A Carafe, that is a Blind Glass

The title of the poem both starts the poem and introduces the speaker. The speaker of a poem is like the narrator of the story, and the speaker of Gertrude Stein’s prose poem is talkative and confident. The title—“A carafe, that is a blind glass—“ is declarative. With the words “that is,” the speaker asserts their belief that "a blind glass" is another apt term for a carafe. The speaker doesn’t say the carafe is “like a blind glass” or “could be thought of as a blind glass.” With poise and self-assuredness, the speaker declares a carafe “is a blind glass.” At the same time, the speaker isn’t the most laconic of guides. The speaker could have just said a carafe is “blind glass,” yet they add the “that,” which indicates that using language efficiently and economically isn’t a top priority.

Nor is it the speaker's priority to supply a straightforward, conventional representation of the carafe. In the title, the speaker uses personification, as “blind glass” implies that the glass has eyes but can’t see out of them. The personification continues after the title when the speaker calls the carafe, “A kind in glass and a cousin” (Line 1). The cousin suggests the speaker, like a person, has a family. The speaker doesn’t address why the carafe might have a family—just as they didn't elaborate on why the carafe is blind. The speaker isn’t interested in explaining themselves. They are content with letting their observations stay abstract and fragmented and allowing the reader to form their own opinions.

After the first comma, the speaker says the carafe is “a spectacle" (Line 1), which functions as a symbol. The “spectacle” could represent the fact that the carafe is on display and thus something of a spectacle. It might also symbolize the poem itself and the “spectacle” that Stein and the speaker are making out of this ordinary object. Finally, the “spectacle” could represent another word for glass since “spectacle” is a different term for glasses. However, if spectacle represents glasses, then that makes the “blind glass” reference in the title further puzzling since glasses wouldn't do a blind person much good. Overall, the term “spectacle” reinforces the beguiling diction and enigmatic tone of the poem, as neither the speaker's word choice (diction) nor their tone (attitude) reflects a conventional approach toward representing the carafe.

Yet the speaker isn’t put off by their description of the carafe. To them, it’s “nothing strange” (Line 1). The speaker might be employing a literary device known as irony since irony is when a writer humorously uses language that typically signifies the opposite of what’s happening. For many, what’s happening is “something strange,” yet the speaker assures the reader this is “nothing strange.” Thus, the speaker’s tone is also playful, which links to their puzzling diction, as puzzles contain playful elements. Alternately, maybe the speaker isn’t employing irony. After all, there is “nothing strange” about a poet putting an object on display by writing about it. Poets, writers, and artists do this frequently. John Keats put a Greek vase on display in “Ode on Grecian Urn” (1819), and Picasso displayed a bottle, a violin, and a bowl of fruit in Bowl of Fruit, Violin, and Bottle.

After the speaker says “nothing strange,” something strange happens—the speaker forgoes a comma. Even though the speaker moves onto their next clause, they don’t separate it with a comma, a dash, a semicolon, or some punctuation mark to separate “nothing strange” from “a single hurt color” (Line 1). Not only is the diction puzzling, but the speaker’s grammar and syntax (their arrangement of words) is quizzical. It’s unclear why the speaker puts the two separate thoughts together without a punctuation mark.

Perhaps the lack of the punctuation is why the speaker refers to the carafe as a “single hurt color” (Line 1). The carafe is "hurt" because “nothing strange” collides with the next fragment since there’s no barrier—an applicable punctuation mark—to protect it. Of course, “hurt” links to personification because it implies that the carafe has feelings. Yet the word right after “hurt” pulls the carafe back to a more literal meaning since the "color" could be alluding to the color of the liquid in the carafe, which might be red wine, since red wine often symbolizes pain and downheartedness.

The next thought—“an arrangement in a system to pointing” (Line 2)—might also allude to multiple things. Indeed, allusion is a central literary device in Stein’s poem since the speaker’s enigmatic, playful diction allows the references—the allusions—to go in several directions. “An arrangement in a system to pointing” could allude to the carafe. It’s a part of a system that involves liquid, other containers, and someone holding the carafe and pointing it at the other cups and containers to fill them. Conversely, the speaker might be alluding to the poem. The poem is an arrangement of words—it’s a structure or “a system” that’s “pointing,” however obliquely, to the carafe.

In the second sentence, the speaker admits their representation of the carafe is “not ordinary” (Line 2). This seemingly contradicts the speaker’s earlier statement that the carafe is “nothing strange.” Then again, accounting for the puzzling diction and tone, perhaps the speaker is calling something else “not ordinary.” Maybe the speaker is aware that their “arrangement” of words isn’t conventional, so they're acknowledging that they’re not embarking upon a normal “ordinary” description of an object. Now, it’s as if the speaker is defending their poem. It’s not “unordered in not resembling” (Line 2-3) conventional syntax, grammar, and representations of logic. The poem, claims the speaker, possesses a deliberate logic and rationale even if it’s not perceptible to the reader or doesn’t look like, sound like, or read like what might pass for conventional poetry.

Aside from being confident, confounding, and playful, the speaker’s tone is self-aware. The speaker is cognizant that there’s a probability that the reader will notice the difference between this poem and other poems, which is why the speaker declares, “The difference is spreading” (Line 3). The lines allude to the poetics of Stein and the intentions of Tender Buttons, which is to present unique and distorted representations of objects, foods, and rooms. At the same time, the declaration alludes specifically to the carafe and the words used by the speaker to bring the object to life. All the different words—whether they fit together or not—work to create different impressions of the carafe. This difference spreads throughout the poem—title included—to convey the various meanings and perspectives of the carafe.