A simple paradox. An analysis of "One Art" by Elizabeth Bishop.

         Everything in life is a paradox. Our political system, society, and even poetry are paradoxes. Elizabeth Bishop is one of the best examples for this so-called paradox. A paradox under most dictionaries would be defined as a "contradiction", in "One Art" by Bishop, the same can be said. The poem centers around the futility in becoming furious or saddened by a sudden lost of both physical and psychological items. However, using repetition, word choice and an uncaring voice to describe the “art of losing” contributes to the ironic nature of the poem along with the simple paradox Bishop is trying to convey to the reader.

            A first read of the poem presents this optimistic idea that a loss isn’t a complete loss of life, however a closer read presents something contrary to that fact. Instead, the paradox of the entire poem materializes to the reader towards the ending stanza. What makes it so intriguing is the fact that Bishop or the speaker of the poem makes a sudden interruption in the very last stanza of the poem with "(Write it!) like disaster" (19). Indicating a struggle of sorts with the speaker's ideological hold. Thus a paradox of losing without the sense of "disaster" is true if said item isn't emotionally close to the individual. Given that most of the items in the first several stanzas of the poem such as “lost door keys”(5) or “names”(8) can all be either replaced or remembered respectively. It was only when the speaker mentions about losing “you”(16), assuming that it was meant for someone rather close either in blood or a romantic relationship, that the speaker actually has a interruption between lines about whether or not it was a true disaster. Shedding light that it is indeed a disaster, emotionally, to the speaker even when he/she denies it.

          In a poem, diction is rather significant to what the author is trying to convey either directly or indirectly to the readers, Bishop’s word choice at first suggested carelessness then words like “loved” and “lovely” suggested some importance in the items he/she lost in the process. Similar to the problem is the structure of “One Art”, existing as a villanelle, the poem incites a continuous repetition of the line “The art of losing isn’t hard to master”. However because of the villanelle origin of the poem, the so-called “art of losing” only appears four times in the entire poem. This gap in repetition in the poem along with some words such as “loved” invokes a different image of what the author is truly trying to convey.

            Words such as “loved” wouldn’t have a reason to exist between lines. Since “loved” gives off this sense that the item in question is rather of value to the speaker. As shown on line 13, “I lost two cities, lovely ones”. The entire poem up to this poem was about how losing anything wasn’t a “disaster” but simply a loss that can be forgotten. Quite suddenly, the speaker adds in the “lovely” aspect of what he/she is losing. This sudden retract from what should be a careless matter shows the speaker’s intent to show that it is a disaster, but the speaker decided to not mind the matter.

            Diction, poetic form and repetition used by Bishop showed the true meaning of

“One Art”. It’s a simple paradox. It is and not a disaster at the same time is the message. The speaker using more romantic word choices alluded to the fact that the items it lost wasn’t all that unimportant, but rather it depended on how much emotional damage is inflicted. Ironic as the poem is, ultimately it all comes down to conveying a simple paradox of loss. 

Photo courtesy of http://travel.webshots.com. This photo demonstrates a paradox in a real life environment. It's a authentic ashtray with a "no smoking symbol" attached to it. Reasons would be to inform people not to smoke but in the even that they do, an ashtray is present for them. Much like how the speaker of "One Art" explains how a loss isn't quite as destructive as one may think, on the contrary, it always depends on the severity and attachment of and to the item of question. Thus exist this paradox in "One Art" and in this photo. 
                                                                                                                                         Word count: 715.