Tag Archives: conversation starter

Ella’s CS for 3/26 readings

Posted on by
Reply

The selection of poems for 3/26 is a strange yet somehow comprehensive mix. They touch on classic Dickinson themes like death, nature, and religion, but what stood out to me was how frequently she writes about housewives and marriage. We know where Dickinson stood on the topic: she was a proud spinster and generally opposed the concept of marriage (a real feminist). I think it’s easy to see in some of these poems just how passionate she was about the subject. Some of her characteristic humor and sarcasm even come through at times in her satire (I’m specifically thinking of 267). How do you interpret Dickinson’s poems about marriage? What can we infer about her views on gender roles from her writing? What do you think prompted Dickinson to have this view of housewifery?

The poems I’m thinking of when writing this are 185, 194, 225, 267, and 280. Are there other poems from this collection of readings or others we’ve previously read that you think relate back to this theme? Are there any that you interpret as having a positive outlook on marriage? What do you think Dickinson would think of LGBTQ marriage rights? Do you think she’d be less critical of queer marriages?

This conversation starter wouldn’t be complete without mentioning poem 269, “Wild nights – Wild nights!” (ironic it’s 269), because there’s definitely conversation to be had. Dickinson has a number of erotic poems; however, this is one of the most renowned. We discussed poem 121 in class today and noted the use of the metaphor “Her breast is fit for pearls, / But I was not a ‘Diver.'” Wild Nights also makes use of nautical metaphors such as “Might I but moor – tonight – / In thee!” What do you think of this common theme? Why do you think Dickinson relates sexuality to the ocean and things associated with it? At the time, this poem would have been widely disputed due to its sexual nature, especially considering the religious context. There are interpretations of this poem that argue that the speaker’s passion and love are for God and that “Wild nights” refers to moments of spirituality, but I struggle to see that perspective, given what we know about Dickinson’s relationship with religion. Who do you think the poem is addressing? Do you agree more with the sexual interpretation or the spiritual? Why?

There are so many poems in this selection that I love, and I wish I could speak on them all, but alas I only have so much space, so I leave you with this…if “‘Hope’ is the thing with feathers – / That perches in the soul” and Emily is “a sparrow” who builds her “perennial nest” in Sue’s heart, does that make Dickinson the personification of hope? (assuming the soul and the heart are one and the same) Who’s to say? Only Dickinson knows what she meant; she was far too smart for the rest of us.

Tanner’s CS for March 19

Posted on by
Reply

Hello! The letters for 3/19 consist of Dickinson’s correspondence to T.W. Higginson and Helen Jackson. I have a few questions in regards to Dickinson’s relationship to these two, as well as a question on a specific letter itself. Feel free to answer any!

Dickinson’s letters to T.W. Higginson and Helen Jackson are both very intriguing, especially when you look at their relationships. The letters between Higginson and Dickinson felt very special, especially as we see them over time. We know that Higginson acted as a mentor to Dickinson, and it is clear in their correspondences, but there also feels to be a deep friendship embedded. Dickinson writes to him in times of sorrow, illness, happiness, and more. I was wondering what people made of their relationship. While it is a mentorship, would you also ascribe something additional: parental, friendship, writers, all of the above? Do you find importance in looking at this relationship outside of just mentorship? 

Additionally, Dickinson and Helen Jackson show a great friendship through their letters. In letters 573A-C, we see Jackson encouraging, and succeeding, in asking Dickinson to publish some of her writing. Helen even writes that she will take care of everything, and write from her own hand, just so Dickinson is read. Why do you think Helen was the one successful in getting Dickinson to agree, as we know she was reluctant to publish her works. Does Jackson also being a writer aid in her persuasiveness, or more her friendship? What is the importance of another woman encouraging Dickinson to publish her work anonymously? 

