I think Susan's analysis is generally on point, but with one huge caveat -- I think it is all ironic. I think Millay thinks there is really no difference between "Order" and "Chaos" (both capitalized as though equivalent epithets of the same thing) and ultimately that they aren't really things at all.
I think the uncapitalized "good," which is almost a consolation prize is opposed to an idealized "Good." Creating -- making art, making poems -- is what makes things "good" and the whole "Order" vs "Chaos" business is a sort of self-deceiving (or self-aggrandizing) ruse.
The last 3-4 lines taper down from a grand schema -- backs off from a deep analysis -- to simple, almost resigned, formulation of making things "good" without caring to understand more about what that means or how it works. The making "good" of it (whatever "it" may be) is, essentially the only way to make it understood.
David R.
Last edited by David Rosenthal; 12-12-2018 at 10:49 PM.
|