Sunday, March 30, 2008
Portrait Reflection
I enjoyed Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. While it is quite challenging in its complexity, the overall development of Stephen is so incredible that the breakdown of the story is worthwhile. Joyce’s poetic language and message to live life independently is also what I truly appreciate from this book. While many of Stephen’s situations were at the extreme, I as a reader could still relate to some of his feelings of not knowing exactly what to do next as well as the feelings of pure enthusiasm for the things people find talent in and love to do as individuals. I like this book for its message of how people may not necessarily be skillful at one thing, but how they all have a gift they should learn to cherish and grow from as Stephen has.
Portrait Quote
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man a quote
I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use – silence, exile, and cunning. (269)
This quote is one of Stephen’s greatest discoveries. Throughout the entire novel he is trying to find himself. He has been enduring some very difficult times but here he finally realizes that he will just do his best to succeed and do what he feels is right. He finally knows that he will be in control of his actions. Nothing can stop him or force him to do something he does not believe in from this point on. Stephen is a true artist not in just his way of formulating words, but now also in his way of carrying out his life – he will live it freely. Stephen is no longer concerned with what others want of him or what his former Catholic faith demands of its followers or what Ireland expects everyone to be. Stephen has finally fully expressed who he is because he finally knows who that person is. He will use silence to listen and absorb his surroundings. He will use cunning to be able to express who he fully is, which is all the deceptive emotions that come along with words. Stephen will use exile to be independent of what his country wants for him and do whatever it is he wants for himself. This quote describes the start of a new life for Stephen and how his outlook on life is changed forever.
I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use – silence, exile, and cunning. (269)
This quote is one of Stephen’s greatest discoveries. Throughout the entire novel he is trying to find himself. He has been enduring some very difficult times but here he finally realizes that he will just do his best to succeed and do what he feels is right. He finally knows that he will be in control of his actions. Nothing can stop him or force him to do something he does not believe in from this point on. Stephen is a true artist not in just his way of formulating words, but now also in his way of carrying out his life – he will live it freely. Stephen is no longer concerned with what others want of him or what his former Catholic faith demands of its followers or what Ireland expects everyone to be. Stephen has finally fully expressed who he is because he finally knows who that person is. He will use silence to listen and absorb his surroundings. He will use cunning to be able to express who he fully is, which is all the deceptive emotions that come along with words. Stephen will use exile to be independent of what his country wants for him and do whatever it is he wants for himself. This quote describes the start of a new life for Stephen and how his outlook on life is changed forever.
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - on Stephen's early signs of being an artist
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man on Stephen’s early signs of being an artist
Even from the very beginning of James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, it is apparent that Stephen Dedalus is artistic. He uses his senses to describe what is happening to him. This is first shown on the very first page. His mind even at such a young age perceives his surrounding through four of his five senses: his sight, “he had a hairy face,” smell, “That had the queer smell,” touch, “When you wet the bed first it is warm then it gets cold,” and hearing, “O, the wild rose blossoms On the little green place”. These are early indications of how he will progress into an artist.
Stephen’s artistic outlook on life is not understood by his peers. Stephen is unlike the athletic boys of his age and so he is outcast for it. The way Stephen describes these athletic boys shows how he is skillful in coordinating words as opposed to his physical self, “The evening air was pale and chilly and after every charge and thud of the footballers the greasy leather orb flew like a heavy bird through the grey light,” (4). This quote is a good example of how Stephen uses his observations to paint a picture.
As a child Stephen also uses his personal experiences to paint pictures with words as well. One example is from Stephen’s flogging incident with the prefect of studies. When Stephen is unjustly accused of being a “lazy little schemer,” (51) both his hands are smacked several times with the pandybat. The way Stephen details this painful experience leaves the audience rubbing their hands with the same sensation he felt, “A hot burning stinging tingling blow like the loud crack of a broken stick made his trembling hand crumple together like a leaf in the fire: and at the sound and the pain scalding tears were driven into his eyes,” (51) and “The scalding water burst forth from his eyes and, burning with shame and agony and fear, he drew back his shaking arm in terror and burst out into a whine of pain,” (52). These descriptions of burning, scalding, and pain are repeated throughout the passage to get the point across that he feels a burning sensation. This also shows how he still has much room to develop as an artist sense he is very repetitive of these same throbbing sensations of burning.