Lastly, the letter that stuck out to me the most is letter 459A which is written to Higginson. The letter reads: “Nature is a Haunted House – but Art – a House that tries to be haunted.” This letter feels very poetic, and it was thought to be seemingly sent on its own. I don’t want to give too much of my thoughts away, as to answer the question. So, I am curious about your reading of this letter (letter-poem?). What is Dickinson trying to express through calling nature a “Haunted House,” and art as “trying to be haunted?” Does the letter work to invoke a specific sort of emotion, specifically when thinking of the word haunted? Also, is there something to be said about the capitalization of certain words? I just want everyone to have a go at this letter in any way they see fit!

I look forward to hearing thoughts!

Bailey’s CS for March 17

Posted on by
1

In our readings for today, I was particularly interested in Dickinson’s letter to Higginson on April 25, 1862 (#261). There are a lot of interesting mysteries within. She mentions “I had a terror – since September – I could tell to none” and then later in the letter seems to emphasize this secret trauma by saying, “They are better than Beings – because they know – but do not tell.”

Famously, some scholars theorize that Emily Dickinson’s most prolific years of poetry came about due to some possible trauma (which also could have influenced her progressive isolation). But I’m curious why she would have so cryptically mentioned it here and nowhere else? Perhaps she felt safe in some way because Higginson did not yet have a personal relationship/rapport with her? Or perhaps she was simply explaining the source of her muse to a fellow literary-minded person who might best understand?

Or maybe there is a way to read this letter as Emily Dickinson sort of putting on airs? Although she doesn’t express a desire for getting published, when I read this letter, it does feel a bit like she is seeking some sort of poetic validation as she asks for Higginson’s mentorship. There are several lines which I feel she wrote purposefully to play into Higginson’s potential ego or masculinity – “I went to school – but in your manner of the phrase – had no education,” “But I fear my story fatigues you,” and, of course, her infamous comment on Whitman.

To me, this all reads very sly and coy. Emily Dickinson is so incredibly smart and she’s almost downplaying that on purpose here in order to seek Higginson’s mentorship. It makes me wonder what her true feelings on Whitman are, because to me, it seems like she’s only saying that she was “told that he was disgraceful” because it could possibly align with what Higginson believes.

I’m interested to know what other people think of these mysteries. Is Dickinson being authentic here? Or is she intentionally playing a part? If she doesn’t want to be published, what is she looking for? Validation or true tutorship?

Elisabeth’s CS for January 20th

Posted on by
1

Hello, Whitmaniacs! Having emerged relatively unscathed from our first encounter with Mister Whitman, here are some general conversation contributions:

Having read two reviews of Whitman’s work, one utterly scathing and one glowing, and then reading Whitman’s poetry right after, I’m inclined to say that neither review is entirely correct because while Whitman’s poetry isn’t my favorite, I don’t count it as unreadable. It’s just sort of there. Do you think either of these reviews are accurate and in what ways? Do you think the identities of the authors, one a man and the other a woman, have anything to do with how Whitman’s work revolted/appealed to them?

(May I just say the paragraph “…it is impossible to imagine how any man’s fancy could have conceived such a mass of stupid filth, unless he were possessed of the soul of a sentimental donkey that had died of disappointed love. This poet (?) without wit, but with a certain vagrant wildness, just serves to show the energy which natural imbecility is occasionally capable of under strong excitement” is absolutely hysterical.)

Whitman (very…very liberally…) uses the free verse to its fullest potential. He repeats beginning words or phrases often, follows no particular rhyme scheme, and his line sequences seldom follow a pattern, if ever. I think it’s interesting that his poems deal so much with freedom and the style itself is called free verse. He speaks of everyone from every walk of life, even unto death which he still hails as some sort of freedom. What is your take away from that? Is there something about his conversational style of poetry and free verse that sounds distinctly “American” in tone to you? (To me it kind of does, and not in a derogatory sense.) Or on the other hand is it just patriotic delusion?

And lastly, how do you think it is that Walt Whitman is able to connect so easily with everyone and everything in his poems, particularly Song of the Open Road? Is it his identity? Love for his country? His poems are broad and sweeping, and it’s almost like he’s a conductor and everyone on the open road is some sort of symphony but then he’s also part of that symphony. Does that make sense? I’m especially curious to know what you guys think of this in particular!