Chapter Text
Intertwined: A Comparative Analysis of John Doe’s “The Garden and Our Bed” and Arthur Lester’s “Daylight.”
Daniel Barlow
When comparing Doe and Lester’s work it would be easy to assume that the differences lie only in their divergent fields. Lester was clearly inspired by Doe’s poem, but his unique approach to the concept and the choices he made while adapting the text transformed the song into something entirely new that exists independent from the original text. Although the changes Lester made could be attributed to the methodology of songwriting compared to poetry, especially when taking Lester’s mainstream appeal and the industry pressure of radioplayability into account, a close reading of the two works reveals that the modifications Lester made to the text are far from superficial. The song borrows several lines from the poem and roots itself in the final stanza’s imagery, but his expansion of the poem’s ending and the omission of the rest of the poem creates a text that does not rely on an understanding of the source material to be appreciated or understood. In comparing the similarities and differences between the two texts, we can see how Lester’s adaptation changes the meaning of the work and creates something that can stand separate from its inspiration.
The Calm Within The Storm, Lester’s fourth studio album, was Doe and Lester’s first official collaboration, but it is not difficult to find the other in their previous works. The two were inseparable, and Lester went so far as to describe their personal and professional relationships as “irrevocably intertwined” (West). Allusions and references to the other, as well as works that are blatantly about each other such as Lester’s song “A Song for John Doe” and Doe’s poem “Birdsong”, can be found throughout their entire careers (Neilson 19) but “Daylight” stands out as the most blatant example of Lester being inspired by Doe’s work. Lester adapted the lyrics from Doe’s 1939 poem “The Garden and Our Bed”, narrowing in on the final stanza and reimagining the narrative as a moment of softness rather than the bittersweet journey of Doe’s poem. Doe’s fingerprints are all over the album and his influence can be found throughout. He also contributed backing vocals to the album and co-wrote a majority of the songs. “Daylight”, however, is the only song in Lester’s discography that directly borrows from Doe’s existing works.
“The Garden and Our Bed” was first published in Doe’s second poetry collection, Shelter, in 1942. The poem takes the reader through strange dreamscapes, painting odd and violent pictures that dip in and out of reality. The poem ends with an intimate moment between two people who are reflecting on all they have been through from the safety of their bed. Lester takes a much more clear cut approach to his lyrics, focusing on the concept of lovers finding solace in one another after hardship, and narrowing in on the warmth of the poem. While the works are fundamentally similar, they each approach the same concept in quite different ways. There is a clear narrative evolution between the two works, and we can easily pinpoint where Doe and Lester’s storytelling methods diverge.
While “Daylight” is a direct adaptation, Lester’s narrative approach is vastly different to Doe’s. In the poem, the speaker is notably absent until the final stanza, and the reader is disconnected from the narrator until the ending when the speaker becomes an active participant. Babcock describes this absence as being established through the lack of pronouns, highlighting the amplified intimacy between the speaker and their lover that is heightened by the omission established in the first six stanzas (10), in relation to Lester’s song, this use reiterates the closeness of the lovers and the way the listener is invited to observe the story. The reader is entirely disconnected from the narrative of Doe’s poem, whereas the listener is being spoken to in Lester’s lyrics.
Lester’s narrator throws the listener into the action of the story, establishing the intimacy between the speaker and the subject immediately, and writing in a way that implies the story is being told to the listener rather than the story unfolding in front of them (Alvarez 44). While both works are telling the same story, their methods have entirely different effects. The final moment of comfort in the poem comes after we are taken through the difficult experience with the speaker, and the solace they find is a bittersweet moment of respite and relief. In “Daylight” the listener is not sitting with the pain in the same way, making the lyrics and atmosphere feel much lighter. “Daylight” lacks the same heaviness, while still implying that this softness was only earned after a long and difficult fight.
The poem relies heavily on this distance to create weight and discomfort. Each stanza of the poem feels disconnected from the last, which makes it feel as though the speaker, and subsequently the reader, cannot find their footing. Doe narrows this distance in the final stanza, shifting away from the fantastical worlds he’s built and reducing his world to a single home and a single person within it. This is particularly powerful in relation to the third stanza, which focuses on a moment of loneliness for the speaker. “Daylight”, on the other hand, relies on closeness for its emotional effect. Instead of establishing the emotional weight Doe does, he lets the reader sit with the affection and fondness. Doe’s poem is the slow melt of ice and the relief of spring, whereas Lester’s song is a moment of pure warmth.
