Klingensmith

Jamie Klingensmith
Dr. Bruhn
William Wordsworth
Final Paper
04/28/16
Single v. Plural Text Reading of Simon Lee
William Wordsworths poem Simon Lee, The Old Huntsman, With an Incident in Which
He was Concerned is a curious poem that questions the conventions of storytelling both from
the perspective of the reader and the poet. Simon Lee starts in a kind of narrative format
discussing a character by the name of Simon Lee. The first eight stanzas paint the picture of
Simons appearance, livelihood, and how the community generally sees him. These specific
stanzas are continually reworded and reordered by Wordsworth throughout his career. Through
these revisions, the reader receives multiple versions of the story. This is especially important,
for after these stanzas comes the infamous address Wordsworth specifically makes to his readers,
which challenges the normal conventions of storytelling and addresses why as humans we crave
such a framework. This paper will track and explore these changes made to Simon Lee from
1798-1832, with reference to the critical arguments given by Andrew L. Griffin who adopts a
more single text reading and Sally Bushell, whose theory on re-reading leads to more of a
plural text reading. I will argue that as readers of poetry, a more plural form of reading texts is an
ideal practice.
In the article Wordsworth and the Problem of Imaginative Story: The Case of Simon
Lee Andrew L. Griffin is highly concerned with the relationship between the reader and
narrator in regards to the poems odd arrangement of a supposed narrative. He discusses that
there is a lot of detail, mainly referring to the appearance and status of Simon Lee, which lures
the reader in. However, he goes on to argue that this connection is broken and interrupted when
the speaker begins to address the reader directly. Griffin says that, In Simon Lee an incipient

Klingensmith

story becomes an incident, a moment of remembered vivid, meaningful personal life. The poem
offers the fact of a kind of failuresomething withheld or missed, for which something quite
different is substitutedwhile leaving open the possibility that to fail thus is, of course, a kind of
success (Griffin 393). Wordsworth leads his readers on for a supposed tale then he fails, as
Griffin suggests, but in that failure he succeeds because it challenges the aspect of a conventional
story. This dualism convinces Griffin to view Simon Lee as a manipulation and rhetorical tour
de force (Griffin 394). Thus, Griffin seems to believe that the break in narrative or failure was
intentional on a didactic level. He thinks this shift in genre teaches us to Learn to take things
kindly, that is, with human sympathies, recognizing that men share a common humanity (Griffin
396).
While this interpretation may seem acceptable upon initial inspection, it is important to
note that Griffin bases his analysis on a single text reading. In other words, Griffin primarily
focuses on the 1832 version of Simon Lee, and very briefly discusses the differences that exist
in the 1798 version. Griffin does not mention any of the two versions that lie between 1798 and
1832. After his analysis, which was all based primarily on the 1832 version, Griffin finally brings
to light some past revisions that Wordsworth made and how these change the meaning of a few
crucial parts. For example, one line towards the end of the poem starts out (in the 1798 version)
with I hope youll kindly take it (line 78), whereas in the most recent version (1832) the
same line was revised to You must kindly take it (line 79). Griffin explains When at last we
reach his plea to the reader, we surely understand it, not as the sneering challenge it may be in
the revised version, but rather as a characteristically fumbling apology (Griffin 399). He seems
to not prefer either version, but is content with this section as just a failure of a conventional
story. He says, Both poems find themselves only by admitting failure in medias res and making