While the audience can easily depict Stephen as unique and artistic, Stephen himself describes how much he loves words. After being pushed into a cesspool by a bully named Wells, Stephen imagines a dramatic death based on a nursery rhyme. He describes the rhyme in his own words :
How beautiful and sad that was! How beautiful words were where they said Bury me in the old churchyard! A tremor passed over his body. How sad and how beautiful! He wanted to cry quietly but not for himself: for the words, so beautiful and sad, like music. The bell! The bell! O farewell!
Stephen’s exclamations show how excited he is for these words. He is picturing his death and yet feels such a gratitude for this nursery rhyme that he forgets about how he was originally trying to feeling pity for himself. He knows that these words are beautiful and mean something to him. This enthusiasm for words carries on throughout his life and helps him discover who he is as an individual, as an artist.
Even from the very beginning of James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, it is apparent that Stephen Dedalus is artistic. He uses his senses to describe what is happening to him. This is first shown on the very first page. His mind even at such a young age perceives his surrounding through four of his five senses: his sight, “he had a hairy face,” smell, “That had the queer smell,” touch, “When you wet the bed first it is warm then it gets cold,” and hearing, “O, the wild rose blossoms On the little green place”. These are early indications of how he will progress into an artist.
Stephen’s artistic outlook on life is not understood by his peers. Stephen is unlike the athletic boys of his age and so he is outcast for it. The way Stephen describes these athletic boys shows how he is skillful in coordinating words as opposed to his physical self, “The evening air was pale and chilly and after every charge and thud of the footballers the greasy leather orb flew like a heavy bird through the grey light,” (4). This quote is a good example of how Stephen uses his observations to paint a picture.
As a child Stephen also uses his personal experiences to paint pictures with words as well. One example is from Stephen’s flogging incident with the prefect of studies. When Stephen is unjustly accused of being a “lazy little schemer,” (51) both his hands are smacked several times with the pandybat. The way Stephen details this painful experience leaves the audience rubbing their hands with the same sensation he felt, “A hot burning stinging tingling blow like the loud crack of a broken stick made his trembling hand crumple together like a leaf in the fire: and at the sound and the pain scalding tears were driven into his eyes,” (51) and “The scalding water burst forth from his eyes and, burning with shame and agony and fear, he drew back his shaking arm in terror and burst out into a whine of pain,” (52). These descriptions of burning, scalding, and pain are repeated throughout the passage to get the point across that he feels a burning sensation. This also shows how he still has much room to develop as an artist sense he is very repetitive of these same throbbing sensations of burning.
While the audience can easily depict Stephen as unique and artistic, Stephen himself describes how much he loves words. After being pushed into a cesspool by a bully named Wells, Stephen imagines a dramatic death based on a nursery rhyme. He describes the rhyme in his own words :
How beautiful and sad that was! How beautiful words were where they said Bury me in the old churchyard! A tremor passed over his body. How sad and how beautiful! He wanted to cry quietly but not for himself: for the words, so beautiful and sad, like music. The bell! The bell! O farewell!
Stephen’s exclamations show how excited he is for these words. He is picturing his death and yet feels such a gratitude for this nursery rhyme that he forgets about how he was originally trying to feeling pity for himself. He knows that these words are beautiful and mean something to him. This enthusiasm for words carries on throughout his life and helps him discover who he is as an individual, as an artist.
"The warden said to me" by Etheridge Knight along with Analysis
“The warden said to me” by Etheridge Knight
The warden said to me the other day
(innocently, I think), "Say, etheridge,
why come the black boys don't run off
like the white boys do?"
I lowered my jaw and scratched my head
and said (innocently, I think), "Well, suh,
I ain't for sure, but I reckon it's cause
we ain't got no wheres to run to."
