Order in Disorder

Robert Herrick’s “Delight in Disorder” and Ben Jonson’s “Still to be Neat” both play on the balance between neatness and disorder in art. 

The prosody in “Delight in Disorder” is written in iambic tetrameter, though its structure reflects this union between neatness and disorder. It follows the iambic pattern; “a SWEET disORder IN the DRESS,” but often a trochee is seen; “KINdles” or “RIBbons (1-2, 8). The speaker’s intentions on clothes specifically rather than a person is emphasized through the spondee “IN CLOTHES” that breaks the rhythmic pattern (2). The syllables relating directly to clothing materials are stressed, in which the stresses parallels the kindling of these clothes into a destructive imagery. This kindle shifts into a storm, with the ribbons flowing “conFUSedLY,” and the “temPEStuOUS PETtiCOAT” utilizing consonance to emphasize the P sound. The poem ends with the speaker mentioning, “beWITCH me” and its emphasis invoking the supernatural and desiring the unknown to emerge rather than the neatness where everything is already expected. The poem itself holds neatness through its iambic rhythm, but its anomalies often reflect how despite the disorder, there is a union with this neatness to convey emotions. The oxymoron “wild civility” invokes these emotions that shows this unity to allow art to hold an emotional connection to audiences.

Jonson follows a similar pattern in “Still to be Neat” that expresses the nature of art best. The “civilized” aesthetic is seen in the first stanza where disorder lacks, and the aestheticism described as “not sweet.” The second stanza with this disorder is where the sweetness resides, and invokes a more emotional response. The prosody is iambic tetrameter, but it is often that the beginning of most lines start as a trochee. The first line is a trochee, “STILL to” which continues in the proceeding line until it reaches “though ART’S” (Jonson 1, 5). The break in the rhythmic pattern reflects the speaker’s intent of displaying how art breaks conformity. The speaker also finds disturbance in the neatness by its spondee’s in the first line, “BE NEAT,” “BE DRESSED,” where the ending emphasizes the speaker’s feelings to the aesthetics as “NOT SWEET,” and “NOT SOUND” (1, 6). The speaker finds no “hid causes” that express emotions of an individual; it is a society where everything works according to expectations.

The second stanza coincides more with Herrick’s poem on aestheticism, mentioning,“ROBES LOOSEly FLOWing, HAIR as FREE; such SWEET neGLECT more TAKEeth me” (3-4). The spondee on “ROBES LOOSE” is the last time a trochee is used before following the neat iambic rhythm. What the speaker argues is that art needs to show causes for why it exists, this poem parallels this as its aestheticism exists to argue that art is spontaneous. The last line mentions that such conformity to a “precise” society may make an observer notice, but not evoke emotions. Herrick and Jonson’s poems both focus on the disorder through aestheticism, but also use neatness to argue that too much ruins the meaning of art.

Phillip Gallo

Lustful Beauty in Poetry

For this week’s assignment, we are presented with three poems that convey love between two individuals. Each poem presents different sensations of love. For one, “Ode 44” radiates the lustful desire between two lovers while “Ode 487” exudes hues of tenderness. “Ode 487” by Hafez generates stunning imagery through the immense amount of figurative language to portray romantic love within the poem. Hafez implements personification, metaphors, and similes to paint the beautifully painful world of love that of which is rejected by Islamic spirituality due to its absence of establishment.

In lines 1 and 4, Hafez uses personification to explain the drunkenness from the night preceding. Hafez states, “With last night’s wine still singing in my head,” (line 1). Hafez expounds the previous night by defining present day to what we would consider a “hangover.” To where the reader can infer many drinks had been consumed the night before — “The holy city of intoxication” — and a few lines down Hafez says, “The harp and flute were up and in full swing,” (line 4). The morning has begun. In relation to Islamic spirituality, there are different experiences with love. For instance, some say that romantic love is temporary in the eyes of Islam when not built on any firm foundation. Many religions believe in similar paradigms in which passionate desire leads to heartbreak. Hafez discusses the multiple desires that accompany what seems to be juvenile love: drinking, sex, the haziness of it all, and even deception. Hafez compares the sudden shock of a broken heart to the sensation of a violent storm, “Then took I shelter from that stormy sea” (line 24). This metaphor is employed near the rigid sounding section of the poem to indicate the wild tendencies of a storm. The drunken haze has ended. In that case, this certain love does not reject or embrace Islamic spirituality rather Islamic spirituality rejects the love Hafez fervently illustrates. As stated previously a love such as this fails to confirm any concrete foundation. 