Klingensmith

it, for the time being, their theme (Griffin 401). Failure as a theme is a peculiar way of looking
at things, and only offers so much as to the meaning of the text. Griffin states that the speaker of
the poem Has so little sense of order or development that he sets down what he knows of Simon
in a jumble, mixing personal observations with hearsay and history, the present with the past
(Griffin 399). The single text reading only offers Griffin so much to work with on an analytical
level.
In contrast, poetic lines become more dynamic if one tracks the evolution of their
changes over time and not primarily through one text and perhaps a little in another, like Griffin
has done. Sally Bushells article From The Ruined Cottage to The Excursion: Revision as Rereading presents a theory of re-reading a text in its plural form that offers a more appropriate
way of reading Wordsworths poetry. Bushell explains that an act of re-reading occurs both on
the readers and the poets side. We can see on multiple occasions when Wordsworth must have
returned to Simon Lee and re-read to create the differing versions (4 finished versions
ranging from 1798-1832). Through Bushells analysis of The Ruined Cottage and The
Excursion, she talks about the writer (Wordsworth) returning to his work and how it Allows
(structurally and semantically) a distinctive mode of interpretationfor both the writer (released
by and within the creative process back into a state of open creativity) and the reader (released
into interpretative free play of text, notebook, manuscript page) (Bushell 81). The open
creativity of the writer exposes a new form of the piece at hand and then coupled with the
interpretative free play of text that is invoked from the reader, gives us an involved
relationship of writer with reader that Bushell is advocating for. If the poet is re-reading his own
text, then this offers the opportunity for the reader to do the same. Re-reading, according to
Bushell, offers an Analysis in terms of the meeting point of writer and reader in a performative

Klingensmith

experience that produces a unique work out of language (Bushell 76). Bushell offers readers a
tool to enable us to engage and experience a text through a textual historical lens. Through this
lens and Bushells theory, we are able to experience a plural text, that is a text that includes all
texts at once.
If Bushell were responding to Griffin, she would argue that a more holistic approach would
be the better way to enter into a full criticism of a Wordsworth poem, rather than focusing on just
one version. Griffin misses the complete evolution of Simon Lee in his analysis and therefore
some of his claims cannot be credible. He says that Wordsworths speaker was failing in his
attempt at a story, but over time through multiple versions of the poem, the speaker is actually
challenging the readers to dig deep into their imagination and come out with a new interpretation
of the structure of a story. Thus, a story outside of the criticism of the conventional story occurs.
If one reads through many versions of the same poem, the textual experience is a richer one due
to different levels of interpretations from both the reader and the writer. Through an act of rereading the text in all its versions, one can see an intentional evolution of storylines that
questions the traditional narrative. This is the root to Sally Bushells article that says Re-reading
can be understood as a real life chronotope: a temporal return that links the past reading to a
present reading on a particular site (actual or both) and runs across the entire experience of the
literary work for writer, narrator, character, and reader (Bushell 82). Griffin would argue that the
framework of the storyline in which Simon Lee begins and how that transforms from the 1798
to 1832 actually does the opposite. Griffin states that The fine blue coat that lured the original
speaker into such idiotic praise has been transfigured, by 1832, into phrase of almost Augustan
power and concision, liveried poverty. The revision gains most, however, from a clean
separation of past from present times (Griffin 400). Griffin implies that the tone between these

Klingensmith

two versions (1798 and 1832) changes too dramatically, and he would be correct, but he is
ignoring versions of the poem that exists between these versions. The singular view, which
Griffin is adopting is far more limited than the dynamic and holistic view of the plural text that
Bushell is encouraging. By studying all the versions at once and reading them as if they were one
text, we can experience the text in plural form, and can access a new interpretation that is
possibly closer to what the author may have intended.
Analyzing specific changes to this poem can further shed light on whether a single text
read or a plural text read is more appropriate. Stanzas 4-6 in Simon Lee are reordered from the
1798 version to the 1800/2-1815 version. This change is then implemented in the later versions
of 1820 and 1832 with other significant changes to follow. For the purposes of this paper, the
changes from the two earliest poems will be discussed, for they offer a change that is seen
throughout all versions. In the 1798 version the fourth stanza depicts Simon Lees profession and
family life. Simon Lees Hunting feats have him bereft (Line 25) and He as no son, he has no
child (line 29). The following stanza depicts Simons poor physical strength with His ancles
they are swoln and thick / His legs are thin and dry (Lines 35-36). Finally, in the sixth stanza, the
description turns towards a positive and hopeful note for Still theres something in the world /
At which his [Simon Lee] heart rejoices (lines 44-45). This specific progression of stanzas sets
up one version of the story that is being related at this stage in the poem. However, these stanzas
are reordered in the 1800/2-1815 version. What used to be the fifth stanza is now the fourth, the
sixth the fifth, and now the fourth is the sixth. In the 1798 version we end these stanzas with the
image of Simon Lee as a positive man with thoughts of a hopeful future, but with the reordering
we now end with the image of Simon Lee being overworked and not having much of a family.
This drastically changes our experience of both the story and the character of Simon Lee. These

