Stones in the Onion Soup

Stones in the Onion Soup

“And, behold, the bush burned with fire.”- Exodus 3:7

Wistlawa Szymborska’s Conversation with a Stone and The Onion on first glance prove to be poems on the futility and eternal frustration of man’s incessant desire to comprehend the complexities of nature. While this basic interpretation isn’t problematic, it does rather cheaply place the poem in a pseudo-romanticized median. These poems explore the unique relationship between the spiritual and natural and upon this examination, we can infer that Nature is indelibly bound to God and consequently, wed to evil as well.

The basic premise of Conversation with a Stone is simply what the title says; someone or something is having a conversation with a stone. However, there are no physical attributes given to this person. It could be the universal man seeking questions or a cat on planet Neptune. However, the humanity is clearly evident in The Onion, thus we can infer the ambigious nature of the second party is the universal man, mankind. This confusing anonymity is the sole reason why the poem is predicated on individual interpretation. By keeping the identity of the “seeker” concealed, Szymborska’s forces the reader to devote full attention on her words in order to extract a meaning.

In the initial read through, there seemed to be a religious, almost Christian-esque feel to the poem. There are several Christian connotations to that of a stone. Christ is often said to be the “the rock of salvation.” He also tells Peter before he is crucified “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18).  However, the most vivid resemblance to the stone is the burning bush. Widely interpreted and believed to be God in the form of a bush, God becomes intertwined with nature. Even before the burning bush, God is inextricably linked to nature for his alleged creation of the world. Before he made human, he created the “drop of water” and a stone. Line 5, “Breath my fill of you”, could be interpreted to mean the inspiration of God for God breathed into Adam’s nostrils to create him. 

Is the stone God? The unknown character comes out of “pure curiosity” that “only life can quench” (line 13-14). If not the all-powerful God, the stone is definitely not an ordinary rock. In the second stanza the stone says “you can grind us to sand, we still won’t let you in”(line 10-11). Who is this “us”? Is he referring to the many stones presumably scattered on the earth, or is something deeper inside of it. The former would be more logical, but this would be atypical to the demeanor in which the stone is cast in- talking (line 7), laughing line 64), shooing away (line 6).

The unidentified second party in the dialogue is seeking the stone. Therefore he/she/it will be referred to the “seeker.” With the exception of 8th Stanza, the seeker always begins his conversation with “I knock at the stone’s front door/It’s only me, let me come in.” To which the stone is extremely resistant. However, there seems to be some sort of ethereal element to the stone yet. “I hear you have great halls inside you” (line 26), to which the stone replies “Great and empty…but there isn’t any room” (line 31-32). If not Christ, could the stone be the exterior of heaven, inside rest the “unseen” golden gates?

The Second Stanza gives fuel to the Heaven interpretation. “I don’t seek refuge for eternity” (line 44) “My world is worth returning to” (line 47). “I’ll enter and exit empty-handed” (Line 48). These lines suggest that the seeker instead is a “peeker.” He comes out of “pure curiosity” in order to see the unexplained and apparently unknown “beauty” the stone has bound inside of it. Can we take his not seeking eternity as abnormal to the other people coming to the stone seeking eternity? Is “my world” saying that the stone and the seeker operate in different worlds? Or is he merely using a very common colloquial expression. The following stanza the seeker says “and my proof I was there will be only words which no will believe.” What would then be the point of entering the stone if no one will believe you entered? Why go to Heaven for a short while and come crashing back down to your mutilated world?

“Even sight heightened to become all seeing will do you no good.” This line reveals that if the seeker enters he will be at such an altitude he will be all seeing. Firmly sitting on the throne above grace is supposed to be God. Just as earth and God or intrinsically wed, so is God and Heaven. The line where the stone becomes the Stone or God is “you shall not enter, you have only a sense of what that sense should be/only its seed, imagination” (Line 61-63). God never speaks directly, but rather unabashedly uses subtle signs. Here we see the riddles, the questions and the “door” open for interpretation as well as  close scrutiny.

“The onion, now that’s something else” entirely different from that of the stone. There are several binaries that can be extracted from the two poems. The stone is defined through the lens and insistent questioning of the seeker, whereas the onion functions alones in its “own daimonion” (Line 7). The onion’s “innards don’t exist” (line 2) while the stone’s innards are adorned with “unseen” “great empty halls” (line 26-27). This intrinsic emptiness is further proven by lines “nothing but onionhood fills this devout onionist/oniony on the inside” (lines 3-5). The stone is a much more inclusive being, while the nature of the onion seems rather one-sided, almost a solipsist view. It operates only for itself and in its self without “human tears” (line 8). Its source of knowledge is deep within its many layers.

The second stanza primarily focuses on the imperfections of humans as seen through “onionoid perfections”. “Our skin is just a coverup/for the land where none dare go” (line 9/10). A proclamation is clearly announced, illuminating human’s inferiority to an onion. Even more intriguing is the notion that our exterior or skin serves as an impediment to a distant “land” where none will travel. Line 11 calls this land “an internal inferno.” Inferno is a place of constant and unstoppable burning. Does the author mean to say the human soul is characterized by an inexorable burning? Could this be the reason why the seeker is so focused on seeing the inside of the stone in the poem Conversation with a Stone? Is he trying to free himself from its “anathema of anatomy” (line 12)?

The stanza then shifts from this blatant attack on the spiritual and biological makeup of the homo-sapien to lauding the onion. “Onionymous monomania/unanimous omninudity” (lines 15-16), the author distorts language and creates words that can only describe the onion. The onion is so great, new words have to be created in order to show the superiority of “Nature’s rotundest tummy/ its greatest success story” (line 25/26). Much of the rest of the poem operates under this superiority complex. In the final stanza “the onion drapes itself in its/own aureoles of glory” (line 27-28). The onion has superseded the natural and instead its greatness is destined for the ethereal and other-worldly. These culminating lines directly relate it back to the spiritual theme of Conversation with a Stone.

