Friday, September 6, 2013
Today in class you read and analyzed Seamus Heaney's poem Sonnet #5 from Clearances. In the email I sent to you this morning, the poem is analyzed by two different people in very different ways. To which interpretation are you drawn? and why? Or did you have a different interpretation of the poem? You may include any interesting poetic devices you or your group discovered today using TP-CASST or FRACTIONS.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I first began reading the two interpretations of the poem I immediately saw a similarity between the interpretation that I had and the interpretation that Leah had. There was one glaring difference though that completely through off the rest of the interpretation. Leah thought that the poem was about lovers. This was discussed in the dialog after the two interpretations and both agreed that this makes the reader of the poem interpret it completely different than they would if the thought it was a mother-son relationship. I felt that the interpretation of Clay focused too much on the structure of the poem rather than reading the context. It is easy to understand that one may think of the poem not as a sonnet because of the structure, but I think that the context of the poem is more important than the structure.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is interesting how two people can read the same text and have different interpretations of it. I thought that Leah's interpretation of the symbols was very interesting. I especially found her view of the sheets being wet like the ocean, than "twack." She said that this is a symbol for things being told like they were. I never would have thought of it in that way, but it was an interesting point of view.
I did not agree with the point of view of Clay at all. I found it to be overanalyzing the poem. I think that Clay was too focused on structure and less focused on text. I think that is a very common mistake that everyone makes when dealing with poetry. I think that people often think poetry must rhyme or follow a specific outline, but that is not the case. I thought that Leah's view on the poem was well done because she looked at the text and analyzed the symbols.
My group used the TPCASST method and we found many poetic devices. One that stood out to me was the way the the author used a word then placed another word in between then repeated the first word(ex. day by day). This was done four or five times in the poem. Another poetic device that I noticed in the poem was irony. There is a section of the poem that is difficult to read and the reader is forced to slow down. This is ironic by itself, but the part that I found to be ironic was how the author began this section with the phrase "touch and go." When I read this phrase it made me want to increase the speed of which I was reading. As I began to increase my speed I immediately had to slow down. I thought that that was very interesting.
Overall I thought that the two point of views were interesting. Although I would agree with the perspective of Leah, I can see the ideas of Clay. I though that it was interesting how both interpretations were based off the same poem, but were completely different.
Kraus,
DeleteI agree that Clay's interpetation was way too over analyzed. I definitely agree that Clay was much more focused on the technical side of the poem. I think that being able to recognize the technical information in a poem is a good thing. However, I think that Clay over anyalzed the poem. So, it was very hard for me to understand the poem becaus I found his points to a bit of a stretch. I also found it very interesting that two people can have two totally different views on one poem. Great job on your blog!
Luke Kraus,
DeleteDid you think the interpretation of the mother and son as lovers was creepy, too? I was so turned off by that! It took much effort to look past that for me.
I agree with both your feelings about the two interpretations. I really like how you recognized that the "context of the poem is more important than the structure." I agree 100% with that! And I also agree with you that the second poem focused WAY too much on the structure and hardly touched on the topic of the deeper meaning.
I find your analysis of poetic devices very interesting. The speed of the poem is definitely an interesting device to pick out.
Great blog, Luke!
These people make me feel so stupid.
ReplyDeleteThey sound so smart! I am amazed at how they can simply read a poem and see so many interesting things in the little details.
I would say I was certainly more drawn to Leah's interpretation of the poem. Clay's interpretation deconstructed the entire structure of the poem, arranging it into stanzas and talking about the imperfectness that is represented through the poem not being an iambic pentameter. It was awfully confusing and seemed like a bit of a stretch to me. Especially when Clay tried to make a connection between the "x" in the tic-tac-toe imagery and Heaney being the largest "cross" his mother has to bear, I just didn't agree. But that's okay, obviously!
Leah's on the other hand I identified with very well. The romantic quality of the poem was something I also sensed when I read the poem, however, having already known the context within which the piece was written, I knew this was not the intent.
Additionally I strongly agreed with the significance of the "thwack". Originally, my group and I just identified the word as being an onomatopoeia (after learning what it meant). However, Leah finds that the imagery of the sail represents a wish for voyage, for change, but the severity of the "thwack" is a sort of slap back into reality. A realization that things will never changed. I loved this for some reason. It made so much sense.
Additionally, I found the Leah's revelation concerning the way the poem reads interesting. It proves that poem's really are best read aloud. Leah says the end of the poem begins to read awkwardly. Forcing the reader to stop often and prevents them from reading with any sort of easy, mindless flow. This, Leah felt, was significant in that it reflected the under tensions of the relationship. A hesitation and an uneasiness about the entire situation.
