Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Rita Dove
by alisonegr5 on May 3, 2009 at 9:53 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
So… the Death of Ophelia.
Wow. Intense. So I guess the place to start is with the gravedigger. Leave it to Shakespeare to put in one last comedic scene before everyone **SPOILER ALERT** dies **SPOILER OVER**! It was all very witty too… I mean I’ve heard the joke about the gravedigger and guiotine being the strongest before, but that was a very… unique… context for the joke! So anyway, I also find it interesting when Hamlet reflects over who the skulls dug up might once have been; famous people, politicians, or your average who ever. I actually often wonder about that myself, who might be, as Hamlet says, built into the wall with their dust (creeeeeepy). But this speech also seems to be an eerie response to Hamlet’s earlier “To Be or Not To Be” speech. He’s answering a question that he didn’t outright ask, even if he doesn’t realize it; we all become dust afterwards, for random strangers to speculate about… maybe it doesn’t even matter?
In terms of Hamlet’s reaction to seeing Ophelia dead, this OBVIOUSLY shows the scrap of humanity left in him, but it also shows how carried away he got; he never even THOUGHT of the possibility she would die, and I think he’s now realizing how far under he truly got.
Now to the finale, the big ending, the big **SPOILER ALERT** death scene **SPOILER OVER**.
PS, I was write. Rosencratz and Guildenstern WERE killed! I’m so good at this…
OK moving on;
In terms of Osric, I really don’t quite understand what he stands for… maybe the confusion that Hamlet feels; though he revenge may be right, it led to the death of the love of his life? I’m not really sure.
In terms of Hamlet’s apology, I think it WAS genuine because of his own self torture over the death of Ophelia… but I understand why Laertes was hesitant. But I also realize that it was his and Claudius’ plan to have Hamlet be in this state of mind during the dual so that he would be easier to beat or lose to and then kill (because of the poison).
This intricate plot with several different possible deaths for Hamlet seems fullproof… but it’s a Shakespearean Tragedy. They NEVER work out as one would wish. In what seems to be one swoop, the Queen is killed by Claudius (by means of Hamlet’s poisoned cup), and Laertes is killed by his own poisoned sword (“I am justly kill’d with my own treachery”= Wow, maybe I over-reacted against this man who probably DID love my sister…) and then forgives Hamlet (which was very big and noble of him, and that is why he seemed like the last true “hero” in this play). Claudius is not only run through by the blunt, poisoned sword, but also forced to drink the poisoned water that just killed his wife, and we see his final character (as opposed to Laertes, who died nobly) as a coward and sinner (with a final cry for “Help”) but a mortal man none-the-less. Hamlet is left to die a slow, agonizing, very Shakespearean death with a final, lingering line.
The Rest is Silence.
Wow. That’s intense.
The final parts to wrap up are just an epilogue for Shakespeare to slightly explain the rest of the story. The important thing is that Fortinbras has Hamlet carried “as a king” to the stage to be mourned and honored. When he proclaims that Hamlet would have been a great king, he resolves (for the reader) Hamlet’s earlier worries that he would be as forgotten as the skulls in the Grave; he IS to be remembered.
I don’t know if that means Hamlet was right in his actions. Without seeing this acted out, it’s a little too deep for me to really comment on it. But I do know that this play is standing ovation-worthy.
Thank you Shakespeare.
*Clap**Clap*
by alisonegr5 on April 28, 2009 at 7:59 pm · Filed under Hamlet Stuff!
So for the first three acts of this intense, Shakespearean tradgedy, a big question has been, “Who will the Queen side with–her beloved son, the last ties to her former life with the ex-king, or her new lover who killed her old one?” Turns out, according to the VERY FIRST scene of act IV, she goes after Claudius, even though she had JUST finished promising to help Hamlet with the now dead Polonius. That is cold, Gertrude, cold. He’s your SON, and you’re allowing your second husband to ship him away to England? Tsk, tsk. I don’t understand how she can still stand by Claudius when he didn’t even ask if she was ok: the first thing he noticed was,
O heavy deed!
