19 pages • 38 minutes read
William MeredithThe Illiterate
Fiction | Poem | Adult | Published in 1958A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Standing on the Threshold of the Future
There are moments in life when one is both eager and anxious, knowing full well that the next choice one makes will alter everything that comes after. As much as readers might like to, there are times when readers can’t predict the consequences of their own or others’ actions and must therefore make a leap of faith. “The Illiterate” is a rendering of one of those moments. In the poem, the speaker must decide what to do after “touching […] goodness” (Line 1). The speaker must decide whether to continue exploring the relationship or leave that option unexplored, remaining forever unaware.
Transitional stages are often difficult. They are usually necessary for growth or achievement but can often engender fear and trepidation. One may wonder if going forward will lead to success or doom. In the poem, this uncertainty is made clear by the fact that the speaker feels there is a potential for greater intimacy with the addressee, a fact that has surprised them. This unexpected possibility causes the speaker to be placed into a liminal position, standing on the threshold between what they know to be true and what they don’t know. That this is a new experience is clarified by the speaker’s analogy to the man and his letter. The man has “never had a letter” (Line 5) like the one he is holding, and he—and by extension the speaker—is “afraid of what it means” (Line 6). This fear is exacerbated by its newness to the man and the fact that he must “ask someone” (Line 8) to interpret its contents.
The speaker’s status as a novice causes them anxiety about what deeper intimacy could bring. It could be wonderful, an inheritance of wealth or deep love, expressed through the gift of “the farm” (Line 9) and/or the “dark girl” (Line 11) now desiring him. The result, though, could have dire consequences instead, which would bring a sort of death to the past, exemplified by the “parents [dying]” (Line 10). Whatever happens to the man after he opens the letter will permanently alter his course. He cannot go back, just as the speaker, once exploring the relationship with the “you” (Lines 3, 13), cannot pretend it will not change them. The man in the story, the speaker tells the addressee, holds onto the letter because he is “[afraid]” (Lines 6, 12). The man is also enamored with the anticipation of the potentially good thing that might exist and is also “letter-proud” (Line 12).
Ultimately, the man must “find out what [the letter] says [by asking] someone” (Line 8) to read it. He cannot defer crossing that threshold, just as the speaker must ask the possessor of “goodness” (Line 1) to guide them in defining the content of the relationship. The poem ends with a plea to the addressee to tell the speaker what to “call his feeling for the words / [t]hat keep him rich and orphaned and beloved” (Line 14). The speaker has already equated themselves with the man of the story, so what they are really asking is for the addressee to explain how they see the speaker’s place in their future. Once the speaker has the answer, an answer implied but not given in the poem, they will stop being “illiterate” and gain the knowledge of what the addressee feels for them. They will leave the threshold, and the unknown will cease to exist. The now will become the past and the future will begin.
The Speaker’s First Recognized Attraction to a Member of the Same Sex
“The Illiterate” may be an oblique discussion of the speaker’s attraction to another male. William Meredith, who was later open about his orientation, wrote the poem in 1953, when being a gay man was not openly acceptable. Poets and readers like Jason Schneiderman and Linda Gregerson have suggested that this could explain why the allusions within the poem are subtle and veiled. The word “illiterate” is an outdated term used to describe someone who cannot read or write—but it can also mean someone who is oblivious about a certain subject or activity. Some critics have also pointed out that the reference to “the dark girl” (Line 11) harkens to the mystery and debate about gay themes in Shakespeare’s sonnets.
One interpretation of the “The Illiterate” is that its speaker is on the verge of their first love encounter, which explains why “touching your goodness” (Line 1) proves so startling to them. The speaker never expected these feelings, or perhaps the speaker never expected reciprocation. Although readers might think the speaker’s wariness is due to “unfamiliar” (Line 4) handwriting, with “unfamiliar” representing sexual orientation, the speaker is actually unbothered by the fact that the potential partner is of the same sex. Instead, the problem, the speaker stresses, is that they “ha[ve] never had a letter from anyone” (Line 5, emphasis added). This suggests the speaker has never experienced love in any relationship prior. The speaker is a complete novice, so they feel vulnerable and out of their depth.
