be a second or third. So, the sentence goes against itself. Deconstructionists say this shows how language can be confusing and full of contradictions.

There are other strange word uses too. The poem says things like “until never”, which also doesn't make much sense. These kinds of paradoxical (opposite and confusing) phrases show that language is not always trustworthy.

The poem also changes common opposites. Usually, people think light means good and darkness means bad. But in this poem, darkness is shown as the thing that creates life. So the poem flips the usual idea, which shows how language creates its own world, not just a copy of the real world.

Step 2: Textual Stage

In this step, we look at the whole poem, not just single words. We try to find big changes in time, tone, voice, or mood. These shifts show that the poem is not stable and doesn't have one clear meaning.

For example, in Dylan Thomas’s poem, the first two stanzas talk about ancient time and the end of the world. Then suddenly, the third stanza talks about the child’s death in the present moment. Then the last stanza zooms out again and talks about the history of London.

These big changes make the meaning unclear and broken. The poet says he refuses to mourn the child, but the poem doesn’t explain why, and it actually feels like a mourning poem. These confusing changes and missing explanations are what deconstructionists focus on.

Step 3: Linguistic Stage

In this step, we look at how the poem talks about language itself. Sometimes the poem says that language can’t express certain things, but then uses language anyway.

In this poem, the speaker says he won’t mourn, but the poem itself is a form of mourning. He also says he doesn’t want to use fake or formal language, but then he uses big, poetic words like:

“London’s daughter”

“robed in the graves of her majesty”

This shows the poet is stuck in the same language he wants to avoid. Deconstruction says this is because no one can fully escape language—even when you try, you still end up using it in the usual ways.

What Do We Learn from Deconstruction?

Deconstruction helps us see that texts are not simple. They are full of hidden meanings, contradictions, and broken ideas. Even a poem that says “I won’t mourn” might secretly be mourning in a deeper way.

Deconstruction is different from traditional criticism. Traditional critics try to find unity in a poem. Deconstruction shows that there is no complete unity—only many layers of meaning.

Both methods have their uses, but deconstruction helps us understand that language is complex and never fully stable. It makes us question what we read and think more deeply about how meaning is made.

References

-“A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London by Dylan Thomas.” Famous Poems, Famous Poets. - All Poetry, allpoetry.com/A-Refusal-To-Mourn-The-Death,-By-Fire,-Of-A-Child-In-London. 

-Barad, Dilip. “Deconstructive Analysis of Ezra Pound's 'In a Station of the Metro' and William Carlos Williams's 'The Red Wheelbarrow.'” Research Gate, 03 July 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381943844_Deconstructive_Analysis_of_Ezra_Pound's_'In_a_Station_of_the_Metro'_and_William_Carlos_Williams's_'The_Red_Wheelbarrow'. Accessed 03 July 2025.

-Belsey, C. (2002). Poststructuralism (First Indian Edition 2006 ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

-“In a Station of the Metro.” The Poetry Foundation, 29 Oct. 2024, www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/12675/in-a-station-of-the-metro.

“The Red Wheelbarrow.” The Poetry Foundation, 22 June 2024, www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45502/the-red-wheelbarrow. 

Poetry and Poststructuralism: An AI Powered Analysis

This blog has been created as part of an assignment assigned by Professor Dilip Barad sir . The task requires the creation of a poem using AI and the preparation of study material on the concepts of deconstruction or post-structuralism. The main goal is to critically examine the AI-generated poem through these theoretical lenses and then use ChatGPT to carry out a deconstructive analysis of the poem.

Teacher's blog - Visit the article for background reading.

click here :  

Poetry and Poststructuralism: An AI Powered Analysis 

Whispers of Death

In twilight’s hush, where shadows lie,

Death walks softly, passing by.

Not cruel nor kind, just ever near,

A silence deeper than our fear.

It wears no mask, it speaks no name,

Yet touches all with equal claim.

It folds the stars in quiet grace,

And smooths the sorrow from each face.

A gate, not end, through which we tread,

Not cold decay, but peace instead.

So fear it not, this final breath—

There’s gentleness within dear Death.

Analysis with Three Step Model of Peter Barry  : 

1. Verbal Stage: 

In this stage, we focus on verbal contradictions and semantic paradoxes within the language of the poem itself:

The line “Not cruel nor kind, just ever near” is paradoxical. It denies moral attributes to Death but still anthropomorphizes it with the phrase “just ever near”, suggesting presence, constancy, and even emotional proximity. So, while Death is said to have no moral polarity, it still behaves in a familiar, almost comforting manner—this reveals a slippage in meaning.

The final line, “There’s gentleness within dear Death”, contradicts the typical connotation of Death as terrifying. “Dear Death” as an address turns Death into a kind of intimate companion, yet this sentiment is in conflict with the usual image of Death as an ending. Here, language does not clarify but destabilizes our assumptions.

Like Dylan Thomas’s “first death” paradox, the phrase “a gate, not end” implies death is an entry rather than a conclusion. Yet, if death is a gate, what lies beyond is undefined, thus implying continuity while simultaneously embracing semantic ambiguity.

2. Textual Stage: 

In this stage, we look for shifts in tone, focus, or narrative direction—the "textual fault-lines":

The first stanza presents Death as neutral, passive, and impartial: “Not cruel nor kind”. The second stanza shifts tone—becoming soothing and even redemptive, casting death as a comforter who “smooths the sorrow from each face.”

This movement from detachment to comfort forms a disjunction in emotional positioning—at first, Death is indifferent, and later, Death is deeply personal and healing. This shift lacks a clear narrative justification, forming a textual instability. The poem oscillates between reverence and resignation, preventing the emergence of a singular coherent attitude.

