There is a significant difference between the concept of law in lines 1-34 and 35-60 in “Law like Love” by W.H. Auden. At first, law is described to be something definite, and though it applies to various aspects of life, it is defined in each of those meanings. Auden begins by stating the meaning of law to different people in society. For example, in line 1, he says, “law, say the gardeners, is the sun.” This passage insinuates that the sun is the law of the gardeners. The gardeners can only have a successful harvest when the sun permits. Therefore, they must abide by the sun as their law, for they cannot be successful without it. In the second stanza, Auden continues by saying, “law is the wisdom of the old (L5).” Similarly to the way a harvest comes with the sun, wisdom comes with age. Auden continues to describe the existence of law in society in terms of the young, priesthood, and judicial trials.
Following these comparisons, Auden begins to express the true meaning of law. He says, “law is neither wrong nor right, law is only crimes punished by places and by times (L 20-22),” implying that the concept of law is determined by society. Each sector has their own idea of what law is and what they, in their life, must abide by. The turn in the poem occurs in line 29, when Auden states, “law is no more, law has gone away.” From this point, the speaker addresses the idea that law is undefinable. The specificities of law depend on the person who is following it. It is impossible to explain the law in terms of another word. For that reason, it is similar to love.
In the last stanza, Auden compares law to love. Like law, love cannot be defined. It is an inanimate part of space and time that relies on the person, or group of people, who feel it. Auden makes this comparison to love specific to he and his lover. The last line of the poem states, “like love we seldom keep.” This sets forth the idea that, just as the law is not always followed, love is not always kept the way it should be. It varies on the couple and the situation that they are in, just like societal groups and their views of law.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
One Art
Elizabeth Bishop expresses the immense anguish she feels over losing her lover through a dichotomy between lines 1-15 and lines 16-19. By doing so, she shows how much more pain she felt over losing this important person in her life as compared to the trivial things that people seem to lose every day. For example, in lines 1-5, Bishop says, “The art of losing isn’t hard to master;/ so many things seem filled with the intent/ to be lost that their loss is no disaster./ Lose something every day. Accept the fluster/ of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.” Here, Bishop shows that she is never fazed by losing insignificant things such as door keys or time. She continues on by saying that losing things becomes a part of one’s daily life, whether they are losing places, names, or their memory in general. Each of these “lost” items serves as a comparison to the speaker losing her beloved.
Later on in the poem, Bishop begins to mention the loss of more important things in life. In line 10, she speaks of losing her mother’s watch, and in line 11, she says that she has lost three houses. Further on, she parallels the idea of moving with losing. The reader can tell from lines 13-15 that the speaker has moved often in her life, as she discusses losing two cities, two rivers, and a continent. By speaking in these vast terms, one can understand that the speaker losing her lover must have been quite a disaster, as she states in line 15. If losing this significant other has been more detrimental to her being than losing a continent, as she says, the speaker must be in dire anguish over the circumstances. These comparisons help to exaggerate her argument.
In the final stanza of the poem, the speaker finally admits to the reason that she has mastered the “art” of losing. She says that although all losing may seem like disaster, it is only that way in certain forms. However, she says “I shan’t have lied,” in line 17. Through this phrase, it is evident that although she says that losing is not hard to master, losing her lover has been particularly difficult. She has been able to endure the loss of many other things, but this absence in her life is seemingly impossible to recover from.
Later on in the poem, Bishop begins to mention the loss of more important things in life. In line 10, she speaks of losing her mother’s watch, and in line 11, she says that she has lost three houses. Further on, she parallels the idea of moving with losing. The reader can tell from lines 13-15 that the speaker has moved often in her life, as she discusses losing two cities, two rivers, and a continent. By speaking in these vast terms, one can understand that the speaker losing her lover must have been quite a disaster, as she states in line 15. If losing this significant other has been more detrimental to her being than losing a continent, as she says, the speaker must be in dire anguish over the circumstances. These comparisons help to exaggerate her argument.
In the final stanza of the poem, the speaker finally admits to the reason that she has mastered the “art” of losing. She says that although all losing may seem like disaster, it is only that way in certain forms. However, she says “I shan’t have lied,” in line 17. Through this phrase, it is evident that although she says that losing is not hard to master, losing her lover has been particularly difficult. She has been able to endure the loss of many other things, but this absence in her life is seemingly impossible to recover from.