Both works rely on place to establish the character’s progress and to show the hardship they went through before reaching stability. In “Daylight” the listener is told by the speaker about what the lovers have gone through, directly stating “my dear we’ve come so far” and “no, not even hell could ever break me”, mentioning the adversity they have been through without dwelling on it (Lester, lines 4-20). Doe, instead, lingers in each moment and makes the reader sit with the discomfort and trauma before he offers solace. In both works, place becomes a character of its own, showing their lover as a site of rest, and regarding the body as a physical location.
Doe makes the body itself into a landscape in the poem by describing the body in the same way he describes place, both absent from identity and an abstracted physical site. We see this with the lines “the black barked trees whisper their hopes. The sacrificial body, / the give and take. Skin adorned in new wounds, will-be scars…” (Doe, lines 10-11) which treats the tree and body as equals, and uses both the tree and the body as a signifier of place. The body is as much a part of the forest as the tree, both of which are disconnected from the speaker who is guiding the reader through them. This method is also used in the first stanza, where the streets, which are described as “sing[ing]”(Doe, line 1), are equated to the baby’s cry.
While Doe’s descriptions are more visceral, with an emphasis on blood and bodies being harmed, Lester’s approach is more passive. Doe wants the reader to sit with the injuries, imagining the body as a "citadel of white bone” (line 21) , showing the resilience of the body even as it’s harmed. The dichotomy between the body made fortress and the injury it faces emphasizes the calm at the end of the poem. The line “I long to be the voice inside your head” (Doe, line 52) shows that the speaker has found respite within his lover’s body, which serves as a clear indicator that the speaker has progressed from the line “Lonely bodies make beasts of solitary minds— alone” (Doe, line 17) which highlights the hopelessness of the middle of the poem, and in contrast shows that the speaker has moved away from the darkness he was once a victim of. The metaphor of being literally within his lover’s mind shows the security he found with his lover, and the comfort is the payoff the poem works toward.
Lester, in contrast, maintains the final stanza's sweetness, showing a similar fondness for the scars without depicting the cause of them. In both texts we see scars signify healing and the trauma the respective speakers have endured, equating them to a map of their history that guides them to safety. The song does not wish to dwell on the pain, nor does it wish to hide from it. Instead, the listener is told of how much the lovers have had to overcome without having to sit with the same despair that readers of “The Garden and Our Bed” must confront.
The body in From the "Garden to Our bed" is a site of war and violence before it is a site of safety, whereas Daylight depicts the body as a shared place of hard-earned peace. While “Daylight” borrows concepts and imagery from the poem, the meaning is entirely altered without the pain that stems from Doe indulging in the darkness. In both cases we know that the subject and speaker have endured but in “Daylight” the details of their suffering are private. Conversely, the moment at the end of “The Garden and Our Bed” is what the speaker wishes to keep private, hiding away from the darkness within the light his partner provides by exiling themselves into a private world. In both cases, we can follow the map of the character’s scars to find them in their moment of peace.
Works Cited
Alvarez, Star. “The Natator In 1940s Lyrics” Reading Music Vol. 3, No. 2, 2018, pp. 44-45.
Babcock, Anna J. “You and I: Examining John Doe’s use of pronouns.” American Literature Studies. Vol. 7, No.3, 2003, pp. 10-11.
Doe, John. “The Garden and Our Bed.” Shelter. Edited by Bryophyte Colson, E-book, The Poetry Archive, 2025, thepoetryarchieve.org/john_doe/poetry/shelter
Lester, Arthur. “Daylight.” The Calm Within The Storm, East Coast Records, 1942, The Poetry Archive, thepoetryarchive.org/john_doe/poetry/arthur_lester
Miller, Richard. “An Interview with Arthur Lester.” Modern Music Monthly. Transcribed by Alexis West, The Poetry Archive, 2025, thepoetryarchive.org/john_doe/interviews
Neilson, Quinn, L. “Sunlight In John Doe’s Poetry” The Natural World. Vol 3., No.2, 2023, pp. 19-21.