Etheridge Knight’s poem, “The warden said to me” reflects the prejudice of this time period. The speaker is a black prisoner, also the poet himself, who is asked by a warden, “Say, etheridge/ why come the black boys don’t run off/ like the white boys do?” (2-4). Because the warden is addressing the speaker on why the black boys don’t run off shows how it is clear that the speaker is black. Also, the fact that “etheridge” is not capitalized shows a distinction of authority; it shows how the warden speaks down to Etheridge and how they are not equals. Etheridge’s response also shows the discrimination Blacks faced at this time, and how he is indeed definitely a black man, “(innocently, I think), “Well, suh/ I ain’t for sure, but I reckon it’s cause/ we ain’t got no wheres to run to,” (6-8). Even the slight interior monologue presented in quotes of Etheridge’s unspoken thoughts show how he almost must address how he believes their conversation was innocent despite their differences. Another major indication of the hierarchy of these two people is how Etheridge calls the warden “suh”. This is a typical black person’s way of addressing a white person during times of prejudice between Blacks and Whites. Just the colloquial diction of their conversation also provides evidence of the situation. Neither seem very well educated, especially Etheridge, and yet Etheridge’s response has profound meaning. The final and most obvious proof of how there is prejudice towards Blacks is how they have no where to run to. If the white prisoners escape, they have at least a chance of leading a decent life. For a black person during this time however, they are trapped in a prison wherever they go because of the discrimination they face.
I like Knight’s poem because its straightforwardness and colloquial dialogue are easy for the reader to understand what is actually going on. The final line is heartbreaking in not only the truth of the situation, but also in its acceptance. This short poem does not need many words to explain the lasting injustice these people faced.
The warden said to me the other day
(innocently, I think), "Say, etheridge,
why come the black boys don't run off
like the white boys do?"
I lowered my jaw and scratched my head
and said (innocently, I think), "Well, suh,
I ain't for sure, but I reckon it's cause
we ain't got no wheres to run to."
Etheridge Knight’s poem, “The warden said to me” reflects the prejudice of this time period. The speaker is a black prisoner, also the poet himself, who is asked by a warden, “Say, etheridge/ why come the black boys don’t run off/ like the white boys do?” (2-4). Because the warden is addressing the speaker on why the black boys don’t run off shows how it is clear that the speaker is black. Also, the fact that “etheridge” is not capitalized shows a distinction of authority; it shows how the warden speaks down to Etheridge and how they are not equals. Etheridge’s response also shows the discrimination Blacks faced at this time, and how he is indeed definitely a black man, “(innocently, I think), “Well, suh/ I ain’t for sure, but I reckon it’s cause/ we ain’t got no wheres to run to,” (6-8). Even the slight interior monologue presented in quotes of Etheridge’s unspoken thoughts show how he almost must address how he believes their conversation was innocent despite their differences. Another major indication of the hierarchy of these two people is how Etheridge calls the warden “suh”. This is a typical black person’s way of addressing a white person during times of prejudice between Blacks and Whites. Just the colloquial diction of their conversation also provides evidence of the situation. Neither seem very well educated, especially Etheridge, and yet Etheridge’s response has profound meaning. The final and most obvious proof of how there is prejudice towards Blacks is how they have no where to run to. If the white prisoners escape, they have at least a chance of leading a decent life. For a black person during this time however, they are trapped in a prison wherever they go because of the discrimination they face.
I like Knight’s poem because its straightforwardness and colloquial dialogue are easy for the reader to understand what is actually going on. The final line is heartbreaking in not only the truth of the situation, but also in its acceptance. This short poem does not need many words to explain the lasting injustice these people faced.
"Riddle" by William Heyen along with Analysis
“Riddle” by William Heyen
From Belsen a crate of gold teeth,
from Dachau a mountain of shoes,
from Auschwitz a skin lampshade.
Who killed the Jews?
Not I, cries the typist,
not I, cries the engineer,
not I, cries Adolf Eichmann,
not I, cries Albert Speer.
My friend Fritz Nova lost his father –
a petty official had to choose.
My friend Lou Abrahms lost his brother.
Who killed the Jews?
David Nova swallowed gas,
Hyman Abrahms was beaten and starved.
Some men signed their papers,
and some stood guard,
and some herded them in,
and some dropped the pellets,
and some spread the ashes,
and some hosed the walls,
and some planted the wheat,
and some poured the steel,
and some cleared the rails,
and some raised the cattle.
Some smelled the smoke,
some just heard the news.
Were they Germans? Were they Nazis?
Were they human? Who killed the Jews?
The stars will remember the gold,
the sun will remember the shoes,
the moon will remember the skin.
But who killed the Jews?
