Poem of the Week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

I don't know what the power or function of these repeated lines are. It does give the poem a sing-song sound(not in a serious way); but I don't know if that's his aim for such a serious topic. There are multitudes of poems in which one stanza, one line, can carry with it enough weight to create its purpose, and even become more memorable-not for memory's sake. One that pops in my mind is Mending Walls(a poem we discussed in the original Poem of the Week) by Robert Frost. The line 'Good fences make good neighbors' appears in a couple places in the poem and its appearences does creates a more meaningful effect. That is to say the phrase shows, in one sense, the farmer's stubborness to go outside his own viewpoint, and in the same manner, listen to other viewpoints.

---

It's always interesting to read how another person hears somthing completely different in a poem. When I first read this poem the thing I was struck with most was the way Thomas employed such a lot of repetition without it coming across as "sing-song." I think Virg. is on to something with describing it as a "liturgical" effect.

I agree with you that other poems can and do come across powerfully using just one stanza (though I'm not sure how "Mending Walls" supports your point, since it's definately more than one stanza in length). However, I don't think that the poem we're discussing acheives what its setting out to do in just one stanza. It's a matter of the approach and style that fit this poem, not what is possible. It is possible for Hemingway to write powerfully using short, spare sentences. Does that mean that Dickens is wrong to go on at length?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

I'm not clear here. I think death is described in finite terms here. 'Evil,' well...that may be something else.

---

You're right that I was insufficiently precise in my wording. It sounded like I was referring to death as truly eternal. What I meant to say was that the line was beating against death which is, or rather seems to be, eternal in the sense of being the constant for us now and for all time, until the ending of time in the Last Judgement.

Quote:

---

I don't know how you got all this from those lines. It's good that you derived meaning from the stanzas, though. But the lines are too general for me to deduce anything other than the obvious.

---

I provided quotes from the poem in my summary to indicate how I got what I did from the lines. What is the obvious that you do deduce from these lines, since what I thought was obvious you don't agree with?

Quote:

---

The repeated lines do nothing for me. It lacks any type of emotion or purpose after the first stanza.
Don't try and come up with something that's not there I bet you if I look at these lines close enough I may start rising. Nope, it didn't happen.

---

Just saw this. I think we're simply hearing these lines differently. As I said earlier, I find the effect of the repetition similar too and anticipating Thomas' later "Do not go gentle into that good night" (though the latter is undoubtably a better, more clearly and elegantly written poem). I'll have to analyse some more to see if I can pinpoint why they seem to build in intensity for me (and I think for Virgil too) while they diminish in intensity for you. By the way, I don't think Virg. was trying to suggest they had an actual liturgical effect, just that the effect was like that of liturgical repetition, with a similar gravitas (though I suppose we could all get together and try chanting the lines until one of us got set up in the heavens with stars at hand and foot :D ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

I agree with you that other poems can and do come across powerfully using just one stanza (though I'm not sure how "Mending Walls" supports your point, since it's definately more than one stanza in length). However, I don't think that the poem we're discussing acheives what its setting out to do in just one stanza. It's a matter of the approach and style that fit this poem, not what is possible. It is possible for Hemingway to write powerfully using short, spare sentences. Does that mean that Dickens is wrong to go on at length?

---

He could write a hundred stanzas like this and it would still be lacking of power and purpose. It's not a good poem. So style is used for the sake of style?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

He could write a hundred stanzas like this and it would still be lacking of power and purpose. It's not a good poem. So style is used for the sake of style?

---

My major problem with the poem is that the guts of it ring empty. I don't mind the style at all. If someone were to show how the guts of the poem actually work to say something coherent I could be pursuaded to flip my opinion. As it stands for me, it's all style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

The repeated lines do nothing for me. It lacks any type of emotion or purpose after the first stanza.
Don't try and come up with something that's not there :lol: I bet you if I look at these lines close enough I may start rising. Nope, it didn't happen.

