Overall, this poem is pretty dark. Lots of talk about dead nature and cold, dreary weather. Then it changes abruptly into the beginning of regrowth. It's like the narrator is comparing the dead wintery scene to a contaminated hospital, something dirty and unsafe. But the spring approaches as do children, "They enter the new world naked and cold". He ties the nature scenery to the birth of a child. After this, the poem starts talking about growth.

This poem is so short almost like a note that the narrator wrote and left on the fridge.

These men are free from responsibility and expectations. They get to live in a way where they can enjoy their lives.

The poet exists in an in between area. The people who would read or have interest in his poetry would avoid it in favor for participating in "white" culture while to everyone else, he's a spectacle.

The narrator shows just how deep the self hatred runs, not just for this poet, but for this whole family. They spend time trying to learn or participate in "white" culture and associating any negative behavior as Black and shaming said behavior.

The narrator reminds the reader of the inequality between races, not just to the extent of experiences where we see, according to Hughes, a poet wanting to remove a vital aspect of himself but also illustrates the up hill battle the poet would have that a white poet probably wouldn't.

In the end, the narrator wraps the poem restating what the theme of the songs. That no matter laws that are put in place, you can't keep African Americans weak.

The constant breaks for the singing ties back to times during slavery where the only thing they could do in the fields really was sing. They couldn't talk or complain or anything so this constant interruption for songs that refer to perseverance is like a reminder of the struggles in the past and that they can persevere.

What I love about this section is that while the poem overall is about the oppression African American's have faced starting from slavery to present day (of the poem) America, it still makes me think of women in that they were expected to stay in the kitchen and the jobs the would get usually were centered around domestic labor like janitorial or maids.

While I agree with aidenbrady and zoeporter14 that kings and poets come to the same end/sadness, I feel like by comparing them, Robinson is suggesting that there's some sort impact from their feelings. I imagine that when a poet feels discontent, they'll write and possible write something that brings change. Kings are capable of the same.

Masters seems to conflate life with music playing but it also gives an image of angels strumming harp strings. Usually, angels are in happy paintings especially if they're younger.

This is interesting dichotomy because when you tremble, you shake uncontrollably usually due to anxiety. So how can you be careful when you're trembling when the act itself is dangerous?

Because of the way the narrator says that John takes care of her to the point that he, "is very careful and loving, and hardly lets me stir without special direction", I feel like it's fitting that she's in a nursery because she's treated like a child and John's the overbearing mother. By the windows being "barred for little children" it suggests that the narrator is imprisoned.

The narrator is going to give her opinion on her condition but stops herself and, again, defers to her husband's opinion. I feel like because she keeps adding these little pieces where she talks about how she thinks she'd be if she was allowed to go outside only to interrupt it or follow it up with her husband's opinion suggests that she's frustrated with her treatment but reminds herself of her "place" as a woman. It shows a shard of resistance that she has but also suggests that maybe her will was beat down enough that she values her husband's thoughts.

John is downplaying the the narrator's mental distress by calling it "slight" and a "tendency". It feels like the narrator believes it to a certain degree or at least believes/defers to her husband's opinions.

Adams is using the image of the sun as a way to describe what an engine (probably a steam engine) in a way that a someone who never seen an engine would. It's like that thought experiment where you go back a thousand years and show someone an airplane, how are they going to describe it (a bird).

Adams points out that there's just this sudden explosion of knowledge that goes beyond most of the older people. He kinda suggests that these people are thrust into a new world they know nothing about.

The exhibit is kept to a more simple form, instead of pumping itself up to make people at awe. But Adams still shocked by the advancements and it's so above him that he may as well contemplate the universe.

Turpentine can reference three uses. The first is as a solvent for paint. Considering how Ginsberg seems to focus on the art that is created by the oppressed people, turpentine might allude to creativity. Turpentine is also said to relieve muscle and joint pain when applied to the skin. Typically, muscle and joint pain are tied to having to work physically demanding jobs. And because we know that this section refers to the ways people dull the pain, this could be a cheap way to relieve physical pain. The final thing that turpentine alludes to is poison. Turpentine is deadly if ingested in large enough quantities, going with how "death" follows closely after Ginsburg says that turpentine is ingested.

