For the poem and the analysis, I hope I don't seem too effusive in quoting Shakespeare: "O wonderful, wonderful, and most wonderful wonderful! And yet again wonderful."
What a wonderful explication. I have loved and taught Rossetti for many years, and I sometimes use her collected poems for a devotional. Much as I love the wide variety of forms she uses, her sonnets are my favorite. This is one I am less familiar with than others; what a lovely picture of unrequited love that wishes the beloved well in spite of his coldness toward her. There are people I need to learn to love that way . . .
What a beautiful poem, and so elegantly commented on. My only thought is, if Dickens had written those 14 pages, there wouldn’t be any ambiguity in them. Rosetti uses ambiguity as a garnish, Dickens not so much. (Which is why we love them both, right?!)
I love how she employs the distinctive rhyme scheme of the sestet. The enfoldment of *fold/cold*; the central solidity of *head/dead*. And then (in contrast to the rhymes relating the finality of her own lifelessness) the small inbetween *his/is* rhymes, matched by *hid/pitied*.
Nicely done! The poem is beautifully presented & Majmadur is crystal clear. His conclusion that the sonnet form claimed storytelling ground as an alternative to prose and the short story is spot on. His reference to Dickens reminded me of an exchange I had years ago with the late critic, Marjorie Perloff. Considering my book-length poem, The Diviners, she said, "I just don't see a difference. Why isn't this a novel?" My response to her: "If it were a novel, it would be 500 pages, not 50."
For the poem and the analysis, I hope I don't seem too effusive in quoting Shakespeare: "O wonderful, wonderful, and most wonderful wonderful! And yet again wonderful."
What a wonderful explication. I have loved and taught Rossetti for many years, and I sometimes use her collected poems for a devotional. Much as I love the wide variety of forms she uses, her sonnets are my favorite. This is one I am less familiar with than others; what a lovely picture of unrequited love that wishes the beloved well in spite of his coldness toward her. There are people I need to learn to love that way . . .
What a beautiful poem, and so elegantly commented on. My only thought is, if Dickens had written those 14 pages, there wouldn’t be any ambiguity in them. Rosetti uses ambiguity as a garnish, Dickens not so much. (Which is why we love them both, right?!)
I love how she employs the distinctive rhyme scheme of the sestet. The enfoldment of *fold/cold*; the central solidity of *head/dead*. And then (in contrast to the rhymes relating the finality of her own lifelessness) the small inbetween *his/is* rhymes, matched by *hid/pitied*.
Beautiful, clear, insightful, and easily read, thank you for your deciphership.
Nicely done! The poem is beautifully presented & Majmadur is crystal clear. His conclusion that the sonnet form claimed storytelling ground as an alternative to prose and the short story is spot on. His reference to Dickens reminded me of an exchange I had years ago with the late critic, Marjorie Perloff. Considering my book-length poem, The Diviners, she said, "I just don't see a difference. Why isn't this a novel?" My response to her: "If it were a novel, it would be 500 pages, not 50."
I actually wondered if her final statement was sarcastic or vengeful?
I've been reading rossetti's collected poems for weeks now and it is just an embarrassment of riches