1. Peters 1
Molly Peters
December 16, 2014
ENGL 524
Professor Colquitt
E.E Cummings: Destroyer or Creator?
While some of E.E. Cummings’s poetry is written in a traditional style, he
typically tends to deviate from conventional form, writing in a somewhat avant-garde
fashion. Cummings is famous for saying, “to destroy is always the first step in any
creation”, which is exactly what he does with his poetry. After deconstructing the
traditional aspects of poetry, like proper grammar and use of punctuation, he is able to
create works unlike the writings of his peers. Cummings’s goal to become a writer began
at an early age and was fortunately supported by his family. After attending Harvard,
where he learned the rules and mechanics of poetry, he was better able to break said
etiquette and create a style of his own. This essay will examine 2 of Cummings’s poems,
“in Just—” and “O Sweet Spontaneous”, while paying special attention to their content,
literary techniques utilized, and reasoning behind their obscure forms.
“In Just” may seem like a harmless poem about springtime at first glance, but
looking at it with a more critical eye, keeping in mind Cummings’s idiosyncrasies, it
becomes clear that there is an eerie tone present. While there is a childlike air that
surrounds the poem, as Cummings uses words like “mud-luscious” and “puddle-
wonderful”, he opposes that cheerfulness with words like “lame”, “goat-footed”, and
“queer”, all of which have negative connotations. This blatant contrast shows that

2. Peters 2
Cummings is perhaps implying that the “balloonman” might be enticing children for the
wrong reasons (lines 2-20). The poem takes place in spring, a season that is supposed to
represent new beginnings, a cleansing from the past, purity, and especially innocence.
The poem certainly illustrates naivety when Cummings portrays images like,
“eddieandbill come/ running from marbles” and “bettyandisabel come dancing / from hop
scotch and jump rope”, both of which epitomize childhood freedom (lines 6-7 & 14-15).
If the balloonman existed only to give these children their balloons with the solitary
reward of their happiness, there would be no need for him to “whistle far and wee” in
order to entice them (line 5). The balloonman is using his authority and influence as an
adult over the children to literally pull them away from their innocent activities like jump
rope and marbles. Readers can assume that this is the tactic used by the balloonman to
bring both boys and girls together, out of their imaginary and separate worlds, thus
stripping them of their innocence by forcing upon them reality.
Critic Bethany Dumas agrees with this inimical view regarding the balloonman
even referring to him as a “satyr” in her book, “E.E. Cummings: A Remembrance of
Miracles”. A satyr is creature who in Roman mythology takes on the form of half man
half goat; a satyr can also represent lust and sexual aggressiveness. If the reader chooses
to adopt this interpretation of the balloonman, he or she will agree with Dumas as she
suggests, “the innocence of childhood play is only intensified by the poets recognition
that the balloonman introduces into the scene a potentially satiric note” (Dumas 24). This
proposes that the balloonman’s disturbing aura is heightened due to the fact that
childhood imagery is massively prevalent.

3. Peters 3
Richard Kennedy on the other hand, chooses to view the balloonman in a far less
cynical way, referring to him as “the toy-bringer” in his book “E. E. Cummings
Revisited”. Kennedy ultimately believes that the primary role of the balloonman is to act
as a ‘foil’ for childhood innocence; that the balloonman is there simply to indulge the
children in their immature and inexperienced ways. He even advocates that “the poem
implies that the secrets of nature can only be recognized or appreciated by children”,
implying that balloonman is potentially a figment of child imagination (Kennedy 6). In a
different work of Kennedy’s, “E.E. Cummings Selected Poems”, Kennedy briefly details
Cummings’s childhood. He explains how Cummings had a privileged upbringing with
supportive parents, loving friends and a place “where children’s games were partly
traditional and partly spontaneous” (1). Kennedy continues by stating, “The memory of
these happy days live on in many poems that [Cummings] wrote throughout his
career…The best known of these, “in Just—”’proving that Kennedy automatically
assumes Cummings’s writing is derived from his personal experience, which may not be
the case (Kennedy 2). In fact, if one looks at “in Just—” from a New Criticism
perspective, he or she would make certain to exclude author personal life from the
analysis because a new critic looks at a poem as a self contained entity; and while New
Criticism is the current analytical standard, Kennedy should not draw conclusions
regarding the balloonman’s character based upon Cummings’s fortunate childhood. Just
because Cummings was not seduced by the balloonman as a child does not predestine “in
Just—” to have a happy and pure conclusion. Barry Marks agrees with Kennedy
regarding the balloonman’s intentions claiming that because the poem concludes with the
balloonman continuing to “whistle far and wee”, as he did at the beginning of the poem,