Ginsburg choses his wording carefully throughout the poem, but here we see a blend of imagery that show the struggle that people go through as they try to cope with life by using drugs and alcohol and how it doesn't work, leaving people to continuously struggle.

By using the word dynamo, Ginsberg suggests that there's a constant energy during the night where people become more energized at night because that's when everything happens.

The singer is shown to have this echo of Weary Blues playing in his head as he sleeps, suggesting that the song has a larger meaning for him. By comparing the sleeping man like a dead one, it calls back to the song and the line, "'I ain't happy no mo'/ And I wish that I had died.'". Again, this shows the way that the singer's song is much more personal to them and shows more of his soul.

What I find the most interesting about this poem are these lines. In a poem full of images that are in some way negative or represent rot but these two lines are sandwiched in between giving the poem a sudden feeling hope before dropping back into pessimism.

These lines are build up for the next lines where the narrator mentions the better future. Hughes is suggesting that African Americans just have to bide their time and get stronger. What I find the most interesting is the inclusion of the line, "But I laugh,". It's as if the narrator is saying that they just need to smile while waiting for their better future and to be recognized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWiyKgeGWx0 Overall, "The Burial of the Dead" makes me think of "O Fortuna" by Carl Orff, they're both dreary with undertones of change, cycles, and the endless march of time, though, "O Fortuna" is much more cynical where "The Burial of the Dead" seems to hinge on the hope that things will get better. When it comes the highlighted area, the way Eliot described winter made me think of a wasteland covered in snow, but then shows how things start to change so suddenly so that it's summer again; bringing up the cycle that life goes through. In "O Fortuna", one of the lines (translated) is: Hateful life First oppresses And then soothes As fancy takes it; Poverty and power It melts them like ice. This line is why I chose "O Fortuna", because it shares the idea of life getting hard and oppressive (oppressing what? Dreams, memories, feelings?) and harsh (like winter) but then soothes the pain and oppression with warmth. But never does the song suggest that things will say prosperous, in fact it emphasizes that life gets easier and harder as fate dictates.

In "O Fortuna", fortune seems to be some sort of sentient/god like being who is blamed for all of the hardships mentioned in the poem, unlike in "The Waste Land", where a lot of the blame seems to be put on the cycle that life goes through. The original poet suggests there's a certain amount of helplessness for humans where they are held at the "fancy" of fate and the changes it might go through and the song itself mentions all of the cycles life (and it's inhabitants) go through with an emphasis on the harsher parts of life (poverty, health issues, death). With "The Waste Land", Eliot seems to cycle through the positive and negative parts of certain speakers lives and the harsher periods of nature, encapsulating the cycles that the world goes through that "O Fortuna" merely hinted at. When it comes to which one is more optimistic, I'd go with "The Waste Land" because there's always a lingering hope that something good is just around the corner in the poem, that something good could grow. In the end of the poem, a speaker asks another if something is growing from the corpse that was planted, "'Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?'". Meanwhile, "O Fortuna" ends with: So at this hour Without delay Pluck the vibrating strings; Since Fate Strikes down the strong man Everyone weep with me! The poem suggests that there's nothing anybody can do to stop the death that is approaching everyone. There’s no chance of saving nor does it provide any hope that things will turn out alright like Eliot did in “The Waste Land” and his suggestions of growth coming out of the frost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2w6Oxx0kQ I chose "Dust In the Wind" by Kansas for this line because I feel like this line is referring to death, which is something that many people feel. And "Dust In the Wind" talks about how temporary everything and everyone is because in the end, "All we are is dust in the wind". What really triggered this comparison for me a prayer, “Ashes to ashes; dust to dust”. Meaning, everything ends the same way and become something that can’t be distinguished as separate things. Eliot never explicitly stated what the dust was created from, but what is dust other than remnants? Remnants of people, of buildings, of plants, of life. And that’s what “Dust in the Wind” is about, that everything eventually breaks down to a point where it becomes so small and finite that it’s barely perceivable. In “The Waste Land”, the dust contains something to be feared, “I will show you fear in a handful of dust”. What if that fear is the realization that everything we see and do has a temporary effect on the world and that in the end, like in “Dust in the Wind”, we don’t matter? That we are nothing. There are very few things that are more terrifying than a nihilistic outlook on life and for some it’s a jarring realization and a melancholy one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0 This makes me think of "The Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkel. Specifically the line, "Ten thousand people, maybe more/People talking without speaking/People hearing without listening". This suggests that the narrator believes people aren't communicating with each other. I imagine that this can show itself as people just passing each other and not interacting. Just mindlessly working on different projects like zombies and not communicating. Communication is major in "The Burial of the Dead". Most of the sections of the poem, if not all, have some bit of dialogue in it, but they're usually between only two people and each section has a different narrator in the poem. Marie recalls the time her cousin told her to "hold on tight" when sledding, the hyacinth girl reminds the narrator who she is, Madam Sosostris gives the narrator a prediction, and the last narrator talks to an old shipmate. For the most part, these are intimate scenes between two people: a dear family memory during a time of peace, a reintroduction to a past lover, a fortune being told, and two men who fought in Mylae. What Eliot seems to emphasize the most is the closeness between people, their history, and their potential. They interact with each other in these close settings but when it comes to the world at large, people aren't connecting with each other. The speaker describes the people of London as, “A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,/ I had not thought death had undone so many./ Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled, and each man fixed his eyes before his feet". There's no intimacy between people, no comradery or enjoyment that is seen in the other narratives. Perhaps this comes from the trauma of war; that seeing so much death stunned people into silence. This is where "The Sound of Silence" comes in. They play on the same idea of people, even in close proximity, are unable to make a connection to each other, thus the lack of communication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R83vTGt0vg8 This scene made me recall a similar scene in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, where Frodo and his group walk through The Dead Marshes with the fallen soldiers from a long past war fought. The faces ghostly white and eyes clouded over with death as they hover just beneath the waterline. Eliot didn't describe the scene in so much detail, but it's still an interesting scene where the sailor is describes as having pearls for eyes (suggesting that the eyes reached the pallor mortis stage) similar to the eyes of the corpse floating in the marshes. By calling them pearls, it suggests that there's something that draws people towards them much like Frodo was before he fell into the marsh.

