[General] Poem Analysis

Status
Not open for further replies.

elvis93

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Albanian
Home Country
Albania
Current Location
Italy
p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } Good afternoon guys!!!
Would you be so kind to correct gramatically my interpretation of this poem?
It is written by Emily Dickinson and I would be delighted if you give me also your personal judgement about it.
Thanks a lot in advance.


The poem is the following:


“Nature” is what we see
The Hill The Afternoon
Squirrel Eclipse the Bumble tree
Nay Nature is Heaven
Nature is what we hear
The Bobolink the Sea
Thunder the Cricket
Nay Nature is Melody
Nature is what we know
Yet have no art to say
So impotent Our Wisdom is
To her semplicity.






Analysis and interpretation of the poem:


The poetess describes the immense beauty of Nature by emphatizing its intensity and magnificence, which is in contrast with the human being who is so tiny and insignificant.
We can only admire “its semplicity” without saying a word because we cannot do this even if we want to.
We live in a world in which macrocosm and microcosm doesn't coincide as we are not part of this “semplicity”, which even nowadays is mostly incomprehensible.
We are inert observers who cannot explain neither the easiest meccanisms of the surrounding universe,nor describe properly her beauty.
It is clearly visible that the mankind is totally disanthropomorphised by nature as they're two different realities.
On the other hand,I think Dickinson wanted to highlight the tendence of humanity to magnify and make the things bigger than they are, maybe because we have forgotten that the real beauty can be found beyond the spontaneous things such as a “squirrel, the bumble tree, an eclipse” or maybe because we are afraid of this semplicity.
 

birdeen's call

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } Good afternoon guys!!!
Would you be so kind to correct gramatically my interpretation of this poem?
It is written by Emily Dickinson and I would be delighted if you give me also your personal judgement about it.
Note that you have written that Emily Dickinson wrote your interpretation. The intended meaning is clear of course, but please be careful.

The poetess describes the immense beauty of Nature by emphatizing its intensity and magnificence, which is in contrast with the human being who is so tiny and insignificant.
You need to justify this. Where in the poem does she do it? Which lines are telling us about Nature's magnificence?
We can only admire “its semplicity” without saying a word because we cannot do this even if we want to.
The word is "simplicity", even though it's "semplicita" in Italian.
We live in a world in which macrocosm and microcosm doesn't coincide as we are not part of this “semplicity”, which even nowadays is mostly incomprehensible.
Again, you need to justify this interpretation.
We are inert observers who cannot explain neither the easiest meccanisms of the surrounding universe,nor describe properly her beauty.
The word is "mechanisms".

Generally, your interpratation and analysis lacks analysis. You just said what you think the poem means. You didn't say why you think so. You didn't analyze the poetic devices used in the poem either.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
"disanthropomorphised"
Anthropomorphism is "the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object." (Oxford.) It's impossible to disanthropomorphise Man. You'd do better trying to explain what you mean.

"poetess" is outdated. Most academics in English departments would mark you down for this (and probably refer you to the university's rules on sexist language!) Dickinson is a poet.
 

elvis93

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Albanian
Home Country
Albania
Current Location
Italy
Thank you so much birdeen's call and Raymott
I'll try to plug all my gaps.
I've never written a poem interpretation, but I'm really interested in English Literature and I wanted to make an attempt.
As I can see, I need to learn lots of things but, thanks to your corrections, maybe I'll have the chance to improve. :)
 

elvis93

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Albanian
Home Country
Albania
Current Location
Italy
I'm sorry Raymott for using "poetess"(I absentmindedly translated it by starting from the italian word "poetessa").
It wasn't my intention to underestimate Dickinson's talent(on the contrary I deeply look up to her) or use a sexist language.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
I'm sorry Raymott for using "poetess"(I absentmindedly translated it by starting from the italian word "poetessa").
It wasn't my intention to underestimate Dickinson's talent(on the contrary I deeply look up to her) or use a sexist language.

I know it wasn't. It doesn't worry me at all. But it does worry people in academic English departments, and I thought you should know that.
 

minnieuk

Junior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
You say you've not done a poetry analysis before so I hope I'm not being too critical here. I think you've made a good first attempt at interpreting a poem. Dickinson can be very difficult to get to grips with. I do have a few comments.

Firstly, you shouldn't really use 'I think'. In English Lit essays we do use 'I' but not to express our own feelings. So you can say 'I suggest' or 'I would argue' but not 'I think' or 'I feel'. Just a small point but if you want to write an academic analysis it is preferred.

This probably isn't your fault as I assume you were given the poem to look at but your version has all the punctuation stripped out. Emily Dickinson was a pioneer of using the dash for punctuation. Punctuation is really important in poetry and without it the poem can lose some of its original meaning. The proper structure is as follows:

"Nature" is what we see—
The Hill—the Afternoon—
Squirrel—Eclipse—the Bumble bee—
Nay—Nature is Heaven—
Nature is what we hear—
The Bobolink—the Sea—
Thunder—the Cricket—
Nay—Nature is Harmony—
Nature is what we know—
Yet have no art to say—
So impotent Our Wisdom is
To her Simplicity

Great choice of poet by the way. Emily Dickinson is one of my favourites. You might like to take a look at some of her 2-line poems. It is incredible what she can say in just a few words.
 

elvis93

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Albanian
Home Country
Albania
Current Location
Italy
Thank you very much minnieuk for your advice.
I'll try to apply all your suggestions for the next analysis. :)
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
"Nature" is what we see—
The Hill—the Afternoon—
Squirrel—Eclipse—the Bumble bee—
Nay—Nature is Heaven—
Nature is what we hear—
The Bobolink—the Sea—
Thunder—the Cricket—
Nay—Nature is Harmony—
Nature is what we know—
Yet have no art to say—
So impotent Our Wisdom is
To her Simplicity

Great choice of poet by the way. Emily Dickinson is one of my favourites. You might like to take a look at some of her 2-line poems. It is incredible what she can say in just a few words.
Good point about the dashes. I wish posters would represent other people's work properly.

On an unrelated note, I think Dickenson writes rubbish. For example,
Nature is not what we see, or hear. Nature is not heaven. Nature is not harmonious. Nature is not what we know. Nature is not simple.
Yes, I understand she was a poet, not a naturalist. But should we let our kids read this?
 

minnieuk

Junior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
On an unrelated note, I think Dickenson writes rubbish. For example,
Nature is not what we see, or hear. Nature is not heaven. Nature is not harmonious. Nature is not what we know. Nature is not simple.
Yes, I understand she was a poet, not a naturalist. But should we let our kids read this?

I would have to disagree about Dickinson being rubbish. You have to bear in mind that she was a 19th century poet and nature was the theme of choice at the time. Her poetry is highly experimental and very innovative.

Anyway, she's not saying that nature is simple - quite the opposite in fact - she is describing its magnificence. When she talks about simplicity she is suggesting that what we take for granted as the basics of nature are still way beyond human understanding.

Like many of her contemporary 19th century poets (Wordsworth etc) she has a preocuppation with the inability (or not) of poetry to describe nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top