William Heyen’s poem “Riddle” is very powerful in its subject matter and structure. Every stanza has four lines based on the repeated question, “Who killed the Jews?” (4). The poem’s overwhelming punch comes from its use of allusion stemming from Heyen’s descriptions of individuals of the Holocaust, like Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who helped organize the shipping of Jews to concentration camps, and Albert Speer, who improved the production of war materials for Germany. To me personally, the references to specific people who are not famous gave the poem a deeper and more solemn tone, “My friend Fritz Nova lost his father –/ a pretty official had to choose/ My friend Lou Abrahms lost his brother/ Who killed the Jews?” (9-12). This stanza shows how the Holocaust not only affected those who were in the camps, but also the friends and families of those people, like the speaker. The repetition of “Who killed the Jews?”, “and some”, and “Not I” are extremely effective. It describes these people as individuals (and some) who are not willing to take responsibility for this mass murder (not I). However, this poem shows how even those who did not directly participate were also guilty of this genocide – because they did nothing, even when “Some smelled the smoke,” (24).
I have a great respect for Heyen’s “Riddle” because it clearly and effectively describes the horrors of the Holocaust and how people are unwilling to take responsibility for this genocide of not just Jews, but fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters – of people. The last stanza is very powerful in how even the universe (stars, sun, and moon) will remember the Holocaust because this tragedy was so immense and demands witness. The speaker is right in his/her answer to who killed the Jews; in how the common person of this time had the potential to make a difference for these innocent people, but no one wants to admit it.
From Belsen a crate of gold teeth,
from Dachau a mountain of shoes,
from Auschwitz a skin lampshade.
Who killed the Jews?
Not I, cries the typist,
not I, cries the engineer,
not I, cries Adolf Eichmann,
not I, cries Albert Speer.
My friend Fritz Nova lost his father –
a petty official had to choose.
My friend Lou Abrahms lost his brother.
Who killed the Jews?
David Nova swallowed gas,
Hyman Abrahms was beaten and starved.
Some men signed their papers,
and some stood guard,
and some herded them in,
and some dropped the pellets,
and some spread the ashes,
and some hosed the walls,
and some planted the wheat,
and some poured the steel,
and some cleared the rails,
and some raised the cattle.
Some smelled the smoke,
some just heard the news.
Were they Germans? Were they Nazis?
Were they human? Who killed the Jews?
The stars will remember the gold,
the sun will remember the shoes,
the moon will remember the skin.
But who killed the Jews?
William Heyen’s poem “Riddle” is very powerful in its subject matter and structure. Every stanza has four lines based on the repeated question, “Who killed the Jews?” (4). The poem’s overwhelming punch comes from its use of allusion stemming from Heyen’s descriptions of individuals of the Holocaust, like Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who helped organize the shipping of Jews to concentration camps, and Albert Speer, who improved the production of war materials for Germany. To me personally, the references to specific people who are not famous gave the poem a deeper and more solemn tone, “My friend Fritz Nova lost his father –/ a pretty official had to choose/ My friend Lou Abrahms lost his brother/ Who killed the Jews?” (9-12). This stanza shows how the Holocaust not only affected those who were in the camps, but also the friends and families of those people, like the speaker. The repetition of “Who killed the Jews?”, “and some”, and “Not I” are extremely effective. It describes these people as individuals (and some) who are not willing to take responsibility for this mass murder (not I). However, this poem shows how even those who did not directly participate were also guilty of this genocide – because they did nothing, even when “Some smelled the smoke,” (24).
I have a great respect for Heyen’s “Riddle” because it clearly and effectively describes the horrors of the Holocaust and how people are unwilling to take responsibility for this genocide of not just Jews, but fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters – of people. The last stanza is very powerful in how even the universe (stars, sun, and moon) will remember the Holocaust because this tragedy was so immense and demands witness. The speaker is right in his/her answer to who killed the Jews; in how the common person of this time had the potential to make a difference for these innocent people, but no one wants to admit it.
"Siren Song" by Margaret Atwood along with Analysis
"Siren Song" by Margaret Atwood
This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:
the song that forces men
to leap overboard in squadrons
even though they see beached skulls
the song nobody knows
because anyone who had heard it
is dead, and the others can’t remember.
Shall I tell you the secret
and if I do, will you get me
out of this bird suit?
I don’t enjoy it here
squatting on this island
looking picturesque and mythical
with these two feathery maniacs,
I don’t enjoy singing
this trio, fatal and valuable.