One thing that Chapter One in the poetry unit taught me was that every word in poetry is supercharged with meaning and emotion. Everything has significance. Nothing can stand to be overlooked because the poet obviously wrote it that way for a reason. It's important to the entire picture of the novel. This is often hard to remember when analyzing the poem gets tricky. The two things that drew me to Leah's analysis of the poem were both components which I had never considered as having significance. Its a good lesson to learn.
My group and I did the FRACTIONS analytical model. Our primary point of the analysis was the word "routine". We felt that life is often routine and we often take it for granted, but Heaney's careful consideration of one completely mundane moment, gave a depth and meaning to it that is often not associated with ordinariness. All of us could envision watching the mother and son folding clothes in their backyard from a back porch. The poem had an "Appreciate the little things" feel to it. However, there was that underlining tension of the relationship, that threat of disruption in their relationship caused by the poverty alluded to in the last line of the poem.
I liked the poem a lot. For a first time, major analysis of a poem, it was a nice piece to start with. My group's interpretation differed dramatically from both Leah's and Clay's interpretation, however, that is the beauty of poetry. There are three sides to one poem just as there are three sides to every story. There is the way you perceive the piece. The way someone else does. And the way the poet intended for it to be written.
Danielle,
DeleteI also felt drawn to Leah's interpetation of the poem rather than Clay's. I agree that Clay's was hard to read and understand. I also felt pretty stupid, once I started reading his I felt compleletly lost. I like how your group anyalzed he word routine. I agree that the author was describing the little things that he always did with his mother. But, now that she has passed away these little things are much more important to him. Our group discussed that after his mother's death he sees her in just about everything that he does. Overall great job!
After reading both interpretations of the poem, I feel drawn to Leah's interpretation overall. But, there are some differences that I have with Leah's interpretation. The biggest difference between my interpretation and Leah's is the relationship in the poem. I thought that the poem was about Heaney's mother not his lover. Also, I had the same thought as Leah when I came across the "x" and "o" in the pome. My immediate thought was about tic tac toe, but after talking about with my group we came to the conclusion that it stood for hugs and kisses. This seems more plausible since the poem is about his mother. However I did find Leah's interpretation interesting. My group also found the metaphor of the sheet being compared to the sail of a ship. We also found that that they were poor from the use of "the ripped-out flour sacks".
ReplyDeleteI am not drawn to Clay's interpretation because is was way to technical for me. I honestly had a hard time understanding his analysis. I think that he focused more on the rhyming and the construction of the words rather than the actual words themselves. It was interesting to read this type of analysis though, because it is completely different from my interpretation and Leah's.
I do however agree with Clay that the poem is about his mother and not about his lover. I think that Leah could have received her interpretation if she was unaware that Heaney's mother had died and he wrote it shortly after his mother's death. If she didn't have this information I could see how someone could come up with a different view about the poem. This is why it is important to have background information about the author, so that one is able to make these connections in the poem.
I think that Clay over analyzed the structure of the poem. I think that he was too obsessed with the rhyming in the poem. He should not have focused some much on the fact the the poem did not follow the traditional sonnet rhyming scheme. He should have looked more at the meaning of the words. I do like how he split the poem into three sections. This is similar to what my group did on Friday when we were analyzing the poem. We also spilt the poem into three sections and then analyzed each section.
I thought that Leah did a much better job analyzing the poem than Clay. I agreed with more of Leah's points rather than Clay's. It was very interesting to compare two completely different points of view. This is because two people can read the exact same thing but perceive totally different things from the poem. This is especially evident in this poem because Clay viewed the woman to be the author's mother. This then changed his whole view on the poem as a whole. This is likewise with Leah, but she viewed the woman to be the author's lover.
Michaela Cashmer,
DeleteI LOVE YOUR GROUP'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SYMBOLISM OF X'S AND O'S!
Sorry, to scream that at you, but I practically squealed in delight when I read that. It was so creative!
Now on to your blog. I also found it creepy that Leah thought that the two were lovers. That was just weird. I like how you pointed out that if Leah had some background knowledge of the poem her outlook would certainly be interesting. I also completely agree that Clay over analyzed the poem. He focused primarily on structure and really didn't mention the meaning of the poem at all. That was frustrating to me, as well. I do agree that Leah did a better job of interpreting.
Super blog, Michaela!
