Richard Cory

[englspecialist]

Richard Cory by (E.A. Robinson)

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.

And he was quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked:
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich-yes, richer than a king-
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish to be in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread:
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.

Explanation of the poem

Every time Richard Cory walking in the town, all eyes are staring at him. Because he is a kind and a wonderful man, he is almost the perfect man that every women wish to be his wife. He was a clean man and thin in a good way. In the second stanza, he was dressed in a good way, and he talked in a noble and a gentle way. And when women see him their hearts pulse when he say good morning to them, also he shined when he walk so he attracted the eyes. In the third stanza, he was a rich man in money and education. All people admired his personality and wish to be him because he was the completed and the perfect man. In the last stanza, we poor people work day and night, but we get nothing even a meat to eat. And Richard Cory went home and committed suicide.
The title Richard Cory, rich and core, being rich described the out appearance of a person, however, core is the inside state of a person. In the second line people in the town are standing in the pavement but Cory walking in the road which is lower than the pavement, so we can infer that people in the town looked down at him. In the sixth line, Cory is described as a human, so he is a normal human. Why we should admire him so much, after all he is just human. In line 12, is an irony, people do not wish to be in his place because he killed himself at the end. The theme of this poem is "do not judge a book by it’s an appearance.

[blazeofglory]

A wonderful piece.

[stlukesguild]

Poems do not need "explanations".

[Chester]

Poems do not need "explanations".I wonder about this. I go back and forth on the question. I don’t particularly think Richard Cory needs explaining because I think it’s pretty obvious. But so much poetry, especially modern, is open to interpretation. I think a good poem begs for it. And so as one reads a poem where one senses some hidden depth, there’s at the very least an internal dialogue that takes place. You end up explaining it to yourself, even if it’s not consciously done. Seems a small step to take that explanation public into a discussion forum, no? Then again, maybe explaining it to another reader ends up clouding that reader’s own interpretation, his or her own experience of the poem. And a good poem ought to be experienced as much as read, and experience is a very personal thing. Like I said, I wonder. (And so, I thought I’d wonder out loud.)

[Amylian]

Though it has a tragic ending, it is a very lovely poem.

Personally, I am not too good at poetry but I decided to read this piece through, however, I liked it. Well, upon reading it, I don't think poeple would make a wish to be in his place anymore, now would they? lol

By the way, who is Richard Cory? Is he a figure in literature or history? Or just a fictional character?

[Guinivere]

By the way, who is Richard Cory? Is he a figure in literature or history? Or just a fictional character?

He is a fictional character.

[stlukesguild]

I'm always wary of the desire to reduce any work of art... be it a poem, play, novel, painting, symphony, etc... to an explanation or definition. It's rather like reducing the experience of a marvelous meal to a list of the ingredients... as if they were one and the same. It would seem to me that any work of art that could be contained within a simple definition or explanation is probably not all that strong to begin with. Perhaps the strength of great art is that it cannot be contained or reduced to a simple "meaning" or definition. It eludes all such efforts... or rather the experience of it (perhaps not unlike life itself) cannot be assigned a final definition, but rather remains open to further and varied thought and contemplation.

[Drkshadow03]

The poem is one of the best in American literature I think, despite it's simplicity. It's very emotionally powerful.

I think you're on the right track for what the poems mean in general, but I think there is more to it than just: "don't just a book by it's appearance," though I do think that's part of it.

Richard Cory represents all the things we are supposed to admire in a Capitalist society or just in general if one feels uncomfortable with putting into such specific class criticism: he's rich, popular (i.e. famous) within the town, gregarious and friendly, an easy-talker who can probably strike up a conversation with anyone, he even glitters when he walks (he literally shines to the narrator, almost like how Moses radiates after coming down the mountain having spoken with G-d, although I don't believe Robinson is making any sort of actual allusion and this happens to be an accidental comparison that occurred to me privately).

The narrator informs us that he himself is poor when he tells us that he "went without the meat" and "cursed the bread." So while one way to read the poem is that "do not judge a book by it's appearance" another implicit theme seems to be: "Even if you have all the things we commonly believe will make us happy, such as popularity, fame, money, and being admired, it still might not bring you the happiness you seek."