4. Peters 4
there is no insinuation that any indecency has taken place. Marks even goes as far to
suggest, “the balloonman disappears into the pure spring air…the goat-footed god Pan
himself has blessed the scene”, thus deeming the balloonman as something not only
virtuous, but actually godlike (Marks 47). This interpretation entirely refutes Dumas’,
who would likely call the new argument invalid, as there is a variation in the poem’s
conclusion: the “m” in “balloonman becomes capitalized (line 21). While Cummings
never directly suggests that the balloonman is amoral, the erecting of the ‘m’ in
balloonMan portrays a sense of male dominance that might imply otherwise. This
peculiar capitalization will be examined in greater detail shortly. Cummings, among
many other things, is known for his eccentric use of satire throughout poems that might
otherwise come across as mundane. As Dumas points out, it is far more likely that
Cummings leaves the end of his poem open to interpretation in order to comply with the
mysterious and troubling tone the poem has as a whole. While the analysis of this poem
is subjective to each critic, it is evident that “in Just—” sparks a debate based upon
Cumming’s content alone.
Form plays a large role in understanding this poem as well, and Cummings is
always aware of paralleling the form and content of his poems. Throughout “in Just—”,
there is repetition, use of assonance, enjambment, sporadic word placement, and lack of
punctuation, all of which are literary techniques Cummings uses intentionally. He
repeats the lines “its spring” and “whistles far and wee” several times, which draws
attention to the readers (lines 5, 8, 9, 13, 16-18 and 21-24). It is clear Cummings wants
his readers to know that this scene takes place in spring therefore emphasizing purity and
newness. Additionally, he highlights the way the balloonman attracts children: he

5. Peters 5
whistles and kids come running, obediently. Assonance is present in “mud-luscious” and
“puddle wonderful”; the “uh” sound flows with childlike ease (lines 2-3,10). He pushes
the names of children together, “eddieandbill” and “bettyandisabel”, suggesting not only
that children travel in pairs, but also in pairs of the same gender (6,14). The enjambment
of these words forces the readers to say them quickly thus mimicking the content of
children running to the balloonman promptly. The lack of capitalization and punctuation
is a choice of form that functions in two ways both of which parallel the poem’s content.
These unconventional grammar techniques could be used to create a sense of ambiguity,
which is obviously comparable to the poem’s ambiguous balloonman character, or they
could be trying to evoke a sense of childlike writing. The final capitalization of the ‘M’
in balloonMan, is undeniably deliberate and once again puts into question the true
trustworthiness of the balloonman in the face of children. Cummings wants to stress the
character’s gender, yet waits until the end of the poem to do so. This capitalization
enforces the beliefs of new critics, like Dumas, that the balloonman deeply desires to
corrupt the innocence of children, while Kennedy and his followers might consider the
capitalization to be another manifestation of Cummings’s ambiguity.
“O Sweet Spontaneous” is another Cummings piece that also displays many
similarities between content and form. In “O Sweet Spontaneous”, Cummings describes
the beauty and peacefulness of Mother Earth while also expressing contempt for
humanity’s mistreatment of Earth. At the beginning of the poem, Cummings brilliantly
personifies the three principal perspectives of which to analyze life through: philosophy,
religion, and science. Cummings introduces these vantage points as three crotchety
elderly men whom are discussing their preferred ways of interpreting Mother Earth when

6. Peters 6
he writes, “how often have / the / doting / fingers of / prurient philosophers pinched / and
/ poked / thee / , has the naughty thumb / of science prodded / thy / beauty, how / often
have religions taken / thee upon their scraggy knees” (lines 2-15). This is clearly written
in a sarcastic tone, besmirching those who spend their lives attempting to expose the
secret inner workings of Earth’s majestic charm. The poem continues, describing the
multitude of barbarous acts the earth is forced to endure; while the end illuminates the
fact the Earth will continue spinning and forgiving, despite whatever unsympathetic
burdens humanity imposes. In the last few lines of the poem, Cummings even provides
the reader with Earth’s retort to the questions theology, scientists, and philosophers
unceasingly ask when he writes, “thou answerest / them only with / spring” (lines 25-27).
Again, Cummings uses this symbol of spring in order to present the Earth as something
innocent and pure, a “rhythmic lover”, in stark contrast to those living on Earth, whom
are described as “prurient”, “naughty”, and “scraggy” (lines 6, 10, 15, 23-24). The words
used to describe Earth are appealing and mysterious, while the humans of Earth are
depicted negatively, hypocritically, and uncultured. Cummings’s word choice throughout
this poem mirrors his desire to rebel against traditional prosody as seen in words like
“pinched”, “poked”, “prodded”, “squeezing”, and “buffeting” all of which make a
mockery of their meanings (lines 6, 8, 11, 16). The words aforementioned are highly
physical, words that are not conventionally used to describe ways of obtaining and
analyzing information. Rather, such syntax implies that this intellectual search does
something that affects Earth in a carnal, perhaps even sexually aggressive, manner. It is
clear that Cummings wants to make the point that a constant pursuit of knowledge is not

