This blog is Lab Activity: Poststructuralism, Poems, and Gen AI: Deconstructive Reading as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's research article for background reading.Here
This blog embarks on a poststructuralist interrogation of four influential poems Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18, Ezra Pound’s In a Station of the Metro, William Carlos Williams’s The Red Wheelbarrow, and Dylan Thomas’s A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London. Rather than seeking to extract a singular or authoritative meaning from each text, the analysis focuses on the slippages, contradictions, and linguistic instabilities embedded within their structures.
Approaching each poem as a site of semantic plurality, this study highlights how meaning emerges through a network of différance where certainty is disrupted and fixed interpretations dissolve. By exposing internal fissures, binary oppositions, and ideological traces, the blog demonstrates how deconstruction invites readers to read against the grain and to engage poetry not as a mirror of truth, but as a field of ceaseless interpretive play.
1. Sonnet 18: ‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?’ by William Shakespeare.
Here's a deconstructive analysis of Poem 1: Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18 ("Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"), based on Catherine Belsey's poststructuralist framework and Peter Barry’s guidance from Beginning Theory.
Text Overview
"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate..."
Often celebrated as an ode to eternal beauty, Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18 appears at first to be a stable expression of admiration and poetic immortality. However, when approached through the lens of deconstruction, the poem reveals its own contradictions, binary tensions, and the instability of meaning that undermines any fixed interpretation.
1. The Illusion of Stability and the Deferral of Meaning
The opening question "Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?" sets the tone for instability. A comparison is suggested, but immediately destabilized: "Thou art more lovely and more temperate." The act of comparison collapses, as the speaker negates the comparison even as he initiates it. According to Catherine Belsey, meaning in poststructuralist criticism is not fixed by reference but constructed through difference. This shifting ground of signification destabilizes the sonnet’s seeming clarity.
2. Binary Oppositions and Their Collapse
The poem is structured on binaries—summer vs. eternity, decay vs. permanence, mortality vs. art. However, these binaries begin to deconstruct themselves:
Summer, a symbol of beauty, is described as imperfect: it has a “lease,” it “shakes,” it “declines.”
The beloved is supposedly beyond such decline, yet this transcendence is not bodily but textual “So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.”
Here, Shakespeare replaces the living body with the written word. The “eternal summer” does not exist in nature but in language, which, as Belsey argues, carries no natural or final meaning only a chain of signifiers. Thus, the promise of immortality is caught in the play of différance: always deferred, always mediated.
3. The Power of the Signifier
According to Peter Barry, deconstruction highlights the primacy of the signifier over the signified. The line “Nor shall Death brag thou wander’st in his shade” uses personification, but what is this “Death”? A concept, not a presence. Shakespeare plays with anthropomorphic abstraction to suggest permanence but only rhetorically.
Moreover, the phrase “So long lives this” refers not to an actual life but to the poem itself a textual object whose meaning is unstable and subject to the reader’s interpretation. Thus, the speaker’s confidence collapses under the recognition that poetry’s preservation is dependent on interpretive communities, not truth.
4. The Reader's Role and Interpretive Shifts
A deconstructive reading also foregrounds the reader's role in constructing meaning. While the poem asserts permanence, a reader trained in poststructuralist thought sees that “this gives life to thee” is not about actual immortality but a semantic loop the “thee” exists only in and through the reading of “this.” The beloved is textualized, fictionalized.
Each reading reinscribes new meanings; no interpretation can claim finality. What appears as a monument is in fact an unstable site of meaning, shaped by cultural assumptions, literary conventions, and reader subjectivity.
Conclusion
Through deconstruction, Sonnet 18 transforms from a simple love poem into a paradox of poetic ambition. It seeks to eternalize the beloved but must do so through the slippery terrain of language. The binaries it sets up are undercut from within, and the authority of the speaker is rendered provisional. As Belsey and Barry remind us, meaning is not discovered—it is constructed, contested, and always deferred. Shakespeare’s sonnet thus deconstructs itself, exposing the limits of language even in the act of asserting its power.
Poem 2: Deconstructive Reading of Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro”
Here's the detailed deconstructive analysis of Poem 2: Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro” using Catherine Belsey's idea of the primacy of the signifier and Peter Barry’s observations on how poststructuralist critics read.