Furthermore, the poem omits key elements such as any specific cause of death, individual identity, or religious or metaphysical framework. This absence makes the poem vulnerable to multiple readings, echoing Barry’s point about omissions revealing repressed tensions.

3. Linguistic Stage:

 At this stage, we interrogate how the poem’s language undermines its own claims:

The poem claims not to fear Death—“So fear it not”—yet it uses metaphors like twilight, shadows, and final breath which are all euphemisms and poetic deferrals of the raw fact of dying. This suggests a linguistic evasion, a sign that even in trying to comfort, the poem cannot escape language’s failure to name death directly.

The use of “gate” and “peace” is metaphorical. But metaphors are not transparent vehicles of truth—they are constructions that replace one signified with another. Thus, when the speaker says “Death is a gate,” it replaces one unknown (death) with another unknown (a metaphor), showing the inadequacy of language to fully signify.

The line “It wears no mask, it speaks no name” asserts a kind of linguistic clarity or purity, but paradoxically, the poem still gives Death a voice and an identity. This performs the very metaphorical act it tries to disown—thus falling into the same language trap Peter Barry describes in Dylan Thomas’s poem.

Deconstructive Reading Conclusion : 

Following Barry’s deconstructive method:

The verbal contradictions, such as Death being both neutral and comforting;

The textual shifts in tone and focus;

The linguistic traps of metaphor and poetic ambiguity—

all reveal that the poem does not uphold a singular or coherent understanding of death.

Instead of resolving death into a peaceful, universal truth, the poem fractures under close reading—revealing conflicting emotions, metaphorical evasions, and a language that contradicts itself. In short, Whispers of Death becomes not a poem about clarity or acceptance, but about the impossibility of fully signifying death through poetic language.

The Soul of Words

Literature lives where silence breaks,

In whispered truths that no one fakes.

It binds the past to what is near,

A mirror sharp, both bright and clear.

Through ink and voice, the world is spun,

A thousand lives lived, lost, and won.

It speaks in tongues of joy and pain,

Of lovers lost and kings who reign.

Each page a pulse, each line a breath,

Defying time, outwitting death.

In books we find both wound and cure—

A voice that echoes, deep and pure.

1. Language is Not Transparent

Belsey shows how in “The Red Wheelbarrow” and “Metro”, words don’t give access to things—they gesture toward sensations and associations. In “The Soul of Words”, terms like:

“whispered truths”

“mirror sharp”

“each line a breath”

are metaphorical signifiers, not references to real objects. The poem praises literature as revealing truth, but what is “truth” here? It’s never defined. Instead, meaning dissolves into metaphors—“mirror,” “pulse,” “breath”—which signal multiple emotional responses but no concrete referent.

Like Belsey’s reading of “The Red Wheelbarrow,” the object (literature) is not described but evoked through signifiers. The primacy of the signifier means the idea of literature becomes a product of sound, rhythm, and emotional association—not substance.

2. Unstable Subjectivity and the Dispersed 'I'

Belsey argues that in poststructuralism, the unified authorial voice is deconstructed. In this poem, there is no “I”. Instead, a disembodied narrative voice speaks for a generalized “we” or humanity:

“In books we find both wound and cure—

A voice that echoes, deep and pure.”

This universalizing move erases subjectivity, presenting literature as a disembodied entity that speaks. But this voice is nowhere and everywhere, a poetic construct without stable origin. Thus, like the voice in “In a Station of the Metro,” this is an apparition—a phantasmic subject.

3. Intertextuality and Parallels with Other Texts

Belsey reads Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18 not as a celebration of beauty, but a textual construct where metaphor and tradition collide. Likewise, “The Soul of Words” draws from a long tradition of poetic celebration of literature (e.g., Shelley’s Defence of Poetry, or even Shakespeare’s Sonnet 55—“Not marble nor the gilded monuments…”).

By echoing conventional tropes—“wound and cure,” “voice that echoes,” “defying time”—the poem becomes intertextual, dependent on and shaped by previous poetic discourses. This imitation calls into question originality, one of poststructuralism’s key targets.

4. Disruption of Closure and Stable Meaning

Poststructuralist readings seek disunity, contradiction, or repression in the text.

The poem presents literature as a healer and truth-teller, yet this idealization masks tension. For example:

“Defying time, outwitting death” is a bold claim—but can literature actually defeat death?

“A thousand lives lived, lost, and won” hints at chaos, plurality, and suffering—not only triumph.

Thus, beneath the polished lines lies unresolved contradiction: Is literature a cure or a reminder of mortality? Is it eternal or ephemeral, just more “ink and voice”?

This contradiction is repressed by the surface smoothness of the poem. A poststructuralist critic, like Belsey, would expose this tension between the poem’s celebratory tone and the fragility of the literary sign.

Conclusion: The Poem as a Construct of Difference and Ambiguity

Following Catherine Belsey’s poststructuralist reading strategy, “The Soul of Words” can be seen as:

A text that privileges signifiers over stable meanings.

A site where subjectivity is dispersed and authorial authority is undermined.

A network of intertextual echoes rather than a self-contained whole.

A surface of linguistic beauty masking deeper contradictions and incoherence.

Just as Belsey shows The Red Wheelbarrow to be not a simple image but a construct dependent on poetic form, your poem too becomes a fiction about fiction, where literature is not described, but continuously deferred—a trace, not a truth.

References 

 
-Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory, 3/E. Viva Books Private Limited, 2010.

-