Riddle

“Who killed the Jews?”  This question appears four times throughout Riddle, and four times it remains unanswered; and it is this question that forms the subject, or rather “riddle,” of the poem. Yet, these questions serve not to ask but rather imply an answer through the use of rhetorical questions.  Overall Riddle articulates the shared fault of all those involved in the Holocaust.  Therefore the speaker finds it impossible to answer the question he poses.  This clearly illustrates the mutual involvement of all parties, and not a single entity in this tragedy.  The author’s intent is further accentuated through other rhetorical questions in the work.   As he attempts to answer who killed the Jews he asks “Were they Germans?  Were they Nazis?/  Were they human?” (27-28).  In asking these rhetorical questions in sequence, the author demonstrates directly the various groups involved.  By listing these multiple groups, to which blame is directed, consecutively the author concisely demonstrates the inability to simply blame a single entity.

Furthermore repetition within the poem serves to identify the plurality of those responsible.  In the second stanza a response comes to the question “who killed the Jews”, “Not I, cries the typist, / not I, cries the engineer, / not I, cries Adolf Eichmann, / not I, cries Albert Speer” (5-8).  In this response four different individuals are presented, two general occupations and two specific people.  They all vary, and none directly killed the Jews, however the repetition of “Not I” associates all four individuals, and places their responsibility on equal grounds.  This repetition illustrates their collaborative fault, and distinguishes no single party that is responsible.  Additional repetition appears in describing the murder of the Jews referring to each action in the murder specifically, each perpetrated by “some men” “and some.” Not only are these subjects plural, as is the authors point, but they are also unnamed.  These indescript individuals represent the large whole of people responsible for the Holocaust and the repetition of their involvement, articulates the authors purpose that all those involved share responsibility for the Holocaust.

Richard Cory

“Gentleman from sole to crown” (3) Richard Cory is portrayed as a man of great status and nobility through the regal diction of the poem.  This directly associates Richard Cory with not only prosperity, but also respected royalty.  In this manner Richard Cory is portrayed as successful, but more importantly in high regards among the people.  Adverbs found within the poem also express the royalty of Richard Cory describing him as “imperially slim” (4) and “admirably schooled in every grace” (10).  These particular words, such as imperial and admirable all carry separate meanings; however their overall connotation is one of esteem.  Other examples of this regal diction are even more conspicuous describing Richard Cory as “richer than a king” (9) and portray Richard Corey as a man looked up to and admired among the people.

However the praise of Richard Cory serves not to pay tribute to the man, but rather to display the irony of his condition.  Characterized as nothing less than a king and a man of great nobility, those around him “thought that he was everything” (11).  Those beneath him view his life as perfect and Richard Cory draws the envy of all those around him, including the speaker.  In fact, the speaker does not speak of his admiration of Richard Cory singularly, never making use of the word “I”, only “we” and “us”, representing the mutual envy of all for this man.  All of these people look upon Richard Cory “wish(ing) that we were in his place” (12).  Yet, despite the perception of Richard Cory’s perfect life, and the desire of others to live like him, the poem ends as he takes his own life and commits suicide.  The irony of such an event points out the disparity between other’s perception of Richard Cory’s perfect life, success, and wealthy and his own perception of his life.  While others look on in envy and wish to have his life Richard Cory himself decides to end it.  In all actuality although others “curse” their life in relation to Cory’s, it is Richard Cory that truly curses his own life, unbeknownst to the envious people.

This disparity of beliefs is the central commentary of the poem, portraying the inability of power, money, and success to provide happiness.  Richard Cory is presented as a man with a perfect life in the view of those around him, a target of envy and jealousy, coveted for his “perfect” life.  Yet those envious of him, in far less favorable life conditions, unable to even purchase meat, continue to live their lives, and it is the successful Richard Cory who is unable to bear living.  In this respect all the success and wealth attained in life have in no way improved the quality of it.