Text:
The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.
I. Introduction: The Illusion of Immediacy
Ezra Pound’s two-line imagist poem is often admired for its precision, clarity, and ability to “present an image” directly. At first glance, it seems to offer an almost photographic moment of perception. Yet, poststructuralist theory reveals that this clarity is itself an illusion—constructed by language, shaped by cultural codes, and disrupted by internal tensions.
Drawing on Catherine Belsey’s emphasis on the instability of signification and Peter Barry’s view that deconstruction reveals “the text’s contradictions and gaps,” we approach Pound’s poem as a site where meaning is not delivered but endlessly deferred.
II. The Split Between Signifier and Signified
The poem appears to present a direct visual equivalence:
“faces in the crowd” = “petals on a wet, black bough”
However, the poem is not a photograph but a verbal representation of perception, one which relies on metaphor, thus disrupting any immediate, fixed signified. The use of “apparition” especially complicates this equivalence. “Apparition” suggests:
A sudden appearance
A ghost or phantom
Something not fully real or graspable
Here, Pound undercuts the “clarity” of the image by framing it as ephemeral, intangible, and even spectral. The very first word destabilizes the image, making it more about the limits of perception and the instability of presence than about urban observation.
This affirms Belsey's claim that meaning is never directly transmitted from speaker to listener or writer to reader. The “faces” and “petals” are not presented as being, but as signifiers in tension floating, slippery, ambiguous.
III. Binary Opposition and Its Deconstruction
The poem appears structured as a binary or equation:
Urban (faces, crowd, metro) vs. Natural (petals, bough)
Modern vs. Pastoral
Mechanistic vs. Organic
But this binary breaks down upon scrutiny. Are the faces really like petals, or is this a poetic artifice? And what does it mean to compare people to flowers, and a crowded city to a natural scene?
The metaphor doesn’t resolve meaning, it opens a gap between two unlike realms. Instead of clarifying, it problematizes representation. The comparison is impossible to verify and subject to shifting reader interpretations.
As Peter Barry explains, deconstruction exposes how texts rely on what they exclude. Here, the poem excludes:
What exactly the faces look like
Why they appear like petals
What emotion, if any, is attached to this vision
This absence invites multiple meanings, undermining the idea of poetic “precision.” Thus, the poem deconstructs its own Imagist manifesto.
IV. The Absence of a Narrative Center
There is no speaker, no verb (except implied "is like"), no context just juxtaposition. This radical parataxis resists causal structure or stable narrative. According to poststructuralist theory, the absence of syntactic clarity generates interpretive instability.
Where traditional readings might assume that the poem celebrates beauty in the mundane, a deconstructive reading reveals a void at its center: we don’t know who sees, what they feel, or even where meaning lies. This absence displaces traditional poetic subjectivity and instead centers language itself as the site of meaning.
As Belsey emphasizes, texts are not transparent windows to the world, but opaque systems of signs.
V. The Problem of Presence and Temporality
The word “apparition” also complicates presence. It gestures toward a fleeting encounter something appears only to vanish. The faces, like petals, suggest vulnerability and impermanence. But unlike petals, which belong to nature, the faces are anonymous, massed, and urban detached from individual identity.
Thus, the poem simultaneously creates and erases presence. We never see the faces; we see only their metaphorical trace. Meaning is not in the face itself, but in the gap between face and flower a gap that can never be closed.
This aligns with Derrida’s concept of différance meaning is not present in the sign but emerges from difference, and is always deferred.
VI. Reader as Co-Creator
Because the poem lacks narrative, subjectivity, and context, the reader must fill in the blanks. This makes the reader an active participant in producing meaning, which varies from person to person.
One reader may see a tragic contrast between humanity and nature.
Another may read the line as a moment of fleeting beauty in a cold world.
Yet another may see the metaphor as artificial, undermining the entire poem’s aesthetic claim.
Thus, the text is not fixed it is plural, open-ended, and dependent on interpretive frames, just as poststructuralist critics argue.
VII. Conclusion: Language as Mirage
Far from being a clear window onto an urban moment, In a Station of the Metro becomes a poem about the inaccessibility of presence, the metaphorical instability of language, and the absence of fixed meaning. What begins as an image of beauty fractures into ambiguity, spectrality, and semantic drift.
