We Real Cool (Criticism)

Criticism

Joe Sarnowski

Joe Sarnowski is a doctoral candidate in English at the University of Toledo. He has written articles for The Kentucky Review and the Encyclopedia of American War Literature. In the following essay, Sarnowski demonstrates how the poem can be read in two different ways — one way according to the dominant culture, another way according to the counterculture — and explains the social implications of this circumstance.

A poem can be interpreted in many different ways — a different way for each reader. But with some poems, particularly those dealing with contentious social issues, readers tend to align themselves with one of two sides. In these cases, the poem serves as a kind of door. That is, one door has two sides: you can be on one side or the other but not both. And yet, doors are points of access through which people can move in and out. Such a poem is Gwendolyn Brooks’s “We Real Cool.” While there is one poem, we can see it has two opposing sides: that of the dominant culture and that of the counterculture. As with a door, the poem can be used as the dividing point between these two sides. But also like a door, the poem can be an access point whereby one side can gain some understanding of the other. So ultimately, the challenge in the poem is not to understand what it means or even to determine on which side you stand; the real challenge here is what you will do with the viewpoints the poem conveys.

In one reading, the poem functions as a subtle, ironic indictment by the dominant culture upon anyone who deviates from its norms. This viewpoint is established in the poem’s epigraph: “The Pool Players. / Seven at the Golden Shovel.” Such a statement isolates these seven individuals for examination, making the body of the poem the findings of this examination. And what we find, then, are people flaunting the conventions of the dominant culture, thus bringing destruction upon themselves. Or, as George E. Kent remarked in A Life of Gwendolyn Brooks, “the naive confrontations of youth with the ills of life will lead to their doom.” Notice, for example, how the seven “Left school.” This act is a violation of one of the dominant culture’s primary commandments: one must complete one’s formal education (how many times have we all heard, “Stay in school!”?). From here, the seven are seen to be caught in a downward spiral that leads to death.

By saying that the seven “Lurk late,” the poem suggests that they are sneaking around at night, which leads to the possibility that they are engaged in criminal activities. Thus, it comes as no surprise that they also “Strike straight” — that is, that they attack people or pick fights with others. Also, by saying that they “Sing sin,” the poem intimates that not only do they commit indiscretions but that they revel in their acts. This interpretation, in turn, leads members of the dominant culture to conclude that the seven have neither a sense of propriety nor a sense of shame. That they “Thin gin” reflects their abuse of alcohol — which is even more troubling when we consider that they may be underage. Just as troubling is the contention by Gary Smith, in his article for the Explicator, that “Jazz June” can be interpreted as a veiled reference to sexual activity or even rape (“jazz,” at one time, was a common euphemism for sex, while “June” is a female name).

Thus, says the dominant culture, this behavior will result in death; the seven will “Die soon.” Here, the inevitable deaths of these young people are tragedies that could have been averted if only they would have stayed in school and stayed out of trouble. Additionally, the fact that the seven always identify themselves as “We” indicates that each one has sacrificed his or her individual identity for the sake of being part of the group. As a result, each individual has lost his or her ability to think independently or to save him- or herself. Consequently, with all of these elements considered together, when we hear the phrase, “We real cool,” we hear it in a sneering or mocking way: none of these activities can be “cool” if they lead to death.

Of course, members of the counterculture would not view the poem in this way at all. These seven are people who, as Gary Smith says, live “in defiance of moral and social conformity and their own fate.” And it is the act of defiance that gives members of the counterculture their sense of identity. That is, whatever the dominant culture says not to do, the counterculture does in order to differentiate themselves from the dominant culture. So when the seven say “We real cool” at the beginning of the poem, they are confirming their sense of identity as being separate from the dominant, un-cool culture. The rest of the poem, therefore, becomes a catalogue of the acts that demonstrate their coolness — the very same acts that the dominant culture so deplores.

