Had I not seen the Sun

I'm such an inconstant writer! I come to you today with a thematically appropriate poem, "Had I not seen the Sun" by Emily Dickinson.

Had I not seen the Sun
I could have borne the shade
But Light a newer Wilderness
My Wilderness has made —

What shall we make of it?

Dickinson uses nature imagery very often, and sometimes straightforwardly. If we take her at her word, here, then she is saying that the light of the sun has revealed a different wilderness than that which she could perceive in the shade--and a better wilderness, since she can no longer bear the shade.

But I think that we should take things a bit further. The sun stands for revelatory power, such as that which all knowledge has, and wilderness can be understood as anything which knowledge could 'shine light on'. Her life, the world around her, some particular issue--take your pick.

The implication, as I mentioned above in my literal reading, is that what is revealed is better than what was known before. We shouldn't forget, too, that what the sun reveals is only what was already there. But we may now appreciate it better.

In a way, this poem could well be the rallying cry and anthem of this blog, and of all who peer a little closer at the world, be they literary critics, scientists, or bloggers with dreams of legitimacy. It expresses a rather positive sentiment, particularly for Dickinson.

I feel like I'm shortchanging everyone with such a pat analysis. I did put 'sometimes wrong' right in the header of this blog, so let's try for the opposite interpretation, shall we?

The first two lines indicate that the speaker was able to handle the shade--had not she seen the sun. But, the last two lines reveal, the sun's light has changed the situation. Importantly, the speaker does not indicate that she is able to bear this "newer Wilderness".

Can we not all think of some situation where new knowledge has made things more difficult to bear? Perhaps the speaker has learned of a friend's betrayal, or of some other previously-hidden slight against her. The wilderness, we'd do well to recall, is bewildering. Just because Dickinson generally expresses a positive view of nature, that doesn't mean she must always appreciate the incomprehensible wilderness.

Which interpretation is more convincing, do you think? In the end, it doesn't matter too much--one power of poetry is that it can speak to us in different ways at different times of our lives.