As Catherine Belsey explains, meaning is not a matter of intention or essence but of language operating in systems of difference. Pound’s poem, when deconstructed, does not deliver a stable insight it withholds it, inviting endless readings and interpretive play.
Thus, the poem deconstructs itself: it gestures toward clarity while dissolving it, offering an image that both appears and disappears, like the apparition at its center.
Certainly. Below is the detailed deconstructive analysis of Poem 3: William Carlos Williams’s “The Red Wheelbarrow”, grounded in Catherine Belsey's theory of the signifier’s primacy and Peter Barry’s framework of deconstructive practice.
Poem 3: Deconstructive Reading of William Carlos Williams’s “The Red Wheelbarrow”
Text:
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens
I. Introduction: The Myth of Simplicity
William Carlos Williams’s The Red Wheelbarrow is often praised for its directness, simplicity, and “pure image,” epitomizing the Imagist and objectivist aesthetic. At first glance, the poem seems to present a transparent, almost photographic snapshot. However, a deconstructive reading reveals a deeper instability in what appears to be simplicity.
As Catherine Belsey argues in Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction, meaning in literature does not emerge from the object itself, but from the interplay of signifiers that surround it. Peter Barry, too, reminds us that poststructuralist critics focus on how a text’s “surface clarity often masks deeper contradictions and deferrals of meaning.” This poem, minimalist in form, is rich in linguistic paradoxes and semantic deferrals.
II. The Enigmatic Declaration: “So much depends…”
The poem opens with a strong, authoritative claim:
“so much depends / upon”
But this declarative tone is immediately subverted by its lack of specificity.
What depends?
Why does it depend?
Who is speaking?
The poem never tells us. The statement is grammatically complete but semantically hollow, inviting readers to invest the meaning. This is a classic example of what Belsey calls the “emptiness of the signified” the poem offers a signifier (“so much depends”) but resists attaching it to any fixed referent.
The illusion of meaning is created not by what is said, but by what is withheld.
III. Fragmentation and the Instability of Language
The second line, “upon”, is isolated, both visually and semantically. It signals dependency, but depends on what?
Williams splits even simple objects:
“wheel / barrow” is broken across two lines
“rain / water” and “white / chickens” similarly fracture
This fragmentation draws attention to language as form, not just content. The poem enacts the rupture of sign and meaning it breaks nouns and concepts, making their referents unstable.
According to Peter Barry, deconstructive critics attend to the “surface features” of texts the spacing, the structure, the layout as signs of textual undecidability. Williams’s visual arrangement emphasizes materiality over clarity, form over message.
IV. The Object Without Context
The red wheelbarrow appears suddenly, without narrative or context. It’s not part of a story or memory it just is. Similarly, the rainwater and white chickens surround it, but offer no semantic resolution.
Is the red wheelbarrow:
A symbol of rural life?
A metaphor for poetic labor?
A randomly observed object?
Each interpretation is possible, but none is authorized by the text. The poem refuses to anchor the object in a stable interpretive framework, thus aligning with Belsey's idea that the subject of meaning is always constructed, not given.
V. The Color Red: Signifier Without Signified
The wheelbarrow is not just any wheelbarrow it is red. The adjective evokes attention, emotion, even symbolism (blood, communism, alertness). But the poem gives us no narrative justification for this color.
This “floating signifier”, to use a term from poststructuralist theory, attaches to multiple meanings but secures none. As Derrida's différance suggests, meaning is endlessly deferred from one signifier to the next. "Red" in this poem becomes not a descriptor but a site of slippage.
The color, like the object itself, is semantically loaded and simultaneously emptied.
VI. The Reader as Meaning-Maker
Without guidance from the speaker (who is absent), the reader must become the co-creator of meaning. Is the wheelbarrow symbolic? Is it important? Or is its importance merely asserted, not demonstrated?
This ambiguity is not a flaw it is the deconstructive heart of the poem. The reader’s assumptions, cultural context, and interpretive history shape the significance of the wheelbarrow. As Belsey argues, texts are polysemic they do not have one meaning but many, each produced in relation to discourse and ideology.
