There's been no e.e. cummings on this forum, so . . .

[andyfox]

You have done yourself proud. What a master of language and thought was mr. cummings. I was all smiles and tears as I read through the posted poems. I remember all but the one posted by John Cole, which was new to me and which I found extraordinary.

Bravo. And bless you all.

[Phat Mack]

1. What is Andy's poem about?

2. Is e. e. a sentimental poet, or a poet that examines sentimentality? (One of the bums down at the local pool hall is a chaired, tenured professor at the local U. He and I argue about this all the time. Railbirds who sweat our games have to listen while we take fifteen minute breaks and ridicule each other.)

3. When is somebody going to point out the disturbing similarities between e. e.'s poems and ray zee's 2+2 posts?

[andyfox]

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poe...gs/howtown.htm

[andyfox]

http://cinema-tv.usc.edu/Archives/lucas/anyone.html

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The meter is light, the tone is serious. cummings was a master.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Actually, this analysis is almost too unidimensional to really capture the complexity of emotion and almost zen realism of the poem.

I could write for hours on the subtleties of the poem, but here are a couple of short thoughts. To me the central theme is the oft-referenced "lives of quiet desparation" concept. Think a bit about the implications of "he sang his didn't, he danced his did." and the fact that there seems to be no outward reciprocating emotion from anyone to noone.

I'd suggest that you do read "Mr. Flood's Party" and relate the two works to each other.

What's interesting is that this work varies from cummings' more pointedly topical works like "i sing of olaf", "plato told him" and "buffal bill's defunct", which all have a more pointedly anti-war anger to them. This poem seems almost like a step towards zen in comparison.

And last of all, thanks for the post. Revisiting I paper I wrote 34 years ago on poems that speak to the passage of time was thought-provoking.

[John Cole]

I haven't read the analysis yet, but I'll offer a few points. First, read "anyone" and "noone" as nouns rather than pronouns. That is, "anyone" and "noone" will not represent types but individuals. Then you will have reciprocation. The poem, then, is a love poem. Who loved "anyone"? "Noone" did.

Also, the lilting, bouncing meter conveys a certain innocence, which the words of the poem dismantle: "children guessed (but only a few and down they forgot as up they grew)." Here cummings invokes the Romantic poets, Wordsworth, in particular. See "Intimations of Immortality."

Yet, in cummings' poem "anyone" and "noone" seem to retain some of that innocence even into adulthood. Note the closing "earth by april wish by spirit and if by yes." These images seem somewhat affirming here after the death of "anyone" and "noone" who are buried side by side. In many ways, I think, cummings' poem speaks of love and death, loss and recompense.

I guess I'll see what the experts say.

[MMMMMM]

well...I don't see there necessarily being a conflict between lightness and seriousness. A greatness of the poem is that he juxtaposes the two in such a way that highlights the seriousness and lightness against each other, and he also does this with the vast universality of the human experience and the individuality of the human experience. The contrast is quite poignant. Everyone goes through the same individual path (so to speak), and the cycle continues.

I have not read a great deal of cummings, but I must say, to be perfectly honest, that from what I have read I feel hesitant to agree that cummings is a master. Keats, Shelley, Longfellow, Burns, Wordsworth, Frost--they were masters. cummings is good but I don't feel that he was in the same league at all.

[MMMMMM]

By the way, Kurn, I am sorry if I have slighted a poet you greatly admire. I tend to compare everything to the greatest, and that may be a personality flaw of mine. However it gives me a yardstick and grounds for aspiration in any endeavour.

Specifically, I haven't seen in cummings' poems (yet, anyway;-)) the degree of technical mastery that certain other poets had, and which seemed almost to flow naturally in their writings. Nor has it struck me that he is great at "capturing" the essence of a thought or feeling as economically and totally as certain others have. I'm not saying cummings isn't good, and there is plenty of room to read, ponder and enjoy. But I guess I am prejudiced, for I also think that the greatest classical music is generally overall of a higher level than the greatest modern music (not that I don't think some modern music isn't also great).

I have spoken to John Cole about this before--that I don't know of any modern poets truly as good as some of the older poets. Maybe that's just me but I feel in my heart it is true. Also I am surely missing some good stuff because I have been a bit turned off to modern poets in general--overall their works tend to be quite inferior to the greatest older poets. Find me a modern poet truly as great as Keats, Shelley, Burns, Wordsworth, Longfellow or possibly Frost--and by that I mean: as good technically, conceptually, creatively, and artistically, with a dash of genius sprinkled in--and I'll change my mind and thank you a hundred times over.

Well, maybe cummings is a master as you say--but then what are the poets listed above?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No slight at all. The same poem with have different effect on me at different times. Based on my mood I may be more receptive to Shelley one day, Hopkins the next.

De gustabus non est dispudatem. (apologies if my latin sucks)