Since the speaker is willing to engage with this other person—shown by “touching” (Line 1) and an acceptance of the “unfamiliar” (Line 4)—there is potential for a continuing positive exchange. However, the speaker is still “afraid of what it means” (Line 6), of where the relationship might lead. If the speaker and the “you” are men, this fear might be exacerbated by the surrounding culture of 1953. In the 1950s, being gay was often condemned and heteronormative masculinity rewarded. Given this, touching another person of the same sex might make the speaker wonder if they are accurately reading reciprocal attraction, or if they have misjudged the gesture. If it’s the latter, they might face rejection or even persecution. If the attraction is reciprocal, what would engagement in a relationship mean for the speaker’s life in a world not particularly open to orientations outside the status quo? Any intimate relationship requires a level of risk, but during this particular time period, the couple’s relationship would heighten concerns of acceptance.
The speaker also wonders if engagement with their potential partner would mean greater wealth or possible destruction. Would they learn they are “rich [or] orphaned [or] beloved” (Line 14)? The only way the speaker can find out, since it is out of the speaker’s wheelhouse of experience, is “to ask someone” (Line 8). In other words, they can only know the depth of the connection by declaration. Either they must read the words of the letter for themselves, or the “letter” (Line 2) must be read to them. No wonder the speaker is “afraid and letter-proud” (Line 12), both fearful to engage in something prohibited and often vilified—yet honored to be recognized and potentially loved for who they are. It is this second feeling that wins out, as the speaker asks the “you” at the end of the poem, “what would you call [the man’s] feeling” (Line 13). Although the reader/listener is not privy to the response, this question shows that even while the speaker feels uninitiated and fearful, they are willing to risk opening themselves up to potential love regardless of societal restriction.
Giving Up Narrative Control
The speaker begins by using narrative as a way to make sense of their unexpected emotions. Stunned by feeling a person’s “goodness” (Line 1) and imagining how it would feel to be loved by someone, the speaker immediately seeks ways to control the narrative to lessen vulnerability.
First, the speaker gives themselves a role in the scenario: They are “like a man” (Line 2) who experiences confusion. The speaker can’t read the situation—they are helpless, completely dependent on the one who wrote the letter. This stance nevertheless protects the speaker from the possibility that the addressee might choose to define the “touching” (Line 1) as a single event they do not want to repeat.
Further, as “the illiterate,” the speaker doesn’t have to engage. The speaker can hold what has happened at arm’s length, limiting themselves from risk. The addressee can’t possibly ask the speaker how they feel as the speaker does not have the words to articulate it. Further, deep emotions brought about by the “touching” (Line 1) have filled the speaker with unwanted vulnerability. By defining themselves as “illiterate,” all this fear and wariness finds definition. The speaker therefore keeps themselves from the difficult task of discovering if they really have something to be frightened of—rejection—or if their desire will be reciprocated.
The speaker tries to absolve himself of making any decision in the poem, suggesting that he has “no other means” (Line 7) with which to understand the situation (receiving the letter). In their dramatic narrative, the would-be lover is then cast into the part of the translator. A translator is responsible for making sense of the words, dialogue, or contents of the sealed letter. Yet, the control-seeking speaker initially is even uncomfortable with the role they’ve cast the addressee in. They strip the translator of their duties, imagining for themselves the possible contents of the letter (Lines 9-11). They are proud of their articulation of the situation, yet in reality, there is no proof that any of their choices are plausible. Still, the speaker remains the creator, the writer of the options in the future.
Due to the speaker’s narrative control, the story reaches a point where it becomes static—it has no further action—and thus cannot move forward. In order to finish the story, the speaker must abdicate their position as creator. Forgoing the struggle to maintain control, the speaker must let the “literate” person, the one who has greater experience, provide the ending. By asking for the would-be lover’s answer to “what would you call [the man’s] feeling” (Line 13), the speaker is accepting their vulnerability regarding the next plot point. They don’t know—can’t imagine—what this “goodness” (Line 1) will lead to. The question at the end graces the addressee with the task of reading the letter, penning the end of the tale, and telling the speaker where the relationship will go. Thus, the speaker moves away from the need to predict the future alone and opens themselves up to collaboration.
