So, I decided to take a break from all of the military and war conflict and choose a work that focused on internal conflict.
The next work I am to analyze is one by one of my favorite poets of all time, John Keats. “When I Have Fears” is a poem about conflict, a conflict that Keats had internally. He wrote this poem in 1820, shortly before his death from tuberculosis in 1821. In the poem Keats is fighting with himself, disappointed, and unhappy with his fate. He knows he is dying; so he must let the readers know that he has dreams that he wishes he could complete. He longs to achieve great fame, to love, and overall, he longs to write all that he can while he is still alive.
This Shakespearean sonnet is one that I adore deeply. In the poem, we have a weary Keats as the speaker, with a sad, pensive tone. In the beginning of the poem he presents his problem: to die before he can show his true poetic skill. “When I have fears that I may cease to be before my pen has glean’d my teeming brain…”(lines 1-2). He has been faced with the most horrid of fates, for such a talented youth to die at such a young age of 26. He metaphorically compares books to rich, ripe grain, where each word of the book holds some vital information that Keats needs to further his literary goals(lines3-4). These are the things that will bring him fame from his audience, so he can be remembered after death.
It is ironic that Keats speaks so longingly of fame and love, and yet he must let them go. “And when I feel, fair creature of an hour, that I shall never look upon thee more…”(lines10-11). He will never see the love of his life again. At the twelfth line of the poem, the turn takes place. Keats has accepted the fact that he will die, and not only that, but it could be at any moment because of the severity of his illness. “ …--then on the shore of the wide world I stand alone, and think till love and fame t nothingness do sink”(lines13-14). With the knowledge of death in mind, Keats decides that with the small fraction of time he has, he will achieve all that he can. What he cannot finish in this life he will have to forget. Because he could not finish in his lifetime, then it was not meant to be done.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
"Military Mind"
Since I love poetry, I decided to analyze yet another one. This time the lucky winner was a poem called “Military Mind” by Charlie Smith, a highly accomplished American poet(Poetry foundation). I actually stumbled upon this poem by accident, and it reminds me of Jarhead, a book by Anthony Swofford as an account of his own life and the horrors of his war experience. Like Swofford has in Jarhead, the speaker in this poem has had a severe case of “military mind.” So I am happy to have found this poem, and I think from reading what I have in Jarhead I am able to better understand the meaning of this poem. This poem has a journal style, that at first may seem like just that: a proud soldier who reminisces on days past in some branch of the military. However if you look deeper, you will find that that is actually far from the case.
For the duration of the first third of the poem, the speaker seems to praise the glorious aspects of the military. These things were living the experience of military school and learn to march, or attain some level of balance, belong to a group. He wanted to be an expert at fighting, learn the skills of combat, but the words the speaker chose tell me that he did not actually want to fight. He believed that doing all of these things would earn him some degree of respect from society. He wanted trust from his fellow soldiers, and in turn he wanted to be trusted. He wanted a family of brothers on and off of the battlefield(lines 1-6). All of these are what he thought he would experience upon entering. I relate this to Swofford in Jarhead because he had the same feelings toward the military when he joined. He believed he would make friends, that the people he would be spending weeks, months, even years with would always be there when he was in need. He found that life in the barracks was not all he thought it would be. He could trust no one. He could not count on depending on people. He had to trust only himself
A strange thing begins to take place from the seventh line and onto the end of the work. The tone has changed from immaculate to bloodstained. The speaker is now matured, and he has some sense of what this military life is about. He describes his quick, unwanted shift into maturity, the “hairy arms” in line 7 and the “corded muscles” in line 8. His body has changed; and thanks to this description the reader can now see that the speaker was not muscular prior to these days. Not only was he not muscular, but the transformation also seems unnatural. The speaker could possibly still be young, yet he has been forced to enter into manhood in such a small amount of time.
As the poem stretches on, the speaker becomes more aware of the realities of the military, which includes fighting and killing. These are aspects a naïve person would not realize, but as the speaker progresses through it, he becomes more aware of the truth. These words begin to transcend into memories. Things like the smell of gunpowder, and the bloody boots smudged with dirt; the faces of his dead friends as they died one by one, the actual realization of what war really is, and the horrible effects it really has on you and those who love you(lines 11-16). These images and smells are not just things you can experience without actually experiencing them.
