Friday, September 9, 2011

E block--Dimitar on 288


Dimitar Dimitrov
September 8, 2011
Poem 288: Close Reading
Emily Dickenson’s poem 288 is very peculiar in more ways than one.  Apart from its meaning, it has very unusual structure and flow.  What is perhaps most interesting, however, is the word choice.  Although all of the words are carefully picked, most short and concise on purpose, there are three words that, to me, stick out the most: advertise, dreary and livelong.
The first of the three is used to describe what the Somebody’s would do to the narrator and her friend were they to be discovered.  At a first reading, the sole meaning is that they will no longer be Nobody’s, that they will become known to the world.  But the fact that the author chose the word “advertise” over any other verb meaning “to make public” shows that there’s more to it than simply revealing their secret.  Both the perpetrators and the audience of the advertising is presumably the Somebody’s.  Quite simply, it pokes fun at them – it shows how they are entertained by those they think of as less.  When they find a Nobody, they want to share – to boast what they believe is their own high social rank.  Because of this one word, the reader, though maybe subliminally, perceives the Somebody’s as less – they seem pathetic, in need of attention.  Without having created a direct offense, the poet is already planting her idea.
This category of personalities starts to seem even less appealing because of the adjective “dreary”.  The way dreary is used is almost as interesting as the decision to use it.  The first line of the second stanza starts with “How dreary”.  The second one starts with “How public”. Because of this repetition and because of the rhythm used, “public” and “dreary” seem to be synonymous.  In fact, since “public” is used second, it seems to be a subcategory, a specification of “dreary”.  Wait, what? Dreary means dull, boring – those are stereotypically qualities associated with solitude and loneliness, not with the glamour of publicity!  Yet to the speaker, the other life – the “Somebody” life – is the one that inherently seems dreary.  Not only is this an unusual and almost ironic way to describe fame (or at least a person’s desire for fame), but its poetical connection with the word “public” makes it a powerful adjective to describe Somebody, thus further diminishing their imposed importance.
The word that perhaps sticks out the most is “livelong”, simply because it is an unusual word to use and because it doesn’t fit with the length of the other words in the poem.  This draws one’s attention to it.  Its purpose in the poem is very similar to the other two words used.  “Livelong” means “whole”.  The Frog tells its name the whole June.  Never mind that June is only 30 days long.  The Frog’s minutes of fame are used to the full extent.  This is the heaviest blow to those who seek fame.  It completely discredits their achievements, revealing how insignificant – and short – they really are.  Even without the need for conscious analysis, this word choice, combined with the other unusual elements of the poem, successfully humiliates some people’s inborn need to stand out, to croak their name to the public, to have the personal satisfaction of being a Somebody, at least for a little while.  Simultaneously, it leaves the Nobody as the bigger person.

5 comments:

  1. I thourghly enjoyed this essay. It was a different version of a close reading essay that I've encountered before but I really liked it. I thought it was interesting just choosing three words to focus on, but his point was convincing and by the end I was in agreement that the nobody comes out of it as the bigger person.
    -Ella MacVeagh

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought that this essay was an interesting approach to the close reading. The narrow focus really allowed Dimitar to expand and thoroughly defend his argument. It really made me look at this poem through a different light. Plus, I really enjoyed Dimitar's writing style. His points were all clearly stated and I could easily follow his thought process.
    - Claire Meyerovitz

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good stuff Dimitar, i really liked the way that you presented your three major points of focus at the beginning of the essay and then divided the paragraphs in a way that made the paper concise and to the point. You presented your ideas in a well thought out way and the only thing that might have helped would have been a conclusion that summed up the major arguments in the essay. I really enjoyed reading the paper and it confirmed all of my vague notions about poem 288 in an eloqent yet understandable way. I especially liked your explanation of the usage of dreary.
    -James Wronoski

    ReplyDelete
  4. What this essay truly excels at is the conciseness of its answer. It is a focused, tight, and quick to the point argument that really worked well on focusing on a small portion of the poem and helping to bring meaning to it. I thought that the three words that Dimitar chose were good representations of the poem's meaning, and that I understood the poem better after having read his essay. He managed to clearly get his point across without drifting into the pretentious words and vocab that often come with analytical writing. Great job!
    ~Daniel Krane

    ReplyDelete
  5. I personally found this essay to be quite compelling, but what I loved most was the unique analysis. I can not recall an essay I have read that focused almost entirely on the word choice. Not only was the analysis unique, but it was very well done. Dimitar revealed interesting connections that went previously unnoticed in prior discussions, and it was all written very well.
    -Sam Kellman-Wanzer

    ReplyDelete