NYISSIA
SPRUILL
NYISSIA SPRUILL
The Power of the Slanted Word
Every poet has a style. Sometimes, that style changes from literary
piece to literary piece, but nevertheless something shines through the
poem to tell the reader it is specifically this poet and no other. Langston
Hughes has a trend in some of his poems. He uses italics in order to
convey something surprising or something that could not be spoken out
loud. He uses this technique in three poems—“Genius Child” (1937),
“Harlem” (1951), and “World War II” (1949). The italics seem to serve
as whispers or echoes. Perhaps his use of italics reflects back to his
generation during the Harlem Renaissance where, artistically, there
was a boom among African-Americans, but socially and politically
there was an ongoing repression and struggle to be recognized and
respected by white people. These italics may reflect those times when
how one truly felt could not be said. It had to be whispered.
During the 1930s, even talent had to be a secret. In “Genius Child,”
Langston Hughes writes of a child considered dangerous because of
his intelligence. It is possible that he is writing of himself, as he was
and is considered a genius. The line “Nobody loves a genius child”
(“Genius Child,” ll. 5, 11) appears, italicized, in the middle and at the
end of the poem. This placement clarifies and emphasizes the lines in
the first stanza that say, “Sing it softly, for the song is wild. / Sing it
softly as ever you can— / Lest the song get out of hand” (ll. 2–4). The
italicized line is placed after these lines, suggesting that “Nobody loves
a genius child” (l. 5) is the song that is supposed to be sung so softly.
But why must such a thing be sung softly? Is it perhaps because to be
a genius child is wrong? No, there is nothing wrong with being a genius
child. But to be so as an African-American in the 1930s was wrong. It
was wrong socially and politically. At that time, intelligence or talent
from the African-American community was not something praised
outside of it; nobody loved a genius child from the African-American
community. To whites, he was a threat to their theory of why they
segregated themselves. To African-Americans, he was a hero but at the
same time his existence clashed with the ideas of some AfricanAmericans who believed themselves to be inferior. Throughout the
poem, Hughes clarifies these ideas, and in doing so, helps accentuate
1
DISCOVERIES
and explain his use of italics. Langston Hughes uses the rest of the
poem to help the reader attain a better understanding of this genius
child. Ingeniously, after he states that it is not possible for one to love
a genius child, he places himself in the shoes of his oppressors.
Can you love an eagle,
Tame or wild?”
Wild or tame,
Can you love a monster
Of frightening name? (“Genius Child,” ll. 6–10)
He is the eagle, the monster, and he understands how one could not
love things wild or tame. For how can one love another who presents
danger, or causes fear? This is the underlying question that causes
Hughes to end the above lines in question marks. As a genius child, he
caused fear, because he was an obvious negation of one of the reasons
why African-Americans were oppressed. African-Americans were
considered to lack the intellectual capacity to perform complicated,
sophisticated tasks; thus they were kept as porters and maids. But
Langston was different, and this was a threat. Thus after the repetition
of the italicized line, Langston italicizes another line at the end—“Kill
him” (l. 12). Just as “uppity” African-Americans were lynched in the
South, unwanted intellectuals were “lynched” in the North also. However, in the North they were not killed literally, but little by little their
spirit was killed until they willingly lost that thing that made them
special. “Nobody loves a genius child” (ll. 5, 11) for he is a threat to
a justified, separatist way of life. Then what should one do with him?
Langston Hughes is well aware of the answer. A genius child cannot
even whisper, it must be hushed permanently or killed, so that only his
harmless “soul [can] run wild” (l. 12).
So one must “sing [the song] softly” (ll. 2–3) or else one will not
be tolerated. Thus, Hughes uses italics. But how long can one allow
oneself to be held down from singing out loud? In “Harlem” Langston
Hughes wonders what happens to a dream that is constantly quieted
and promised but never fulfilled. In the historical background, the
reader should recognize that the “deferred dream” (“Harlem,” l. 1)
refers to the Civil Rights Movement and the promises made by
the government to better the social conditions of African-Americans.
2
NYISSIA
SPRUILL
However, these promises were left unfulfilled. What will happen to this
“dream deferred” (l. 1)? Eventually, it no longer will be deferred. It
will become a reality through force rather than by waiting for the
actions of others. This force will not necessarily be violent. There were
peacefully resistant demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement.