Might be a bit of a stretch, but Tiresias (ignoring the mythology that PhuongT. and jennamichaella brought up) appears to be rather zombie like here. All of her movements are mechanical without any real purpose. Even her thought is, "half-formed", suggesting a lack of conscious attempt at reflection. She paces in her room, much like a zombie wanders aimlessly and smooths her hair down with an "automatic hand" before playing a record. I think that these actions both suggest that Tiresias is existing in some type of disconnected state where she isn't intentional with her actions, instead simply going through the motions of life.

This makes me question the speaker and who he's speaking to. I wonder if they're speaking to a ghost because of the way that the speaker begs, "'Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.'". It feels like the speaker is haunted by something. The other reason why I think that they're speaking to a ghost is because of the next lines, "I think we are in rats' alley/Where the dead men lost their bones". There are so many interpretations I've heard over the years, but the one I liked the best was about the trenches from WWI. Where there were tons of rats and men were killed (and/or lost limbs either by amputation or explosives). Finally, pair this with the part jennamichaella highlighted, "'Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?'". Again, the speaker is trying to get this ghost to respond to him, but he seems to wonder if the person is alive or not because of his eyes (which are described as pearls suggesting that a film is covering his eyes as they do upon death).

Here is an in between area where the speaker is waiting to see what comes after death. Will there be life? Or will the ground remain barren?

This part feels like a part of a woman's day or thoughts that she might have. Nursing (feeding) a child or sick loved one then going to check on the bread dough (and discovering that it's rose to a good point for baking). Then looking at a cup (maybe for a recipe or a drink) and thinking about how the cup is in the cupboard (cup-or).

Why include names so suddenly. The poem, as it has been well established by others, focuses on word repetition and sounds. There are no clear scenes or memories or even a story (at least I can decipher). Yet, all of a sudden Stein adds people into the mix? And she added them after lines that are feminine in nature: a gaiter that goes to the knees with silk lining, the word "misses" which can be mistaken for "missus" when spoken, and "curls". What are these random additions for/referring to?