Likewise, since our narrator isn't some neutral faceless entity (he's obviously meant to be representative of the poor working-class from town and should more properly be referred to as "we" as the poem puts it, but for the sake of clarity I will be referring to them as "him"), we begin to wonder why he admires Richard Cory in the first place. It's the characteristics Richard Cory embodies and perhaps the hope those characteristic brings to someone hungry and living a hard life that the narrator admires. He lives vicariously through the presence of Richard Cory. Other than that one detail about the bread and meat and the narrator(s) being from the pavement we never hear too much about their own lives, all the narrator ever talks about is Richard Cory and the qualities he admires about the man, which of course still tells us quite a bit about the narrator. Why exactly is he spending so much time admiring this man while telling us very little about himself and those the narrator represents other than a few key details? Well, his admiration of Richard Cory is in fact part of his characterization. Richard Cory and his qualities represents hope to these people, a possibility for their own lives, dreams of lifestyles of the rich and the famous, the vicarious dream of leaving behind the squalor and hardships of the working-class life. One day they too perhaps can be a Richard Cory. None of this is spelled out explicitly. However, we can infer this by considering the stand-point of the narrator and what details he focuses on and why he would tell us this poem in the first place. It is this very hope that prevents the narrator from putting a bullet in his own brain; he has something to look forward to, some happiness that may come in the future, something bigger and greater than himself to admire, it is his ability to live vicariously that keeps him alive. That's why although there is a tragic tone to the ending, I think there is also the subtle hint of surprise in the narrator's tone as well. Hell, there is even a tinge of shock.

Likewise, Richard Cory who has all of what the narrator thinks he could possibly ever want, still puts a bullet in his head by the end of the poem. One reason I think is that he has nothing left to hope for. When you're seemingly at the top, there is nothing left to hope for if you're still unsatisfied by life. Therefore, the narrator and Cory in this extended reading that considers their psychological motivations as implied by the poem represents a dichotomous hope versus lack of it.

The final stanza is also very powerful because that is where we find out about the tough lifestyle of the narrator, which is immediately followed by the suicide of Richard Cory. This creates the effect of forcing us to imagine what could possibly have caused Richard Cory to blow out his brains by juxtaposing it against the bitter lifestyle of the poor. What could possibly have been so bad in his life? We must assume it must have been something terrible. Something lacking.

Well, what is lacking for Richard Cory? You'll notice through the poem we have the singular Richard Cory and in contrast we have the poor working-class "We," hence the multitudes, the community itself. There is an implication that Richard Cory didn't quite belong among them; he was only some idealized being who was admired from afar, but not hated. One begins to wonder if what afflicted Cory was a sense of loneliness and alienation; after all, within the structure of the poem himself he is alienated from the "we" of his community in the sense that he doesn't belong to them. He isn't a part of the "we."

Those are some of my thoughts . . .


I'm always wary of the desire to reduce any work of art... be it a poem, play, novel, painting, symphony, etc... to an explanation or definition. It's rather like reducing the experience of a marvelous meal to a list of the ingredients... as if they were one and the same. It would seem to me that any work of art that could be contained within a simple definition or explanation is probably not all that strong to begin with. Perhaps the strength of great art is that it cannot be contained or reduced to a simple "meaning" or definition. It eludes all such efforts... or rather the experience of it (perhaps not unlike life itself) cannot be assigned a final definition, but rather remains open to further and varied thought and contemplation.

But you never get to the thought and contemplation if you never attempt to interpret. Perhaps that's what I dislike about your dislike of "explanations." Why not just refer to it what is actually is? An interpretation . . .

I mean I generally agree with your sentiments. Most good art cannot be reduced to a single explanation or interpretation. Okay, here it is folks. We now figured out what the damn thing means, let's write it up in the literary dictionary of meaning so no one need bother to grapple with the work again, and call it a day. However, I don't have a problem with Englspecialist writing up an "explanation" because what she/he really means is an interpretation. What they personally made of the work and might be worth considering similarly to what I just did above.

[Chester]

It eludes all such efforts... or rather the experience of it (perhaps not unlike life itself) cannot be assigned a final definition, but rather remains open to further and varied thought and contemplation.
Your parenthetical phrase is the key, I think. Ironically, I have always thought that the purpose of great art (one of the purposes anyway) is to interpret life itself. So it’s not surprising to me that an interpretation of life (or a component of it, in the form of a poem or a painting) should itself be open to interpretation. I think I agree with you if your main objection is making the interpretation "final." And maybe that's what an explanation is – a final interpretation. I don't think interpretation should be avoided (even if it could be). But I’m willing to get on board with the idea that a poem ought not be ascribed an "explanation."