The Paglia commentary had a structure unfamiliar to me. The structure moved seamlessly and naturally, it followed the poem which made sense. There wasn’t that dull essay structure this essay was rich enough in analysis that the formulaic essay structure seemed to disappear. The topics sentences I found particularly good she didn’t completely summarize the entire paragraph in one sentence, which would have just made the paragraph redundant; but she used to topic sentence to give the reader a natural transition into her argument.
Paglia also made some interesting analysis and interpretation of the poem. Her interpretation of the nuthatch was interesting. The bird definitely did slice through the chaos of the first two lines with its clear call, showing its power and importance. I was uncertain about the meanings of down from the tree tops up through time, I thought it was just meant to be disorienting, humbling the man in nature, or perhaps nostalgic or suggesting that nature is timeless. Paglia seemed to interpret the bird as the voice of nature and as a sort of god, which I think would further show the humbling effect of nature on man. This would also suggest that his dive was inspired by the bird call, as one might be inspired by a higher power. I thought her most insightful argument was the contemplation to action piece. It explains why there was a lack of verbs in the first part, where as the second part is filled with verbs and involves the narrator.
From this commentary I feel that this poem encourages us to live in the present. That single bird call is eternal, in that instant time was obsolete, but that moment counted. The narrator made the moment count as he jumped into the water. The nakedness of the narrator, suggests shedding of materialistic values and a sense of vulnerability that creates a sense of self.
After reading your response in her commentary I went back and reread her commentary. I did not notice the fact that her commentary progressed as the lines in the poem progressed. I felt this was an interesting way to form a commentary. Then we read her second commentary which followed a different pattern she did not go line by line. Yet it was still easy to follow. I think it is interesting how based on the different poems she forms the commentaries differently. Do you think she chooses to form them a certain way to make the commentaries match the poem or to make the commentaries progresses naturally?
ReplyDelete