It had been so with us, had we been there.
Thats Claudius saying “well if it had been ME behind that curtain, I would be the dead one!! *GASP*”. And yet Gertrude still goes for the selfish king, who she may or may not know killed her first husband, before her SON (and Claudius goes further as to order Hamlet’s death, rather than actually sending him to England. That’s cold cruelty right there… so is Claudius the last rashonal one here? Or is this just another insane murder?)! I’m really confused by Shakespeares writing right now; I mean, I realize that he often writes semi-weak female characters, but there’s often a really strong female character just out of sight, as well. Ophelia and Gertrude have both dissapointed me in this! Come on, Shakespeare, where are your strong leading ladies?
Now, to the actual killing of Polonius… crap… who now can possibly be our hero? It’s no longer Hamlet really; how can a killer in cold blood, so similar to our main antagonist (that’s Claudius, by the way, if you’re not thinking straight today), be the hero of a revenge/redemption/re-gaining of the crown story? So does that completely cross out Hamlet, and leave no one? Does that turn Hamlet into the tragic hero? Maybe, I mean everything seems to be going wrong for him, but he’s not exactly trying to do the right thing here, anymore. However, I have often felt pity for the tragic hero (like when we read Oedipus Rex), but right now, I only fear Hamlet and his insanity, AND he is not learning from his mistakes, or at least trying to, which is a major key to the tragic hero. He just keeps chugging on, down a path of seemless destruction and death. So is Hamlet our hero? Is it right to allow him to keep mucking about in his insane and murderous fashion, or was Claudius correct in ordering him to be killed?
Finally, we see Fortinbras again (or really for the first time…), and his attendents lie to Hamlet about who they go off to kill. However, the main idea of this entire scene is when Hamlet declares,
Oh, from this time forth,
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!
So, what, are you saying you were thinking hypothetically of killing multiple people? And this “revelation” comes from the idea that Fortinbras goes to kill people over a worthless plot of land (which is actually a lie). That’s not exactly the heroic lesson to be learned here. Hamlet is truly past the point of “acting” insane; his thoughts have long been died red, but now he starts to recognize it.
So now Hamlet has left a trail of destruction behind where he only meant to kill Claudius (who seems to be the only one immune to Hamlet’s attempts), for he now has Laertes on his tail for killing his father and driving his sister mad (subsiquently leading her to drown herself… but was she really suicidal? Or was she just not concerned with her own life? OR did she tragically slip and fall?). It has become a neverending circle of mad men with a lust for blood and revenge in their hearts.
Ps, my guess for Chapter V? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are DEAD!
Tune in next time to find out 
by alisonegr5 on April 26, 2009 at 7:02 pm · Filed under Hamlet Stuff!
Well I’m convinced Hamlet. You truly ARE insane. Oh no, I know, you are only ACTING insane.
I know that I’ve already gone through this (see my last post on Act 2), but I’m serious; Hamlet is acting insane as well as BEING completely insane at the same time! The freak out in the room of mirrors? Yeah, I would call that insanity. My question however is however, this; at what point did he realize that Ophelia’s father was watching (and Clodius too)? By the movie, it seemed he didn’t realize until they accidentally made a noise from behind a mirror. When I was reading this portion, however, I kinda felt like he almost knew that something was up the whole time. Hamlet KNOWS Ophelia thinks he’s mad, he made SURE of it when he freaked her out in Act 2, so why would he be so accepting of her “I love you but I have to give back all of your knick-knacks that remind you of me”?? He is, indeed, a brilliant actor, as his earlier soliloquies would suggest, so at what point can the reader truly know when Hamlet is MAD or just ACTING mad? Hamlet is past the point of rational reasoning here; he is willing to use Ophelia (who he truly is mad at and hates while still in love) to further his twisted plan. THAT shows his madness; he doesn’t really care anymore if it doesn’t quench his lust for revenge. So is the Ophelia scene insanity of love as Polonius thinks, or insanity of revenge as Hamlet seems to think to himself? To Hamlet consiencesly, obviously he thinks its all an act for revenge, but underneath, this is the perfect moment to tell this woman who ripped out his heart “Get thee to a nunnery!”