When the seven say they have “Left school,” they have effectively expressed their rejection of the dominant culture by rejecting its formal education — the primary way by which the dominant culture recruits its members. The assumption is that people will obtain good educations, seek gainful employment, and thereby become respectable citizens. But members of the counterculture do not want to be respectable citizens (or at least not “respectable” as the dominant culture defines the term). The seven have rejected the dominant society’s formal education in favor of the informal education of the pool hall and the streets. Thus, the seven confirm their counterculture status by maintaining that they “Lurk late”; as everyone knows, to have a good job and to be a respectable citizen, one cannot stay out late every night. But this is precisely what member of the counterculture chooses to do — again, in direct defiance of the dominant culture’s norms. In such a reading, this act of staying out late need not be indicative of criminal activity, so neither does the phrase, “Strike straight.” Taken literally, the phrase may mean that the seven do not shrink back when threatened but react directly. Or taken metaphorically, the phrase may mean that the seven take immediately to whatever pleasures present themselves. Such pleasures of course are intimated in the phrase “Sing sin.” Here, the seven do not repress the pleasures of life (as do, presumedly, members of the dominant society) but revel in them. Along these lines, that they “Thin gin” certainly indicates seeking pleasure in alcohol. Yet, by virtue of the fact that they “Thin” the beverage, it seems less likely that they are abusing it and more of an indication of playful mischief. When reading from this point of view, the meaning of “Jazz June” is not likely to refer to something as stark as rape; rather, as D. H. Melhem contends in Gwendolyn Brooks: Poetry and the Heroic Voice, the “usage pertains to ‘having fun.’” And when we consider together all of these phrases made by the seven, it is this idea of “having fun” that comes to mind.

With this notion of “having fun” as the prime concern of the counterculture, it is difficult to read the final sentence, “We / Die soon,” as being a tragic declaration (as the dominant culture does). Instead, the seven seem to say that life is too short: that we all die too soon, so why not enjoy life while one has it? And even if the phrase does refer to the deaths of the young, this statement represents the ultimate defiance, the ultimate fearlessness. To face death without fear or regret is indicative of great pride — an admirable pride rather a vain pride. Additionally, it is a sense of pride — of group pride — that prompts the constant use of “We” rather than the loss of individuality, as the dominant culture maintains. (In any event, the counterculture would state, there is no greater loss of individuality than in compliance with the dominant culture.) Consequently, with all of these elements of this viewpoint considered together, we can perceive a different impression of the counterculture than the dominant culture offers. Instead of posing a threat to the dominant culture, the poem seems to contend, the counterculture merely regards a different set of values.

So, what can we conclude from this poem with its two, diametrically opposed points of view? Of course, the easy thing to do is to take one side or the other and, like a door, use the poem as a marker of division (“I’m not like those people!”). Yet, to do so is to contribute to the divisiveness that ultimately strangles us all. Instead, are you able — again, like a door — to use the poem as a point of access to understanding something about the opposing point of view? That is, if you find yourself agreeing with the dominant culture, can you begin to understand how some people can live for the moment? Or if you find yourself agreeing with the counterculture, can you begin to understand how there are limitations in living for the moment and advantages to becoming a respectable member of society? This is not to say that you must agree with what the other side thinks, but it does mean you have to be willing to make the effort to understand why other people value what they do. For only if people on both sides are willing to try to understand each other will communication between these sides be possible. And then maybe, just maybe, some barriers can be broken down. Gwendolyn Brooks has given you this poem, this door: you can either close it and walk away, or you can open it and walk through. What will you do now?

Source: Joe Sarnowski, in an essay for Poetry for Students, The Gale Group, 1999.

What Do I Read Next?

• The World of Gwendolyn Brooks is a collection of five works: four volumes of poetry and her one novel, Maud Martha, all of which were written between 1945 and 1968. Maud Martha is about the coming of age of a black girl.
• Soul on Ice (1968) was written by Eldridge Cleaver, the former Black Panther minister of information and U.S. presidential candidate on the Peace and Freedom Party. Cleaver writes about the forces that shaped his life during the 1950s and 1960s.
• A seminal work in African-American literature is W. E. B. Dubois’s The Souls of Black Folk (1969), a series of essays on what it means to be a black American.
• Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1963) was written in anger, but the book is no mere diatribe. Fanon was a black psychiatrist and leading spokesman for Algerian independence and, in this important work, he details the role of violence in one of Africa’s many independence movements.
• Dudley Randall’s anthology The Black Poets (1971) covers poetry from the 1850s to the 1960s and includes such poets as James Weldon Johnson, Langston Hughes, Amiri Baraka as well as Brooks herself.
• Malcolm X Speaks (1965) is a collection of the great leader’s speeches and statements from 1962 to 1965, before he was killed at the age of forty.