VII. The Myth of Dependence
The opening line insists that “so much depends” on this mundane object. But the poem never explains what depends, who depends, or why. This absence forces the reader to question the premise itself:
Does meaning exist independently of context?
Or is the statement performative, asserting importance where there is none?
From a deconstructive lens, this rhetorical move exposes the emptiness behind declarations of meaning. As Peter Barry notes, deconstruction shows us that texts undermine their own assertions, exposing their ideological and structural inconsistencies.
VIII. Conclusion: Simplicity as Semantic Complexity
Far from being a straightforward image of rural life, The Red Wheelbarrow is a linguistic experiment in deferred meaning, spatial disjunction, and reader-dependence. It presents an image while simultaneously withholding its significance, inviting endless interpretive loops.
From a poststructuralist perspective:
The wheelbarrow is a textual construct, not a natural object.
The meaning of “so much depends” is deferred and destabilized.
The poem deconstructs its own claim to clarity, revealing that language always carries ambiguity within it.
Thus, what seems minimal is rhetorically complex, and what seems evident is structurally elusive. Williams’s poem, like Pound’s and Shakespeare’s, ultimately unravels itself, reminding us that all texts are sites of interpretive struggle, not vehicles of transparent truth.
Poem 4: Deconstructive Reading of Dylan Thomas’s “A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London”
Here is a detailed deconstructive reading of Poem 4: Dylan Thomas’s “A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London”, using the theoretical frameworks of Catherine Belsey (from Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction) and Peter Barry (from Beginning Theory). This analysis foregrounds linguistic ambiguity, rhetorical tension, binary subversions, and the instability of meaning hallmarks of deconstructive criticism
Opening lines (excerpt):
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. Introduction: Poetic Mourning Without Mourning?
At the heart of Dylan Thomas’s elegy is a striking paradox: the refusal to mourn. The title already destabilizes expectations by combining mourning and negation, suggesting a profound emotional tension. From a deconstructive perspective, this refusal does not represent clarity or defiance, but reveals an internal contradiction in language’s ability to represent death, trauma, and memory.
Following Catherine Belsey, who emphasizes the primacy of the signifier and the polysemic nature of texts, and Peter Barry’s framework where texts “deconstruct themselves” by subverting their own logic, we analyze this poem as a site of linguistic instability—a place where grief is both spoken and unspeakable.
II. The Contradiction of the Title: To Refuse and Yet to Write
The poem’s title, “A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London”, appears categorical. Yet, the very act of composing a poem performs the mourning it claims to refuse. This tension between speech and silence, mourning and refusal, is central to its deconstructive reading.
By refusing to mourn, Thomas attempts to assert control over grief, but the poem itself betrays that control, becoming a highly emotional, mythic, and symbolic lament. This aligns with Peter Barry’s idea that texts often undermine their surface logic, revealing deeper ideological or linguistic contradictions.
III. Mythic Language and Symbolic Excess
Thomas’s poem is replete with mythic, religious, and naturalistic imagery:
“round Zion of the water bead”
“synagogue of the ear of corn”
“mankind making bird beast and flower”
This imagery defers specific meaning and instead saturates the text with multiplicity. What does it mean to enter “the round Zion of the water bead”? The language resists paraphrase, offering instead a field of unstable signifiers, where symbolism overloads denotation.
According to Belsey, language in poststructuralist criticism is not a mirror of reality, but a web of differences. Thomas’s abstract metaphors emphasize that we are not dealing with direct representation, but semantic excess, where words point not to fixed meanings but to each other, in an endless deferral.
IV. Binary Subversions: Life and Death, Light and Darkness
Thomas continually invokes binary oppositions:
Light vs. darkness (“last light breaking” / “darkness”)
Life vs. death (“majesty and burning of the child’s death”)
Speech vs. silence (“Tells with silence”)
Sound vs. shadow (“the shadow of a sound”)
However, these binaries do not hold firm. For instance:
“Tells with silence” fuses opposites: silence tells, and telling becomes silent.
“Shadow of a sound” introduces a metaphor that collapses substance can a shadow have a sound, or vice versa?
In Derridean terms, this is aporia the moment where language collapses into contradiction, and binaries cannot be resolved. As Peter Barry notes, deconstruction does not destroy meaning but reveals its instability. The poem exposes the impossibility of adequately mourning, not because it avoids emotion, but because language itself cannot contain grief.