Ah. The “To Be or Not To Be” speech. Obviously about suicide, and about whether the stronger/”nobler” thing is to end it all or to keep fighting through all the cruel things life throws at you. But looking back, Hamlets not actually talking about himself! I’m serious, look back at it, he doesn’t think he’s actually talking specifically about himself. He’s just contempulating the idea in general; I mean sure, it would be NICE to him to just end all the turmoil, but he’s already concluded to himself that he can’t because suicide is a deadly sin to God early in the play! And yet, this option is discussed as a completely plausible possibility.
The theater scenes were pretty understandable for me (it’s just Hamlet’s plot further unraveling!), but what I DON’T understand is why Hamlet insists on messing with poor Ophelia throughout with odd, embarassing, and hurtful references? He’s already tortured her enough; this is past the point of his plan, he continues to hurt her for his own pleasure, so he’s already past his original intent to only harm the guilty (his mother and uncle/step-father). Why’s he doing this? Maybe he can no longer keep his inner insanity in check. Maybe he’s dumping his emotions against his mother on Ophelia (which is then echoed in the end of the Act). Maybe he’s still hurting and wants to punish Ophelia/Polonius (who can’t be far away) more.
That’s it for Act III… see you soon for Act IV!!!!!
by alisonegr5 on April 23, 2009 at 8:34 pm · Filed under Hamlet Stuff!
Ok, so I lied again, these are NOT my first impressions, but they are HONEST impressions for sure!
Two things in this act really stuck with me.
First, the “madness” of Hamlet. When I first read the “I’m going to act crazy for Polonius” part, I thought Hamlet truly was mad (cuckoo, crazy, out of his gourd, etc.), but the second time I went over this scene, I noticed the line of Polonius that goes something like, “madness, yes, but there is a method to it” (DING DING DING, its the “common-phrase-used-still-today” of the day!!), I realized that all of Hamlet’s lines were actually just in response to Polonius TREATING him as a looney. Many lines even have a deeper meaning about what Hamlet is planning, and the actual pain he feels about Ophelia’s sudden removal from his life. His insanity does, however, shine brightly in the scene thats starts with the phrase “Now I am Alone” (double meaning could be actually alone as well as “I’ve stepped past the point of no return with this”). I think to Hamlet, he is acting the part of an insane person, but then he is “sane” in solitude, but even under this there is a tight chord of insanity running through everything he says. Hamlet is currently like an onion: Layer 1, the one everyone sees=insanity, Layer 2, no one really sees this anymore=sanity, Layer 3, sometimes pokes its ugly head out to the surface to truly freak the reader out=real inner madness.
The Second thing that stuck with me was Ophelia’s speech when Hamlet apparently came into her room like a madman (layer 1 or layer 3 I wonder?????). When I first read this, I was intreged! And I’m serious too, I LOVED that scene when I read it, because I read it not as a whimpering, snively confession but as a “oh god, I’ve just seen a ghost… am I really awake right now?” and I felt like some part of Ophelia realized there was something deeper bugging Hamlet. Thats the SMART, kind and caring Ophelia that I envisioned. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE Kate Winslet, she’s an amazing actress, but her Ophelia in this scene was a mess and a complete FREAKOUT. It destroyed all sense of POSSIBLE compassion for Hamlet (she’s madly in LOVE with him, and only a little afraid; not scared for her life!!), and her breakdown was an insult to Ophelia’s possible strength. Oh sure, she ends UP going crazy and “accidently” drowning in the river, but its the fact that she feels the connection to Hamlet’s madness (she seems like another one of those super smart humans that think too much of life to truly enjoy it always, like Hamlet), rather than being AFRAID of it. Love you Winslet (especially in Titanic haha), but I disagree with your (and the director’s) interpretation.