Michaela,
DeleteI think that your blog was good. Your symbolism for the x’s and o’s was amazing. I had never thought of that, but I wish I had! I agree with your feelings about Clay’s interpretation as well. It was way too technical, and he overanalyzed the poem beyond belief. I think that Leah did do a better job of interpreting the poem. Her discussion of lovers, however, made the poem slightly awkward. She definitely needed more background information. Nice job!
I am going to be flat out honest and say that I did not particularly like either interpretation of Heaney’s “Sonnet 5”.
ReplyDeleteThe first interpretation did have some neat thoughts, and I enjoyed its totally opposite outlook on the poem as compared to my own. I loved the symbolism he defined about the damp sheet and the “sheet becoming a sail”. He or she interpreted it as the narrator wanting to get away and embark on a voyage to leave the normal, boring routine of life. I personally do not agree with that symbolism, but it is an interesting take on the poem. I was actually very open to this interpretation until the author mentioned the two people in the poem as lovers. After that I was a bit turned off and disturbed. In my mind they are mother and son. I did not like his interpreting of the sheet at all as he referred to it as representing the “couple’s bed”. That was a little creepy. I’m not a big fan of this analysis.
I guess I can say that I like the second interpretation a bit better because it actually recognizes that the poem is about a mother and a son in the first bit of the analysis. I also like this author’s interpretation of rhyming schemes. I did not understand a lot of it, but I’m sure I will in due time. I will say that I did like the format of the first interpretation better, though. This one was just a bit too choppy for me as the author sliced up the poem and wrote in between its lines. I also do not enjoy how the author of the interpretation made the son seem like a “cross” for his mother to bear in her poverty. What? No! That is definitely where my interpretation differs from both of these.
As Megan likes to put it, my interpretation of Heaney’s poem is like a “hallmark card”. I see the poem as Seamus Heaney describing his close-knit relationship with his mother. I interpret their folding of the sheet as a symbolism of a routine that they both do day to day, but it always brings them closer together. I like to take away from the poem that even the most ordinary, simple parts of life can be the most important. The symbolism of the “ripped-out flour sacks” is the family’s poverty. Even though they are poor, though, they still enjoy the company of each other and are rich in love. This is when Megan became sickened by my analysis. Haha! One really cool poetic device my group discovered in this poem was the paradoxical and ironic statement of “Coming close again by holding back”. We interpreted this to mean that even though the two stood back to situate the sheet, it was always a sign that they would come back together to fold it. This ties into their relationship that even though they have little money and live in poverty, it does not hold them back from loving each other in a deep and intimate relationship.
And there you have it, my hallmark card interpretation of Seamus Heaney’s “Sonnet 5”.
Rachel,
DeleteI would definitely have to agree with you. I didn’t care for either interpretation. I thought that they were both sort of off. Leah referring to lovers did make the interpretation weird. I think that it is interesting that you liked the second one better. You seem to be the only person that has said that. It was definitely interesting. I also liked your discussion of our analysis. It was really nicely done.
By the way, it’s not my fault that you are a hallmark card!
Rachel,
DeleteYour first paragraph is spot on. I agree that the interpretation that the two were lovers was disturbing, and how the sheets analogy was a little weird because it resembled a bed. I also like how the analogy of the flour sacks meant that they were poor, even though they were rich in love. Interesting blog! Well done!
I actually didn’t really like the interpretations of Sonnet 5. I wasn’t particularly drawn to either of their interpretations.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to pick one I would say that Leah had the better interpretation of the two. She had some quality thoughts about the poem itself, but other parts were rather off. She, of course, caught on to the onomatopoeia in this poem. The term “thwack” is a pretty noticeable word in this sonnet. It actually sticks out compared to the rest of the word choice. This interpretation was pretty different from mine, but I was willing to look at it from their perspective. Then I started reading their interpretation. This author kept referring to them as a couple that needed a change in their relationship. This only served to make me feel uncomfortable about the poem. I believe that Heaney is writing a poem about something that he did with his mother. The author of the analysis, however, started talking about the couple in their bed and how they needed a change there. I just didn’t think that that interpretation fit with the poem. It seemed out of place with the poetry, especially knowing the background information of his mother’s death. To me it just came across as a poem meant to commemorate his mother’s life.
The second analysis was probably the worst of the two. While he grasped the mother and son relationship, he lost me from there. His analysis was very disconnected, and I didn’t really like most of what he said. I believed this to be a poem about how Heaney loves his mother, and this interpreter makes her out to be a burden. I absolutely disagree with that. I never once thought that the author was saying that his mother was a burden. I always thought that poem was meant to show that he loved her. The “x” and “o” interpretation that he made was an extreme stretch in my mind. He is an author that seems to tie a poem to a chair and beat it to death.
