In article
onvoy.com>, Dennis M. Hammes
says...>
>Karla wrote:
>
>> On 11 Mar 2007 10:31:36 -0700, "George Dance"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Karla
sbcNOSPAMglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Project Gutenberg includes four volumes of Sara Teasdale's poetry. This
>>>>poem is included in two of the volumes. On the title page for LOVE SONGS,
>>>>under "Copyright Status", Project Gutenberg informs us that this work is
>>>>not copyrighted in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/442
>>>>
>>>>Since many works prior to 1922 are no longer under copyright in the U.S.,
>>>>this makes sense "The Look" was transcribed from a 1918 reprinting of a
>>>>1917 edition.
>>>>
>>>>So, I would question whether this is a "blatant copyright violation" as
>>>>this poster claims. The original poster, "sirblob" has re-titled it "the
>>>>biscuit tin" but left Ms. Teasdale's original words intact. Sirblob appears
>>>>to be claiming this poem as his own by adding, after the subject line, "my
>>>>13th poem of the year". I am inclined to tag it 'plagiarism', not a
>>>>copyright infringement.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed: sirblob is a plagiarist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>To plagiarize is to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass
>>>>them off as one's own.
>>>>
>>>>Copyright, on the other hand, is the exclusive right to the publication,
>>>>production, or sale of the rights to a literary, dramatic, musical, or
>>>>artistic work, or to the use of a commercial print or label, granted by law
>>>>for a specified period of time to an author, composer, artist, distributor,
>>>>etc.
>>>>
>>>>Definitions of 'plagiarize' and 'copyright' are from Webster's New World
>>>>Dictionary, Fourth Edition.
>>>>
>>>>Since, to our knowledge, Ms. Teasdale's poem is not copyrighted, it's
>>>>unlikely that the use of the poem is infringment or a "blatant copyright
>>>>violation." :)
>>>>
>>>>Here's another Sara Teasdale poem:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't like that one. Here's one of Teasdale's more philosophical
>>>poems:
>>
>>
>> Admirable in that she attempts to write about nature, and not just mankind.
>> Teasdale, in this poem, evidences some growth in consciousness. There's not
>> the 'poor us' voice of, say, Arnold that we hear at the end of "Dover
>> Beach":
>
>
>Right; she can't manage a fellowship with even one human, after
>having managed none with any of the bits of nature she /points/ to.
Your remark implies that the poem needs to demonstate a management of "a
fellowship with even one human being". It doesn't. And I don't think there's any
dispute about her being part of mankind or her association with "we" in "we were
gone". Your comment also suggests that the poem needs to demonstrate a
management with bits of nature, which is ridiculous. Are you reading her poem or
what you want the poem to say?
>> "Ah, love, let us be true
>> To one another! for the world, which seems
>> To lie before us like a land of dreams,
>> So various, so beautiful, so new,
>> Hath neither joy, no love, nor light,
>> Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
>> And we are here as on a darkling plain
>> Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
>> Where ignorant armies clash by night."
>
>
>It's a bit lengthy for an oath, but its fellowship with it's "(ah,)
>love" stands against all comers, some of which it names -- including
>the love itself, that clashes with confused alarm.
Arnold's poem is no different than Teasdale's re mankind vs. nature. His 'oath'
manages no fellowship with bits of nature. It offers nothing to him, and by
extension, to us. His 'oath' is more of an epiphany: world offers nothing, so we
must do, be true. Teasdale implies that mankind's ignorant armies will be the
end of man. There's no pitying noise about man's fate. It's an epiphany of sorts
too, nature's perseverance when mankind is gone.
>> Teasdale's poem still embraces that dichotomy of mankind vs. nature, a
>
>
>Teasdale's poem embraces nothing -- not its objects, not its reader,
>not even itself -- and that is its fault.
I see beauty in "wild plum trees in tremulous white". That scene alone could end
a movie, or begin the sequel.
>> consciousness which will be the end of the whole. Nature, here, knows
>> nothing of the ways of humans ("not one will know of the war..."; "not one
>> would mind, neither bird nor tree, / if mankind perished utterly..."). I
>> wonder in what camp she placed domesticated animals. My cats know and mind.
>> Teasdale can't help herself, most noticeably in the last lines, from
>> personifying nature ("Spring herself, when she woke at dawn / Would
>> scarcely know that we were gone."). Yet, there's a lot of truth in that
>> line. If we flip it, consider what we would notice if nature was gone, if
>> such a thing is possible, we'd find out just how connected we are to
>> 'nature'. I cannot imagine not being able to see what she describes in the
>> first three stanzas.
>>
>> For old school poetry, it's pretty good. The alliteration in the first
>> three stanzas don't annoy.
>>
>
>Actually, it rather does, as it isn't there to unite images into
>themes or themes into ideas; it's there merely to prove she knows
>enough words that she can alliterate some of them. I.e., the
>alliterations announce only themselves, not any other connections in
>the words so joined.
I wish you'd support your opinion, Dennis. I couldn't disagree more! Did you
read this outloud to yourself before commenting? I think not. Alliteration isn't
first for the eye. Have you forgotten?
>> The prophetic first few words "there will come"
>> is soothed by "soft rains and the smell of the ground". Indeed, the 'smell
>> of the ground' is just the kind of vague phrase that works well, leaving
>> each of us to our memory there. Spring at the end, awaking at dawn, subtly
>> suggests a new world beginning again. I root for the line of the bats this
>> time!
>>
>> Karla
>>
>
>And would it have been worth it, after all,
>After all the thumbs slammed in breeches, legs in vices,
>After the troop trains' causing grapefruit crises,
>If one, telling a robin or watching blossom fall
>Should say, "That is not what I meant, no, not at all"?
And would it have been worth it, after all,
After all the pine trees gashed for caskets, swapped for oil vats,
After troop planes' carting golden poppy flats,
If one, writing to mothers, 'for this, your children must fall'
Should say, "That is not what I meant, no, not at all"?
Karla
>>>There Will Come Soft Rains
>>>
>>>There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
>>>And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;
>>>
>>>And frogs in the pools singing at night,
>>>And wild plum trees in tremulous white;
>>>
>>>Robins will wear their feathery fire,
>>>Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;
>>>
>>>And not one will know of the war, not one
>>>Will care at last when it is done.
>>>
>>>Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
>>>If mankind perished utterly;
>>>
>>>And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn
>>>Would scarcely know that we were gone.
>>>
>>> -- Sara Teasdale
>
>
--
--
