|
I don't know if anyone else finds poetry as facinating as I do, but in case you do I'm going to start posting some short analysis of a few poems that I really enjoy by some authors you might have heard of. My first poem will be The Grass so little has to do by Emily Dickenson. Bear in mind when you read this that I'm learning the poem myself as I go along. I'm not an expert in poetry or anything, its just something I do in my spare time, but there are a lot of really intelligent people on this website and it is astounding to me that so few of them are interested in this particular intellectual hobby. If you guys see any errors please point them out and I'll adjust my thinking accordingly.
About myself: I'm a published poet currently getting my ENGL writing degree at a smallish school in Minnesota. I play Protoss in SC2, and played Terran in SC1 although I didn't find out about ICCup until after sc2 had come out.
Anyway, lets get started.
The Grass so little has to do
by Emily Dickenson
The Grass so little has to do –
A Sphere of simple Green –
With only Butterflies to brood
And Bees to entertain –
And stir all day to pretty Tunes
The Breezes fetch along –
And hold the Sunshine in its lap
And bow to everything –
And thread the Dews, all night, like Pearls –
And make itself so fine
A Duchess were too common
For such a noticing –
And even when it dies – to pass
In Odors so divine –
Like Lowly spices, lain to sleep –
Or Spikenards, perishing –
And then, in Sovereign Barns to dwell –
And dream the Days away,
The Grass so little has to do
I wish I were a Hay –
The immediate thing I notice when I read this poem is the meter and rhythm of each line. Read it out loud (I'll use caps to highlight the stressed areas):
the GRASS so LITtle HAS to DO -
a SPHERE of SIMple GREEN -
with ONly BUTterFLIES to BROOD
and BEES to ENterTAIN
I want you to notice the pattern thats happening here. Dickenson will be deliberately playing with our expectations later in a very subtle way.
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO there FOUR five SIX,
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO three FOUR five SIX.
You will notice that every other beat is stressed, and the last beat is doubly highlighted since it is both at the end of a line and stressed. From a rhythm/meter standpoint, this stanza is extremely boring.
But then we get to the next stanza, which operates like this:
and STIR all DAY to PRETty TUNES
the BREEZes FETCH aLONG –
and HOLD the SUNshine IN its LAP
and BOW to EVERYthing –
You will notice how the pattern we've come to expect from the previous stanza is continued through the first three lines of this stanza, and is then suddenly broken in an extremely dramatic way. To make it more obvious, let me count out the numbers for you.
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO three FOUR five SIX,
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO three FOUR five <-- this line is missing a stressed beat at the end, the SIX.
You might be thinking, "so what? Who cares about a missed beat at the end of a line?" Try singing this out loud. The first stanza has a very singsongy beat, operating on a
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO three FOUR five SIX
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO three FOUR five SIX
beat that feels intuitive and natural to read. But this second stanza breaks with that pattern in a very jarring way; we feel like theres another word that's vanished or been erased from the poem somehow. That 'missing word' effect is something extremely characteristic of this poem and of Dickenson in general.
Whats even more exciting about this is the fact that Dickenson uses this meter effect to highlight meaning in the poem. What happens in the first stanza? Grass chills out with bees and butterflies. Toodle-fucking-doo for grass. What happens in the second stanza? Grass dances to the wind's tunes, and holds the sun on its lap (a cool image yes, but I still don't care), and bows to everything.
Now imagine that I had not drawn your attention to the rhythm break at that point in the poem. Would you have been aware of that line "bows to everything" as intensely as you are right now? What does Dickenson mean by that? Does she mean grass is passive and lets people walk all over it? Does she mean grass worships the world around it? What does she mean?
The answer to that question is not really important at this point in the poem, at least not from a writer's (Dickenson's) perspective; whats important is the fact that she has inspired us to ask those questions. The reader is now invested. Lets continue:
And thread the Dews, all night, like Pearls –
And make itself so fine
A Duchess were too common
For such a noticing –
And the beats highlighted:
and THREAD the DEWS all NIGHT like PEARLS
and MAKE itSELF so FINE
a DUCHess WERE too COMMon
for SUCH a NOTICEing -
The first two lines here are metered in the usual intuitive way we were expecting before, but now the last two lines are off beat. They are so off beat, in fact, that when you read this poem out loud you almost stumble with these lines. The effect is to make those last two lines seem very very important to the reader.
And, in fact, they are. It is in this stanza that we start to get some glimmering insights as to what the poem is really about. At the word 'Dutchess' I begin to get suspicious that the poem isn't actually about grass, and by the end of the stanza I'm sure of it. Theres some sort of metaphor happening in the poem here, and it seems to be woman related from the imagery we've been exposed to so far (wears pearls, dances to pretty tunes, holds 'sunshine' in its lap, entertains guests).
