On Mar 13, 11:33 pm, "OB"
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 13, 1:47 pm, Karla
sbcNOSPAMglobal.net> wrote:>
>>>On Mar 12, 6:17 am, "Dennis M. Hammes"
arvig.net> wrote:>>>> 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.
>
>
>>>>>>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:
>
>>>>> 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
>
>>>> Exercise for poets: point out a half dozen places (even without
>>>> reasons, or saying which bad technique was substituted for a good
>>>> one) that this is a not-very-good poem, and at least one thing that
>>>> makes it not very good philosophy.
>
>>>> Exercise for editors: point out why it sold to its readership.
>
>>>> Exercise for teachers: point out why it sold to babies subsequently.
>
>>>The poem uses a weasel technique of suggesting while denying:
>
>>>"I'm not saying Bush is the greatest President we've ever had, but..."
>>>"I'm not saying Nature is cuddly and caring, but..."
>
>>>... "but", the frogs sing joyfully, the robins "wear" their colour
>>>proudly, the trees display bridal modesty, and "Nature", whoever "she"
>>>is, can be guaranteed to be still around even after humanity has
>>>liquidated itself.
>
>> OB, I really don't see what you mean. Where is the "but" in the poem? Certainly,
>> Teasdale paints a pretty nature, but the larger points seems to be that we kill
>> each other off and nature keeps on rolling. Until Fat Boy and Little Boy, it
>> wasn't readily evident that something else might be true.
>
> Tut, "Teasdale says nothing about nature - the word isn't mentioned
> once."
>
Yes, I misquoted, there's no doubt:
How rude of you to point it out.
> Sarcasm aside,
>
> Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
> If mankind perished utterly;
>
> but
>
> 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...
>
> Does this help? The birds and trees may not care about our killing
> ourselves, but they do care about shimmering, singing, whistling,
> being tremulous and wearing feathery fire
Yes, one can see that everywhere,
Why would birds fly unless they care?
- all things which they
> would in reality be quite unable to do if we weren't around, because
> these things are not properly actions but (human) perceptions and
> interpretations put upon those actions.
I'm so important - me! me! me! -
The birds won't fly if I don't see.
> Teasdale doesn't seriously even try to imagine a post-holocaust
> scenario. For a more intelligent (if somewhat savage) poem that at
> least deals with the difficulty of doing so ("on the bank of whatever
> river / it used to be" I like especially), try
>
>
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/poetry/poetry_nuclear2.html
>
Although that wasn't very pretty
It was not a half-bad ditty.
>>>By personifying Nature, Teasdale avoids addressing what she pretends
>>>to address, the indifference of the universe to the fate of man (which
>>>Arnold /does/ address, as you point out), while pushing a subtext
>>>along the lines of "hey, folks, what's the point in fighting wars, it
>>>makes no darn difference to anything, let's all go hug trees
>>>instead" ("Not one" is suspiciously suggestive of "no one"). The
>>>"Nature" she presents is impossibly fluffy (an Eden without serpents)
>>>and consists entirely of cliches from other poems, and her assertion
>>>that it can get along fine without humans is disingenuous, insofar as
>>>any landscape offering swallows, robins and plum trees will almost
>>>certainly be highly artificial (she avoids mentioning the ploughed
>>>fields and hedgerows, but they're still there in the reader's
>>>visualisation - the selection and the cliches guarantee that).
>
>> This is rather mixed up. Would it change what Teasdale is saying if she included
>> cockroaches and venus fly traps? I don't think so.
>
> It would make her stated point a lot more forcefully, IMO.
>
Some death and rot would do the trick;
At least, then, I'd feel something: sick.
>> In choosing to personify
>> nature given her theme might not be the wisest time to use such a device, but it
>> hadn't become anathema to do so yet.
>
>> I don't see her saying that nature would get along fine without humans, only
>> that nature wouldn't notice that we'd gone.
>
> "Spring" would "wake at dawn" and "scarcely know that we were gone".
> For her to "scarcely" know this, as opposed to just not knowing it at
> all, the personified Spring must at least be able to note some vague
> sign of our absence: the implication is that the annihilation of
> humans is no big deal as far as she's concerned, on any level.
It doen't matter what we do;
Not you, nor I, nor Teasdale, too.
> Notice
> that "Spring" as opposed to whatever "nature" might be imagined to
> consist of, is something that might be expected to get along fine
> without us - seasons don't need people to keep them turning - but
> Teasdale populates her Spring cunningly with cuddly creatures before
> she gets around to making this point.
>
I really didn't like her theme
And so of frogs and birds I'll scream.
>>>The poem, then, says nothing about the real world, and would
>>>presumably therefore appeal to people who don't want to know about the
>>>real world, i.e. babies. QED?
>
>> So you want to change her point to your point?
>
> I want her to make her own point honestly and clearly, using the best
> and most powerful tools available to her. I don't think she does this.
> But then again, I'm not a Lit Crit, just a tremulous tyro shimmering
> his whims through a low-sense wire.
Yes, she should add a killing spree
For that would show some honesty.