At the end of the poem, I can see what true message the speaker was trying to relay. The speaker started at the beginning, with his expectations as a youth. When he entered the military, he arrived with a mindset that was quickly erased. He matured too quickly, and was faced with the horrors of battle, killing, and watching those he cared for die. Almost meeting death himself. Long after the war had passed he realizes that in the beginning, he was trapped in this frame of mind. All of the sugarcoated dreams he had about the military were just dreams. The real experience is life altering. And once you cross that line, there is no returning to the safety of the past.
For the duration of the first third of the poem, the speaker seems to praise the glorious aspects of the military. These things were living the experience of military school and learn to march, or attain some level of balance, belong to a group. He wanted to be an expert at fighting, learn the skills of combat, but the words the speaker chose tell me that he did not actually want to fight. He believed that doing all of these things would earn him some degree of respect from society. He wanted trust from his fellow soldiers, and in turn he wanted to be trusted. He wanted a family of brothers on and off of the battlefield(lines 1-6). All of these are what he thought he would experience upon entering. I relate this to Swofford in Jarhead because he had the same feelings toward the military when he joined. He believed he would make friends, that the people he would be spending weeks, months, even years with would always be there when he was in need. He found that life in the barracks was not all he thought it would be. He could trust no one. He could not count on depending on people. He had to trust only himself
A strange thing begins to take place from the seventh line and onto the end of the work. The tone has changed from immaculate to bloodstained. The speaker is now matured, and he has some sense of what this military life is about. He describes his quick, unwanted shift into maturity, the “hairy arms” in line 7 and the “corded muscles” in line 8. His body has changed; and thanks to this description the reader can now see that the speaker was not muscular prior to these days. Not only was he not muscular, but the transformation also seems unnatural. The speaker could possibly still be young, yet he has been forced to enter into manhood in such a small amount of time.
As the poem stretches on, the speaker becomes more aware of the realities of the military, which includes fighting and killing. These are aspects a naïve person would not realize, but as the speaker progresses through it, he becomes more aware of the truth. These words begin to transcend into memories. Things like the smell of gunpowder, and the bloody boots smudged with dirt; the faces of his dead friends as they died one by one, the actual realization of what war really is, and the horrible effects it really has on you and those who love you(lines 11-16). These images and smells are not just things you can experience without actually experiencing them.
At the end of the poem, I can see what true message the speaker was trying to relay. The speaker started at the beginning, with his expectations as a youth. When he entered the military, he arrived with a mindset that was quickly erased. He matured too quickly, and was faced with the horrors of battle, killing, and watching those he cared for die. Almost meeting death himself. Long after the war had passed he realizes that in the beginning, he was trapped in this frame of mind. All of the sugarcoated dreams he had about the military were just dreams. The real experience is life altering. And once you cross that line, there is no returning to the safety of the past.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
"All the Dead Soldiers"
My next poem up for analysis is “All the Dead Soldiers” written about World War II by Thomas McGrath. This poem was published in 1967 in Poetry. I thought this poem was interesting because it focused on the habit of the dead. In previous poems I analyzed, the men were in the process of fighting. In this poem the event has long passed. The effects, however, are still raging on.
The speaker of the poem is an outside figure who has the ability to watch the ghosts from the war, and by his sentimental tone, he feels sorry for the dead soldiers. The “ghost bank” in the second line of the second stanza is even deeper referred to as “home” for the soldiers. This area, the island of Amchitka in Alaska(Alaska’s Digital Archives) was where they died, and it is their resting place. That line gave e a sense of detachment on the soldiers part, by the effect of war they have been ripped from the homes they once possessed, they can no longer reside with their families or friends. They can only live and wander with their dead comrades.
The speaker describes the dead as tired; they have endured a long journey. The endpoint is far away, and they are hesitant to go on. The rain and wind are like living obstacles that cause the bones to stiffen and become effaced. Yet they continue until they reach their destination.
