I too DWELL in Possiblility!

When first glancing at the poem, one may already spot the numerous amounts of dashes, specifically the em-dash. The dash is a punctuation mark used as a way to connect two independent clauses; usually the clause coming after the dash expands upon the clause before the dash. By using the dashes in almost every line, Emily Dickinson seems to convey a chain of ongoing thoughts, each one of them linked to each other. Moreover, the em-dash could also be used as a way to emphasize a sentence, or to indicate that a speaker has been interrupted for a short amount of time.

In the poem, Dickinson seems to be envisioning a “house”, yet also alluding to writing styles like “Prose”.

“I dwell in Possibility—

A fairer House than Prose—“(lines 1-2).

She seems to say that Prose is inferior towards other types of writing, as it does not offer as much Possibility. “I dwell” then alludes to her.

In Dickinson’s case, she uses the em-dashes to connect the whole poem. Thus, any line may refer to another. For example, “Impregnable of Eye” was a thought on its own, surrounded by dashes on both sides; the thought of being” Impregnable of Eye” then can refer to either the “Everlasting Roof” in the line following the dash or to the “Chambers as the Cedars”, or even the “Doors of the Chambers”. The Doors may not even refer to the Chambers, but to the Windows maybe. Everything is unclear and ambiguous; demonstrating her point in that the possibilities in this form of writing are endless and very “impregnable to the Eye”.

Ex:

“Of Visitors—the fairest—For Occupation” (lines 9-10)

The thought “fairest” then can refer to the visitors that she receives or the Occupation/ house she dwells in.

Now, why did Dickinson also separate her work into 3 quatrains? She already has the dashes to connect the poem. To me, I believe it has to do with the last lines of the quatrains. Doors, Sky, and Paradise all convey a message of endless possibilities. The many doors, the limitless sky, and the different definitions of paradise all ending with the “—“further proves Dickinson’s point of no limits. Maybe there are lost quatrains within the breaks, maybe the Doors do not refer to the Chambers at all. Although “dwelling in a house”, or limited to the conventions of writing, Dickinson manages to make endless possibilities within these conventions.