Going off of Jennamichaella's comment, this section feels like an actual place. A cheap cowboy themed motel in the Midwest to be precise. It could be because I'm from the Midwest and I've seen A LOT of cowboy theme decoration (including a lot of paintings and cow decorations). But when I read this chapter, I immediately thought of all those cow decorations I've seen in restaurants and motels and houses and even stores. It was just a flash of being in a room with cow curtains and bull pins resting near a picture frame.

Delphinium don't have thorns, but they are poisonous to humans and livestock. So if they don't have thorns, what is Millay referring to? It could be that the person in the poem is cutting off the main stalk of the delphinium in order to encourage other stalks to grow. Further down in the poem Millay says, "All will be easier when the mind/To meet the brutal age has grown/ An iron cortex of its own" (lines 12-14). Perhaps what Millay is hinting at is that the brain must be tended to and protected. Sometimes you have to lose something to grow.

The word "riveted" has two meanings: one means to be captivating; the second refers to a type of fastener that has to be set in place with some type of heavy machinery and is hard to break apart. Which definition is Millay using? If it's the fastener definition, then it suggests that the man only pretends to have pride. Like he's wearing a mask permanently affixed to his person.

Millay emphasizes the "uselessness" of love for our overall health and well-being. She seems to put a special attention to the physical aspects of our bodies. Looking specifically at the reference for the lungs, it could suggest drowning (the previous two lines are about drowning) or it could hint at a diseased lung or one that recovered from a disease (a thick lung refers to a lung that has heavy scarring). This dual interpretation that Millay wrote helps the poem flow from one area to the next.

I hope this isn't ridiculous, but why does this stanza different than the others? I checked the other poems and they all seemed to continue with the patterns they established as far as I could tell. Is it because the narrator is "falling asleep" like ellealaouielhassani suggested?

Suggests that the paths are aren't travelled on by others (no heavy traffic). Are these roads a metaphor for some type of personal decision?

this makes me think of analyses I've read of Paradise Lost, where it's argued that Eve couldn't understand that it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit without eating the forbidden fruit. Masters poses an interesting thought that it's hard to put things in perspective if there's nothing to compare it to. You can't know good without knowing evil and you can't know truth without knowing falsehoods. And you can't force others to see those things, it's something each person has to figure out themselves.

With the repetition, I feel like Masters is pointing out how nature never really changes. That it goes through similar patterns that repeat. I feel like with the poetry terms, Masters is making a similar observation of how poets keep revitalizing poetry.

With the constant reminder of poetry, these lines make me wonder if Masters is reminiscing on the march of time as it pertains to nature and as it pertains to the poets who found themselves in awe of nature.

This part is another area that confuses me because of the lines before it. Is Du Bois saying that black people (especially ones who do great things) are often forgotten and no one knows the impact they have on the world?

What I love about Du Bois' writing is how he can build up a sentence and fill it with hope only to dash it by the following period. Du Bois shows how hard it is to be seen as a "problem" as he put it and how all the good things that he sees and want aren't actually his.

This line confuses me probably because I'm left wondering who Du Bois is accusing of shirking and acts of sloth. It doesn't really make sense to blame African Americans so maybe he's talking about the "white adulterers" who allowed them to be taken advantage of. But when he uses "his" when referring to the shackles, it feels like the "his" was apart of it.

Why does Adams keep comparing the Virgin to Venus? I feel like these two imageries contradict each other, Venus often represents beauty, desire, and sex. The Virgin, on the other hand represents the opposite. Often times she's used as a symbol of purity and innocence.

Who is the woman that Adams is talking about? Is it the virgin, thus tying in the idea that the US was turning away from religion in favor for technological advances.

Adams points out how things are constantly changing, making it difficult for educators to keep up with new discoveries and ideas

The imagery used to describe a pig can also be used to describe a lion, blending everything so it’s obscure whether Levine is talking about the lion or the pig. Both pigs and lions are ferocious, both have furred ears and full jowls. When full and well fed, they both have hung bellies.

Lions are violent, ferocious creatures that eat a lot. Could the repeated image of lions being fed/growing be implying some sort of man made mishap incoming?

What could “burlap sacks” mean? Burlap is a rough material, it also draws the image of bulk purchases. “Out of burlap sacks” makes me think of something escaping (the cat’s out of the bag).