I lied again, I said two things when I meant three; I LOVED the random lines from Hamlet about the importance of theatre, acting and the expression in the lead actor’s voice. All I can say is, “Um, DUH! Of COURSE!!” I love Shakespeare (have I mentioned that before?), and I love his style of writing and how he often interjected random play within a play scenes in his other works (such as in A Midsummer Night’s Dream–which is an AMAZING show too, I once played Puck) but never before have I seen Shakespeare rant on the importance of it all. For example, in AMND the play within a play is all very tongue-in-cheek, but here Hamlet compliments the tragic troupe he had once loved so much over and over, and berates Polonius when he poo-poos them! It is beatiful. And then later, Shakespeare uses theatre as an analogy for how Hamlet sees himself and how to expose his uncle’s wicked deeds; they are all actors in this twisted play of lies and false feelings, and “the play’s [within a play] the thing” to uncover it all!
by alisonegr5 on April 21, 2009 at 9:12 pm · Filed under Hamlet Stuff!
Hey again! I know, it’s been a while since I’ve last written and I know you’ve missed me SO MUCH (obviously…), but I’m here to inform you that rather than writing about our favorite modern poet, Rita Dove who we all love dearly, we’re switching to the classically confusing and dashingly poetic William Shakespeare and his despondent masterpiece, HAMLET!!
Ok, so I have a little bit of experience with Hamlet before we started reading this for english; I myself is a big Shakespeare nut (which is quite obvious if you know me), so I went last year with our school to Stratford for a Shakespeare festival which had Hamlet as one of their shows.
…unfortunately, it was the first show after a REALLY long bus ride and I slept through a little bit of it… but it was really good none the less!! (What I saw at least…)
Secondly, there is a movie/theatrical show called “The Reduced Shakespeare Company”, which is truly the funniest writing/abridging of Shakespearean works that I have EVER seen, and they did a *suprise* reduced version of Hamlet at one point in their show:
I know its long, but you really have to watch all 4 parts:
PART ONE
PART TWO << haha, funny Ophelia analogy…
PART THREE
PART FOUR << this is the reduced Hamlet performed fast and then backwards
Ok, so now onto my view of the first act…
So in general, I can understand Shakespearean language. I lose some of the finer meanings here and there, but I basically get the underlying plots and twists, and the same basically goes for Hamlet. I know how this show ends, and the basic plot of the entire show, but because of my unfortunate mundane need to sleep, I actually don’t remember much of the first, second, and fourth act, so some of the things hidden in Shakespeare’s writing took me by suprise.
I had forgotten the obvious preference of Laertes by all he seems to communicate with (except for Hamlet, who seems to love nobody living completely); Laertes is preferred by King Claudius when he requests permission to return to France based on reasons that he missed his french home (a similar request was denied to Hamlet who wished to go back to Wittenburg to LEARN). He is also the seemingly preferred child of Polonius, who gives him kind words and advice (many of which we still use today), while berating Ophilia cruely for her involvment with a man who he thought could never care for her (…obviously Hamlet here…). However, where some may say this was fatherly concern for his daughter’s well being, he told her his opinion through scolding and denoucing Hamlet and her feelings for him:
Marry, I’ll teach you. Think yourself a baby
That you have ta’en these tenders for true pay,
Which are not sterling. Tender yourself more dearly,
Or—not to crack the wind of the poor phrase,
Running it thus—you’ll tender me a fool.
Obviously, this is a very biting comment from a father to his DAUGHTER.
Also obvious to me this early is the fact the Claudius is evil. Theres no question about that, even before the ghost of Hamlet’s father claims Cluadius as his (Hamlet Sr.’s) killer. The character that confuses me the most right now is Queen Gertrude; I can’t yet firgure out if she’s evil, power-hungry, or just plain weak, as Hamlet says, “Frailty, thy name is woman!”.
I’m really excited to continue reading (and watching!) this play, it is truly one of my favorites, and I love the way it was written… as confusing as it can be, it STILL holds up even today in the 21st century!
by alisonegr5 on April 1, 2009 at 8:26 pm · Filed under To wrap it all up...
