quantify the abstract element of love: “Loving you a little less than life, a little less/ Than bitter-sweet upon a broken wall/ Or brush-wood smoke in autumn” (1-3). The comparison of love to tangible things is insufficient to the speaker. While the comparison of her love is made with the progressively decaying objects of living organisms, a crumbling wall, and burning dead leaves, the closest the speaker comes to describing her actual state of love is “a little less” than these physical items. Despite how little the speaker loves her companion, she states, “I cannot swear I love you not at all” (4). The speaker then attempts to understand why there is the possibility of love: “For there is that about you in this light-/ A yellow darkness, sinister of rain-/ Which sturdily recalls my stubborn sight” (5-7). Once again, the difficulty of verbalizing the intuitive force that recalls the speaker’s “stubborn sight” is apparent. Trying to rationalize the cause “to dwell on [him] and dwell on [him] again” (8), ambiguous examples like “yellow darkness” are used to explain the attraction. These examples become more concrete as the voice of the poem is reminded of “the way [his] brown hair grows about [his] brow and what divine absurdities” (11-12) he says. The existence of these concrete elements lead the speaker to pronounce her love despite her actual feeling of indecision: “Till all the world, and I, and surely you,/ Will know I love you, whether or not I do” (13,14). Millay parallels the paradox of language with the speaker’s paradox of emotion. The speaker cannot find the precise words to describe the intermediate level of love felt for the companion. Similarly, the actions and appearance of her partner cannot equate into the love she declares. In both cases, there is the potential for success. A statement li...
