"Do more bewitch me than when art is too precise in every part." (Lines 13-14)
I thought this poem was pretty straightforward and simple. As a main literary element, paradoxes were used here and there in this poem. First, the title itself, "Delight in Disorder," is a paradox: normally people like things to be regular and organized. But this speaker makes it clear that he enjoys things much more when they are in complete disarray. Another example of paradox is in Line 12, "I see a wild civility." I'm not really sure what the unlikely comparison of wild and civility accomplishes, or what effect it has on the reader, but I noticed it. I also didn't understand really the point of the poem. I thought the main idea was just that things in disorder can be just as beautiful-if not moreso- than organization, but I don't see that as having a great impact on the audience. If the point was to show that the speaker is a bit abnormal or different than others in his particular views here, then I understood it. If not, I'm not. Perhaps this is to show that the author accepts people for who they are, not who society and "order" tell them they have to be like- imperfection is attractive- but then again, it could simply prove the speaker is an oddball.
I thought this poem was pretty straightforward and simple. As a main literary element, paradoxes were used here and there in this poem. First, the title itself, "Delight in Disorder," is a paradox: normally people like things to be regular and organized. But this speaker makes it clear that he enjoys things much more when they are in complete disarray. Another example of paradox is in Line 12, "I see a wild civility." I'm not really sure what the unlikely comparison of wild and civility accomplishes, or what effect it has on the reader, but I noticed it. I also didn't understand really the point of the poem. I thought the main idea was just that things in disorder can be just as beautiful-if not moreso- than organization, but I don't see that as having a great impact on the audience. If the point was to show that the speaker is a bit abnormal or different than others in his particular views here, then I understood it. If not, I'm not. Perhaps this is to show that the author accepts people for who they are, not who society and "order" tell them they have to be like- imperfection is attractive- but then again, it could simply prove the speaker is an oddball.
No comments:
Post a Comment