The dead seem to be angry by the fact that they must stay in their new home. In the first stanza, there is anger in the wind; the wind blows hard because it is infused with the bones of the dead. As a unit, they burst from the sky. It is a sort of contained rage that can only be expressed in death. It cannot be seen by any living soul but the speaker. And in the last stanza of the poem, when they have reached their destination, they are “crying weak lust and rage.” Hey have reached their old homes, but time has passed. Life has gone on. The lives that they knew and experienced when they were alive have shifted in the time space. They were young when they died, and as years have passed, they room that they once lived in are aged. And worst of all, their women, whether they be wives or not, have aged as well. The voices of the dead cannot be heard, and they must go on with the fact that nothing will ever be as it was before the war. Life has gone on without them.
The speaker of the poem is an outside figure who has the ability to watch the ghosts from the war, and by his sentimental tone, he feels sorry for the dead soldiers. The “ghost bank” in the second line of the second stanza is even deeper referred to as “home” for the soldiers. This area, the island of Amchitka in Alaska(Alaska’s Digital Archives) was where they died, and it is their resting place. That line gave e a sense of detachment on the soldiers part, by the effect of war they have been ripped from the homes they once possessed, they can no longer reside with their families or friends. They can only live and wander with their dead comrades.
The speaker describes the dead as tired; they have endured a long journey. The endpoint is far away, and they are hesitant to go on. The rain and wind are like living obstacles that cause the bones to stiffen and become effaced. Yet they continue until they reach their destination.
The dead seem to be angry by the fact that they must stay in their new home. In the first stanza, there is anger in the wind; the wind blows hard because it is infused with the bones of the dead. As a unit, they burst from the sky. It is a sort of contained rage that can only be expressed in death. It cannot be seen by any living soul but the speaker. And in the last stanza of the poem, when they have reached their destination, they are “crying weak lust and rage.” Hey have reached their old homes, but time has passed. Life has gone on. The lives that they knew and experienced when they were alive have shifted in the time space. They were young when they died, and as years have passed, they room that they once lived in are aged. And worst of all, their women, whether they be wives or not, have aged as well. The voices of the dead cannot be heard, and they must go on with the fact that nothing will ever be as it was before the war. Life has gone on without them.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Two Sides
So I decided that I would take a different turn here and analyze a different type of work. I would like to credit www.cartoonistgroup.com for the highly amusing cartoon that I chose. You can find it here.
The title of the cartoon is “That’s life” by Mike Twohy, and it is a cute little cartoon that at first glance seems to be about two animals. Right away you can see a cat and a mouse in a room of some sort. There is also a table and two chairs, in which the two figures are sitting. The door in the background reads backwards, “Editor”. The cat is holding what seem to be a few sheets of paper. The cat is wearing glasses, and he sits at a higher level than the mouse before him. The eyebrow that is visible seems wrinkled, and likewise, the visible corner of his mouth is turned downward in a frown. The mouse, on the other hand is small in comparison to the cat, and its mouth is slightly open. Its hands are lifted away from his lap, hovering in the air. At the bottom of the photo is the quote “ The whole story is told from the point of view of the cheese.”
I also noticed that because of the cat’s size, it is able to lean over the table, whereas the mouse cannot. From the positions that the two are in I drew the conclusion that the cat was in a more superior position. Here you have the perfect pair of opposites. The cat and mouse. And from the looks of it, the cat has won. He is the editor, or boss if you will, of a newspaper company. The mouse is a writer, and has just finished an article about cheese, as the quote says. The cat is displeased because of the point of view that the mouse has taken. I take this to mean that the mouse chose only one side of a two-sided story to report on. In the story of the cheese, I suppose we are missing the mouse, which is the villain, and the cheese, the victim to be eaten by the mouse.
Beneath the surface, this cartoon depicts any person choosing to ignore both sides of any story. The paper represents a biased opinion that can only benefit one party, because it only appeals to the type of people who would support the victim. For example, what if a writer wrote an article about a crime, and only told the victim’s side of the story. Of course at that moment the victim seems to be the most important topic of the discussion, and the suspect is loathed and in the wrong, but do you know what actions led to the person committing the crime in the first place? Like this mouse, many people refuse to acknowledge the other side of the story because they feel that because the person committed the crime and they deserve to pay, end of story. However, the reasons for that person committing the crime could be just as important as the state of the victim.
