Deconstruction in the Builders House: A Study of Woodsworth’s “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud” Through the Theoretical Deconstruction Framework of Timothy Morton

Hebrews 3:4, KJV: “For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.”

In a world where success and purpose are the basis of our actions, seldom does one take the time to enjoy the beauty of God’s creation, or better yet, have the cognizance to recognize and appreciate such things.  Or in other words, by striving to build our own houses, we forget to enjoy and appreciate the house that God already built and the ambience that surrounds his creation; firstly, as the word ambience is used throughout this paper, I think it is important to state its definition: an aesthetic that provides a novel way of reading literature with a mind of ecology. For this paper, I plan on analyzing William Woodsworth’s poem I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud using the theoretical framework of Timothy Morton’s, “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” as an Ambient Poem; a Study of a Dialectical Image; with Some Remarks on Coleridge and Wordsworth—in hopes of analyzing how Morton’s ambience theoretical framework in this piece engages with Woodsworth’s poem. Particularly, I’m interested in Morton’s notion of deconstruction of the metaphysical opposition between writing and nature, personhood and environment, and the particular and general in the context of I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud —what does this deconstruction look like and why is it vital (Morton 2)? Rather, does this deconstruction only cause an environmental awareness by the subject to nature or can the roles be reversed in who becomes or makes the other environmentally aware? Analyzing the evidence of the three aspects of ambient poetry that Morton notes is of interest.

Morton’s theory of the ambient poetry serving as a tool of deconstruction between writing and nature affirms the ecological thought of being a part of nature and not separated from it. But where is this deconstruction in I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud of everyday life? Within Morton’s framework, the work of ambience—I would argue not only seeks to deconstruct—but furthers it’s work by after deconstructing personhood and environment or writing and nature, it then conflates the two. I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud (composed in March 1804) reveals the poet to be inhuman, in that the poet is engaging in a sort of deconstruction from nature by floating over hills like a lonely cloud unintentionally. One could argue that the poet has become a sort of ghostly figure separate from the world and yet intertwined with it. It would seem that this is exactly where deconstruction takes place in the poem—as the poet is engaging in an activity apart from nature, that is exactly where he confronts it— the poet or personhood cannot run nor float away from the environment—deconstruction destroyed the separateness. The evidence of this theory is clear within the poem and is important in that I believe it is highlighting the foundation of the ecological thought, but simply providing more language for it. This encounter with the “host of daffodils” does not seem to occur by choice but rather but accident. This is clear in the poets writing:

I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o’er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd

A host of golden daffodils. . .

The poet was not concerned nor connected with nature until this seemingly sudden deconstruction occurred, which caused this connection of personhood and environment. This is important to highlight because I’m interested in how this deconstruction translates to everyday practical life.

In a world in which isolation and mental health have become pertinent topics of discussions, one cannot help but wonder if Morton’s theory and Woodsworth’s experience extends to the average person in day-to-day life. Does this deconstruction solely apply to those who are (what Morton would describe as) “environmentally aware”?

When speaking of the necessity of space in order to have an environment, Morton indirectly eludes then to the relationship between personhood and environment or the particular and the general: “And in order to have environmental awareness, one must be aware of space as more than just a vacuum. One must start taking note of, taking care of, one’s world” (Morton 4). This theory of environmentally aware seems to contradict Woodsworth’s experience in Daffodils—reason being that the poet, as noted earlier, seems to accidentally encounter these host of daffodils. Did the poet have “environmental awareness” while wandering into this encounter? Because if he did, then this would further Morton’s theory of deconstruction, but if he did not, then it calls into question the true experience of deconstruction between man and nature. It is easy to argue that the poet was already environmentally aware and thus, more prone to the experience of deconstruction, but in attempting to make Morton’s theory more applicable, it is advantageous (assuming that most individuals are not environmentally aware) to assume that Woodsworth was not. If one does not have to be environmentally aware then this would mean that it is possible that the roles can be reversed; in that the subject does not have to be environmentally aware in order for deconstruction to occur because the subject, or nature, can do it for them.

Before diving into deconstructions potential to reverse roles, Morton states the three aspects of his theory on ambient poetry which is: minimalism, the lingual voice, and contact as content.

Concerning the first, minimalism, Morton states, “The element of ambient poetry we have just observed is its concern for minimization (of expression, content or both), which it shares with ambient music. Eno’s gramophone was just barely audible. So in the same way ambient poetry makes certain features of reality just perceptible (but nevertheless, they are perceptible)” (Morton 9).

One can question this theory in that the poet does not notice something that is just perceptible, rather he notices first what he calls a “crowd” then a “host”; then likens this sight to “continuous as the stars that shine” and even provides a numerical value of ten thousand; which goes to say that the daffodils were not barely visible nor barely perceptible. But perhaps minimalism was hidden in the hidden joy of the dancing daffodils that tossed their heads in “sprightly dance”. If this is where minimalism is hidden then this connects back to when deconstruction occurs, is it still possible to miss that which is minimalism due to deconstruction not being translatable or because it was overshadowed by something else? The second aspect of his theory is the lingual voice which states, “This voice is not disembodied but the reverse: a voice without a subject. . .. The voice that floats around the text looking for an object” (Morton 10).

