The Use of Repetition

Langston Hughes’ poems have a lot of repetition. If the repetition is of a whole line, it usually repeats itself only once. In “Hard Daddy,” he also has a lot of repetition, especially of whole lines. In the first stanza, the girl reports to her father, “I have got the blues,” two times (Hughes 2-4). Although it may be that the line was repeated just for emphasis, her statement is simply waved off when her father replies, “Honey / Can’t you bring better news?” (Hughes 5-6). In the next stanza, the lines “…cried on his shoulder but / He turned his back on me” is repeated (Hughes 7-10). It could be that the girl tried two times and her father rejected her for both, but it also could be that it was a flashback, as to emphasize his action. Either way, it is true that the repeated lines are emphasized. In the last stanza, the lines “…wish I had wings to / Fly like de eagle flies” is repeated (Hughes 13-6). A lot of the readers may believe that the girl wants to be free of sorrows, soaring through the sky carelessly or some other ideas of flying and/or freedom. However, the poem ends with the surprising idea that she wants to “scratch out both his [i.e. her father] eyes” (Hughes 17-8). The emphasis that she wants wings before the last two lines helped build up the wrong images in my mind, which grabbed my heart with surprise. Langston Hughes’ use of repetition is very deep and there seems to be multiple reasons for them. It is a difficult item to decipher, but I find it one of the most interesting and intriguing elements of his poems.

Too Much Liminality

In "A Grave" by Marianne Moore, the speaker is dying, standing in the sea. She describes that "it is human nature to stand in the middle of a thing" (3). In other words, people tend to go into liminal status. However, one cannot stay there forever because it is unstable. Although one need to experience liminality a lot during one's lifetime, it is impossible to stay liminal forever. It is crucial to find a way to get out of it. For an example, one cannot stay between sky and water forever with nothing to stand on; one will drown. Too much liminality may drive one into death of any kind, just like the speaker in the poem.

Don't Jump at Conclusions

In "Dust of Snow" by Robert Frost, the dust of snow saves the speaker's "some part / Of a day [he] had rued" (7-8). Dust and crow are usually referred to something not so pleasant. A hemlock is actually poisonous, and therefore, has more negative connotation. The black crow, however, shakes the hemlock tree, showering the speaker with the dust of snow, which he gives a positive feedback. A crow, from above him, shakes down the dust, as if shaking him to say "wake up"!! The "dust" of snow falls from the hemlock tree, which has white flowers. Although poisonous, it attains white flowers, as if to show it's pureness, adding on to the snow that gives the speaker's heart "a change of mood" (5-6). The dust the speaker is showered with actually helps him. Frost plays with words, expressing the possibility of the things with negative connotations to have positive impact. This poem also shows how one could get moved by something trivial. Small happiness is happiness and always helps the person. Also it is important to find the happiness and let the small happiness reach oneself: be open for it. It is much ignorant to assume something. The openness is the key to success.

The History is Now and the Now is History

In Wallace Stevens' "A Postcard from the Volcano," he wrote:
"And least will guess that with our bones
We left much more, left what still is
The look of things, left what we felt

At what we saw." (7-10)
He expresses how the present is made up of the past, and even though one may not notice, without the past there is no present. What people left before are important, and how they come out to appear in the present is intriguing. However, a thing cannot be described by the past only. It includes its past, its present, its potential future, the different opinions about, the different sides of it, and its opinion. It may be that, to completely understand the object, one have to take account of every single piece--not leaving out anything. Even though everybody have different views and opinions, none of them are solely wrong. But may does not mean that everything is right. Then what is right and what is wrong? If one thinks tomatoes are nasty and one thinks they're great, which is right? Can both be right? Are there such things as right and wrong? Everything has pros and cons. Is anything really good or bad? Is it possible to categorize everything in the two groups or would they all come out neutral overall? Is it possible to find out every single thing about a thing? Humans only have limited knowledge and limited space to use it. One may not know, for an example, why their house was built, why the house is of that appearance, what had happened in the house before, the significance of the material, the place, etc, who built it, etc...but he/she still lives in it. Does it matter to know every single aspect of something? How much do we have to know in order to live in this world? To what extent of knowledge do we not have to acquire so we would not be "ignorant"? We only have limited knowledge and we have to work with it. There should be a meaning and some kind of essence in the limit. However, it is important to remember how the present is nonexistent without the past...and that is one of the reasons we learn history in school!!!