since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you
The speaker states the central argument of this poem: To fully engage in a romantic relationship, one must rely on emotion rather than reason. The words “feeling” and “syntax” require attention. “Feeling,” thrown in without any modifiers or description, is used as an umbrella term for the broad variety of emotional and physical sensations that human beings experience—basically, all psychological processes excluding logical thinking. This latter is expressed through the word “syntax.” “Syntax” means the logic that orders language, and here refers more broadly to the systems upon which we rely to perform cognition and reasoning (from basic constructs like language to social norms and philosophical methods).
Then, we must look at the phrase “wholly kiss”—a full, complete kiss is, according to the speaker, the result of “feeling” rather than of “syntax.” The kiss, a physical act, represents the non-cerebral and intuitive, as well as the ideal romantic interaction as defined by this poem. What it means to “wholly” kiss someone is left ambiguous, however. Perhaps this ambiguity is intentional; it may be meaningless to attempt a verbal description or definition of the perfect kiss. Note also the homophones “wholly” and “holy”—perhaps the speaker is drawing a parallel between the intuitive and the sacred.
the best gesture of my brain is less than
your eyelids’ flutter which sayswe are for each other
Note the synecdoche in these lines: The phrase “my brain” represents the speaker and their logic, and the phrase “your eyelids' flutter” represents the lady and her intuitive, bodily expressions of love. Using the symbolic images of the “brain” and the “eyelid,” the speaker argues again that feeling is superior to thinking when it comes to romance.
Also note the mathematical and semiotic language that is used in this sentence. The statement “x is less than y” is an expression used in quantitative comparisons, yet the speaker is ironically using it to talk about the subjective quality of different modes of romantic expression. The understanding that “x (symbol) says y (meaning)” is an example of semiotic thought (considering the relationships among signs, symbols, and their meanings). It is ironic that Cummings uses these logic-heavy, language-heavy methods of expression in a poem that argues precisely against the constructs of logic and language.
for life’s not a paragraph
And death i think is no parenthesis
From musings about intuitive and cerebral love, the speaker moves on to think about the more serious reasons for pursuing a genuine romantic relationship. The conjunction used in this transition is “for”—the speaker and the lady, in their relationship, must use their hearts and not their brains, because life is not a paragraph and death is not a parenthesis.
The metaphor of the paragraph and the parenthesis can be interpreted in various ways. The paragraph may be too short to contain life, or it may be too long to express the brevity of life. It may also be too structured and artificial to capture the arbitrariness of life. The parenthesis, on the other hand, is an appendage to a text (say, a paragraph). Death is not an appendage, but an inevitable part of the human experience. In various senses, the speaker is urging the lady to realize how complex, unstructured, and beyond human understanding life is, and how they must live their lives to the fullest while they can (carpe diem). Note that the analogy in these final lines are a nod to the first stanza, where the speaker mentions “syntax” and its limitations. The poem comes full circle.
