They follow the rhyming pattern of aba aba aba aba aba abaa.
This is a recitation of the the poem by the author:
"Do Not Go Gentle ino that Good Night"
by Dylan Thomas
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
This poem portrayed a vibe of warning or caution. The author is warning the reader not to be deceived by the night, despite his good intentions. This poem appeared to me as a wise man or elder or veteran warning a young soldier before going off to his first call of duty.
The repeated title throughout the poem incorporates the deceitful night in to many types of people including the “wise men” in the second stanza and the “wild men” in stanza four. The wild men mentioned also made the mistake of approaching the night, or perhaps a war, unprepared and regretting that decision on the way home.
The last stanza is the author requesting his father to enlighten him of the fears and dangers of the night, so he doesn’t have to experience them first hand. This is why he asks to be cursed and blessed because it will be painful to hear all to horrors but later he will be happy he did it. He learns from the repeated verse “rage, rage against the dying of the light” can be seen as a metonymy for running off adrenaline from the enemy, with the dying of the light being the disappearance of life.
One Art
By Elizabeth Bishop
(please comment on this poem)
The art of losing isn't hard to master;
so many things seem filled with the intent
to be lost that their loss is no disaster,
Lose something every day. Accept the fluster
of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.
The art of losing isn't hard to master.
Then practice losing farther, losing faster:
places, and names, and where it was you meant
to travel. None of these will bring disaster.
I lost my mother's watch. And look! my last, or
next-to-last, of three beloved houses went.
The art of losing isn't hard to master.
I lost two cities, lovely ones. And, vaster,
some realms I owned, two rivers, a continent.
I miss them, but it wasn't a disaster.
-- Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture
I love) I shan't have lied. It's evident
the art of losing's not too hard to master
though it may look like (Write it!) a disaster.
I could be wrong, but it seems as though the speaker is making light of losing things such as love and "two cities" by comparing them with less significant items such as "keys" and "watches." She says that it was so easy to move on after losing these material items, so it is obviously just as easy to lose larger pieces of her life, like love. In this way, the poem is very ironic. It is as if she is trying to prove her strength either to herself or to her lover so that she will be able to move on after an event that actually was quite significant to her.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Libby that she is trying to prove that she is okay, and if feels as if she is only saying this because the person is hearing these words through the use of second person. She makes note that loss happens every day, and actually mocks the loss of trivial items (I drew this from her exclamation marks.) It's like she's putting on a tough facade to prove that other person didn't mean as much as "it may look like". The tone is very sarcastic to me, and I think the last stanza gives an explanation. It's as if "so many things seem filled with the intent/to be lost" so why would that one person matter to her? She tries to relate (I'm guessing a "him") to every other thing that she kind of likes but can live without.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Jen and Libby that she's trying to dismiss loss as something trivial and common. She acknowledges the presence of loss, saying "I miss them, but it wasn't a disaster", yet she brushes it off as not being a big deal. I think she's trying to prove that people lose things so often throughout their lives, it shouldn't be regarded as anything significant.
ReplyDeleteI feel that, by making light of losing things, the speaker of this poem is trying to convince herself, and the rest of the world, that she does not care so much about loss. In order to decrease her grief that comes from losing her houses and someone important to her, she compares it to losing smaller things. however, upon closer examination the small things turn out to be important. For example, keys are very important in day-to-day life, particularly house keys. Losing her "door key" locks her out of her house, and of the comforts and possessions that she has within it. Also, losing "my mother's watch" is important to the speaker, because it had an emotional connection to her. Thus the speaker unconsciously mirrors her own mental state, as she picks items that seem unimportant but have vast significance. She tried to downplay her losses, but instead revealed her hidden grief.
ReplyDeleteThe speaker actually seems rather neurotic to me. I can picture her running around her house, trying to find "lost door keys" for an "hour" and casually waving off the loss of her "mother's watch" while in actuality, she is panicking. She begins with the loss of "keys," then "watch," and then gradually the lost items become more and more significant, ranging from "cities" to a "continent" and finally, to love. I agree with the fact that she is trying to justify all these losses, although on the inside she feels awful. I definitely agree that she is trying to prove her strength either to herself, or to this lost love. One aspect of the poem I don't understand is the "write it!" in the last line. Anyone?
ReplyDeleteI think the speaker of this poem is trying to justify losing things by making them seem insignificant, therefore she cannot miss them when they are gone. The items she describes losing become seemingly more significant, although she treats them the same. By the end of the poem, it is clear to me that the speakers tone is slighly sarcastic when she talks about losing "you" which can be seen as a lover.
ReplyDeleteThe poet describes losing something as to be insignificant. It seems that she treats everything she loses to be insignificant so that when is disappears, it won't have any effect on her. At the beginning of the poem she decibels small and simple things that she loses but by the end she is describing things like loved ones or "two cities". This is showing that she treats everything the same so then when its gone she really hasn't lost anything.
ReplyDelete