The title of the cartoon is “That’s life” by Mike Twohy, and it is a cute little cartoon that at first glance seems to be about two animals. Right away you can see a cat and a mouse in a room of some sort. There is also a table and two chairs, in which the two figures are sitting. The door in the background reads backwards, “Editor”. The cat is holding what seem to be a few sheets of paper. The cat is wearing glasses, and he sits at a higher level than the mouse before him. The eyebrow that is visible seems wrinkled, and likewise, the visible corner of his mouth is turned downward in a frown. The mouse, on the other hand is small in comparison to the cat, and its mouth is slightly open. Its hands are lifted away from his lap, hovering in the air. At the bottom of the photo is the quote “ The whole story is told from the point of view of the cheese.”
I also noticed that because of the cat’s size, it is able to lean over the table, whereas the mouse cannot. From the positions that the two are in I drew the conclusion that the cat was in a more superior position. Here you have the perfect pair of opposites. The cat and mouse. And from the looks of it, the cat has won. He is the editor, or boss if you will, of a newspaper company. The mouse is a writer, and has just finished an article about cheese, as the quote says. The cat is displeased because of the point of view that the mouse has taken. I take this to mean that the mouse chose only one side of a two-sided story to report on. In the story of the cheese, I suppose we are missing the mouse, which is the villain, and the cheese, the victim to be eaten by the mouse.
Beneath the surface, this cartoon depicts any person choosing to ignore both sides of any story. The paper represents a biased opinion that can only benefit one party, because it only appeals to the type of people who would support the victim. For example, what if a writer wrote an article about a crime, and only told the victim’s side of the story. Of course at that moment the victim seems to be the most important topic of the discussion, and the suspect is loathed and in the wrong, but do you know what actions led to the person committing the crime in the first place? Like this mouse, many people refuse to acknowledge the other side of the story because they feel that because the person committed the crime and they deserve to pay, end of story. However, the reasons for that person committing the crime could be just as important as the state of the victim.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
"Vietnamese Morning"
The next poem I analyzed was “Vietnamese Morning”, written by Curt Bennett. Bennett was an American pilot during the Vietnam War. This information was provided by WarPoetry.co.uk. For those of you who may not know, the Vietnam War took place between 1945 and 1975. The war included American and Vietnamese forces. Furthermore, this poem shows the calm before the storms of war. The central theme is encompassing the peace of the Vietnamese landscape within a time of turmoil.
From reading the first two lines I felt that war was fulfilling some kind of duty. It seems as if by saying “Before war starts in early morning,” the war is part of a necessary occurrence, or a natural passing moment in the day. The remaining stanza begins the prolonged description of the landscape of Vietnam. This poem represents the nature of peace, and how there is no effort in being naturally amiable. Besides the first two lines, there are no more mentions of war or devastation. Instead, the light of dawn, the end of the war-filled night, signals a rebirth of the land through the night. Where there may have been bloodshed in the rice fields in the third stanza, or within the mountains of the fourth, any trace of violence seems to have been enveloped by nature, and disintegrated until it returned to its normal resting state. The remnants of possible wreckage, at the end if the second stanza, represent the abnormal places where unrest would occur, but no action is noted. Whatever occurred there has been lost, forgotten until the war repeats its cycle.
The final stanza of the poem leads me to make a conclusion about the speaker in the poem. It seems that the beauty and peace that he is experiencing is short-lived. The fact that Bennett describes the fog as shy tells me that nature is hesitant to hold on to the peace present in nature because it will not last. Nature, as well as the speaker,long to hold on to the moment of serenity before the unrest begins again.
From reading the first two lines I felt that war was fulfilling some kind of duty. It seems as if by saying “Before war starts in early morning,” the war is part of a necessary occurrence, or a natural passing moment in the day. The remaining stanza begins the prolonged description of the landscape of Vietnam. This poem represents the nature of peace, and how there is no effort in being naturally amiable. Besides the first two lines, there are no more mentions of war or devastation. Instead, the light of dawn, the end of the war-filled night, signals a rebirth of the land through the night. Where there may have been bloodshed in the rice fields in the third stanza, or within the mountains of the fourth, any trace of violence seems to have been enveloped by nature, and disintegrated until it returned to its normal resting state. The remnants of possible wreckage, at the end if the second stanza, represent the abnormal places where unrest would occur, but no action is noted. Whatever occurred there has been lost, forgotten until the war repeats its cycle.