7. Peters 7
only detrimental to society, but also destructive to Earth’s physical self and enigmatic
elegance.
The form of “O Sweet Spontaneous” requires a separate analysis entirely. In
junction with the poem’s title, Cummings sprinkles words across his page in a flagrantly
spontaneous way. If one chooses to read the poem with the breaks and pauses Cummings
writes with, he or she would produce a reading far different from one reading the poem in
iambic pentameter. Scholar Haskell Springer examines the first few lines of the poem, as
written above, explaining that, “pace, emphasis, and meaning are directly controlled by
the positioning of word, and by both the inclusion and omission of punctuation marks”
(Springer 8). The fact that almost half of the lines in this poem contain only one word
involuntarily force the reader to reduce his or her speed substantially, adding auxiliary
significance to each word. Springer continues to explain how, “both Cummings’s use of
traditional poetics and his attempt to disguise them are evident in the first sentence of
[this poem]”, which is proven when readers deconstruct the abstract form and read the
lines applying regular structure (Springer 8). When the poem is taken apart and looked at
as one flowing sentence, a traditional poetic pattern appears. The two sentence halves, in
fact rhyme, similar to the lines of a sonnet. This exemplifies the irony of Cummings’s
style because although he insists upon total deviation from orthodox verse, he is merely
camouflaging his use of it. Springer sums up his analysis stating:
Concern for the esthetics of the whole printed poem as it is visually perceived is
a logical extension of the use of individual visual techniques in poetic structure;
but the readers response to the poem’s appearance on the page is such a highly

8. Peters 8
subjective matter, and one for which there is no adequate vocabulary, that a
discussion of it seems almost futile (Springer 9).
This statement sufficiently recapitulates Cummings’s obscure style seen in both his
content and form. Exploring “O Sweet Spontaneous” is a subjective feat because
questions arise that query whether or not the form/content relationship is random or
precisely calculated and overrun with additional implications. Regardless of the answer,
it is clear the Cummings enjoys ambiguity and a poem that is not only visually appealing
on the page but also one which weaves together the substance and aesthetics.
The variety of literary techniques used by Cummings is blatant, but what becomes
questionable is why Cummings adapted this unorthodox style. Scholars Duxin Cao and
Liwei Chen describe Cummings as an artist as well as a poet because, “he makes
orthography and page design sculpt the spontaneous experience he wants to convey”,
which is clear in both “in Just—” and “O Sweet Spontaneous” (Cao & Chen 156). If
Cummings did not go to such lengths to create his specific unique style of configuration,
relying solely on his words to elucidate themes, his legendary prestige may have never
manifested. Springer even brings to light, “[Cummings’s] ideas are not trite, but are, for
the most part, unexceptional and derivative rather than original…But although his ideas
are not particularly exciting, his medium is”, further stressing the importance of
Cummings’s eccentric organization (Springer 8). This is not to say that Cummings’s
poems would be monotonous if they were written without the essence of randomness, it
just accentuates how much more meaningful a structure-less poem can be.
While many critics define Cummings’s lack of form a way to rebel against the
standards of his time, some, like Roi Tartakovsky, consider it the creation of a new

9. Peters 9
literary device. “Cummings did resort to capitalization, but he de-automatized its usage
by making of it a poetic choice”, which characterizes Cummings as an inventor as
opposed to a destroyer (Tartakovsky 218). It is clear that Cummings wanted to surpass
the boundaries of what was considered proper poetry, but as Tartakovsky suggests,
Cummings also aspired to create a new ideal of the norm. Cummings was an ivy-league
educated student of poetry and literature; it is obvious that he is well acquainted with the
rules of established grammar. Therefore it is likely that Cummings not only felt entitled
to deviate from convention but also that it was his duty to reveal to society the depths
poetry can reach when written with a contemporary approach. Tartakovsky continues
with, “Cummings, like quite a few modernist contemporaries, objectified language and
even committed what we might call organized acts of violence against it. But this is
violence with a cause, as Cummings's linguistic innovations and typography serve poetic
means within his philosophy”, proving how Cummings’s modern style strives to create
two poems: one of words and one that is purely visual (Tartakovsky 220).
Scholar Robin Reiss presents a final interpretation of why Cummings was
infatuated with demolishing societal constructions concerning what was considered
appropriate prose. Reiss suggests:
[Cummings’s] unconventionally-formatted poems…seem to reflect the
workings of dreams and Freudian theories of psychoanalytic dream interpretation
through their fragmentation, visuality and the decoding process, reminiscent of
psychoanalysis, required to decipher the poetry’s words and meaning.” (Reiss 44)
Just by looking at the two poems discussed in this essay, it is plausible to assume that
Cummings’s sporadic word placement mirrors the spontaneity, randomness, and