Here are my various comments on various blogs:
MARCH 18
Hi! My name is Alison, and for my English class, we are all posting blogs about our favorite poets, and I chose Rita Dove. I also analyzed her poem “Lady Freedom Among Us”, and there’s just one thing I think I should quickly correct you on. Obviously the Statue of Liberty would make a lot of sense as the “Lady Freedom” that Dove describes in her poem, but she is actually referring to the Thomas Crawford Lady Freedom statue that was taken down, repaired, and relocate when Dove wrote her poem. Your basic analysis, on the other hand, I completely agree with; Dove wants to prove that the Statue stands resolute, even when some would no longer see or believe in her. Because we’ve had a taste of freedom, we can never go back to a time where it’s not an implied right!
Check out MY blog at http://alisonegr5.edublogs.org/ !! We can discuss our favorite poems of Dove’s
Hi! My name is Alison, and for my english class, we are all posting blogs about our favorite poets, and I chose Rita Dove. I also analyzing her poem “DayStar”, and I pretty much agree with what you said here. The mother seems trapped and exhausted by a family that doesn’t really contain “attained love” and she no longer feels a love for her husband Thomas (did you know that this poem was about Dove’s Grandmother and Grandfather??). On the other hand, I think the mother DOES still feel this maternal love towards the children, and required love towards her husband to the point where she’s ashamed to want to escape, and thats why she can only go out to the back yard and dream. She is both not strong enough to leave AND she is strong enough to stay.
check out MY blog at http://alisonegr5.edublogs.org/ !! We can discuss our favorite poems of Dove’s
Hi Anna!
I agree that our poets seem similar, if merely in their writing backgrounds. As you say, both are strong, independent female writers that have gone on to very successful careers inside and outside of poetic circles. Their African American Heritage led them to both speak of prejudices, or at least of a sense of being “lesser”, but Rita Dove seemed to base hers more on a sense of poverty, of the being in the lower classes of America, and of feeling that despair and lack of hope. I really like Brooks’ style of writing in comparison to Dove’s, for though they have this similar chord within each poem, you can still detect differences.
MARCH 26
Hi again!
Going on from my earlier comment, I’ve gone more in depth on their separate influences, and Dove defiantly was moved into writing poetry by Brooks. She followed Brooks’ way of saying truly shocking things (like statements of Abortions for Brooks and statements of loveless marriages on the wife’s side for Dove) in a simple, understandable, and heart tugging manner. I truly respect both writers for their outspoken honesty.
Hi MacDaddy! My name is Alison, and I’m researching the poet Rita Dove, whose birthday you mentioned a while ago haha, and as I was going through her writing style I found a tribute written by her to Gwendolyn Brooks, and how her writing led Dove to write her own works of art. The link between the two writers is really clear, too, for both write shockingly honest views of topics that some people would never dare to touch, such as Brooks’ view of abortion in “The Mother”, and Dove’s view on a loveless life/family in “DayStar”. I love both of their writing styles, and I respect them both for their strength in writing.
MARCH 29
Hi! My name is Alison, and I’m doing an analysis of the poet Rita Dove, and though this seems random, she and Pound are actually similar writers in some ways!
This short poem takes most of Pounds writing style and wraps it up in a nice, simple packet; he was all about the imagery and it’s importance. When he says “As cool as the pale wet leaves”, he is using an image to describe the feeling and mood behind the poem and the description of whoever “she” is. Dove does a similar thing through HER writing, like in her poem DayStar; just the simple WORDS of that poem describe the feeling of despair that the main character feels.
If you want to see more of my analysis on this, please check out my blog at http://alisonegr5.edublogs.org/! 
thanks!
RANDOM OTHERS
BCR Leading Ladies
Poefrika
I wrote:
“Hi! My name is Alison, and my english class is doing blogs on some of our favorite poets, and I chose Rita Dove… I love her! It’s great to hear shes still writing and that a collection will be available so soon!
Come check out my blog, we can discuss some of her best works!
http://alisonegr5.edublogs.org !”
