Deconstructionist Reading of Keats

The use of the word “form” in the very first line undermines the possibility a cohesive unity to the poem as a whole. Read superficially, the speaker seems to wish to be male so that her/his/its message may have the appropriate effect upon the listener. However, in wishing for “a man’s fair form” the speaker is, perhaps unconsciously, obfuscating the potential for any meaning within the desire. The word form, which is derived from the ancient Latin forma, has come to include nearly antithetical meanings. In its earlier sense it means a primary shape or configuration; later on its meanings came to include an image, representation, or likeness. Such a duality of almost dichotomous meanings calls the speaker’s actual desire into question. Taking the word in its binary state, the speaker seems to desire either the fundamental essence of manhood or, rather, merely representative characteristics of manhood. Such a Structuralist division no doubt sufficiently complicates the nature of the longing, but it misses the impossibility of separating manhood and manly characteristics. From this then, the question of what characterizes the “essence” of manhood is raised. For if the speaker wishes to possess a sufficient quantity of the representative characteristics of manhood, then surely this “sufficiency” can only be had under a complete transformation into a man. Of further note is Aristotle’s division of all entities into two elements: form, that with which it has in differs from others, and matter, that with which it is similar to others. Form then, is taken to be the thing that cannot be missing in order to be considered a certain something: in this case, a man. Furthermore, in theological considerations of the sacrament, the bread and wine are labeled the matter, whereas the form is the essential formulary words. Both the philosophical and theological definitions of form lead to the belief that it encapsulates a certain something that is essential to distinctive existence. Then the speaker’s desire to possess merely the “form” of man begs the question of why the speaker does not seek to be a man. If, on the other hand, we take the contrary definition of form, that meaning an image or representation, then the desire to possess the form of man may indicate that it is a non-organic speaker, most feasibly the poem itself. Such a deconstruction of the poem renders the meaning nearly unintelligible, as the antithetical definitions of form lead to many possible interpretations that any possibility of accuracy of portrayal is completely foregone.