The aforementioned binaries of the two poems help to shed light on the biggest contradiction between the two poems. If the stone represents this god like-heaven perception of nature, then the onion suggests itself to be the opposite, which would be the devil or some inherent evil. Whereas the stone is sought after for its unseen beauty and intriguing complexities, the onion shuns human interaction and even anathematizes its existence. The onion thinks very highly of itself and even likens itself to draping of aureoles, while the seeker is the one that hints at the Stone’s inner sanctity. The “devout onionist” is true to itself, its “pure onionhood” in comparison’s to the stone’s resistance to itself. Simply meaning, while the Stone recognizes there are halls, “great and empty” (line 34) within in itself, he tries to turn the seeker away.

The onion exhibits qualities or ill-attributes that characterize Satan or the devil. Its only concern is itself and all other things are inferior. It despises the human soul and calls it an “internal inferno” which is ironic because the Devil will make its bed in Hell. The “anathema of anatomy” is juxtaposed with the “undiminished worth” of the onion’s innards. The onion is appealing and alluring while the human soul is an unwanted land. A commentary on iniquity, which is provocative and looks appetizing, but like an onion is bitter and distasteful. However, the devil makes sin look great and full of promise, such as fornication, but in sin is nothing but empty promises and dangerous consequence. The Devil also creates its own path, similar to the onion that follows “its own daimonion.”

The fall of Satan as described in Milton’s Paradise Lost, places the Devil among the heavens with God. However, after trying to place himself above God he is cast down to the ground. There he becomes the Devil bent on bringing as many humans down to hell, where he will be “internally at rest” (line 18). The onion’s proclaiming itself as the “greatest success story” is oddly similar to that predicament. Never mind the large Oak tree or the cherry tomato, but the onion in all of its tear-inducing powers is “nature’s rotundest tummy.” Like Satan the onion must emerge from the ground in order to interact with humans. How can something embedded in the filthiness of dirt create its own “aureole”? This explains the reason, in conversation with a stone, the man, grown from dirt, but breathed into by God, seeks the stone in order to be “heightened.”

Beyond interpretation, we need to look at the form for both poems. The Onion’s form is comprised of four stanzas with each stanza having 8 lines. There is no clear rhyming pattern or meter scheme. There is a pattern in the punctuation of the piece. In each stanza the fourth line is characterized by a period. In the final stanza, line 30, there is a glimpse of alliteration, “secretion’s secret sections.” The stanzas are very structured while the rhyme is sporadic and unruly.

The Conversation with a Stone has a form that is wild. The number of lines in the stanzas is not the same and there seems to be no pattern between them. The only pattern amongst the stanza themselves is the back and forth dialogue. The seeker and the stone alternate between stanzas with their comments. This pattern is disrupted with Stanza 8 because the seeker gets an additional 3 lined stanza. Also with the exception of stanza 8, the seeker begins each stanza with “I knock at the stone’s front door/it’s only me, let me come in.” There may be a connection to the orderly 8 lines in each stanza in The Onion and the disruptive 8^th stanza given to the seeker, destroying the only sense of formalistic order in Conversation with a Stone.

The form of The Onion is very simple and quite structured. This is completely different from the form of Conversation with a stone. What does the form of the Onion say about the poem? How does it give rise to the devil interpretation of the piece? Very simply the Devil is the epitome of evil. There are no other interpretations of his intentions. He is pure evil sent to try and ensnare people in his traps. The 8 line structured serve as the physical representation of his nature.

God is highly debated, his appearance, nature and even his very existence. Books, websites and people devote their entire lives trying to explain his mysterious nature. The form can serve as a physical representation of his inexplicable ways. There is no formula or pattern to place God under. He is all that is good, but in the same breath he is all that is bad. He created everything, including Devil, which some argue that he is far more sinister than the Devil. The sporadic rhyming and autonomous rhythm of the poem is also reminiscent of God. Is he Allah, Jesus, Buddha or Mother Nature? Obviously this paper is written under the Judeo-Christian lens, but the multiple variations of gods cannot be ignored.

The disruption in Stanza 8 can be symbolic of the insistent praying to God. Does one ever really hear the voice of God when praying? While some may say yes, most of us will look for “signs of wonder” that help to show our prayers have been answered. Humans spend far more talking to God, while God sits backs and listens. Therefore more stanza’s are devoted to the seeker.

The form can also represent the nature of the stone. In its spontaneity there is simplicity. The language isn’t hard to decipher and the stanzas are not matted down with obfuscating poetic devices. Like a stone it is simple and sometimes rather bland. But in order to extract any values of the poem its internal, words within the stanzas, have to be analyzed. This is similar to the man trying to analyze the insides of the stone. God appearance is often depicted as a simple white man with long flowing hair, but never as a huge purple polka-dotted polar bear-which if he is the creator of everything, he could very well look like that. In all of his complexities, there still is this faint impression of God being a simple man.

An onion is a dependent component of nature. It thrives only on the constant mending of human interaction. It needs water, sunlight and rich soil in order to be birthed from the cold ground. An onion is seldom grown wild, but rather a domesticated crop, forcing tears from the eyes that handle it. It is seldom enjoyed alone, but must be accentuated with some other food item. It spices and adds flavor to the mundane.

A stone is an impenetrable force. It ranges in size. It is both the biggest and littlest thing on the earth. The intimidating force of the ocean and scorching heat of a fire cannot break its walls. It does not need water, sun or human contact in order to thrive. It can be found in every corner of the world. It is the most accessible thing. It provides shelter and builds buildings. It can be used as a weapon. The stone is very boring.