The Reply:
“Hi Alison,
Thank God Rita is still writing. I hope she has 10 more volumes or more in her.
Thanks for stopping by.”
by alisonegr5 on March 29, 2009 at 11:47 am · Filed under Influences
Like many poets of our time, recent or not so recent, Rita Dove had many influences.
Where some poets speak of contemporaries that influenced specific details of poems, how one stanza of this “x” poem influence their entire “y” poem, and others mirror the writing style of their favorite dead artist. Some even write based off of artists of other mediums, like sculptures, pictures, paintings and so on.
Rita Dove, in many interviews, not just this one , said, “I wonder why people always want to know that. My favorite poets may not be your bread and butter… I don’t know why, but those poems change my life every time I read them. My early influences were Shakespeare, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Heine… and Mother Goose. For each stage of life, there are groups of poets — the list is too long!” She also speaks of being influenced by individual poems of writers like Langston Hughes, but based on her poetry, her biggest influences came from her parents and grandparents (who she based an entire collection of poems on). Of the poets we have studied so far this year, she does not clearly follow any of them, one way or another. Sure she’ll pick up some small habit here or there, but its small and different from the original poet, and she herself does not recognize it. These habits have just been woven into her writing.
T. S. Eliot **
In Eliot’s “Four Quartets” , he says, “Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is…Except for the point, the still point, There would be no dance, and there is only the dance,” alluding to, as Willard Spiegelman puts it, “And T. S. Eliot, whom it is difficult to imagine cutting a rug, alludes to dance throughout Four Quartets as a symbol of grace, harmony, and integrity, reminding us (in “The Dry Salvages”) of the oneness born of participation in a nonsemantic art: “you are the music / While the music lasts.” Spiegelman goes on to explain the importance of dancing to Dove; it is a beautiful expression of real emotion, and both she and Eliot see it as the only equal form of expression to poetry and words. Dove wrote several poems that allude to the dance, like “Fox Trot Fridays” which is a simple description of the light partner dance. Dove’s writing also flows like a dancer sometimes, and Spiegelman regrets that she does not write more about the descriptions of dancing in her own words; Dove even would dance for inspiration in writing!
Dancing is basically the limit of the similarities between Eliot and Dove however, for though both have this meaning behind each poem that they wish to express, Eliot writes not for the common man, but for the reader ready to spend hours trying to divulge the secrets of his complicated poems, where Dove’s simplicity in writing is what holds the secrets of her words.
Ezra Pound
Like Ezra Pound, Dove often puts a lot of stock in the interpretation of her imagery. Pound always said that imagery not only gave a picture, but also and emotion and idea, and Dove carries this in her poems as well. For example, in Dove’s poem “Adolescence II” , the imagery is what carries the confusing story along the entire time. Using words like prickles, sleek, glittering, and phrases like “Venetian blinds slice up the moon” or “glittering like pools of ink under moonlight” all show an intense imagery to convey the feeling of mystery behind the poem, and that was one of Pound’s big points in writing.
On the other hand, Dove did not seem to believe that every image had to pampered and manicured until a specific creation could be seen in her poetry. Her images, though important, came simply, and by simple arrangements of the words alone (and their deeper meanings), but not in obtuse ways.
William Carlos Williams
Williams’ big point was in a “machine made out of words” and “the simple beauty of what it is”. Dove followed the second saying more readily than the first, however, for she wrote in a smooth flow of common words whose true meanings are only seen through multiple reads. A reader can understand Dove poetry with the first read, but it takes repetition to truly see what she means.
On the other hand, Williams really stresses a detachment of the subject (which is a skill learned through his doctoring practices), where the beauty of Dove’s poems lies in the real emotions connected to the words on the page, like in “DayStar”. You can feel the pain of the unloved wife and mother that’s trapped in her life, and her despair at her situation.