---

I really don't Understand this, the repeatative lines offer pleanty of emotion... :nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

I really don't Understand this, the repeatative lines offer pleanty of emotion... :nod:

---

Not in this case, sorry.

apologize not...it shows weakness. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

apologize not...it shows weakness. :lol:

---

Ok...tell me why you think the repeats in this poem show emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

As it stands for me, it's all style.

---

To a certain extent I agree with this stance. I think he's a young poet here who's partly using this as an opportunity to exercise his rhetoric. I find it an interesting poem because the style is fairly strong, beginning to sound like the kind of thing that will give his later poems such punch, but the content doesn't quite fill the form as fully as it ought to. All the same, I wouldn't call it completely empty or irrelevant. I think part of the confusion in this poem is that he seems to be shifting between Christian and secular stances on death throughout the poem. He structures the poem around a biblical quote describing the end of days, and yet he often seems to slide into more ambiguous philosophical ideas about nature and myth. I'm beginning to think that this religious/philosophical uncertainty is part of what is undermining the clarity of the content here. I'll have to think that through a bit more though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

I provided quotes from the poem in my summary to indicate how I got what I did from the lines. What is the obvious that you do deduce from these lines, since what I thought was obvious you don't agree with?

---

Quote:

---

For me this poem goes on two stanzas too long. I can see the contrast created in the first stanza with the phrases 'death having no dominion' and 'we shall'. It's not necessary to repeat lines here unless he's trying to create some bigger effect, which seems to be absent in my initial reading. What he conveys is pretty straightforward: that death shall have no dominion over dead(physically) men. But this statement seems to stagnate as the image is created in stanza 1, and is reiterated.

---

This is part of it. And in general terms I agree with your explanation of the stanzas.

Quote:

---

1. Stanza one is concerned with those who, "though they sink through the sea they shall rise again."

---

Quote:

---

The second stanza focuses on those who remain "under the windings of the sea" (in contrast to those who rose from the sea in the first stanza).

---

They don't rise, yet, for some reason. I don't know why.
The third stanza I'm :confused: :confused: :confused: .

I can't go beyond this without being unsure what he's referring to.

Quote:

---

Just saw this. I think we're simply hearing these lines differently. As I said earlier, I find the effect of the repetition similar too and anticipating Thomas' later "Do not go gentle into that good night" (though the latter is undoubtably a better, more clearly and elegantly written poem). I'll have to analyse some more to see if I can pinpoint why they seem to build in intensity for me (and I think for Virgil too) while they diminish in intensity for you. By the way, I don't think Virg. was trying to suggest they had an actual liturgical effect, just that the effect was like that of liturgical repetition, with a similar gravitas (though I suppose we could all get together and try chanting the lines until one of us got set up in the heavens with stars at hand and foot :D ).

---

This would be nice. :nod:

its all in the way you percieve things. I Majored in Lit, not Poetry. :brow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

its all in the way you percieve things. I Majored in Lit, not Poetry. :brow:

---

Umm...ok. Tell us whenever you would like to become part of the discussion in this thread. I've learned from the pass that scrutinizing someone doesn't belong in a discussion :D. That sounds more like an age old philosophical statement.

Quote:

---

I Majored in Lit, not Poetry.

---

Poetry having absolutely nothing whatever to do with Lit. of course. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

Ok...tell me why you think the repeats in this poem show emotion.

---

Even though this wasn't meant for me, I thought I'd reply.

To me, it seems as if he was saying that even though death is inevitable, people (ok, that might be a bit farfetched ;)) or at least the dead of the poem, can still see dying as winning (and I'm using that verb loosely), as something positive (even though there's nothing more negative than dying, I know, but if you think about it...). The repetition of that line sounds like making a point, rubbing it in, as if showing death the finger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

The repetition of that line sounds like making a point, rubbing it in, as if showing death the finger.

---

Thats how I read it. That obviously has to do with my worldview, but it is a Biblical passage, and the idea is the same.

Death no longer has dominion. It isn't the most negative thing anymore.