10. Peters 10
confusion of dreams. Fragmentation, of both individual words and entire lines, is present
in both poems analyzed throughout this essay. The visual aesthetics of Cummings’s
work has also been discussed in detail. However, the decoding process of his poems is
arguably what is most subjective in the study of Cummings’s pieces because similar to
dream interpretation, there is no one correct method that produces one correct answer.
Reiss clarifies this by asserting, “ in much the same way Freud insisted we must believe
in the existence of latent dream-thoughts in the unconscious, Cummings essentially asks
his readers to trust that there is cogent meaning behind his word jumbles” illustrating the
resemblance between dream translation and Cummings’s poetry (Reiss 50). Freudian
practice encourages unconscious free-association in order to connect deeper layers of
thought thus revealing latent internal truths, which is what Cummings’s highly visual
typography intrinsically does. This makes it clear that Cummings was certainly impacted
by Freudian influence even in relation to the poetic process.
Cummings’s works all allow for multiple interpretations, which is likely what he
was striving for. It is now apparent that one goal of Cummings was to stray from poetic
tradition in order spark discourse and inspire an original approach to the writing process.
He goes about this by mixing standard literary techniques with unstructured form and
ironic syntax. He advocates for the paralleling of form and content within his poetry so
that his works become more than just words strung together with rhythmic stability; but
rather individual art pieces that have the ability to stand-alone solely based upon their
captivating aesthetics. He experiments with the newest technology of his time, the
typewriter, and uses its abilities to his advantage. “in Just—” and “O Sweet
Spontaneous” accurately capture Cummings’s efforts to initiate a new practice of writing

11. Peters 11
in that they both employ his most used techniques: repetition, enjambment, lack of
punctuation, and irregular word placement. Both poems also allow for a debate over
deep-rooted, fundamental oppositions thus generating wide audience participation.
Subsequent to decrypting Cummings’s poems and rationale behind his nonconformist
choices, it is unquestionable that he proudly remains loyal to his mantra “to destroy is
always the first step in any creation.”

12. Peters 12
Works Cited
Cao, Duxin, and Liwei Chen. "Interpreting the Construction of the Multimodality of E. E
Cummings’ "Eccentric Typographical" Poem." Journal of Language Teaching
and Research 5.1 (2014): 154-62. Academy Publishing. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
<file:///Users/appleuser/Downloads/11630-25999-1-PB.pdf>.
Cummings, E E. “In Just.” The New Anthology of American Poetry: Modernisms 1900
1950. Ed. Steven Axelrod, Camille Roman, Thomas Travisano. New Jersey:
Rutgers University Press, 2005. 482. Print.
Cummings, E E. “O Sweet Spontaneous.” The New Anthology of American Poetry:
Modernisms 1900-1950. Ed. Steven Axelrod, Camille Roman, Thomas Travisano.
New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2005. 482-483. Print.
Dumas, Bethany K. E. E. Cummings: A Remembrance of Miracles. New York: Barnes
and Noble, 1974. Print.
Kennedy, Richard S. E. E. Cummings Revisited, New York: Twayne, 1994. Print.
Marks, Barry. E .E .Cummings. New York: Twayne, 1964. 47. Prnt.
Reiss, Robin. "Freudian Dream Theory's Influence on the Typography of E. E.
Cummings."The Sigma Tau Delta Review 11 (2014): 44-56. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.english.org/sigmatd/pdf/publications/Review14.pdf>.
Springer, Haskell. "The Poetics of E.E. Cummings." South Atlantic Bulletin 32.4 (1967):
8-10. South Atlantic Modern Language Association. Web.
<http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3197183?uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid
=4&sid=21104859792261>.
Tartakovsky, Roi. "E. E. Cummings's Parentheses: Punctuation as Poetic

13. Peters 13
Device."'Temporal Paradoxes in Fiction and Stylistics in American
Literatures 43.2 (2009): 215-47. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
<http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1
5&sid=eaa4dd6c-27e6-4918-b04d-
c832710c6bd5%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4209>