Figurative Language and Interpretative Bias in Marge Piercy’s “Bonsai Tree”

Sense, Feeling, and Misreading: A Richardsian Reading of “Bonsai Tree: A Work of Artifice”

 

This blog, written as part of an assignment under Prof. Dilip Barad Sir, I present my interpretation of the poem, followed by an analysis of how meaning is constructed through Richards’ four kinds of meaning, and finally an examination of the four types of misunderstanding that readers commonly encounter while reading this poem.

Introduction

Poetry often appears difficult not because it is obscure, but because it communicates meaning in ways that differ fundamentally from everyday language. I. A. Richards, in his critical writings, explains that misunderstanding poetry is a natural outcome when readers fail to recognize how poetic language functions. According to Richards, words in poetry operate through four kinds of meaning—Sense, Feeling, Tone, and Intention—and misreading occurs when readers focus on only one aspect, usually literal sense.

Marge Piercy’s poem “Bonsai Tree: A Work of Artifice” exemplifies this complexity. Though the poem uses simple diction and free verse, it poses serious interpretative challenges.

                                      A Work of Artifice

The bonsai tree

in the attractive pot

could have grown eighty feet tall

on the side of a mountain

till split by lightning.

But a gardener

carefully pruned it.

It is nine inches high.

Every day as he

whittles back the branches

the gardener croons,

‘It is your nature

to be small and cozy,

domestic and weak;

how lucky, little tree,

to have a pot to grow in’.

With living creatures

one must begin very early

to dwarf their growth:

the bound feet,

the crippled brain,

the hair in curlers,

the hands you

love to touch. 

--Marge Piercy

My Interpretation of the Poem

• In my reading, “Bonsai Tree: A Work of Artifice” is not merely about a tree or gardening but about how human potential is deliberately restricted under the guise of care, culture, and normalcy. The bonsai tree symbolizes individuals—especially women—whose natural growth is curtailed by social expectations. The gardener represents systems of authority that justify control by redefining limitation as “nature.”
• What strikes me most is the gardener’s language. He does not appear violent; instead, he speaks gently, even lovingly. This suggests that oppression often operates not through force alone but through persuasion, normalization, and internalization. The final stanza confirms this interpretation by shifting from the plant to “living creatures,” forcing the reader to recognize how similar practices exist in human society.
• However, this interpretation is not immediately accessible. The poem demands rereading, reflection, and theoretical awareness—precisely the conditions Richards argues are necessary for understanding poetry.

Analysis through Richards’ Four Kinds of Meaning

1. Sense: Literal Meaning and Its Limitations

• At the level of sense, the poem describes a bonsai tree growing in a pot, carefully pruned by a gardener. Literally, the poem is coherent and easy to understand. The tree could have grown tall in nature but has been restricted to nine inches.
• However, if the poem is read only at the level of sense, it appears incomplete. Richards argues that sense alone never constitutes full poetic meaning. In my reading, the literal description functions as a mask, behind which deeper implications are concealed.
• The difficulty here is that readers may stop at sense and rather quickly assume they have “understood” the poem, missing its larger significance.

2. Feeling: Emotional Undercurrent and Reader Response

• The feeling of the poem is initially calm and gentle. Words like “attractive pot” and “croons” evoke warmth and care. As a reader, I initially felt a sense of quiet domesticity rather than violence.
• However, this emotional comfort is gradually disturbed. By the time the poem reaches “the crippled brain,” the emotional register becomes unsettling. Richards notes that poetry often works by modulating feeling, not announcing it directly.
• Many readers struggle here because the emotional shift is subtle and delayed. The poem challenges the reader to recognize discomfort beneath gentleness, making emotional awareness essential for understanding.

3. Tone: Irony Disguised as Care

• The tone of the poem is one of controlled irony. The gardener speaks in a voice that sounds affectionate, but his actions are deeply restrictive. In my interpretation, this ironic tone exposes how domination can be disguised as protection.
• Readers often misjudge tone because Piercy avoids overt sarcasm or anger. Richards emphasizes that tone is relational—it reveals the poet’s attitude toward both subject and reader. The difficulty lies in recognizing that the poet does not endorse the gardener’s voice but presents it critically.

4. Intention: Purpose Revealed through Structure

• The poem’s intention becomes clear only in the final stanza. The shift from tree to human practices forces readers to reinterpret everything that came before. According to Richards, poetic intention often emerges only through the total experience of the poem.
• In my reading, Piercy’s intention is to make readers experience limitation before recognizing it as injustice. This delayed realization is intentional and structurally embedded, but it creates difficulty for readers who expect clarity from the beginning.

Four Types of Misunderstanding in Reading the Poem

1. Misunderstanding Due to Careless or Intuitive Reading

• Readers may read the poem quickly because of its simple language and short length. Richards warns that intuitive reading—especially influenced by rhythm or enjambment—can obscure meaning.
• In “Bonsai Tree,” careless reading leads to ignoring how each line restricts space visually and semantically. The poem demands slow reading, and failure to do so results in superficial understanding.

2. Over-Literal or Prosaic Reading

• One of the most common misunderstandings is reading the poem literally, as a commentary on gardening or bonsai art. This over-literal approach treats poetic language like prose.
• In my experience, readers who adopt this method fail to see the metaphorical extension revealed in the final stanza. Richards argues that poetry cannot be paraphrased without loss, and this poem demonstrates that principle clearly.

3. Defective Scholarship and Inappropriate Use of Metaphor

• Some readers attempt to impose rigid allegorical meanings or external moral judgments on the poem without attending to its language. Others treat the bonsai merely as a decorative metaphor.
• Richards emphasizes that metaphor in poetry is a way of thinking, not illustration. In this poem, the bonsai is not symbolic of one single issue but represents a broader pattern of enforced limitation. Misunderstanding arises when readers oversimplify this metaphor.

4. Confusion between Poetic and Prose Language

• The poem relies heavily on personification and metaphor, especially in the gardener’s speech. Readers accustomed to prose may expect direct statements rather than suggestive language.
• Words like “domestic” and “weak” carry ideological weight in poetry, not neutral description. Richards notes that misunderstanding occurs when readers apply prose expectations to poetic language.

Form, Structure, and Additional Difficulty

• The poem’s free verse form, lack of rhyme, and narrow visual structure contribute to interpretative difficulty. In my interpretation, the poem’s physical appearance mirrors the bonsai itself—controlled, restrained, and limited.
• Readers unfamiliar with formal analysis may miss how structure communicates meaning silently, making the poem more challenging than it appears.

Conclusion

• Through my interpretation and analysis using I. A. Richards’ theory, it becomes clear that “Bonsai Tree: A Work of Artifice” is a poem that creates difficulty deliberately. Its simplicity is deceptive, its tone ironic, and its intention delayed. Meaning emerges only when readers engage with sense, feeling, tone, and intention together.
• The four types of misunderstanding Richards identifies—careless reading, over-literal interpretation, defective use of metaphor, and confusion between prose and poetic language—are all evident in responses to this poem. Understanding these difficulties does not merely clarify Piercy’s poem; it trains readers to become more attentive, critical, and emotionally aware readers of poetry.
• In this way, the poem serves not only as a literary text but as a lesson in how poetry itself should be read.

Here is a brief video overview of my blog

Reference

Barad, Dilip. I. A. Richards – Figurative Language – Practical Criticism. ResearchGate, Jan. 2024, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.23687.98724. 

Barad, Dilip. “Just Poems.” Dilip Barad | Teacher Blog, 23 Sept. 2015, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2015/09/just-poems.html. Accessed 18 Dec. 2025.