This is my work for April 2nd

Poem 552 discusses a “Languor of the Life / More imminent than Pain”. According to Dickinson’s Lexicon, languor means “the empty feeling of sorrow” or “longing for a lost loved one.” I interpret this poem as a commentary on the suffering that comes with the absence of feeling. Dickinson says, “A Dimness like a Fog / Envelopes Consciousness – / As Mists – obliterate a Crag.” To me this describes the erasure of self when depression and numbness take over the mind. Not only is the speaker becoming absent, but they are also being hidden from the rest of the world. The third and fourth stanzas speak to the danger of this. Pain is normal to the surgeon, but if told that the “Creature lying there” “ceased to feel,” he will admit defeat to forces “Mightier than He.” The absence of sensation indicates that “Skill is late” and it’s now hopeless. All life has been disconnected, as suggested by Dickinson’s use of the word “Creature.” This word strips the patient back to just their biology, erasing the layers that make us human, just as the loss of self and feeling does. The final stanza continues this idea through metaphysical concepts. Dickinson writes, “A Mightier than He – / Has ministered before Him,” implying that human intervention is pointless. “There’s no Vitality” left to save once the “Soul / Has suffered all it can.”

After reading this poem, poem 588 stood out to me for the way both poems address suffering and pain, though they approach these experiences differently. In poem 552, suffering is linked to numbness and the erasure of self, while poem 588 portrays pain and the absence of feeling through the metaphor of the heart’s attempts to escape suffering. The heart asks for an “excuse from Pain,” a temporary relief from something it cannot ultimately avoid. This directly mirrors the numbness described in poem 552. When this is no longer effective, the heart turns to “those little Anodynes / That deaden suffering.” According to Dickinson’s Lexicon, anodynes are sources of relief or alleviation from emotional distress or grief; they’re also defined as medicines, opiates, and narcotics. These drugs cause effects similar to the emotional disconnection described in poem 552 as the “Fog [which] Envelops Consciousness”. Ultimately, both poems represent numbness as an insufficient solution and present death as the final rescue. In poem 552, this is through the loss of “Vitality,” while in poem 588, it is the heart’s “privilege to die.” This parallel reflects Dickinson’s view that death is liberty from life’s suffering and grants us eternal peace.

Poems 533 & 546

Poem 533 is one that we saw in the letters and dissected its implications for her relationship with religion (which is a complex one, of course). It struck me when I was reading this set of poems not only because it was familiar, but also because it feels so powerful after reading the poem where she contemplates her relationship with being a poet. ED says in 533 that poetry is everything, it “Comprehend[s] the Whole” (line 6). Reading and writing (and experiencing) poetry tells her all she needs to know about the world, all there is to know.

It seems that every time ED is metapoetic, my heart swells a little. I love knowing that she was so passionate about the art of hers and others’ words, and I love that she finds the artistic-ness of poetry outside of poems. Lines three and four of poem 546 are so precious to me: “But stopped, when qualified to guess / How prayer would feel – to me -” and I feel like this aligns the beginning of her creating poetic art with the beginning of her questioning her faith (or rather, questioning her religion). The last stanza of poem 546 really makes me feel this alignment–she has so gracefully thrown off the poetic balance of the stanza as she talks about her faith and/or religion being so hard to balance and to “poise” (line 20).

ED’s use of poetry as a way to digest the entire world and frankly, her existence, I feel these two poems really strongly represent what she believes in. And I think that, above all else, ED believed in poetry. The power of poetry, the devastation of poetry, the responsibility of poetry, the beauty of poetry, and absolutely everything in between.

This is my April 2 work.

My Work for April 2nd

Poems 466 and 473 interest me because they are very different descriptions of possibility and shame using the metaphor of a house. 466 depicts a house as living and full of possibility while 473 examines the suffocating life that can exist inside a house. In 466 the house is a metaphor for possibility. It is a space that is “numerous”(3) and vast, allowing for one to grab paradise in their hands. The house feels boundless and “everlasting”(7), reaching out like the sky. Here possibility is tied to space and freedom of mobility. Dickinson describes the house as  “impregnable of eye”(6) meaning it cannot be captured by human sight. This is in stark contrast to the physical house in 473 and the life the speaker lives with in it. The first difference I noticed is in terms of space. The speaker takes “the smallest room”(2)  and describes having very little in it with her. The speaker then continues to describe how small they are within the small space. First physically they are the “slightest in the house”(1) and then how small they made themself by “never [speaking]- unless addressed”(9) and keeping their voice “brief and low”(10)  because they “could not bear to live- aloud-” (11) and felt shame towards making any noise. Ultimately the shame is so great that the speaker says that could have died from it. 