Nonetheless, the demonstrations reflected a people who were tired of
promises and ready for a change. The initial idea for such an explosion
cannot be blatant. In the beginning it can only be suggested and
whispered, because if the beginnings of resistance are discovered, it
will be destroyed. Thus, Langston uses italics in the last verse of the
poem. The line “Or does it explode” (l. 11) refers to the dream finally
coming to fruition through exciting and controversial means. Such a
desire to change society has to be whispered at first.
Hughes realizes other possible results of a dream deferred. Using
question marks, He explores the numerous possible reactions to a
dream constantly repressed by others. These other possibilities lead up
to the italicized part, and in doing so emphasize the strength of his
question of whether the deferred dream will explode. Through similes
and imagery he emphasizes these possible reactions:
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore—
And then run? (“Harlem,” ll. 2–5)
Here two possibilities are presented. One could just forget the dream,
give up and believe that it will never happen. Or one could let desire
for the repressed dream escalate and out of frustration react violently
to those who repressed it. The direct distinction in “dry up” and “fester
. . . then run” is what aids in describing possibilities that are distinctively different from each other. The contrast of similes helps each idea
accentuate the other. In the same stanza, Langston presents two more
possibilities:
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—
Like a syrupy sweet? (ll. 6–8)
Once again there is a contrast, this time between stinking “rotten meat”
and sugary sweets. Is one constantly reminded of this dream, a dream
that can never be fulfilled, or is it just forgotten? Interpretation of these
3
DISCOVERIES
lines varies from person from person, but there is no denying Langston’s
use of sharply contrasting ideas in order to emphasize his points. At the
end of the poem, Langston presents another distinction, the most
controversial of all. Through it he provides an imploding-exploding
image. “Maybe it just sags / like a heavy load.” Maybe the dream
remains with the person unfulfilled, but constantly there. “Or does it
explode?” (l. 11) This line has the most meaning in the poem, and is
its true purpose. The previous contrasts merely lead up to this final
distinction. The line is italicized because it is the most controversial of
the poem, and the truest meaning is conveyed when, visually, it is
distinct from the previous lines. Furthermore, the line can only be
italicized—whispered—because such an idea at that time could lead to
harm to the person suggesting it.
The previously discussed poems identify with Hughes and his
contribution to the quest for equality. In “World War II,” however, he
does not deal with repression or race, but rather with the effects of war.
The poem is different from the others, not only because it is in third
person rather than first person, but also because of the way Langston
uses italics. Here he uses them to relay a reality that many seemed to
have forgotten rather than to communicate social inequality, as in the
previous poems. At the beginning of the poem, Langston reflects on the
optimism during the time after World War II. Economically, the United
States was on a record high, and it is for this reason that Americans
were happy. During this part of the poem there seems to be a group
voice, as if a conversation is occurring amongst a group of people. One
says, “What a grand time was the war” (“World War II,” l. 10), and has
an agreeing response of “Oh, my, my” (l. 2). Langston repeats these
lines, and his repetition, if not the entire first stanza of the poem, is a
representation of American sentiment at the time. It generalizes and
makes a collage of the conversations many Americans had regarding
the war. Some hoped the war would not end, but there was one of a
different sort who realized that the war was not a “grand time” (ll. 1,
3, and 7). It was a time of death and tragedy. This person is recognized
in the echo. The echo is italicized, and, as an echo, is most likely meant
to be heard as a whisper throughout the entire poem. Furthermore, the
italics mark the difference between this new voice and that of the
group. “Did / Somebody / Die?” (ll. 10–12) The distinct placement of
each word on separate lines adds to the incredulity of the statement,
and emphasizes the absurdity that such devastating death could be
4
NYISSIA
SPRUILL
forgotten. Not only in appearance but also in meaning, the statement
serves as a foil to the rest of the poem as an underlying memory that
many have chosen to forget, but is there nevertheless.
Thus, Langston Hughes uses italics in order to emphasize the taboo
subjects of the times. The placement of the italics serves to shock and
remind people of what they seem either to not want to know or to have
forgotten. The ideas italicized are so controversial they must be whispered for fear that they will be lost or destroyed. For though the
italicized words are whispers, like whispers, when spoken softly they
are still noticed by others. Thus, these whispers do not serve as quiet
sayings that others should not know, but rather as screaming truths that
others do not seem to want to know or realize. Historically, we know
that Langston was addressing controversial and loud topics of the time.
So why not whisper them?
❖❖❖
5