This second aspect seems to find itself to be truer and more successful in its endeavors of floating around the text looking for a voice without a subject. But does the poet—who acts as the voice and narrator of this poem—fit that description? Is the poet not a subject to be identified? If not, then how can deconstruction translate to an individual that it cannot connect with it? In other ambient poetry such as “The Star” by Jane Taylor, this voice without a subject is more evident—perhaps due to the repetitive lullaby that does not seem to possess subjectivity. But I question whether this a true for I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud simply because in hopes of connecting personhood and environment, I believe subjectivity is of importance. But Morton earlier states, “Thus the separation of figure and ground must be maintained for the ideology of personhood to persist” (Morton 7). In other words, personhood or subjectivity is only persistent when deconstruction is maintained, they go hand in hand and are necessary to experience nature as a person, which leads to this ideal relationship with nature within I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud.

The third aspect of his theory is contract as content which he interprets as, “In ambient poetics, the medium in which communication takes place becomes the message that is communicated. . .. The atmosphere in which the message exists—its ambience—is a significant element of its meaning” (Morton 11). This theory within the poem is also evident and hard to dispute in that the poet’s message as a medium, in written form, communicates a message—with respect to context always providing messaging. But criticism from Antiguan-American novelist and professor Jamaica Kincaid is particularly revealing when analyzing this theory of “the atmosphere in which the message exists”. This is because the medium on which this message or poem takes place, completely differs and undergoes an entirely different meaning when within a different atmosphere, although possessing the same original ambience. In Misusing Canonical Intertexts: Jamaica Kincaid, Wordsworth and Colonialism’s “Absent Things”, Kincaid provides insight into the ambience Wordsworth’s poem within her atmosphere. She states in response to the poem: “The reason I do not like daffodils is not at all aesthetic but much more serious than that: having been forced to memorize a poem about daffodils, when non were to be found in the place I grew up” (Smith 802). The aesthetic or original ambiance from I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud did not transverse the social space in which it was currently experienced. Morton notes ambiences relationship within its social structure by stating: “For like all dialectical images, ambience at once fills and overspills the ideological frame intended for it by the social structure in which it emerged” (Morton 7). The ambience from Woodsworth’s poem is the original ambience including the original messaging, but when emerging from within a different social structure, the ambience takes on a different form. Kincaid’s experience is unique and relatable in that many individuals may not have daffodils as Wordsworth did; maybe one has roses, tulips, or other flowers, or none at all. So, the notion that its ambience has effect on its meaning cannot fully be true because although the original ambience had its own intent, meaning is subjective to the subject. Which leads me to pose the question can ambience be transferred although within a different atmosphere?

In the concluding paragraph of Morton’s ambient theory he states, “What is subversive is their presentation of surplus enjoyment, that confuses the difference between figure and ground, and opens the possibility of ecological awareness” (Morton 21). When referencing “their” Morton is speaking of “The Star” and Wordsworth’s “Composed Upon Westminster Bridge”, but this can be applied to all ambient poetry that seeks to deconstruct. Morton’s theory of “presentation of surplus enjoyment” is intriguing in that is he speaking of the poets or nature within the poems. If we were to assume that this “presentation of surplus enjoyment” is from nature, then this alludes to a different dynamic that one seeks to explore, particularly as it relates to deconstruction coming from nature rather than the subject. Morton’s line of theory then, is as follows: presentation of surplus enjoyment, then deconstruction (which he now calls confusion) and then not guaranteed ecological awareness but “possible”. Which leads to my question: can the environment make subjects environmentally aware without one possessing such a quality previously? In the context of Wordsworth’s poem, could the daffodils have recognized the poet or in turn, made the poet environmentally aware? When thinking about the ramifications of our previous pandemic, this question and all of the questions in which were presented, seek to find whether the pleasure and joy of deconstruction is available to all and how does it truly come about. If deconstruction allows for one to experience nature (for the purposes of this paper, the destruction of God’s house) and the enjoyment and peace that is acquainted with it then that is truly significant. Wordsworth at the end of the poem reveals what can be interpreted as the after result of deconstruction:

I gazed – and gazed – but little thought

What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft when on my couch I lie

In vacant or in pensive mood, They flash upon that inward eye

Which is the bliss of solitude,

And then my heart with pleasure fills, And dances with the daffodils.

Particularly, when he mentions this “vacant and pensive mood”, and which one could associate to current isolation.

But it’s within these moments that the poet identifies the benefit of ecological awareness, which is ultimately the deconstruction between nature and man enjoyment that comes with that at one’s lowest point.

What is the benefit of poetry except it bring strength to the weak and remind one of what’s truly important? Ambient poetry has this potential, but I question how it transfers through the theory of deconstruction and ecological awareness, simply because there can be limitations. “Thus the separation of figure and ground must be maintained for the ideology of personhood to persist” (Morton 7).

As one walks the streets of life, the confusion of figure and ground due to ambience is necessary. Better yet, as one walks the streets of isolation, loneliness, or despair, the ecological thought of ambience and deconstruction can serve one as it did Wordsworth—that “flash upon that inward eye” perhaps being the avenue in which deconstruction is made manifest and bringing pleasure to those that need it.

Sources:

Morton, Timothy. “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” as an Ambient Poem; a Study of a Dialectical Image;         

with Some Remarks on Coleridge and Wordsworth, University of Colorado at Boulder (2001).

Smith, Ian. “Misusing Canonical Intertexts: Jamaica Kincaid, Wordsworth and Colonialism’s ‘Absent Things.’” Callaloo, vol. 25, no. 3, 2002, pp. 801–820. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3300118. Accessed 17 Mar. (2021).

Wordsworth, William. I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud (1802).