The truth behind the words...

| | Comments (4)

"Perhaps Dickinson felt He had denied her personal happiness.  In #690, though, her bitterness seems more universal. The poet questions a God who had been "so economical" with all of His "Sparrows," not just with Emily Dickinson (Katherine A. Monteriro)."

It never fails that everytime I read someone else's interpretation on a poem that I sit and wonder, "How did I not see that?"  After reading this, it seems that I was so out in left field.  Mind you, there can be countless interpretations for this poem, but this one def. sold me on the most well defined and supproted explanation. 

It never hit me that Dickinson was speaking not only to herself through private monologue, but speaking for others as well. It's not just that He surpassed her, but has providied universal disappointment and despair as well.  Something that I also thought was interesting was the beliefs that Emily had on wars and its patrons.  I knew that Dickinson wrote a lot about nature, love, religion etc, but I never knew of her religious beliefs.  So much of what I have read about her relishes on depression and solidarity, that this was a new perspective on her and her writings. 

 

homepage

4 Comments

Angelica Guzzo said:

There are a lot of things I missed when reading this poem as well. I liked how you included her religious beliefs in your entry.

Greta Carroll said:

Stephanie, I know what you mean. How many times have I read a poem and thought of two or three possible meaning to the poem and then when someone else explains the poem to me, it is like a light bulb comes on in my head. Their reasoning usually makes more sense than mine, but no matter how hard I try, I usually can’t come with the same interpretation as someone else. Not that it is necessarily bad that I have a different interpretation, but mine usually seems like more of a stretch than theirs. I liked how Monteiro included historical facts from Dickinson’s life too to help justify her beliefs.

This poem was definitely open to interpretation, and I barely even knew what I thought about it until I read Monteiro's article. It was nice to see another perspective because she explained a lot of the meaning behind it, which helped me develop my own opinion of the poem. But then again, we should not dismiss our own thoughts because someone else's argument is stronger than ours. We might have to go back and do some more research, but we could put up a fair fight with our perspectives. Monteiro basically wrote an agenda item (one that we could agree with or disagree with)...hers just happened to get published in an academic journal. :)

Deana Kubat said:

i like your take on this. i never actually sat down and read this to think about it like that. i'm not going to lie, it was one of those things that it was just a reading so i read it. but i def. like how you broke it down and put it into her thoughts.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.