This started out as a rebuttal to the e e cummings poem. Then I decided I wanted to refute the thesis of the poem without directly contradicting any of the statements, but only twisting them slightly. Then I started thinking math terminology would be more useful in this than linguistics. Then, as a nod to the fact that I only write poetry in Latin (and because the second stanza wasn't getting anywhere otherwise), I summarized Catullus 5.
I'm not sure whether it would be better to provide the line-by-line explanations, or leave puzzling them out as an exercise to the reader. But I know what Cummings would have done.
OK, that's why it sounds like Cummings. :) (Sadly, I don't know Catullus except by name.)
I like the poem.
But (having not gone and reminded myself of the entire poem, as opposed to scattered lines, yet) what is the thesis you wanted to refute? (Death is a left bracket/life is space-filling seems to me much the same sentiment as Death is no parenthesis.)
Hm, but now having looked it up, I think I've been misreading it all this time...
Death is no parenthesis in the paragraph of life does suggest he thinks it's final; I'd always taken it to mean the reverse. On the other hand, if life is *not* a paragraph, perhaps it's space-filling after all.
I think the common interpretation of the original is that you miss the good things in life if you analyze everything. I think that you enjoy things best when you can relate them to your particular understanding.
I think we agree on the fact that death is permanent and inevitable, but he thinks that life should be arbitrary and not organized (not a paragraph), while I think that you get the most out of it by packing in depth of understanding.
I'm sure the absence of documentation means I'm missing most of the referents; cummings and math I have not seriously touched in fifteen years, and latin never. It works anyway; reading it with an explanation would be a completely different, less emotional and more intellectual experience.
Comments 6
I'm not sure whether it would be better to provide the line-by-line explanations, or leave puzzling them out as an exercise to the reader. But I know what Cummings would have done.
Reply
I like the poem.
But (having not gone and reminded myself of the entire poem, as opposed to scattered lines, yet) what is the thesis you wanted to refute? (Death is a left bracket/life is space-filling seems to me much the same sentiment as Death is no parenthesis.)
Reply
Death is no parenthesis in the paragraph of life does suggest he thinks it's final; I'd always taken it to mean the reverse. On the other hand, if life is *not* a paragraph, perhaps it's space-filling after all.
Reply
I think we agree on the fact that death is permanent and inevitable, but he thinks that life should be arbitrary and not organized (not a paragraph), while I think that you get the most out of it by packing in depth of understanding.
Reply
Reply
I'm sure the absence of documentation means I'm missing most of the referents; cummings and math I have not seriously touched in fifteen years, and latin never. It works anyway; reading it with an explanation would be a completely different, less emotional and more intellectual experience.
Reply
Leave a comment