Emily Pu

Rhythm and Meter

When it comes to the two poems, “Still to be neat, still to be dressed” by Ben Jonson and “Delight in Disorder” by Robert Herrick, they both individually tackle varying depictions of the nature of art. To which I believe that “Still to be neat, still to be dressed” is more effective in representing this. This is because while “Delight in Disorder” effectively addresses the complex nature of art in certain ways, by using dactylic prosody which represents the rolling of words in each line to describe how art can slowly hit you all at once. I feel as though with this poem it focuses more on how art is precise and often used as a distraction rather than it being left up to interpretation.

On the other hand, “Still to be neat, still to be dressed” focuses more on how art can be appreciated but not always felt. There won’t be an emotional response every time. Jonson achieves this by using spondaic prosody within his poem seemingly to attempt to strike you with words in every line. It’s more effective in representing art since it prompts us as readers that the nature of art is subjective. And how we see it can vary in comparison to how someone else perceives it.

Patricia Brewer

Rhyme and Meter

For this assignment, we were provided two poems that focus on the same subject; however, they diverge in implication. While Robert Herrick’s “Delight in Disorder” follows the speaker through a beguiling path of lust and desire, Ben Jonson’s “Still to Be Neat” physically describes a woman’s seemingly beautiful appearance. Herrick states, “A sweet disorder in the dress” in the very first line, and one can infer that unkempt clothing enchants the speaker in a sense. In the next line, “wantonness” is used as a way to describe a lack of restraint. As the reader continues with the poem, they are able to detect an iambic rhythm similar to one’s heartbeat. The first line is an evident example of iambic rhythm. It is until the second line where the iambic rhythm comes to a halt, and its place is a trochaic tetrameter. This potentially symbolizes the flutter of the speaker’s heart when describing the woman. Furthermore, there is something captivating in moments of disarray. Looking at Jonson’s poem, the speaker begins with discussing the elegant attire of a woman as if she were dressing up for a “feast” in the first stanza. In the second stanza, we see the speaker deviate from the initial theme of sophistication. Instead, notions of “true” beauty begin to form. In lines 10-12, the speaker indicates that “powdered” faces pertain to superficial ideals. In a metaphorical sense, there is a meaning to every piece of art, which includes human beings. 

When reflecting the true nature of art, I believe that Robert Herrick’s poem executes it thoroughly; however, both poems are able to convey it. Herrick’s heartbeat rhythm persuaded me when there were pauses of trochiac tetrameter to emphasize the palpitations. It is also true that art is still beautiful in complex forms that go beyond the conventional definition of appeal. Herrick does a wonderful job exuding that sentiment through the brisk imagery presented in his poem. 

Emily Pu

I Still Know Who I Am

Diane Tarabay-Rodriguez 

In an interview, Natalie Diaz raises many issues that are faced by indigenous people like herself. She talks about the oppression that she has experienced. She describes the embodied experience of poetry as the transmission of energy from one’s body into paper. Through poetry, she is able to release her emotional energy. She mentions that she is always trying to return to the body because she feels that she hasn’t been given the opportunity to be who she really is due to all the oppression she faces as an Indigenous, Latina and queer woman.

In her poem, “Abecedarian Requiring Further Examination of Anglikan Seraphym Subjugation of a Wild Indian Reservation”, Diaz gives a reflection to the past when white men wiped Native Americans out of their land. At first, the white men seemed to be angels who had come to help, but instead they brought diseases, destruction and death. The settlers had brought in diseases that lead to about 90% of Native Americans dying. Diaz also refers back to the Trail of Tears when she mentions, “You better hope you never see angels on the rez. If you do, they’ll be marching you off to Zion or Oklahoma…”(32-34). She also mentions that the men also tried to convert Natives into white men. There came a point where they completely destroyed the Native American culture that was rich in ancestry, stories and culture. Many tribe leaders were killed which made it easy for many young Natives to mix into the American culture. Throughout the whole poem, the poet tried to make the reader recall the past. Hinting at the fact that history repeats itself, and we cannot allow it to happen again. In lines 1-4, she mentions that the angels meant death so they shouldn’t be allowed into the reservation. On lines 30-31, she talks about how it’s better if the “Angels” stay rich, fat and ugly in heaven.