Ogun
The speaker begins by introducing his uncle, a woodworker who was diligent in creating household staples. Braithwaite begins “Ogun” by stating, “My uncle made chairs, tables, balanced doors on, dug out/ coffins, smoothing the white wood out,” in line 1. Throughout the next few lines, he describes the working of his uncle. He uses onomatopoeia to mimic the sounds of carpentry. Braithwaite states, “He was knock-knee’d, flat-/footed and his clip clop sandals slapped across the concrete,” in lines 7-8. The reader grasps the noise that they might hear had they been in the room with the speaker’s uncle through phrases like “knock-knee’d” and “clip clop.” This helps to accentuate the imagery of the scene that the speaker is describing.
At first, the tone of the poem is nostalgic and reverential. The speaker seems to be thinking back on his uncle in a very positive light. There is an overtone of admiration and praise in the speaker’s memory of his uncle. He believes in the natural talent and his ability to create these objects without machinery. This is the cause of the turn in the poem, which begins in the last section, starting on line 21. The conjunction “but” signifies the turn in the poem, as it lies between the former tone and the present. At this point, a more negative overtone is introduced in the poem. In lines 23-26, the speaker says “spine-curving chairs made up on tubes, with hollow/ steel-like bird bones that sat on rubber ploughs,/ thin beds, stretched not on boards, but blue high-tensioned cables, were what the world preferred.” Here, the speaker discusses the turn in worldly events. After the Industrial Revolution, carpenters like the speaker’s uncle were no longer needed because of the invention of machinery. The phrase “spine-curving,” as stated in line 23 to describe a chair, could instead refer to the feelings of the speaker and his uncle. This shows the pain that the duo felt when this occurred, and the talent the world had abandoned.
At first, the tone of the poem is nostalgic and reverential. The speaker seems to be thinking back on his uncle in a very positive light. There is an overtone of admiration and praise in the speaker’s memory of his uncle. He believes in the natural talent and his ability to create these objects without machinery. This is the cause of the turn in the poem, which begins in the last section, starting on line 21. The conjunction “but” signifies the turn in the poem, as it lies between the former tone and the present. At this point, a more negative overtone is introduced in the poem. In lines 23-26, the speaker says “spine-curving chairs made up on tubes, with hollow/ steel-like bird bones that sat on rubber ploughs,/ thin beds, stretched not on boards, but blue high-tensioned cables, were what the world preferred.” Here, the speaker discusses the turn in worldly events. After the Industrial Revolution, carpenters like the speaker’s uncle were no longer needed because of the invention of machinery. The phrase “spine-curving,” as stated in line 23 to describe a chair, could instead refer to the feelings of the speaker and his uncle. This shows the pain that the duo felt when this occurred, and the talent the world had abandoned.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The Metamorphosis & The Stranger Question Essay
In The Stranger by Albert Camus, is it possible that the nonchalant, uncaring nature of Mersault makes him an existentialist? If this is so, is Gregor Samsa, of Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, an existentialist as well? Samsa and Mersault both exhibit characteristics that imply that they do not feel that there is a purpose in the world that they live in, but do they actually feel this way? Are Samsa and Camus really the existentialists that Kafka and Camus present them as? If they are, what has caused them to develop this view of life and the world in which they live?
Is Mersault’s distant relationship to his mother the reason for his existentialist thoughts and views? If this is the case, then is it possible that Samsa develops his personal views because of his detachment from his immediate family? The reader sees that Samsa does not interact much with his family, but could this really drive him to feel so strongly about the pointlessness of life? Mersault only seems to have a slightly close relationship with Marie, just as Samson confides in his sister, but why is it that neither of these men can find their true meaning through the significant women in their lives? It does not seem so at first, but is it possible that these women share a similar view of the world? Is that why they do not try to convince their men that there is meaning in the world?
Is there truly any explanation as to why these men think as they do? Though it does not seem likely, is it possible they have simply always had this view of society and the world in which they live? Does a person, group of people, or event have a greater impact on an individual’s personality? What is it that molds the views and characteristics of a person in themselves?
Is Mersault’s distant relationship to his mother the reason for his existentialist thoughts and views? If this is the case, then is it possible that Samsa develops his personal views because of his detachment from his immediate family? The reader sees that Samsa does not interact much with his family, but could this really drive him to feel so strongly about the pointlessness of life? Mersault only seems to have a slightly close relationship with Marie, just as Samson confides in his sister, but why is it that neither of these men can find their true meaning through the significant women in their lives? It does not seem so at first, but is it possible that these women share a similar view of the world? Is that why they do not try to convince their men that there is meaning in the world?
Is there truly any explanation as to why these men think as they do? Though it does not seem likely, is it possible they have simply always had this view of society and the world in which they live? Does a person, group of people, or event have a greater impact on an individual’s personality? What is it that molds the views and characteristics of a person in themselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)