Klingensmith

stanzas are especially important because they come prior to the address that Wordsworth makes
directly to his readers that breaks the narrative. Is the 1798 version too cohesive in chronological
events to back up to such a disruption? Then therefore, is the new reordering serving as a
foreshadowing to the disruption?
Perhaps we have to consider both as if both are happening at the same time. The 1800/21815 version sets up a framework that almost expects the break in the narrative as well as it
seems more real as it pertains to the human experience. For example, having the lines And still
theres something in the world / At which his heart rejoices (lines 37-38) occur in the fifth
paragraph rather than the sixth paragraph in the 1800/2-1815 version re-characterizes them as an
act of reminiscing rather than a nice sentiment at the end of Simon Lees life in the 1798 version.
The layout of the 1798 version is far more cohesive in that it sets up a chronological telling of
Simon Lees life, which sets the reader up for a complete story. However, when those stanzas get
reordered in the 1800/2-1815 version the story is more fragmented that resembles more of what
the human experience actually is, for actual human lives are not so linear as the 1798 version
portrays. By participating in both readings, the reader experiences two different perspectives of
Simon Lees character and the story structure in which he is involved in. This enables
involvement from the reader to reach a richer interpretation of what Wordsworth is building or
not building. Therefore, these stanzas portray perfectly how the reader can re-read a text that the
writer, beforehand, has already re-read and re-wrote from his own writing. This is the plurality
that must be reached in order to understand, on a more inclusive level, of the poem and more
importantly of the poet himself.
Since these stanzas are reordered over a course of multiple versions, the reader has to reread to understand the evolution. Consequently, the poet had to re-read even before the reader

Klingensmith

had to in order to emend and change what he had written before. Therefore, The writer becomes
reader in order to write; the reader interprets the writer re-readingonly the author can re-read
activelyto change the nature and content of the text itself (Bushell 78). The nature that is
being changed through these revisions is the exposition in which Wordsworth wants to frame and
construct a story. Griffin would argue that there is no story, but what Wordsworth has created is a
story about stories, a Bushell plurality then can be accessible if one looks at the evolution of
the poem and not just one single text reading, like Griffin has done. We not only get multiple
versions of Simon Lee as a character, the strong hopeful one, or the weak, overworked one, but
we get multiple versions of how Wordsworth wants his readers to reflect on the convention of the
story as a genre. While Griffin primarily looks at the 1832 text, his concluding thought that there
is no tale but instead, a moment of re-created experience; yet, the experience is oddly like a
tale (Griffin 397) speaks volumes to what a plural text can offer, even if Griffin did not know he
was making that point at all. Through plural reading, we get a tale that resembles what reality is
or ought to be and at the same time we, as the readers, have access to the essence of
Wordsworths poetry as it all layers together as the single imagination of one poets incredible
mind.

Klingensmith
Works Cited
Bushell, Sally. "From 'The Ruined Cottage' To The Excursion: Revision As ReReading." Wordsworth Circle 45.2 (2014): 75-83. MLA International Bibliography.
Web. 9 Apr. 2016.
Griffin, Andrew L. "Wordsworth and the Problem of Imaginative Story: The Case of "Simon
Lee"" Pmla 92.3 (1977): 392-409. Web.