I will tell the secret to you,
to you, only to you.
Come closer. This song
is a cry for help: Help me!
Only you, only you can,
you are unique
at last. Alas
it is a boring song
but it works every time.
Margaret Atwood’s “Siren Song” is very clever, concise, and darkly facetious. The speaker is one of the three Sirens, which alludes to Greek mythology. In Greek mythology, the three Sirens were half-bird, half-women creatures whose songs were so alluring mariners could not resist following the music to the Sirens’ island only to be destroyed by its rocky coast. This knowledge sets the stage for the speaker’s intentions. Atwood cleverly makes it seem as though this particular Siren is unhappy and therefore requires aid. The Siren is appealing to the listener as if he is unique and only he can save her, “Help me!/ Only you, only you can/ you are unique,” (22-24). So in pretending to need rescuing, she lures the mariner. While this is quite heartless, the way Atwood composes the poem is actually quite humorous, “bird suit”, “squatting”, “feathery maniacs”, and “looking picturesque and mythical”. Through this humor, it is apparent that the speaker is deceptive. The Siren claims that she will reveal the secret of their deadly song when actually it is the song she sings that is bait.
Allusion is not the only literary device Atwood includes in her poem. Her use of enjambment makes the poem more one-sided dialogue, an appeal that starts off soft and intriguing and then picks up pace towards the end with urgency, “I will tell the secret to you/ to you, only to you/ Come closer” (19-21). This adds to the overall flow and even surprise to the poem.
I enjoyed Atwood’s “Siren Song” because of all the reasons there are to appreciate this poem. It is funny, especially in how the Siren seems bored with her “job” because human men to her are so stupid, “At last. Alas/ it is a boring song/ but it works every time,” (25-27). The duplicity of how she will tell the secret of the song when actually what she is already saying is the song is one of the things I loved most about the poem, along with how she is truly the predator and the sailor is the one who needs saving.
This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:
the song that forces men
to leap overboard in squadrons
even though they see beached skulls
the song nobody knows
because anyone who had heard it
is dead, and the others can’t remember.
Shall I tell you the secret
and if I do, will you get me
out of this bird suit?
I don’t enjoy it here
squatting on this island
looking picturesque and mythical
with these two feathery maniacs,
I don’t enjoy singing
this trio, fatal and valuable.
I will tell the secret to you,
to you, only to you.
Come closer. This song
is a cry for help: Help me!
Only you, only you can,
you are unique
at last. Alas
it is a boring song
but it works every time.
Margaret Atwood’s “Siren Song” is very clever, concise, and darkly facetious. The speaker is one of the three Sirens, which alludes to Greek mythology. In Greek mythology, the three Sirens were half-bird, half-women creatures whose songs were so alluring mariners could not resist following the music to the Sirens’ island only to be destroyed by its rocky coast. This knowledge sets the stage for the speaker’s intentions. Atwood cleverly makes it seem as though this particular Siren is unhappy and therefore requires aid. The Siren is appealing to the listener as if he is unique and only he can save her, “Help me!/ Only you, only you can/ you are unique,” (22-24). So in pretending to need rescuing, she lures the mariner. While this is quite heartless, the way Atwood composes the poem is actually quite humorous, “bird suit”, “squatting”, “feathery maniacs”, and “looking picturesque and mythical”. Through this humor, it is apparent that the speaker is deceptive. The Siren claims that she will reveal the secret of their deadly song when actually it is the song she sings that is bait.
Allusion is not the only literary device Atwood includes in her poem. Her use of enjambment makes the poem more one-sided dialogue, an appeal that starts off soft and intriguing and then picks up pace towards the end with urgency, “I will tell the secret to you/ to you, only to you/ Come closer” (19-21). This adds to the overall flow and even surprise to the poem.
I enjoyed Atwood’s “Siren Song” because of all the reasons there are to appreciate this poem. It is funny, especially in how the Siren seems bored with her “job” because human men to her are so stupid, “At last. Alas/ it is a boring song/ but it works every time,” (25-27). The duplicity of how she will tell the secret of the song when actually what she is already saying is the song is one of the things I loved most about the poem, along with how she is truly the predator and the sailor is the one who needs saving.
