Twentieth century poets follow the writers’ credo, “write what you know”. For some poets, like Carl Sandburg, proper names almost seem to be used connotatively, as though the name itself is an image. For others, like Wallace Stevens, they are to be used in order to localize or specify a specific place in addition to setting imagery. For poets like Robert Frost, however, who almost never drop names, rich imagery acts as medium to specify place without naming it. Each poet’s respective category outline different lines of thought popular among poets of the 20th century. This war over images and proper names is interesting because it defines the poetry. Each poet is free create images as he/she can. The different techniques emphasize and underline the key points of each poem.
        When reading a Sandburg poem, the reader knows either from the title or by lined proper names where they are. In Sandburg’s poem “Chicago”,  the only mention of the name of the place is Chicago. Yet without that title, the reader should be able to guess it is Chicago even without much previous knowledge. Sandburg names his place to emphasize his location. In a poem about being proud of where you are, and what you are, this adds to his intended effect. It adds ownership as in his line “those who sneer/ at this my city” (line 9-10). Without the “my” the line could be read the same way, yet the emphasis of ownership justifies the harsh treatment in the previous lines. Sandburg uses the proper name of his city for the sake of the pride he feels for it. No other title is necessary. The name of Chicago creates and image which Sandburg fills in with his own rich details about the people and activities there. The images alone could tell the story but adding the name in increases that effect.
        Sandburg uses the same technique in “Mamie”. This poem is the story of a girl from a “little Indiana town” (line 1). Sandburg could have just written that she was from a little town and it would have told the same story. By specifying that it is Indiana draws upon connotations of the state itself to further it. To an Indiana native, it might suggest that same “have to get out of here” mindset. For non-natives perhaps they think, “well no wonder, what’s so great in Indiana?”  Sandburg would probably answer, “Nothing. Nothing at all.” As the poem continues, the reader sees that the desperation is not just Indiana. Maybe its everywhere. And if it can be somewhere as specific as Indiana, it could be anywhere else too. Sandburg is commenting on the fact that life is the same everywhere. Location changes nothing.  Be it Chicago or Indiana there are perhaps no “real dreams that never go smash” (line 24). He continues this theme in “Sunset from Omaha Hotel Window” with the lines “Constellations/ Wheeling over Omaha/ As in Chicago/or Kenosha” (lines 14-18). Everything is the same everywhere; the same stars, the same dreams. Moving location dos not change anything. Thus, the specificity in this poem is used to relate the poem to everyone, instead of the opposite effect.
        Wallace Stevens, a contemporary of Sandburg uses his proper names in a similar manner, yet he accomplishes a different effect. He uses the names to draw forth the standard connotations. In “Nomad Exquisite”, he names Florida repeatedly. It heads the first and second stanzas. As with Sandburg’s poems, it would read quite well without it and the meaning would still come across. Dew could be immense anywhere, specifying sharpens the image. His use of the proper name serves to emphasize the connotations as well as the denotations. With the imagery of the “big finned palm/ and green vine angering for life” (line 4), the imagery of the palm tree is outlined, yet the name Florida draws forth connotations which would not otherwise be found. With the name Florida the reader is meant to see palm trees, beaches, and alligators. Stevens mentions these things in his poems, so the name is almost redundant. Would the reader have thought of palm trees, alligators, and beaches without it?
        Stevens uses his home of Connecticut in a few of his poems, though many poems which are probably about Connecticut lack the proper name. One poem that he does directly name his home is in “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird”. It is particularly interesting that he does so in this poem, which is about many different locations and entities. He does not name all locations through which the blackbird flies, but “he rode over Connecticut/ in a glass coach” (line XI.1-2). It is over Connecticut where there is fear. The blackbird is involved in many things, but specifically over Connecticut “a fear pierced him”. From this can be drawn connotations of perhaps the state of the poet or speakers own experiences in Connecticut that his fears are enacted there. Wallace Stevens’ sporadic use of Proper names places more attention to specific detail when he does choose to name drop. Through this careful usage, more emphasis is added than in Sandburg’s locally specific poetry.
        In contrast to both of these authors, Robert Frost uses very few proper names. Instead, he chooses extremely rich and telling setting imagery. In “After Apple-Picking”, Frost details all of the surroundings for the reader. He does a lot of the imaging work. He uses images of smell, texture, and sight to create an intimate setting without the use of a crutch like a proper name. Without it, the reader still enjoys the “scent of apples” (line 8), feels the apples “spiked with stubble” (line 34), and sees the world “through a pane of glass” (line 10). These images create a setting that other poets can sum up in a title or proper name. This differentiates Frost from the other poets, though it does not stand him above them. He chooses not to attach himself to a definite named location. It could be anywhere in the world where things like what happens in the poem could happen.
        When Robert Frost does name a place, it is the obscure and mythological “Coos” where the witch is from. This obviously has connotations of its own even without it being a witch. This proper name appears only in the title, never repeated or discussed in the poem. The poem itself concerns a mother and son who are either crazy or magical. They discuss witchcraft and spirits and a set of bones in particular. These are all specific details which have little to do with the actual geographical space they occupy. Perhaps it is Frost’s affection for little rural wooded places which defies proper names, but even those places have names. In “Mending Wall”, the actual physical place of the poem is not noted, yet it is not necessary. The reader is given enough vivid images of these two men who walk along and  “set the wall between us once again” (line 14). By removing those specific details even from a poem in which he named where someone has supposedly come from, it broadens the perspective of an often overlooked location.
        These poets all are remembered from their time period for many things, none of which is likely to be their proper name usage. Each one is capable of capturing the hearts of readers and imprinting a piece of poetry on them. The difference in these poets is their defiance of convention and reinvention of poetry as something American. Proper names add  pride of place, that it can and shouldbe named by name because of what it s. It is America. Through the use of proper names, some authors hail the red, white, and blue. Others do not feel the need to so generalize. They achieve their place among American poets without having pandered to it. Neither of these views can be more right than the other and both entail American poets. Yet the difference between them all on a matter so small as whether or not to use proper names show the deep diversification of American poetry which has come far from its European roots.