Now, the last to lines are interesting here. If we pretend that grass is a metaphor for a woman, what does the line "A duchess were too common for such a noticing" mean? I would assume that 'duchess' is some sort of stand in for what Dickenson's society would have considered a great or near-perfect woman to be like. I think that Dickenson is saying that the grass woman is more beautiful (noticeable) than a duchess.
Well, that feels right but it also feels strange. Theres something off about that line; I think its probably the broken meter. I get the impression that Dickenson is implying something negative about the grass woman by this comparison. Weird. Lets continue:
And even when it dies -- to pass
In Odors so divine --
Like Lowly spices, lain to sleep --
Or Spikenards, perishing --
the beats:
and EVen WHEN it DIES pause to PASS
in ODors SO divINE
like LOWly SPICEes LAIN to SLEEP
or SPIKEnards PERishing
An aside: The meter here is similar to the second stanza, in that it has a large break at the end, but it also has that great little pause in the first line. What's the deal with that? Read the line out loud to yourself. You'll notice that you give yourself a little quarter beat pause when you get to those dashes. Cool huh? You didn't even realize it when you read it in your brain.
While its interesting, I don't think its an important break. I think Dickenson is doing something pretty simple rhetorically. She's just helping us understand her use of the word 'dying.' Shes saying something like "even when it dies, you know, like when it passes..." or using different words, "He threw me the ball, you know, the ol' pigskin." Its interesting in that it forces us to focus on a particular connotation of dying (the peaceful sort, like old people falling asleep), but its not as important as the other meter break in the stanza.
The meter for the next two lines is as boring and regular as it comes. The last line is really cool though. Here are the beats for it:
one TWO three FOUR five six
Notice how the last two beats are unstressed? How cool is that?! Even cooler: Spikenards? WTF is that? Apparently its a kind of plant that is supposed to smell real good; it sure doesn't sound like it from the name. This word feels very important to me. Lets review why:
1. The sudden inclusion of the word 'spike' in the middle of a line that completely breaks the flow of meter in the poem,
2. Its presense in a stanza about death,
3. speaking naturally highlights it (the comma after the word)
All make this single word spikenards extremely jarring and painful to read. And it is a pretty thorny word. Say it with me: Spikenards. Gugh! It hurts to even say it.
Now, if we're assuming that the grass is a metaphor for a woman, this stanza does two things for us:
1. it says something very specific about the eventual death of that woman,
2. it implies something completely different about whatever #1 is.
If we read the meter independant of the words it controls we realize that this stanza is an expression of some sort of jarring, painful emotion; the stumbling meter and that harsh, harsh word make me feel some sort of pain.
However, the actual words of the poem seem to be about a peaceful death. What? How could a peaceful death be jarring and painful? The contrast between the two connotations makes me believe that this stanza is meant to be ironic or sarcastic. Suddenly we're aware that Dickenson does not identify with the grass. Shes saying something like, "even when the bitch dies she smells good," rather than "and when she dies she smells really good," which is what the language of the poem would have us believe.
Ok, so so far we think that this is a poem about a woman who is like grass, who doesn't do anything but wear pretty clothes and dance and entertain, is more noticable than a duchess, bows to everything, and is disliked by the narrator. The last stanza ties all of these things up in a really great twist.
And then, in Sovereign Barns to dwell --
And dream the Days away,
The Grass so little has to do
I wish I were a Hay --
the beats:
and THEN in SOVereign BARNS to DWELL
and DREAM the DAYS awAY,
the GRASS so LITtle HAS to DO
i WISH i WERE a HAY
the counts:
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO three FOUR five SIX
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO three FOUR five SIX
Finally, we return to the beat we've been yearning for the entire poem. Feels satisfying, doesn't it?
I think the meaning of the poem is obvious right now, but if it isn't, heres a quick tl;dr: Dickenson compares woman to grass, saying that the woman is weak and uninteresting, spends all her time doing things that don't matter. Woman need to stand up for themselves and stop bending over. If it is a woman's job to be grass and do nothing all day, well, Dickenson would rather be dirty, ugly, hay.
Well, this was me exploring a Dickinson poem. Its pretty dirty and unorganized, but this is how I understand poetry. My point in writing this was to explore something I noticed while reading it, which was how the meter and rhythm of the poem completely change how the poem would be understood if the words were arranged differently. I think I might do something by e. e. cummings or TS Elliot tomorrow, if there is any interest. I hope you all enjoyed it!
 
|
Are you a uni student or hs? ooc
edit: I'm a moron i just read analysis and not the top
|
I thoroughly enjoyed this, especially the way you lead the reader into the folding depths of the poem. I definitely didn't notice at first everything that was going on there! imo, you should continue this- I'd read them.
