When Donald Trump asserted that he “didn’t see any reason that the Russians interfered with the U.S. Presidential election,” did he mean what he said or did he mean what he said he thought? That is, that he didn’t see any reason to think that they didn’t interfere? A few days later the President accused those who showed clips of him saying that he didn’t think the Russians interfered with our election as spreading “fake news.” Days later, his infamous New York attorney gleefully hurled more word games at the public, when he suggested that the collusion with the Russians, which “did not occur,” was not a crime. Giuliani offered that glib statement after the President had said dozens of times over the last year that“Absolutely no collusion occurred.” Were the words the President and his representative intended to clarify a political and legal position or were they designed to create Ambiguities to permit those who support or oppose him to pick whichever of his meanings they wish to believe? Litchatte is not the proper forum to decide what the President said and what he meant. However, we do discuss the ways that words are used to create precise meaning or to leave murky and Ambiguous messages. Ambiguity is a word, phrase, or statement which has more than one meaning. It leads to confusion in politics, but layers of complexity to poems and literature. Some typical examples are shown below:
“Foreigners are hunting dogs.” It is unclear whether dogs were being hunted, or foreigners are being spoken of as dogs.
“Passerby helped dog bite victim” Is the passerby helping a dog bite someone? Or is he helping a person who has been bitten by a dog?
“I was shocked that it was my friend who told me my husband just died.” Which husband died?
Although Ambiguity in politics is often used to allow candidates to avoid stating their true opinion on issues, in literature or poetry it offers writers the opportunity to provide deeper layers of meaning to their works. It also gives readers the opportunity to use their imagination to explore those meanings.
Emily Dickinson was The Mistress of Ambiguity, and, perhaps, she never wrote about it any better than in her untitled poem, “Tell the truth but tell it slant” where she cleverly illustrated how words can be manipulated to offer multiple layers of meaning. I pulled her poem from the comprehensive.Poetryfoundation.org. Website:
Tell all the truth but tell it slant –
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind –
What does Emily suggest in this poem and what does she leave for readers to decide. The first line immediately establishes the Ambiguity of this poem. Does she think that we should tell the truth clearly, or should we spin it in some away? What is the truth, or is there actually anything like it that is discernible in our human understanding?
Line 2 got the interest of three lawyers who were in my Osher Lifelong Learning Institute Summer Poetry Workshop at the University of Richmond, where Emily writes, “Success in Circuit lies.” Is “Circuit,” used in the legal sense, or as a word in general conversation?
Does the word, “lies” end that statement or does it wrap to the third line, and be read as, “Success in Circuit lies too bright for our infirm delight.” If we take the latter interpretation, it may mean that the Truth is too bright or shocking for others to accept. If this is what she intended, then who has the right to claim that their version is the best one to slant? Getting back to politicians, it seems like many of them are great followers of what they think Emily Dickinson is advising in this poem.
In lines 5 and 6, she offers a clarifying simile as she compares the shock children experience when hearing lightning to the shock that we experience when we hear the profound truth: we must be dazzled by it gradually “with explanations kind.” Without such a cautious approach those who hear the truth will “be blind.” As part of her Ambiguity, we may wonder what she means by going “blind.” Does that blindness refer to the effects of viewing lightning directly? If so, does that mean that most people can’t handle the truth and that upon hearing it, so they tend to misunderstand and misinterpret it? Either way, we read her poem, it seems clear that Dickinson does not have a very noble view of the capabilities of humanity?
Perhaps you have a different view of Ambiguity or of Emily’s poem? Please offer your feedback in the dialogue box below. My next Poetry Workshop Blog will be on Lyrical Poetry.
by 
