A Little Simplicity Never Hurt Anyone
Perhaps it's just coincidence that Poe and Dickinson both did not like science?
Dickinson very outrightly states "it's so unkind of science to go and interfere" in "Old-Fashioned." She continues describing how science as put beautiful things in cabinets and maps. Unlike Poe who just tells us that science is desensitizing us, Dickinson goes past that and says "hope the children there won't... laugh at me and stare." She is afraid that being simple is going to ruin her chance to get into Heaven and be happy! The examples she provides are very easy for us to see. Even today, scientists still put butterflies in glass containers to display them.
I liked "I never saw a moor" as well. This is such a simple poem. Even though she's not been to certain places, she is adamant that she knows what they look like. Honestly, who has not thought that before? After hearing so many descriptions of things and seeing pictures, which are obviously not the real deal, we often feel we've seen it. The Grand Canyon in everywhere on postcards and the internet, but nothing compares to actually being there. This may be a slight tribute to Dickinson's naivety. While she was well educated and very bright, she feels that she must know what things look like even if she hasn't actually seen it. I find it invigorating to read about how things once were. Having the ability to travel makes you realize you don't really know until you've been there.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
Kayla Lesko on A Little Simplicity Never Hurt Anyone: I blogged something similar to
Heather Mourick on A Little Simplicity Never Hurt Anyone: Ah but the argument for that w
Jessica Apitsch on A Little Simplicity Never Hurt Anyone: I took this poem to be the rei
Heather Mourick on A Little Simplicity Never Hurt Anyone: Ah but the argument for that w
Jessica Apitsch on A Little Simplicity Never Hurt Anyone: I took this poem to be the rei
I took this poem to be the reinforcement that many aspects and beauties of life do not need to be seen or physically touched to be proven true. If one feels it to be so that is enough. A prime example is faith in God and the Heavens, which is the direct comparison to the sea in the second paragraph. I do agree with you that many things on Earth need to be seen in order to get the full affect, but what about love? Can we see that? NO, but we sure know it exists.
Ah but the argument for that would be, what about those people who do not love? or fall in love?
Love is simply a chemical reaction of the mind and body. While I do believe that love exists, I could easily argue that it doesn't. If you do not find something to love, it does not exist to you. You have to find a reason for the reaction to take place. Children who are brutally abused during the early stages of life have an extremely difficult time with the emotion of love. They have never seen it, felt it, or been exposed to it in any way. Love is developed. You have to be exposed to it to know that it Really exists.
I blogged something similar to what you said about "I never saw a moor." It's one of her poems that I actually like.