I personally liked my group’s interpretation the best. I think that we mixed together well and had three different perspectives on this poem. I feel that that made it a better analysis. This isn’t to say that we are professionals at it, but I think we did a decent job. One of the major points that we found was in the line “Coming close again by holding back.” We found this line to be a symbol for the mother and son relationship. It appears like a relationship where the other knows what one is thinking without ever saying anything. This is about as close as a relationship can get. I think that Heaney and mother were extremely close to each other even though they were poor. Their wealth never seemed to affect their relationship.
I actually really liked this poem. It showed that a close family relationship is important.
Megan,
DeleteIt seems like our interpretations about the poem were relatively the same. You said about how none of the interpretations were 100% correct, but Leah's was more accurate. The second interpretation, as you said, was very disconnected and strayed away from the meaning of the poem. Although he grasped the meaning that the two were mother and son, he got nothing else right. Good blog!
Megan,
DeleteYes, both of these interpretations were a little strange, though perhaps it is only because they differ so drastically from our own. Though you mentioned feeling uncomfortable about Leah's romantic connotation to the poem's meaning, remember how we all said if we didn't know the context in which the poem was written we would probably think it was about a couple in some way.
I agree that the "x" and "o" comparison from Clay's analysis was a huge stretch. A major stretch.
Nice blog overall. It was honest. Nice job!
Megan,
DeleteI also found both interpretations to be missing something. I thought that Leah understood the small parts of the poem, but missed the most important part. She thought that the relationship was between a couple rather than between a mother and her son. I though that this was odd, but if you think about it we would have probably thought the same thing if we did not know the background of the poem's author. Overall I enjoyed your blog, I agree with many of your points.
I think Leah's interpretation of the poem is far more accurate than Clay's interpretation, but it is still not entirely true. I'd rather stick with my group's interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be honest, I didn't even think Clay was reading the same poem! I mean really, Heaney is clearly trying to remember his mother throughout the poem. You can kind of say the poem was a memorial dedicated too her. But Clay is too obsessed with the style of the poem rather than the meaning. In his interpretation, he talks about how the extra syllable in the third line destroys the perfection of the poem. He also talks about the rhythmic flow and its breakdown after the third line. He also says how there's no traditional rhyme scheme that identifies that the poem is a sonnet. He is too devoted to how the poem isn't a sonnet, but when he actually starts to analyze the poem he makes some valid points. The only thing I agree about with Clay's interpretation is that the relationship expressed within the x and o analogy is between the mother and son, not between two lovers.
Leah talks about how the poem is about change and progression of life. She talks about how life is a voyage, and how the sheets represent sails, which I really like by the way. She goes on and states how there are down points in the relationship, and that there are a lot of struggles in a relationship. She makes it sound like that going into a relationship is a terrible terrible idea.
That's why I think my group's FRACTION method was a very accurate interpretation. It puts Leah's and Clay's interpretations together and concludes that the poem is a memorial of Heaney's relationship between his mother and himself. It shows that he misses his mother very much and now that she has passed away he remembers all the great times he had with her.
Matt,
DeleteI'm starting to think no one agreed with Clay's interpretation. I agree that at points it didn't even seem like Clay was reading the same poem. I did not understand why he kept rearranging it to see if it added meaning. If it was meant to be read as he was arranging it, Heaney would have written it that way. At least Leah had some interesting thoughts about the significance of the imagery, and they were valid points.
I guess it is sort of cheating that we knew why the poem was written previous to analyzing it. I wonder what our interpretations would have been like if that was not the case.
Nice job, Matt!
Matt Bobby,
DeleteI agree with your interpretation of the two readers. I thought that Clay did not analyze the poem for context. I thought that Leah knew comprehended the poem better, but had one part wrong, which was the relationship between a son and his mother. Nice blog Matt.
Good job crew! I agree with most of sentiments that your group interpretations of the poem were far more accurate and fair to the author of the work. Seamus Heaney would be so proud of all of you. Just because someone is considered an "expert" does not mean they are right. I am so glad you were as annoyed as I! You were all able to pick out certain parts of each interpretation that you found interesting and insightful. Sharp group. But it was not just trickery, you are part of a literary community and your opinions and interpretations are valuable! This is a good example of why you should be confident! You know stuff. Nice job.
ReplyDelete