V. The Problem of Naming and Representation
Thomas avoids naming the child, the event, or even grief directly. This refusal of representation echoes Belsey’s insight: that language cannot fully “capture” experience. Instead of naming the trauma, the poem offers mythic substitution and metaphoric detour the child becomes “majestic,” “burning,” but never specific.
This results in a profound alienation of referent: we do not see the child, we see language constructing an absence. As in Derrida’s notion of absence/presence, the child is most present in being absent from the poem’s concrete representation.
Thus, mourning becomes not the act of remembering a body, but circulating around a void a signifier without an origin.
VI. The Performative Failure of Mourning
Despite its eloquence, the poem does not offer closure or a therapeutic mourning. Instead, it opens with paradox and ends in ambiguity:
The final lines do not resolve the grief.
The burning of the child is monumentalized, not individualized.
The act of poetic speech performs both reverence and impotence.
This aligns with Belsey’s view that meaning is not transmitted, but constructed and that in moments of trauma, language shows its limits. By refusing conventional elegy, Thomas enacts what poststructuralists would call a critique of logocentrism the idea that words can neatly encapsulate truth or presence.
VII. The Reader’s Burden: Making Meaning from Paradox
Deconstructive reading also foregrounds the reader’s active role. The poem’s density, abstraction, and contradictions require the reader to engage, interpret, and question. Each image leads not to clarity but to further interpretive work. What does it mean to call death “majestic”? Can burning be beautiful? Can silence speak?
Each reader constructs meaning not from what the poem says, but from how it destabilizes what we expect a poem of mourning to do. As Peter Barry emphasizes, poststructuralist criticism turns attention from what a text means to how it means to the systems of language and thought that structure and undo it.
VIII. Conclusion: Mourning in the Space of Absence
A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London does not offer consolation, nor does it stabilize meaning. It begins with paradox, proceeds through ambiguity, and ends without catharsis. From a deconstructive standpoint, it is a poem about the impossibility of mourning, about the absence of presence, and about the failure of language to memorialize the real.
Thomas’s refusal is not a rejection of grief, but an acknowledgment that grief cannot be captured in words. The poem becomes a textual performance of this impossibility, in which signifiers float, binaries collapse, and meaning is deferred.
Thus, as Catherine Belsey and Peter Barry suggest, the deconstructive reading of poetry like Thomas’s does not deny emotion or meaning but reorients us to how unstable, fragile, and constructed those meanings always are.
Overall Conclusion
Across these four poems by Shakespeare, Pound, Williams, and Thomas a deconstructive reading reveals that language does not transparently convey fixed meaning but instead generates multiple, often conflicting interpretations. Each poem, while seemingly coherent on the surface, exposes internal tensions: binaries collapse, signifiers drift, and meaning becomes unstable. Rather than expressing clear truths, these texts highlight the limits of representation, inviting readers to question assumptions about presence, identity, and permanence. In line with poststructuralist theory, particularly Catherine Belsey's and Peter Barry’s insights, the act of reading becomes an active, interpretive process where meaning is not found but continually deferred and re-constructed.
Refrances:
- Barad, Dilip. “Deconstructive Analysis of Ezra Pound's 'In a Station of the Metro' and William Carlos Williams's 'The Red Wheelbarrow.'” Research Gate, 04 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 04 July 2025.
- Barad, D. (2023, July 23). How to Deconstruct a Text. Bhavngar, Gujarat, India: DoEMKBU YouTube Channel. Retrieved , from https://youtu.be/JDWDIEpgMGI?si=WnmtixfH9lFYj-bJ
- Belsey, C. (2002). Poststructuralism (First Indian Edition 2006 ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Pound, E. (1913, April). In a Station of a Metro. Poetry: A Magazine of Verse. Retrieved , from https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/12675/in-astation-of-the-metro
- Williams, W. C. (1938). The Red Wheelbarrow. In C. MacGowan (Ed.), The Collected Poems of William Carlos Williams, Volume I, 1909-1939. New Directions Publishing Corporation. Retrieved , from https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45502/the-red-wheelbarrow
.png)
.png)
.png)