PoemoftheWeek

[ktd222]

And at the end of the poem, then the lifting of the "Tulle" at death is a revalation, and I mean that in the religious sense. What is ungraspable but exquisite in life is revealed at death. Ok, I'm comfortable now with the whole thing

ya, that would seem so, except for the word 'arrogantly' which still makes me unsure if she-in life or in death-will every free herself from reasoning. She's being so exact in all of the previous stanzas that I can't help it feel there is something else happening in the last stanza. The poem would be a total let down and border on cliche if the poem ended as above mentioned.

Until the Cheated Eye
Shuts arrogantly -- in the Grave

There is something specific going on here. Again with the weird syntax. Why is the 'Cheated Eye' assuming that it can 'shut arrogantly--in the Grave'?

[Virgil]

ya, that would seem so, except for the word 'arrogantly' which still makes me unsure if she-in life or in death-will every free herself from reasoning. She's being so exact in all of the previous stanzas that I can't help it feel there is something else happening in the last stanza. The poem would be a total let down and border on cliche if the poem ended as above mentioned.

Until the Cheated Eye
Shuts arrogantly -- in the Grave

There is something specific going on here. Again with the weird syntax. Why is the 'Cheated Eye' assuming that it can 'shut arrogantly--in the Grave'?

Well, according to my earlier posts, the eye is arrogant in life becuase it thinks it knows everything. Arrogant is a word loaded with judgemental scorn. Once death arrives, the eye will see what it didn't know (and therefore cheated) before. And then "another way to see" as Xamonas points out.

[ktd222]

Well, according to my earlier posts, the eye is arrogant in life becuase it thinks it knows everything. Arrogant is a word loaded with judgemental scorn. Once death arrives, the eye will see what it didn't know (and therefore cheated) before. And then "another way to see" as Xamonas points out.

Or what about the eye being so arrogant that it believes it can grasp Tint(or cheat) once the eye shuts in the grave?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

But the eye is not described as being arrogant, just of shutting arrogantly. It is described as 'cheated' because it cannot 'grasp' the 'tint' - this part I can see - but why does it shut 'arrogantly'?

Personally, it is these ambiguities that I like best about the poem; these small, puddles of dubious clarity that refract and distort the view of the whole so that you never quite see it the same way twice - If you prefer, it is the tint I cannot take which is best!!

[jackyyyy]

But the eye is not described as being arrogant, just of shutting arrogantly. It is described as 'cheated' because it cannot 'grasp' the 'tint' - this part I can see - but why does it shut 'arrogantly'?

Personally, it is these ambiguities that I like best about the poem; these small, puddles of dubious clarity that refract and distort the view of the whole so that you never quite see it the same way twice - If you prefer, it is the tint I cannot take which is best!!

Hey could be on a roll here.. exactly,, why 'exquisite', 'arrogant', 'cheated'.

If it was only about enjoying it, ambiguities can make a great kaleidoscope, but for some reason we are trying to get inside Dickinson's head.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Hey could be on a roll here.. exactly,, why 'exquisite', 'arrogant', 'cheated'.

If it was only about enjoying it, ambiguities can make a great kaleidoscope, but for some reason we are trying to get inside Dickinson's head.

And therein lies your mistake. You are trying to get inside the head of Emily Dickinson. Emily is a woman's name! Much as I love the creatures, I don't understand how any woman's mind works, let alone one that also happens to be a great poet.

There comes a point when you just have to stand back and marvel. For me the best thing about great poetry is the way that it twists in your grip and won't stand still. Over-analyse a poem (or a woman) and you run the risk of losing the mystery that gave it (or her) it's allure in the first place.

[jackyyyy]

And therein lies your mistake. You are trying to get inside the head of Emily Dickinson. Emily is a woman's name! Much as I love the creatures, I don't understand how any woman's mind works, let alone one that also happens to be a great poet.

There comes a point when you just have to stand back and marvel. For me the best thing about great poetry is the way that it twists in your grip and won't stand still. Over-analyse a poem (or a woman) and you run the risk of losing the mystery that gave it (or her) it's allure in the first place.