Given the issue raised in her interview, there are specific elements in her poem that signal a return to the body for herself and for others like her. For example, she is basically taking back her identity and transmitting her emotional energy throughout the whole poem. I could clearly feel her anger and anguish while reading. She is reclaiming her body through every line. Her poems do a great job at accommodating social identities that have been marginalized or silenced because her words are empowering and care free from judgment. A lot of people get so caught up with the noise of society to the point where they forget who they are. Diaz gives her readers a chance to return to their body by allowing them to take the first step of pausing and self-reflecting.

Rose of Evanescent, you Stood not a Chance with the Forgotten Poppy

By Mitaya La Pierre

When I think of a rose, I like to generally think of romance; I like to consider the red hue of the flower and the love it can symbolize. But when I think about what could be seen as ‘challenging’ that symbolism; two poems come up to par. One, “The Rose and The Poppy” by UC Merced student Adrianna Puente, and two, “Sea Rose” by H. D. Now, both poems are very explicit in re introducing the symbolism of the rose; however I find myself more drawn to the UC student’s poem rather than H.D’s poem, but let me explain!

In “Sea Rose”, the speaker is apparently sighting a pathetic rose, drifting in the sea, not having having anything particularly special about it. I felt initially drawn to this because the poem then compares spice to the ‘sea rose’; which I thought was a strange comparison. But when re reading Puente’s poem, I could see a true de characterization of the rose symbol, and a re flourish of the definitions ‘unique’,  and ‘lovely’. Which in this case is the presumed “Poppy”. 

In lines 1-3, the speaker of the poem disallows any notion of it being a rose.

“I am

not a ravishing ruby red,

or a semblance of purity white.”

And through lines 4-10, the speaker then goes on to describe the abilities of a rose; the flower you give out of love, condolences; a flower you represent with a beautiful red, a passionate event’s must have. 

“Not the flower you give to a lover,

or a token of comfort you give to a friend in the hospital.

Nor am I a symbol of romance

–

of new moments to

be made,

of old memories to be cherished.

Though I am not a beautiful rouge,

Buds picked to be set onto a bed of down and wine”

So here we are re iterating it’s human perceived ‘uniqueness’, it purpose, and everything else the rose is meant for. Yet we are also reminded that the speaker is NONE of these adjectives. So still we read to find out what they could be. We go down further, to lines 11-14

“I am

wild in fields of green and blues.

Electric orange

–

like tangerines in an orchard of trees”

Now this speaker is describing what they are, instead of what they are not. Here, it is not just any orange but ‘Electric’ orange color, and born of green and blues. This is very much not a rose; not just because the speaker said so, but the introduction is so different from any other rose. 

“my skin’s perfume meshed

in the summer breeze.

Most times I am forgotten.

Rarely chosen for 

eager hands on Valentine’s day

–

but I am my own.”

The not-rose describes that it may not be picked for Valentine’s, but that it has other desirable qualities like, a beautiful scent and extraordinary coloring. That it is ‘unique’.

“In a potpourri of our colors

we each wilt

between dried petals

–

Scenting rooms

with our fragrance.

Rotting

into umber”

In the last few lines of the poem, the flower then describes a scene, a scene of her and other flowers like her all rotting for scent in a potpourri bowl. This part struck me most peculiarly because flowers are traditionally known for scent. And by standards of what the speaker is saying, if we put the perfume of this flower in our homes, all of time, then why is it not revered more perfectly? Why doesn’t “The Rose” get less credit than the “The Poppy”? And the answer is clear, that those things that are talked about the most; as in the rose that is seen as such a symbol of beauty and romance–tends to lack a uniqueness. Simply because everyone sees it as ‘special’, rather than a collective small group who can notice the actually ‘unique’ beauty of the wild poppy flower. While the rose has its assumptive traditional roles, ones played all of the time, this poem takes the role of ‘special’ out of it, and puts the new notion of ‘romance’ into the poppy. Majorly because its spoken of in such an defined yet divine way, its hard to try and not wonder if the Poppy is more special and more of a symbol of ‘passion’ and ‘love’ then the rose. After all, isn’t love more special, when only a select few see it’s worth in something completely different?