Rita Dove is a Poet of her own, even with the hundreds of other writers out there to influence her: she is unique.
by alisonegr5 on March 26, 2009 at 8:17 pm · Filed under Influences
Rita Dove wrote with a style of her own. She brought in her unique life influences—everything from the disorderly life of her grandparents Thomas and Belaugh to her time as the Poet Laureate of the United States to the viewing a Freedom statue removal—to her poems, giving each a unique subject and voice. She wrote of the unhappy life of a woman married young, a feeling of being trapped in a love-less marriage, escapes to a new life, the changes of American views of freedom. She wrote of the ordinary, the extraordinary, and the just plain weird. There are two other female poets that often come to the forefront of discussion when looking at Dove; Gwendolyn Brooks and Meg Hewitt.
Gwendolyn Brooks is Dove’s first influence. In, “A Tribute to Gwendolyn Brooks by Rita Dove—Testifying”, Dove says
“These were words that spoke straight from the turbulent center of life-words that nourished like meat, not frosting. Yes, I was struck by these poems, poems with muscle and sinew, poems that weren’t afraid to take the language and revamp it, twist it and energize it so that it shimmied and dashed and lingered.”
As Dove grew from the “gawky adolescent” that first read the poems of Brooks to the accomplished writer she is today, Dove followed the “musclely” writing style that she admired in Brooks’ writing. Works of Dove today, like DayStar, are not afraid to show the brunt of the truth of an unhappy life, like in “The Mother” that boldly starts with the statement,
“Abortions will not let you forget.
You remember the children you
got that you did not get…”
This shows the similarity of brutal honesty in difficult subjects (in DayStar, the woman would like nothing better than to leave her loveless marriage and family), Brooks’ “The Bean Eaters” shows a simplicity that Dove followed; Dove often wrote to the common citizen, in their own language (though she branched out as well).
Meg Hewitt, on the other hand, was influenced directly by Dove. The two poems directly inspired by Dove were called “The Fright of the Forest” and “Sybil”. Hewitt takes the structure of Dove’s partner poems (“Climbing In” and “Rosa”) directly into the creation. In “The Fright of the Forest”, the beginning and ending lines,
“Bows.
Branches. Thick trunks
Not a friendly shine to enter to…
as I trip
head over heels
over there gauging roots.”
corresponds directly to “Climbing In” lines,
“Teeth.
Metallic. Lie-gapped.
Not a friendly shine…
As the bright lady tumbles
Head over tail
Down the clinking gullet.”
“Rosa” and “Sybil” follow a similar pattern where each stanza of Hewitt’s poem can correspond to a line from Dove’s “Rosa”.
As one of the only stated influences (she says herself that her influences constantly change), Dove says, “I know that Gwendolyn Brooks was among the few who gave me the courage to insist on my own story,” and Hewitt seemed to return the sentiment to Dove through her reflected poetry.
by alisonegr5 on March 19, 2009 at 11:14 pm · Filed under Analizations
LADY FREEDOM AMONG US
don’t lower your eyes
or stare straight ahead to where
you think you ought to be going
don’t mutter oh no
not another one
get a job fly a kite
go bury a bone
with her oldfashioned sandals
with her leaden skirts
with her stained cheeks and whiskers and
heaped up trinkets
she has risen among us in blunt reproach
she has fitted her hair under a hand-me-down cap
and spruced it up with feathers and stars
slung over her shoulder she bears
the rainbowed layers of charity and murmurs
all of you even the least of you
don’t cross to the other side of the square
don’t think another item to fit on a
tourist’s agenda
consider her drenched gaze her shining brow
she who has brought mercy back into the streets
and will not retire politely to the potter’s field
having assumed the thick skin of this town
its gritted exhaust its sunscorch and blear
she rests in her weathered plumage
bigboned resolute
don’t think you can ever forget her
don’t even try
she’s not going to budge
no choice but to grant her space
crown her with sky
for she is one of the many
and she is each of us
watch?v=glRAiluTAY8
After extensive search, there does not seem to be a specific article on Rita Dove’s style of writing in “Lady Freedom Among Us”, and when I say extensive, I really TRULY mean extensive. It was a long, LONG, fruitless search.
