Reading Myself

Reading Myself
Robert Lowell

Like thousands, I took pride and more than just,
struck matches that brought my blood to a boil;
I memorized the tricks to set the river on fire--
Somehow never wrote something to go back to.
Can I suppose I am finished with wax flowers
And have earned my grass on the minor slopes of

Parnassus. . .

No honeycomb is built without a bee

adding circle to circle, cell to cell,

the wax and honey of a mausoleum--

this round dome proves its maker is alive;

the corpse of the insect lives embalmed in honey,

prays that its perishable work lives long

enough for the swee-toothed bear to desecrate--

this open book . . . my coffin.

I really enjoyed this poem because I struggle with pride and wanting to leave my mark on the world, and this poem really hits that subject hard for me. I like the way that the Lowell layed out the structure of this poem because it has a very unique flow to it. In the first line Lowell breaks up the sentence a comma and a semi-colon. The semi-colon allows us to see the relationship between the matches that set him on fire and the river of fire. I see his blood and the river as one thing; he took pride and was able to light a fire within himself, he learned a trick to light his blood on fire, to make it boil with drive and persistence. After he wrights this he then goes on to say that he never wrote anything to go back to, and in my head I just figured that he was saying he never really did anything substantial with the fire that he had within him, and he never was able to harness that vast amount of drive to accomplish much. Then he goes on to ask if he has earned his place on a grassy slope of Parnassus, which is a reference to his dealings with poetry, and he wonders if he has accomplished anything so great that he has earned a place with the gods with that work. The way that Lowell indented the "Parnassus" bit is really helpful; it allows the author to transition into the "second" stanza. In the "second" stanza Lowell talks about a bee and how it works and works and works to build this bee hive but in the end it will only get destroyed, but if the bee hive can just last to and be seen by the world or someone then it means that someone knew that the bee had to have existed to create that bee hive, and Lowell wants to create something like that, in fact, he already has his own bee hive. Lowell says, "this open book...my coffin." This means that Lowell considers his writing his bee hive, and the end of him, it is what he will leave to the world when he dies.

Unititled

Untitled
Stephen Crane

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said: "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter--bitter," he answered;
"But i like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

Oh Stephen, what a creep you are. This poem struck me a lot. I like this poem because it is very simple, but behind that simpleness there is a lot of complexity. This poem is one giant metaphor, and Crane uses this metaphor to explain how in all of us there is some type of bestial creature. In this poem I imagine this being seen in a dream, in Crane's dream and the reason why I say that is because the way that the passage is written is story-like. The way that Crane spaces out the passage and the way that he breaks up the lines with the commas puts emphasis on certain words or parts of the poem. For instance when Crane separates line 4 into two different lines it puts a lot of emphasis on line 5, which states that the heart that the creature has in his hands is being eaten by that creature. It allows the reader to see what parts that Crane holds important and what he wants the reader to emphasize. The creature is the creature inside and i see it from the point of view of Freud and that this is a dream or something like it and the creature that is being seen is just a projection of the dreamer, therefore the creature is a part of the person in the poem. If the creature is a part of the person then he is the person and so the person is eating his own heart as a creature and stating that it is bitter, it is his own heart, and he likes it. I see this as the evil in all of us, and the person is seeing himself as this creature and he is eating his own bitter heart, but he likes it, he likes the badness that is within himself. He likes his own evil.

Sort of a Song

Sort of a Song
William Carlos Williams

Let the snake under
his weed
and the writing
be of words, slow and quick, sharp
to strike, quiet to wait
sleepless.

--through metaphor to reconcile
the people and the stones.
Compose. (No ideas
but in things) Invent!
Saxifrage is my flower that splits
the rocks.

First off I would like to say that the author's name is very interesting. Maybe his parents thought it would be funny that his name would be William Williams. Anyways, back to the poem. In the poem I first noticed that there is an interesting structure to it. In the first stanza there are some interesting breaks in lines. In the first three lines the author breaks up a line after "under" and "weed" and "writing" I think that the author did this in order to relate the snake to writing. When you read this and there is the break where it is at in lines 1-3 it allows the reader to see that the author wants us to see the snake as writing because as he seperates this line the snake waits under his weedand the writing. Both are slow and quick, and sharp to strike. The snake is slow in life but fast to strike when the moment arises, just like a writer. A writer will let the inspiration come but when it does and the writer begins the creative process then the writer is fast to strike, is fast to get the writing done and make it potent. Then the author throws a bit of a curveball at the reader by splitting the whole poem into two stanzas and in the first line of the second stanza I noticed that there are two dashes which set apart the stanza which emphasizes the importance of the second stanza. The author set up with writing is and what it is like in the first stanza then in the second stanza the author is stating what creators must do. Writers must "reconcile the people and the stones," stones of course being those who are not open to writing or poetry. The last line of the poem is then a kinda of closing of the poem, a closing that is used to wrap up the entire message of the poem. " Saxrifage is my flower that splits the rocks," in this last line the poet is stating that the writing which he produces is the flower that splites the solid reality that is the worlds rock, or his own personal rock.