“You Cannot Erase Me, I am You.”

By Mitaya La Pierre

Walt Whitman made a statement the day he decided to write “I Sing the Body Electric”; the statement being that poetic form shouldn’t be restrictive. And by having his poem be comprised mainly of listless body parts, and nonuniform speech, he conveys the uniqueness of going against that grain. As well as show boating what it means to be American; to do things differently. This was significant because it detached itself from the former British way of writing poetry; with calculated beats, and rhythms. Now it goes without saying that Walt Whitman’s poem does have rhythm, but it’s faster and far more provocative than poems before it. This “Free Verse”, as it has been coined, inspired Luis Alberto Ambroggio to write his own version of “The Body Electric” called, “We Are All Whitman: #2: Song of/to/My/Your/Self”. The rhythmic enumeration of both of these poems is very similar, especially the repetitive ‘listing’ and song; but there are also some key differences.

While Whitman talks about parts of the body, Ambroggio’s ‘lists’ are that of actions rather than parts. An example of this in lines 10-14,

 “Child with the wisdom of questions,

offspring of poor and rich, of lettered and unlettered,

of rails, planting times, classes and cares,

which will sprout, embodied, with nothing forgotten,

seed in its newly bloodstained earth,-”

While here he is describing objects; ‘Child with wisdom of questions’, ‘offspring of poor and rich’, ‘lettered and unlettered’, he is also listing these things with as much fervent effort as Walt Whitman did in many of his lines, 

“Head, neck, hair, ears, drop and tympan of the ears, 

Eyes, eye-fringes, iris of the eye, eyebrows, and the waking or sleeping of the lids,” 

And stanza 9, line 7 is just one example. But this isn’t the only thing both of these poems do. In “We Are All Whitman: #2: Song of/to/My/Your/Self”, while he is listing these objects, he gives the exact same cadence that Whitman’s does. Lets take a look at line’s 43-47 in Ambroggio’s poem.

“This Self is Puerto Rican, Chicano,

from Cuba free dancer of merengues,

from Santo Domingo and all the Caribbean,

from El Salvador and Nicaragua.

It comes from Mexico, Central America,-”

Here he is explaining the areas of which he came from, in turn stating that these are the parts of his body; these of which being lyrics that he sings, that completes him as a human being. “-is Puerto Rican, Chicano, from Cuba free dancer of merengues, from Santo Domingo-” every pause or comma we see here is a new part of himself he lists in constant cadence, just like;

“Nose, nostrils of the nose, and the partition, 

Cheeks, temples, forehead, chin, throat, back of the neck, neck-slue,” (lines 9-10)

  this line in Whitman’s Poem, ‘Nose, nostrils of the nose, and the partition’; go up and down–much like a heart beat. ‘Of, the’, ‘and, the’ are syllables swoon down very quickly and then pick up right after the fall– ‘Nose, nostrils of the nose, partition’. Now looking at this, we can see the exact same method in previous lines of Ambroggio’s poem, “Santo Domingo and all the Caribbean, from El Salvador and Nicaragua.” Did you see that? ‘And, all’, and  ‘from, and’ are all typical falls that don’t have as much ‘oompf’ to their sound, and thus end up being picked up by very strong nouns, like ‘Santo Domingo, Caribbean, El Salvador.’ Carrying a beat much like a heart would, what with it having a constant rise and fall of cadence, just like Whitman’s poem.

And that is the true translation of Whitman in Ambroggio’s poem, is that they both have an upbeat, constant rhythm of syllables that don’t stop and in their own way move the body into ‘dance’. The most precise thing about Ambroggio’s poem though, isn’t that he lists off things as Whitman did; its the context behind it. Whitman indirectly was saying something about America, about it’s stubbornness and how we choose things our own way–but, so was Ambroggio. Allow me to transcribe a line found in the poem, 

“They will not manage to deny me or ignore me or declare me undocumented:

I am written in you, in all,-”

Here the poet is declaring he will not be undermined for his culture, for any culture as a matter of fact. Simply because his culture MAKES America; ‘I am written in you’ he states. When he is writing the descriptions of culture, the actions of people, and the culture that compiles him; he is also describing the metaphorical “body parts” that make up “America”;  much like Whitman does with his poem having body parts describe “the person”.  

