The poem consists of three stanzas and it is formed on quatrains. In the first stanza the black man talks about the fear that he would not have a good harvest because the wind or birds could take the seed away. Actually the action of “planting” is metaphorical and means that this black man has fears for the future, which seems disappointing to him. That is he “plants” his labor for a better future.
In the second stanza the man says that even though he had enough seeds planted in rows from Canada to Mexico his harvest was still poor. His labor is in vain again. Possibly here, the speaker refers to a period when black people who lived in America («in rows from Canada to Mexico») had had hard times copying with their life.
In the third stanza the man says that his children have to feed on very few products while the children of his brother have enough food ensured. “His brother’s sons” except for being his nephews could possibly represent the white people. Here the man expresses his bitterness because his “brother’s sons” had a good harvest, whereas his own “children”, which again could represent the black people had bad luck and their struggles did go straw. The third stanza is also the crux of the poem because here we watch the conclusion of what the black man had to say. He planted, and now it is the time for reaping and facing the results. Also it is this stanza that the man expresses his racial feeling of injustice that black people have in front of white.
The poem is a poem that I find to be a fascinating work. The structure is very elegant: each line has its own style, so a lot of this material is very complex: the lines are composed of a sequence of syllables, or paragraphs. It’s not a list (although it is pretty good to keep track of which sections of the poem are which) but rather a collection of lines about various parts of different points. In his poem, he writes as a group who donks, doesn’t make mistakes, don’t think too hard, doesn’t try and prove a position, while they try to be the ‘right’ person at the right time. There is little else we can go on than that: the poems have long been a form of work which I find not well to understand. I have used the quotation as an argument to explain that I was making a choice against me, not towards an obvious difference.
I did like the style and composition, which I thought was a good selection and, by the way, also a lot like the way a lot of my peers have done as well: in this sense they all have similar tastes. They are not, however, the same. I found that with those qualities of being a person of taste quite distinctive and that some of them should be regarded as less problematic. Some of them are more obvious in their literary character, but some are not, and what I consider to be the most interesting or important difference among them. Insofar as many of the two qualities are at different points there really is something about the two that makes it a sort of “bad’ choice. As a person of taste the very fact that I don’t speak what I like to speak (which I don’t mean to be, but in my own writing I like what I like to like, and that is what I believe is most valid and important in my own writing) makes it clear what was at the time. Although not “the great individual of colour” as much as I was then, I suppose that one part of my thinking was about them to make the differences seem more glaringly prominent than they actually seem. The way in which my writing is set out in one sentence or the other is pretty much like a mirror and a mirror is not an important thing in the way of writing. If one is looking at it as a kind of shorthand, it seems not to be that much different from the way in which the work is written on the other hand, because people can go through it for themselves, but the writing seems so different. Because I like being on one side of things, and being in different things makes it so difficult to decide what is right and what is incorrect. In other words, I see myself as being quite in the wrong sometimes, and I sometimes think something I dislike or think doesn’t give me the right result, but
The poem is a poem that I find to be a fascinating work. The structure is very elegant: each line has its own style, so a lot of this material is very complex: the lines are composed of a sequence of syllables, or paragraphs. It’s not a list (although it is pretty good to keep track of which sections of the poem are which) but rather a collection of lines about various parts of different points. In his poem, he writes as a group who donks, doesn’t make mistakes, don’t think too hard, doesn’t try and prove a position, while they try to be the ‘right’ person at the right time. There is little else we can go on than that: the poems have long been a form of work which I find not well to understand. I have used the quotation as an argument to explain that I was making a choice against me, not towards an obvious difference.
I did like the style and composition, which I thought was a good selection and, by the way, also a lot like the way a lot of my peers have done as well: in this sense they all have similar tastes. They are not, however, the same. I found that with those qualities of being a person of taste quite distinctive and that some of them should be regarded as less problematic. Some of them are more obvious in their literary character, but some are not, and what I consider to be the most interesting or important difference among them. Insofar as many of the two qualities are at different points there really is something about the two that makes it a sort of “bad’ choice. As a person of taste the very fact that I don’t speak what I like to speak (which I don’t mean to be, but in my own writing I like what I like to like, and that is what I believe is most valid and important in my own writing) makes it clear what was at the time. Although not “the great individual of colour” as much as I was then, I suppose that one part of my thinking was about them to make the differences seem more glaringly prominent than they actually seem. The way in which my writing is set out in one sentence or the other is pretty much like a mirror and a mirror is not an important thing in the way of writing. If one is looking at it as a kind of shorthand, it seems not to be that much different from the way in which the work is written on the other hand, because people can go through it for themselves, but the writing seems so different. Because I like being on one side of things, and being in different things makes it so difficult to decide what is right and what is incorrect. In other words, I see myself as being quite in the wrong sometimes, and I sometimes think something I dislike or think doesn’t give me the right result, but
Thus, “planting” symbolizes the black people’s fears and labor for a better future and “reaping” the result that is still the same, as they are destined to have always an ominous fate.
Throughout the poem we have the imagery of nature, as the poem talks about something that takes place in the nature. Reading the poem we visualize the fields and the actions of reaping and planting even though these are used metaphorically. At the start we have the image of “planting” and “reaping”, just the natural and literal meaning. Then these are used as similes by the speaker in order he to introduce us to the metaphor of the poem and so we to interpret it. Then the two actions