The final stanza of the poem leads me to make a conclusion about the speaker in the poem. It seems that the beauty and peace that he is experiencing is short-lived. The fact that Bennett describes the fog as shy tells me that nature is hesitant to hold on to the peace present in nature because it will not last. Nature, as well as the speaker,long to hold on to the moment of serenity before the unrest begins again.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
"War is Kind"
“War is Kind” by Stephen Crane is one of my favorite poems, and it just happens to be about war. The concept that stood out to me most excellently from all others was the sarcastic belief that war is an honorable event and a great way to die, and also that the men that enter war will only leave by death.
Throughout the poem, the narrator repeats the sentences “ Do not weep. War is kind.” The repeated choice of words tells me that the narrator wants the person he is talking to understand his point of view, and to be assured that it is not so bad that the son, father, and lover of that person has died in war. The narrator highlights the extremes of glory in fighting and dying for a cause, and the battlefield as a world in itself, with its own ruler and belief system, which seems to take the men over one by one.
At the end of the second and fourth stanzas, the narrator repeats the sentence “And a field where a thousand corpses lie.” In the second stanza it describes the citizens of the battle kingdom, which are inevitably all dead. In the fourth, it describes again, but in other words, the only result of their fighting. It is secured that the soldiers know that their outcome is the field where their fellow dead lie. They will in some way or another join them and there is nothing they can do to stop the course. “These men were born to drill and die.” In other words, they will be under the whips of the masters of war until they fulfill their life’s destiny of fighting, and then they will perish.
The main conflicting image in this poem is in the title itself. Throughout the poem, the narrator is justifying why war is kind. He combats the goodness of war with horrifying images of the beast-like state of the lover in the first stanza as he died and his horse ran frightened. He calls the soldiers little souls whose fates are no longer in their own hands, driven it seemed to me, towards a kind death? I’ve never experienced death, but I can attest to the fact that there is nothing nice about taking a fatal shot or stab to any part of the body. The narrator believes those left behind by soldiers should not weep because their deaths were honorable, and as it is said in the last stanza, the mother’s son has a wonderful burial decor signifying his honorable death. Does this comparison justify the fact that a woman’s son is dead? I suppose our definitions of war and kindness differ.
Throughout the poem, the narrator repeats the sentences “ Do not weep. War is kind.” The repeated choice of words tells me that the narrator wants the person he is talking to understand his point of view, and to be assured that it is not so bad that the son, father, and lover of that person has died in war. The narrator highlights the extremes of glory in fighting and dying for a cause, and the battlefield as a world in itself, with its own ruler and belief system, which seems to take the men over one by one.
At the end of the second and fourth stanzas, the narrator repeats the sentence “And a field where a thousand corpses lie.” In the second stanza it describes the citizens of the battle kingdom, which are inevitably all dead. In the fourth, it describes again, but in other words, the only result of their fighting. It is secured that the soldiers know that their outcome is the field where their fellow dead lie. They will in some way or another join them and there is nothing they can do to stop the course. “These men were born to drill and die.” In other words, they will be under the whips of the masters of war until they fulfill their life’s destiny of fighting, and then they will perish.
The main conflicting image in this poem is in the title itself. Throughout the poem, the narrator is justifying why war is kind. He combats the goodness of war with horrifying images of the beast-like state of the lover in the first stanza as he died and his horse ran frightened. He calls the soldiers little souls whose fates are no longer in their own hands, driven it seemed to me, towards a kind death? I’ve never experienced death, but I can attest to the fact that there is nothing nice about taking a fatal shot or stab to any part of the body. The narrator believes those left behind by soldiers should not weep because their deaths were honorable, and as it is said in the last stanza, the mother’s son has a wonderful burial decor signifying his honorable death. Does this comparison justify the fact that a woman’s son is dead? I suppose our definitions of war and kindness differ.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)