Getting Cottonmouth

Cottonmouth Country

by Louise Gluck

Fish bones walked the waves off Hatteras.

And there were other signs

That Death wooed us, by water, wooed us

By land: among the pines

An uncurled cottonmouth that rolled on moss

Reared in the polluted air.

Birth, not death, is the hard loss.

I know. I also left a skin there.

Wow. This poem is extremely hazy. I cannot get it right now but I am going to read it real quick again. Hold on. :) The structure of this poem has som interesting points to it. In line 3 there are some commas that break up the sentence and the author does this because to emphasize how death interacts with us. The author uses the word "wooed," why? To give death a personality I think, maybe the personality of person who cares about us, a person who has interest in us because only those types of people would ever want to woo us. Cottonmouth....lets get to that supject. What happens when one gets cottonmouth? There is a feeling of despair, wanting, or better yet a need for watter or some type of liquid. The death created this type of despair, a longing for life to wash away the cottonmouth that death left behind. But who is the author talking to right now? Is the author in favor of life or death? Lets look at line 7. The author states " Birth, not death, is the hard loss." Why would birth be the hard loss if the author was in favor of life? Maybe he is talking to death. Maybe he is stating that to death the hardest loss is new life, because that means that there is just another person to kill, another soul to be releases, atleast thats the way that I see it. The author then states in line ate that he understands why birth is a greater loss...he left a skin there. This reminds me of a snake shedding its skin. Maybe the author agrees that when a person is born a certain part of yourself must be left behind because one must take on a new role. The role of a parent must be had. Who knows? Maybe all that I am saying is wrong, maybe the person who is reading my interpretation agrees. Who knows? Thats my take on this poem.

Hamlet ACT 2

• Plonius sends his servent to go and spy on Laertes
• Orders his servent Reynaldo do not be obvious but to find out what Laertes is really doing
• Ophelia then tells Polonius that Hamlet visited her and was wild and didnt say a word, just held her and looked at her
• Polonius says it is becaus he is mad with love for her
• Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are ordered by the King and Queen to find out why Hamlet is acting so crazy
• The King finds out that the King of Norway regrets what happened between their two kingdoms and swears that he will never attack the Danes again
• Polonius then goes on to tel the King and Queen that he thinks Hamlet is crazy because he made Ophelia not see him anymore and that Hamlet always walks alone acting insane.
• They come up with a plan to spy on Hamlet and Ophelia to see if its really love making him mad
• Rosencrantz and Guildenstern meet with Hamlet and ask why he is so gloomy and Hamlet explains
• Rosencrantz asks Hamlet if he would enjoy a troop of actors, then the actors enter
• Hamlet has one of the players read a play and Hamlet likes it
• Hamlet states that the players shall put on a play about a king being killed by his brother in order to get the current King nervous and to catch him

Just Being

The poem "Of Mere Being" by Wallace Stevens was surprisingly really good. We discussed it in class quite a while ago and then i decided that i should go back and look at it since Justin and I got into such a heated battle over whether the bird on the tree was merely being or whether it meant so much more than that.

In my opinion this poem is just about being. Maybe its because i like the sense of just being and it makes the poem much simpler than it should be, but thats what i take away from the poem, is that it is ok to just be, and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with just being the way you are. Just like nature IS, so can we all be.

In the poem Wallace paints a picture of beauty with the description that he gives of the bird and of the palm, "The palm...rises in the bronze decor," or "A gold feathered bird sings in the palm..." or "The bird's fire-fangled feathers hang down." All of these sentences give such a vivid image of such a simple thing, but thats just it, none of the things that we see as just simple are simple, they can be things of beauty and that is a message that i got out of this poem, i mean the author also says that the bird sings, without human meaning, or human feeling. Without us imposing our views onto that bird we are making it beautiful, because it just is. Looking from a structural point of view in the third stanza in line 3 the sentences are short and punctual, they hit short and fast; "The bird sings. It's feathers shine." Thats it. "The bird sings. It's feathers shine." It is in its purest form, its most beautiful form, and i for one have to learn that nature is beautiful on its own.