"Money" by Victor Contoski along with Analysis
"Money" by Victor Contoski
At first it will seem tame,
willing to be domesticated.
It will nest
in your pocket
or curl up in a corner
reciting softly to itself
the names of the presidents.
It will delight your friends,
shake hands with men
like a dog and lick
the legs of women.
But like an amoeba
it makes love
in secret
only to itself.
Fold it frequently;
it needs exercise.
Water it every three days
and it will repay you
with displays of affection.
Then one day when you think
you are its master
it will turn its head
as if for a kiss
and bite you gently
on the hand.
There will be no pain
but in thirty seconds
the poison will reach your heart.
Victor Contoski’s poem, “Money”, uses dark and cynical humor to set up his last stanza about greed. The speaker is addressing the audience, using the pronoun you. You provides the poem with a casual yet direct message to the reader. The speaker is not identified, but it seems that this person is able to describe money as a living thing that ultimately destroys because he/she has experienced what money can, or as used in the poem, “will” do. The word will is one example of the significance of Contoski’s use of diction. He uses the word will to tell the audience what will happen, not what may happen; there is no escape from this foretold fate: “There will be no pain/ but in thirty seconds/ the poison will reach your heart,” (27-29). Another important word that shows the importance of Contoski’s diction is “it”. It describes money as a parasite that “will nest/ in your pocket,” (3-4) and later “when you think/ you are its master/ it will turn its head/ as if for a kiss/ and bite you gently/ on the hand,” (21-26). The speaker is warning the audience that money is controlling, it has no master. You can do all you want for it, and it may seem as though to reward you, but in the end, you will inevitably learn of how it uses you as a host in a relationship when you all too late realize that your life was wasted for something that could never return the amount of effort, commitment, and caring you put into it. The repetition of you, will, and it all contribute to Contoski’s use of visual imagery. The reader can imagine crumpled dollars inhabiting someone’s pocket, almost like a pet being cared for.
I personally enjoyed this poem for its descriptive language and overall message. I agree that focusing primarily on money instead of the truly valuable things in life will leave a greedy person empty. I also appreciate Contoski’s way of bringing money to life and how it brews greed in people. Contoski’s overall message of how money has no master is very intriguing and true as well.
At first it will seem tame,
willing to be domesticated.
It will nest
in your pocket
or curl up in a corner
reciting softly to itself
the names of the presidents.
It will delight your friends,
shake hands with men
like a dog and lick
the legs of women.
But like an amoeba
it makes love
in secret
only to itself.
Fold it frequently;
it needs exercise.
Water it every three days
and it will repay you
with displays of affection.
Then one day when you think
you are its master
it will turn its head
as if for a kiss
and bite you gently
on the hand.
There will be no pain
but in thirty seconds
the poison will reach your heart.
Victor Contoski’s poem, “Money”, uses dark and cynical humor to set up his last stanza about greed. The speaker is addressing the audience, using the pronoun you. You provides the poem with a casual yet direct message to the reader. The speaker is not identified, but it seems that this person is able to describe money as a living thing that ultimately destroys because he/she has experienced what money can, or as used in the poem, “will” do. The word will is one example of the significance of Contoski’s use of diction. He uses the word will to tell the audience what will happen, not what may happen; there is no escape from this foretold fate: “There will be no pain/ but in thirty seconds/ the poison will reach your heart,” (27-29). Another important word that shows the importance of Contoski’s diction is “it”. It describes money as a parasite that “will nest/ in your pocket,” (3-4) and later “when you think/ you are its master/ it will turn its head/ as if for a kiss/ and bite you gently/ on the hand,” (21-26). The speaker is warning the audience that money is controlling, it has no master. You can do all you want for it, and it may seem as though to reward you, but in the end, you will inevitably learn of how it uses you as a host in a relationship when you all too late realize that your life was wasted for something that could never return the amount of effort, commitment, and caring you put into it. The repetition of you, will, and it all contribute to Contoski’s use of visual imagery. The reader can imagine crumpled dollars inhabiting someone’s pocket, almost like a pet being cared for.
I personally enjoyed this poem for its descriptive language and overall message. I agree that focusing primarily on money instead of the truly valuable things in life will leave a greedy person empty. I also appreciate Contoski’s way of bringing money to life and how it brews greed in people. Contoski’s overall message of how money has no master is very intriguing and true as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)