Genuine of the Imaginary

Poetry, in my experience, has always been a fickle medium, which is perhaps why Marianne Moore’s ironic description of it resonates so strongly. She admits the discontent for the “fiddle,” or what one could presume is the surface-level jumble of wordy figurative descriptors—something that some less frequent perusers of poetry may find intimidating or confusing—as Moore puts it, the collection of the “unintelligible.”

Though not necessarily an argument, if one were to view it as such or at least between picking which poem/poet defines poetry best, a good argument should admit its faults which is what Moore does. It is true that some poetry can fiddle with their wordings and come off as confusing or even intimidating to some. This is mayhaps why she’d revised the original poem from it’s twenty-nine lines to only four in 1967, condensing the language to only portray her message.

However, I do believe Moore’s original poem carries more sustenance in defining poetry, especially when she speaks of “imaginary gardens with real toads in them.” If anything, even in admitting poetry’s flaws (in accordance to some but not all), that line in particular serves as the perfect description of poetry as a whole. Poetry describes things, people, places, and scenarios in a fictional way—one that isn’t necessarily tangible to reality, but the feelings that are evoked by the language are real. By such, poetry becomes a “place for the genuine,” just how what the reader takes from these imaginary words on a page are genuine.

Caitlyn Klemm

Deep understanding of poetry

By: Randy Hernandez

I believe Moore poem title “Poetry” best defines poetry in general. Moore acknowledges the idea of showing the reader that there is more significant aspects to life than poetry. She begins her poem with the benefits of understanding poetry as she states “with a perfect contempt for it, one discovers in it after all, a place for the genuine”. When the reader has a great understanding of what the poet or writer is saying then they show a deeper interest in the work. The reader sees the writing as useful or seeing a purpose such as a “bat holding on upside down or inquest of something to eat.” Moore includes this list of what these animals actions hold a purpose the same way a writer may have. When poets write they always have a goal, whether it’s for pure joy, sharing sensitive issues or personal experiences. It’s not until one can’t get an understanding of poetry that they are “dragged into prominence by half poets, the result is not poetry”. This quote could refer to this idea of how one’s mind won’t see a purpose to certain aspects of what the poets wants the reader to understand. This results in them getting frustrated and not having a deep understanding of the poem. Then the reader sees no purpose or no big picture of why the poet wrote the poem. When Moore shows these two different aspects to poetry it helps define poetry in a general sense. At times it may be very difficult to understand, but other times it’s not too difficult. This idea of having to figure out what the poet wants to express in their writing is what poetry is about. It’s not until you have a deep understanding that you see the creativity, art or purpose to what the author wants the reader to see. 

Deep understanding of poetry

By: Randy Hernandez

I believe Moore poem title “Poetry” best defines poetry in general. Moore acknowledges the idea of showing the reader that there is more significant aspects to life than poetry. She begins her poem with the benefits of understanding poetry as she states “with a perfect contempt for it, one discovers in it after all, a place for the genuine”. When the reader has a great understanding of what the poet or writer is saying then they show a deeper interest in the work. The reader sees the writing as useful or seeing a purpose such as a “bat holding on upside down or inquest of something to eat.” Moore includes this list of what these animals actions hold a purpose the same way a writer may have. When poets write they always have a goal, whether it’s for pure joy, sharing sensitive issues or personal experiences. It’s not until one can’t get an understanding of poetry that they are “dragged into prominence by half poets, the result is not poetry”. This quote could refer to this idea of how one’s mind won’t see a purpose to certain aspects of what the poets wants the reader to understand. This results in them getting frustrated and not having a deep understanding of the poem. Then the reader sees no purpose or no big picture of why the poet wrote the poem. When Moore shows these two different aspects to poetry it helps define poetry in a general sense. At times it may be very difficult to understand, but other times it’s not too difficult. This idea of having to figure out what the poet wants to express in their writing is what poetry is about. It’s not until you have a deep understanding that you see the creativity, art or purpose to what the author wants the reader to see.