I did, however, find a site called Cataloging The University of Virginia Libraries’
Four-Millionth Volume that cataloged reactions to and explanations of Dove’s Poem, and this was very helpful in understanding the meaning and context of “Lady Freedom Among Us” (seen here).
This article mentioned that, “months before she was appointed Poet Laureate of the United States in 1993, Rita Dove read about Lady Freedom’s temporary removal in the newspapers: ‘I thought it was a marvelous irony and jotted down a few lines in my notebook’ (‘In Honor,’ 2).” The temporary removal that Dove mentioned was for repairs after the Lady Freedom statue had stood in the Capital for 200 years of wear and tear by ‘wonderful’ weather. This irony led to her poem “Lady Freedom Among Us” which spoke of this change in American physique; no longer did people thank their luck for being born in a free land that was so brilliantly put together by the founding fathers. No, now people bowed their heads to worry about war, financial problems, a new possibly incompetent President. Dove’s voice commands through the text of the poem for people to look up at this beautiful statue that, even if worn, still represents this ideal that Americans shall never give up, never loose faith. The article goes on to explain that “it [Dove's Poem] both exposes and glorifies” the truth of the statue; it HAS been worn and battered, and some don’t even know of its existence, letting it fall into the category of “tourist attractions of DC”, but it is still this marvelous representation of the American Spirit. The Article believes, “Maybe we no longer understand why she is up there: an odd, forgotten pinnacle to a capitol we rarely care to exalt,” and that we’ve lost the sense of grandeur that accompanied the original positioning of the Statue, but still today it commands this power, and that the people of America fight for their rights just as she still does, standing resolute.
by alisonegr5 on March 19, 2009 at 10:05 pm · Filed under Analizations
DayStar
She wanted a little room for thinking:
but she saw diapers steaming
on the line,
A doll slumped behind the door.
So she lugged a chair behind
the garage to sit out the
children’s naps
Sometimes there were things to watch–
the pinched armor of a vanished cricket,
a floating maple leaf.
Other days she stared until she
was assured when she closed
her eyes she’d only see her own
vivid blood.
She had an hour, at best,
before Liza appeared pouting from
the top of the stairs.
And just what was mother doing
out back with the field mice?
Why, building a palace.
Later that night when Thomas
rolled over and lurched into her,
She would open her eyes
and think of the place that was hers
for an hour–where she was nothing,
pure nothing, in the middle of the day
That was one of Rita Dove’s most and famous and renowned poems from the work “Thomas and Beulah“, a collection of poetry about her Grandparents (named Thomas and Beulah).
I found another blog by Jaxon that also analized DayStar, and we agreed on many things. We both thought that “Her views on motherhood are focused on the fact that it is very tiresome and that she really needs a break every now and again,” as Jaxon puts it. I really felt that this poem described a mother who laments the fact that she has been tied down to a once loving life by a family that she SHOULD love and appriciate. She feels this sense of shame that she just wants to escape. Her exhaustion has become so pronouced that she just wants to fade into nothingness. The descriptive words used by Dove in this poem express the feeling and tone of the poem, just as Jaxon says, “The tone of this poem really contributes to the situation of this poem,” more than the overall story itself, and words like “slumped”, “floating”, “nothing” all convey this unhappy life that almost seems surreal to this mother that could have been so much more.
To Jaxon’s blog, which I mostly agreed with, I replied,
“Hi! My name is Alison, and for my english class, we are all posting blogs about our favorite poets, and I chose Rita Dove. I also analyzing her poem “DayStar”, and I pretty much agree with what you said here. The mother seems trapped and exhausted by a family that doesn’t really contain “attained love” and she no longer feels a love for her husband Thomas (did you know that this poem was about Dove’s Grandmother and Grandfather??). On the other hand, I think the mother DOES still feel this maternal love towards the children, and required love towards her husband to the point where she’s ashamed to want to escape, and thats why she can only go out to the back yard and dream. She is both not strong enough to leave AND she is strong enough to stay.”
Next entries »
