She had the same view or tone or I guess perspective of the Second Fig. Yeah, she was sitting alone lit only by that candle in this beautiful castle on the sand, but it really is only temporary as it is going to swept out to sea with the tide or it will be foreclosed and then she kills herself.
Of course, I am never going to argue (ok, I am never going to win) this "poetry analysis duel" with this person. She has an MA in English and it is obvious which degree is superior at least in this situation and probably in most situations. My analysis is more grounded in the historical context and not the literary context. The poems were written in the 1920s, when people had lost and really felt the loss of the optimism of the Populist and Progressive Eras. They were seizing the day and living life to the fullest. It was the flapper/Gatsby era. I don't think that she would disagree with that part, but I stop it there--I see Edna and others enjoying the right now, the lovely light and that shining castle, even it it won't last. No one knows tomorrow, but certainly there is not regret for being able to burn the candle at both ends, this candle that illuminates the shining castle...
Her take was that the writer realized that all these excesses were fading or in the past, and she had great regrets--these poems were laments to things that had passed or were passing, I very much take the present tense view of these poems. Isn't it great that this candle gives a lovely light right now? While this castle might wash away (be foreclosed) soon, isn't it better than those solid stodgy houses which don't shine?
As she correctly pointed out, there probably is no single right answer, but I am sure that she is also believing that there is a "righter" or more right answer. But is fun. And I will win the "more right" contest if it ever devolves to dates and other things historians are good at.
No comments:
Post a Comment