You mentioned that you are a published poet- I would love to read some of the things you have written, especially since I'm trying to become a better writer.
|
I only read the beginning of your post (sorry!) but if you don't mind, I'd like to comment on it.
You characterize this poem as lines of alternating iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter (to use the common shorthand for the beats that you typed out) which describes the meter of the poem, as opposed to its rhythm. (The distinction between "meter" and "rhythm" is something I got from an English teacher of mine: "meter" is the general pattern of stresses in each line of a poem; rhythm is the actual stresses in each line.)
The reason I say that you are describing the meter rather than the rhythm is that in the lines you quote by way of example, you often put the stress on the spot where the meter demands a stress, rather than on the spot that the most natural way of reading the words would put it. Here are the syllables I have in mind specifically: you stress "HAS", "FLIES", "EN", and "IN", even though if they weren't part of a poem, they would have at most a secondary stress.
On the other hand, when you get to "EVERYthing", you make much of the lack of stress on "THING", even though that should be no different from "FLIES": it has a secondary stress, although not a primary stress. The reason you do that, I think, is that you are condensing "EVERY" into one syllable--but it's not: some people pronounce it as three and some as two, but there's no way that I can see of pronouncing it as one.
For that reason, I don't think your analysis of the significance of the "missing stress" is accurate--or if it is, at the least you have to make it fit with the previous "missing stresses" that I mentioned.
Edit: I hope you aren't offended by disagreement. I do recognize the effort that goes into a post as
long as yours, and I appreciate it.
Edit 2: Rereading the poem, I think I see what you mean. Maybe it's the fact that "thing" is at the end of a line that makes it stand out a little more than the other missed stresses. Still, you should clarify.
|
the Dagon Knight4000 Posts
On May 28 2011 04:19 tnkted wrote:
and STIR all DAY to PRETty TUNES
the BREEZes FETCH aLONG –
and HOLD the SUNshine IN its LAP
and BOW to EVERYthing –
You will notice how the pattern we've come to expect from the previous stanza is continued through the first three lines of this stanza, and is then suddenly broken in an extremely dramatic way. To make it more obvious, let me count out the numbers for you.
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO three FOUR five SIX,
one TWO three FOUR five SIX seven EIGHT
one TWO three FOUR five <-- this line is missing a stressed beat at the end, the SIX.
This has already been addressed a little, but I believe it might benefit from the quote as an illustration. This distinction may simply be a function of your accent (perhaps).
It might just be a peculiarity the Irish accent, but for me that verse's stress pattern would be far more one of:
and stir all day to pretty tunes
the breezes fetch along
and hold the sunshine in its lap
and bow to ev'rything
I've apostrophised that second "e" in the last line just for the sake of the reading of it in my own accent.
Edit: E.E. Cummings next, please. Ideally "Anyone lived in a pretty how town..."
|
Yeah, I think this is really a disagreement of accent, although you're right - if this line is actually metered in the same way as the first stanza it really will change the understanding of the poem.
How many syllables is in everything? It depends on how you say it (ev ry thing, ev er ry thing, every thing). The meter of that particular line seemed to suggest that every and thing are two separate chunks of sound, at least in my reading. The reason for that is when you read the line, the meter feels like it stumbles somehow on that word. Perhaps its more of an effect from the dash, but I was trying to make that emphesis clear to people who don't read poetry generally. You guys are correct in that it should probably be three or four (i'd do three) syllables.
If theres anyone from new england here who can enlighten us on how they'd say the line that'd be fantastic too, Dickenson was from Massachusetts.
to the guy who asked for some of my poems: unfortunately they're all in print magazines, so I can't! I can't type them up here either for legal reasons. I'm submitting some stuff to the Boston Review though, so if they publish anything I'll totally link to it. Otherwise I guess I could write a poem and throw it up here? I think I'll stick to the analysis for now.
I was thinking of doing "i sing of Olaf glad and big' cuz thats my favorite but maybe its better if I do one of his poems I don't know very well... Hmm. Any other suggestions?
|
lol it's like AP English Literature all over again
|
nice read & cool blog idea. looking forward to your next one. +1 for ee cummings.
|
I disagree with your scansion of the poem, especially in the parts where you say that Dickenson is straying from the meter. Like some people have posted above, there is very little argument to scanning "everything" into 2 syllables. Not only is there no real argument for that particular scansion, I would go as far as to say that the fact that Emily Dickenson is writing in common meter (we can presume) in the first stanza makes it more likely for us to be encouraged to continue reading the poem in common meter until the poet forces us to break it. The power required to force us away from the common meter will be a lot more than wanting us to pronounce the word "everything" away from a conveniently iambic interpretation, "and BOW to EVeryTHING", to a strange very heavily elided version of "everything" into a word that I'm not even sure how you would pronounce because I can't even begin to fathom how I would begin to have those letters come from my mouth in a two syllables.
