Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Honestly, I would much rather be forced to write my own bad poetry than have to read any of the poems from either Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman. Whitman is super crazy in the topics that he talks about because he uses all sorts of random and ridiculous philosophies that he made up in his early years that no one really understands. There might be some people who think they can "decode" Whitman's writing, but they are clearly all a bunch of liars. His Everyman concept told of the godliness in every man, creating a new level of where godliness would be acclaimed, resetting that no one is a god at all. They have honestly become nothing more than a regular person, and gods would be, in turn, reset on a new level of godliness. Dickinson is just annoying because all of her poems have double-meanings or even more than just two meanings. It makes a lot of confusion among interpretations given by various people. For instance, heavily Christian critics would, most likely, give a spiritual meaning in all of her work, despite her accidental involvement of a relationship to Jesus, even if it is an implication of his name. Honestly, I think my poetry would deal more with my life and how I feel, mainly about the things that happen in my life and my reactions to them. I do not feel like it would or could have a double-meaning, and I strongly dislike both of these authors for their numerous poems using double-meanings. I need to invent a time machine for multiple purposes. I need to go back to slap these authors in the face for writing such poetry that I just do not like. Of course, there are a few more people and places I would need to go back to to solve problems within the United States and its international affairs. But, if I still had to choose, I think I might have to pick Dickinson to be forced to read.