A piece of paper

I saw this black piece of paper
And it looked
Kind of lonely,
Like it needed someone
To talk to.

So I started to talk.
I told it about
School and trivial things,
And my need
For someone to talk to,

And in return
It told me about trees
And Autumn
And where it had come from.

The paper looked sad
When it told me about the
Wind in the trees
And the coming of man
Who had felled the tree,
And I felt ashamed.

Then I got angry.
I had problems enough
Without
Guilt.

I tore up the paper.
I tore up myself.

Julia Briggs (1943 - 2007)

From Wikipedia – Julia Ruth Briggs was an academic, literary critic and biographer who wrote about Virginia Woolf, children’s literature and English Renaissance theatre.

Julia Briggs

I found this poem in an anthology on poetic creation and how such a simple poem engenders thought by taking a simple object as the subject. In this case the irony is that the poem is all about not being able to write.

My immediate thoughts …

What kind of thinking does a simple object invoke?

If a simple object becomes personified does that engender more interest?

How does the colour of the object affect thought?

If a writer is unable to write, is he or she not full filling a role?

When a writer cannot write but should, or feels a must, is guilt the reaction?

When a great effort, or sacrifice, is made in order to produce something for us how do we feel when we fail to use it?

How do we deal with anger when we can’t do what we want to do?

Below is a detailed 10-point analysis using AI to explore these thought-provoking questions in relation to the text of the poem …

1. The Paper as a Mirror of the Self

The “conversation” is not really between a person and paper—it’s internal. The speaker projects onto the paper, then receives something back that feels external but is actually a deeper layer of awareness.

• The paper first reflects loneliness (“it needed someone to talk to”)
• Then becomes a listener
• Then a moral witness (telling the story of the tree)

By the end, the paper is almost indistinguishable from the speaker’s conscience.

👉 This raises: Is creativity just a structured way of talking to oneself?

---

2. Writing as an Ethical Act

The shift in the poem is striking: from casual chatter → ecological awareness → guilt → anger → destruction.

The paper reminds the speaker:

• It was a tree
• It was taken, transformed, sacrificed

So writing is no longer neutral—it carries:

• environmental cost
• human intervention
• transformation of nature into expression

👉 This adds a layer to your question:

When effort or sacrifice produces something for us, how do we feel when we fail to use it?

The poem suggests: we feel complicit.

---

3. Guilt vs. Avoidance

The emotional pivot is crucial:

“And I felt ashamed.
Then I got angry.”

This is psychologically sharp. The speaker:

1. Feels guilt
2. Rejects it (“I had problems enough”)
3. Converts it into anger
4. Destroys the source of guilt

👉 A classic defense mechanism:

• guilt → discomfort → anger → destruction

So the act of tearing the paper is not random—it’s avoidance of responsibility.

---

4. Creative Block Reframed

Your question about writers who “cannot write but should” fits perfectly.

The poem suggests:

• The block is not emptiness
• It may be over-awareness
• Or even ethical paralysis

The speaker can write—but what emerges is uncomfortable truth.

👉 So perhaps:

• Writer’s block is sometimes not lack of ideas
• But resistance to what we know we might uncover

---

5. Personification as a Moral Trigger

You asked whether personification increases engagement—here it does more than that.

By giving the paper a voice:

• It becomes harder to ignore
• It becomes a victim
• It forces empathy

If the poem simply stated “paper comes from trees,” it wouldn’t land emotionally.

👉 Personification transforms:

• fact → relationship
• object → witness
• material → moral presence

---

6. The Violence of the Ending

The final line is powerful:

“I tore up the paper.
I tore up myself.”

This equates:

• destruction of the page
• destruction of identity

Why?

Because the paper had become:

• a listener
• a conscience
• a creative outlet

Destroying it = rejecting:

• expression
• responsibility
• self-awareness

👉 It suggests: to silence truth, we damage ourselves.

---

7. The Color “Black”

You noted the color—this is subtle but meaningful.

“Black piece of paper” is unusual (we expect white). It might imply:

• emptiness inverted
• something already “marked” or heavy
• emotional weight from the start

It sets a tone of:

• melancholy
• seriousness
• perhaps even foreboding

---

8. Simplicity vs. Depth

The poem uses very simple language, almost childlike:

• short lines
• everyday vocabulary

Yet it deals with:

• environmental ethics
• guilt
• identity
• creative struggle

👉 This contrast mirrors the idea that:

profound realisations often arise from ordinary moments

---

9. The Role of Anger

Your final question is key:

How do we deal with anger when we can’t do what we want to do?

The poem shows one unhealthy path:

• redirect anger toward something symbolic
• destroy the medium
• avoid the underlying issue

But it also implies an alternative (unstated):

• stay with the discomfort
• continue the “conversation”

---

10. A Final Thought

The poem might ultimately be about this tension:

To create is to confront truth.
To avoid truth is to destroy creation.

And the speaker chooses, momentarily, destruction.