Now, if I were to imagine for a moment that I could condense that to a two syllables, if I were to imagine that it were a break from the meter, I still think that this would be a poor poem to be analyzing in that I don't feel that this is a very meaningful substitution. In fact, I think that if I were to have read this poem and thought that everything were to be read in that way that I would have thought that this was a misfire from an otherwise outstanding poet.
It's not that the line shouldn't have any emphasis placed upon it (I would go as far as to say when you are trying to really read the poem you should be placing this much careful analysis into each line) it's just that the way that you have scanned it has Emily Dickenson doing things that she just doesn't do. Consider how you scan the line "and bow to everything": not only are you moving away from the 4343 common meter accent pattern, you are losing an entire syllable. It stops being a substitution, and that just doesn't function properly in terms of the formal poem. Obviously as poets began to move away from formalism and meter we have people doing these kinds of things, but it just doesn't make sense and there isn't enough of an argument to try and make the point that the line should be read that way.
The second time you think that Dickenson breaks from the meter is the line "for such a noticing" where you, again, try to elide in a place where it simply doesn't make sense. In order to pronounce "noticing" in two syllables, you have to skip over the "T", which is something that is not intuitive or a standard pronunciation. Try reading the line like "for SUCH a NOticING": not only is it more natural, it follows the metrical pattern that Dickenson has set in the first couple stanzas. Like I said before, in order to break out of a form like common meter, especially coming from a poet like Dickenson, you need something drastic, you need something that will forcibly break the meter and not something that is willynilly and can be read both ways. It's just too strong of a meter, it's too established, and Dickenson writes from that form so often that you have so much of that momentum riding behind the poem that there needs to be something a lot stronger than a strange elision in the way you read it in your head to break away form the meter.
If you wanted to make the case that there was a break in the meter at this point, you are far more likely to succeed in claiming that it could be scanned as "for SUCH a NOticing" and saying that the end of noticing is a pyhrric substitution for the iamb at the end. This sort of substitution would contribute an irony to the line, because you are removing an accent from the line when the line is talking about "noticing". I'm not sure how I would feel about this claim, because it is a stretch, but it is a lot more feasible than the scansion that you have currently in place.
Your reading of common in the same stanza is probably the best place for considering a meaningful substitution than any other in the poem. In fact, I think that the two lines "A duchess were too common/ for such a noticing" is the most interesting lines of the poem. All the other lines are easy comparisons and metaphors for grass, they are things that are poetic and nice and they are things that you would see in a poem. It's all natural imagery, natural things, and then suddenly Dickenson writes that the grass wears such fine jewelry that not even a Duchess can compare.
Common is definitely trochaic substitution. I'm not sure what I think about your scanning of the rest of the line "a DUCHess WERE too COMMon" because I would actually lean towards the emphasis being place upon "too" rather than "were". In my scanning (a DUCHess were TOO COMMon) there are a lot of things that you can say about the way that Dickenson uses substitutions to contribute to the meaning of the poem. First off, there is a contrast between the perfect meter before and the break away from the meter at this point where Dickenson is not talking about nature, but about people. Not only that, the imperfection of the meter in this line reflects that a Duchess cannot compare to the perfection of the grass. On top of that, the line is (like I wrote earlier) the most interesting line and I think is what gives the poem away (according to your reading of the poem to being about women being grass) and by having it break away from the meter makes the reader pay more attention to it.
Your reading of the fourth stanza just confuses the hell out of me. I don't really understand how you can say that "spike" is emphasized and that it breaks out of the meter of the line. Look at the line: "or spikenards perishing". When we scan it: "or SPIKEnards PERishING" (you have a pyhrric foot at the end but I don't). The problem with saying that it breaks away from the meter is that there is supposed to be an accent there. Had there been no accent there, it would be breaking from the meter. If spikenards were the first word of the line, if the "or" was omitted, then it would have broken away from the meter (some of the time, because initial trochaic substitutions are probably the most common in English poetry and don't necessary mean anything or break away from the meter). If Dickenson had placed spikenards in the same position of the sentence, while placing an accented word as the first word, then I could see you making the argument that it breaks the meter of the line, but there is no way that you can say that Dickenson is breaking away from the meter when she writes in iambs in common meter. You can say that the word spikenards is interesting and strange (as long as you're careful and do your research about the vocabulary of the times) and you can talk about how it's a strange choice, but you can not claim that it's breaking the meter.
Still, you made a great effort and got a lot out of the poem. Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
