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.

-