A Pear Is A Pear Is A Pear

“The pears are not seen as the observer wills” (line 24).

In his study of 2 pears, Wallace Stevens is not free to describe them in any way he wishes to. In fact, the pears resist being seen on anything other than their own terms. As Stevens acknowledges, “The pears are not viols, / Nudes or bottles. / They resemble nothing else” (2-4).

In a way, this is an astounding admission for a poet to make because literary ingenuity is often judged on the creativity of the poet comprising metaphors to illuminate his or her subject. Stevens, however, does not take this approach. He puts his own comparisons on hold and bathes in the simple beauty of the pears themselves.

To think of it, the poem is actually more like a photograph in that it aims to represent the pear exactly as it is, without any interpretive propaganda.

On the other hand, Stevens’ use of this method that deliberately lacks a clear “message” contains in itself the message that a ‘photographic’ approach is the best way to write a poem about a pear. Ironically, in the poem’s last 2 lines, we are told the proper way to observe a pear. But did the pear relay this information? No, another observer did. So is Stevens willing us to see the pear his way? Is this a contradiction? Is it fair to the pear to be limited in such a way? Perhaps the pear would prefer to be memorialized in a poem containing absurd metaphors and interpretive hints.

Who are we to judge the pear?