Ancient Yet Still Powerful

In "The Colossus," Sylvia Plath refers her father to the large, powerful, artifact of the past. For an example, she refers to his lips as "great lips" (line 4). She also speaks about something similar to wanting to kill him, even after he had died: "Thirty years now I have labored / To dredge the silt from your throat" (lines 8-9). Although, his physical presence in her world had ceased, he still exists in her, taking a large part of her, since she refers to an object--the Colossus of Rhodes, which I have assumed from her mentioning of the sun--which is considered one of the Seven Wonders of the World. It was actually destroyed by an earthquake after 54 years of standing, which is the age her father was at when he passed away. Even after it's wreckage, the Colossus is still alive, intriguing people with wonders. In a sense, one doesn't die out until he/she is completely forgotten. Since not only can't she forget her father, but she is still struggling with the memories of him inside her, he is not completely dead. This poem extravagantly portrays his strong existence in her.
What is interesting in her poem is the fact that she includes a lot of Greek elements but not only so, mentioning the Roman Forums. She actually directly relates him to the Roman Forum in line 18. While Greek mythology acknowledges lying as a source of winning, Roman mythology doesn't. I am not sure yet why she included a mixture of the two ancient societies, but I think there is something to it. I think it is interesting to do more research on this topic and get more insights about this poem.

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!!!

The "Kathleen"

In "Danse Russe" by William Carlos Williams, the speaker of the poem adresses almost everything in a personal sense: "my wife," "my north room," "my mirror, "my shirt," "my arms" etc. There is a lot of "I" as well: seven in all. In the second line, however, there is "the baby and Kathleen." He does not refer to the baby as his own. The baby may not be his. If it was his baby, however, why would he refer to him/her as "the baby"? This poem is quite like the speaker escaping, at least in a mental way, his own life--being "lonely" without the others intruding in his life. It may be that the baby was impersonal for that reason. Same could be said for "Kathleen" too. The one thing that makes peculiar about "Kathleen" is that, that is the only proper noun written in this poem. The speaker, his wife, nor the baby had been identified with names. If she was his daughter, he could have written "my daughter." If it was a servant, he could have written "the servant." If it was his dog, he could have written "my dog." What was the meaning of this queer creativity? Although the speaker does say that he is "best so" at being "lonely," he could possibly be reaching out for someone to grasp his hand and tell him "no." He may be pointing out that something that one may think is the "best" may not be, and the person may be longing something else--something else that he/she may not have noticed--reaching out for it unconsciously.

The "Lala"s and "Lulu"s of Our Mind

Gertrude Stein plays with the readers' mind in a queer way and, because of that, some may find her poems quite confusing and indecisive. She very well portrays people's mind activities and the ambiguities in our everyday life--the reality some may find to not want to touch and/or accept. Ambiguity and the incomprehensive part of our world is frightening and a lot tend to not want too much of those. For an example, some, including myself, are afraid of ghosts. Ghosts are invisible and not scientifically decipherable, and because of that, it contains power. The ambiguous power makes people feel insecure and unstable. Another example is the fear of earthquakes and other natural disasters. Although technology have advanced quite a lot and a lot of machines can catch the sign before the occurance, the strength of the disasters can still not be absolutely predictable. Also, even if some may feel they have the control over nature, that is impossible because the power of nature is ambiguous and gives it power.

Stein's poems possibly give readers some kind of uncomfortableness or unstableness. She repeats a lot of words, exhausting them as she uses them in various ways. In "Sacred Emily," she repeats a lot as well, giving some readers a headache and insecureness because the poem seems unable to be controlled. The readers cannot wrap their hands around the poem and cuddle it in their arms. Instead, the poem slips, drips, flies, and teleports out, dancing, running, skipping, cartwheeling and doing everything imaginable making the readers baffled and uncomfortable. But if one stops and thinks--thinks about it for a moment--one may be able to realize how the poem is just like our state of mind when we space out during class, when we are trying to get to sleep, when we are walking, when we are not thinking about thinking. I could be thinking about pigeons while someone is talking about calendars. Our mind is incontrollable. We start thinking about one thing, ending up with something completely different. An easier example: we start talking about one thing, ending with something absolutely different. Our mind exercises--either on its own or not. Our mind is incontrollable, indecisive, a trickster, a necessity, dancing and jumping and cartwheeling a lot of the time, unnoticed. We may be quite uneasy and alarmed by it, but our mind is a necissity. It is nice to remember that a lot of things are not in our hands but slips out and twists around continuously.

Our minds do work that way oftenly--start thinking about one thing and the mind works out like crazy! In the poem, for an example, Stein writes:
Ethel.
Ethel.
Ethel.
Next to barber.
Next to barber bury.
Next to barber bury china.
Next to barber bury china glass.
Next to barber china and glass.
Next to barber and china.
Next to barber and hurry.
Next to hurry.
Next to hurry and glass and china.
Next to hurry and glass and hurry.
Next to hurry and hurry.
Next to hurry and hurry.
Plain cases for see. (96-111)
How often do people do this in their brain? Do we even know? Our minds are fantastic: too wonderful that it can think on and on about peculiar "stuff." The ability of our minds are unknown and people are therefore awed and tickled by it, making them quite uncomfortable at times. It is nice, however, to acknowledge it and feel the tink, which Stein helps to sparkle on us.