I have to bow to your wisdom there.

[ktd222]

But the eye is not described as being arrogant, just of shutting arrogantly. It is described as 'cheated' because it cannot 'grasp' the 'tint' - this part I can see - but why does it shut 'arrogantly'?

Look at it this way: The whole poem is about her trying to grasp Tint; yet it is this very 'trying to grasp' that is limiting her from understanding, because 'the trying' ceases her from understanding in any other way. It leads the a cheated Eye.

Main Entry: 1cheat
Pronunciation: 'chEt
Function: verb
transitive senses
1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>
intransitive senses
1 a : to practice fraud or trickery b : to violate rules dishonestly (as at cards or on an examination)
2 : to be sexually unfaithful -- usually used with on
- cheat·er noun

Even in the grave the 'Cheated Eye shuts arrogantly.' Not going to the grave the eye shuts arrogantly. She cannot let go of this 'trying to reason,' hence the 'arrogantly,' to believe this is another 'trying' she can use to see the tint. To 'see' not feel; which I've already stated that it must be the 'seeing' that ceases and the Tint to be felt. This last stanza goes back to the 'trying to see' in stanza 1 and 3.

[ktd222]

If you prefer, it is the tint I cannot take which is best!!

I can't read anything to support this statement.

[ktd222]

And therein lies your mistake. You are trying to get inside the head of Emily Dickinson

I'm not. I've been supporting my point with what I read in the poem.

[ktd222]

Over-analyse a poem (or a woman) and you run the risk of losing the mystery that gave it (or her) it's allure in the first place.

If paying close attention to tone, syntax, etc, is over-analysing then I'm ok with your statement.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I can't read anything to support this statement.

I was equating the way the poem talks about the impalpability of nature with the way I feel about the poem itself. It is the very fact that it is not graspable in a single sitting, or even in several, that will keep me coming back to it.

[ktd222]

It is the very fact that it is not graspable in a single sitting, or even in several, that will keep me coming back to it.

I agree with this.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

If paying close attention to tone, syntax, etc, is over-analysing then I'm ok with your statement.

...and trying to analyse each and every word individually. It is like trying to analyse every brushstroke of a painting. There is a synergy to a great poem that cannot be broken down into the sum of it's parts without losing something. The way the words combine and play against each other is the essence; isolating a word from a line, a line from a stanza, a stanza from the whole, is like looking at parts of a car and wondering how it works. It can help, but it can also confuse if you lose sight of the bigger picture.

Another thing to consider. Even great poets are human. It is often assumed in analysis that they knew exactly why they put every word where they did and that they were all chosen for a purpose. This may be true in some cases. But it is certainly false in most. Is it beyond the bounds of reason that Dickinson would choose a word over an alternative just because it sounded good? Or that she might deliberately throw in an ambiguous word or phrase in a mischievous manner? Or that something that she wrote in a moment of inspiration didn't really make sense to her either but was too beautiful to drop (not to mention that she herself might have caught a hint of meaning in it without being sure exactly what)? I'm not saying that any of these are necessarily the case here, but I'm not ruling any of them out either.

I love the poem; it speaks to me and I can see a meaning in it that may or may not be right. I also expect it to show another side of itself next time I read it. A poem's meaning lies somewhere between the author's intention and the reader's interpretation and is constantly in flux. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[ktd222]

...and trying to analyse each and every word individually.

This poem is not like, say, The Love Song of Alfred J Prufrock, so every word does take on an extra level of importance.

There is a synergy to a great poem that cannot be broken down into the sum of it's parts without losing something. The way the words combine and play against each other is the essence; isolating a word from a line, a line from a stanza, a stanza from the whole, is like looking at parts of a car and wondering how it works. It can help, but it can also confuse if you lose sight of the bigger picture.

I never discounted this. Tone and sytax does not mean analysis of every single word. I took both the sum and parts in my analysis.