These two poems stood out to me as potentially being in conversation about possibility and shame utilizing the speaker’s relationship to a house to express the powers of both, For poem 466, Possibility itself is a house that pushes its inhabitants to reach paradise. In 473, a house is a place to hide in shame of being bigger than the room one lives in. These are such stark relationships but both ones that make sense to me. In a lot of ways the vastness of possibility can lead to shame in not pursuing the possibility made available to us. Conversely, sometimes shame in oneself is so great that we put ourselves in the smallest room in the greatest house and hope no one hears us. Dickinson portrays both of these as valid responses and depicts both emotions in a way that they can exist in confrontation and conversation. 

Who is Emily Dickinson?

In class on Tuesday, we discussed the poem in which Dickinson describes things that she does and does not want to be or do. This poem really left me thinking “who is Emily Dickinson?”. Given the nature of her life and the lack of personal information we have about her, besides the letters that she sent to others, it is interesting to get a deeper look into her own wants and desires beyond what we can see in the personality that she presents to others. I am interested to see what other details about her wants, desires, and personality we will get as we continue reading more of her poems, particularly as they move forward into later periods of her life.

The Importance of Dickinson’s Connection to her Work

When we were discussing Dickinson’s death/marriage poem on Thursday, something that came up was the fact that Dickinson didn’t really seem to be scared of death, so her writing about being scared of death, either in itself, through the metaphor of marriage, or as a metaphor for marriage, didn’t seem to make sense. Yet, does it matter if Dickinson can personally relate to the poetry she is writing? Or is poetry, in general, more about creating spaces for individuals to relate to one another, regardless of how the poet themselves relates? This question interests me specifically when thinking about Dickinson because she did not seem to have any interest in publishing her works. The only way that her work was spread was directly to another person by herself in her letters, which seems like it would take away the possibility for relatability between people beyond Dickinson. Does this mean that we shouldn’t view Dickinson’s work as possibly being relatable in ways beyond her own experiences, or could her poetry still be viewed that way even if it wasn’t her intention?

Whitman or Dickinson?

This is a very surface level thought, but it is still so jarring to me to compare the lengthy, 50-page poems we were reading from Whitman to the sometimes only 4-8 line poems from Dickinson. Which do you prefer? As of now, I think I prefer Dickinson because even though her poems are harder to understand, they feel more fun to read (sorry Whitman). Also, Dickinson is a woman, and I’m always going to choose a woman over a man (not sorry Whitman).

WWDT: What Would Dickinson Think?

In a letter to Dickinson from Helen Hunt Jackson, Helen writes asking why Dickinson won’t consider publishing any of her works. She says that when she is dead and is looking back on her life, Dickinson will be sorry that she was so stingy with her work. It made me wonder if Dickinson would be or is regretting her decisions. Based on her reclusive and solitary nature, I’m not sure if she is disappointed. Her work has gotten out without her having to deal with the publicity that comes with it. If anything, I think that this is exactly what she would have wanted, if she wanted her work to ever be published at all.

Real Life Dickinson vs. Curated Literary Dickinson

In letter #342a, Higginson writes to his wife about meeting Dickinson. Something that really stuck out to me in this letter was his description of meeting Dickinson in person for the first time; he describes her as very meek, saying that she seemed frightened and childlike. This feels like the complete opposite of the Dickinson that we see presented in her letters. Obviously, this description of meeting her shouldn’t be too surprising as we know that she rarely sees new people, but the difference between the self-assured confidence she exudes in her letters and her poetry compared to the shyness that she shows in-person felt very drastic.

How do Letters Connect Us?

In letter #73, Dickinson is writing to Susie (unsurprisingly). Towards the beginning of this letter, Dickinson says “I cannot deny myself the luxury of a minute or two with you” (77), implying that taking the time to write to Susie is the same, or at least similar enough, to actually spending time with her. However, closer to the middle of the poem, Dickinson says “How vain it seems to write, when one knows how to feel” (77), contradicting the implication of her previous statement. This idea reminded me of the conversation we had in class about how Whitman would feel about social media as a form of connection. Is letter writing, to either Dickinson or to us, a form of connection that is either the same or similar enough to actually seeing someone in person? Or is there something fundamentally unique about being in-person that cannot be replicated through letters, no matter how intimately you write to someone? Also, what would Dickinson think of social media?

The Length of the Letters

This may be a rather surface-level thought, but when reading for class on Tuesday, I couldn’t help but notice that as we get further into the letter collection and therefore further in time, Dickinson’s letters get noticeably shorter. Not only that, but they also include more phrases and writing that feel reminiscent of poetry rather than prose. This could just be a consequence of Dickinson just getting more involved in her own poetry, so she has less time to write letters, as well as causing poetic writing to become more prominent in her letters. However, I do wonder if there is some other reason for this; is it possible that it is more of a conscious choice that Dickinson made?