Mary Oliver’s poem “The Journey” is an exercise in pure symbolism in which nothing is intended to be interpreted literally even it is a composed in a way that allows everything to be interpreted literally. That this is true is evidenced by the sheer volume of commentary which presents analysis of certain individual elements of the poem as literal components within what is otherwise recognized as being highly symbolic.
For instance, one can easily find critical analysis of the poem which recognizes that the trembling house is a metaphor for the self while insisting the “you” the speaker addresses exists as a literal entity separate from the speaker. Likewise, others have analyzed the poem and arrived at the conclusion that the reference to voices shouting bad advice implies that it is literally about escaping a house polluted by a toxic environment of family or friends. For some inexplicable reason, many people reading this poem want to apply a literal quality to parts of it and symbolic one to the rest when the logical conclusion is that everything is symbolic.
This relentless symbolism begins with the opening line’s address by the speaker to an unidentified “you” which is often interpreted as being directed to the reader. This view actually does make some sense because the author has a history of directly addressing her readers as “you.” The subsequent focus on the hearing voices that culminates with the “you” hearing a new voice that is recognized as their own inevitably leads to just one rational interpretation, however: the speaker is that new voice talking to herself in a positive way that has replaced the old interior voices spouting negativity. This is not a poem about two people. It features only one character and the speaker and the “you” are that character.
Which means, by definition, there is no actual house with the toxic presence of actual people offering bad advice. The journey is not a literal escape from a bad environment, but a symbolic escape from the darkness of the self. One can certainly feel free in applying this aspect of the poem more broadly as commentary on the potential of escaping the unhealthy influences of others and there is nothing wrong with that, but it is not a logical conclusion to make about the content of the poem itself.
If one recognizes that the house is a metaphor for “you” then it only logically follows that the road covered with debris must also be a symbolic one. And if there is not house from which it possible to escape the voices—and yet the voices are left behind—then it fails to make any sense that the voices are literally coming from other people. In other words, while any given aspect of the poem could be interpreted literally, to do so undermines the entire purpose of everything else being symbolic. Either everything in this poem is literal or everything is symbolic. While the poem makes complete sense if everything is symbolic, it borders on absurdity if everything is taken literally.
