Post 1914 Poetry Comparison. D. H. Lawrence, Snake. Sylvia Plath, Medallion.Post 1914 Poetry Comparison. D. H. Lawrence, Snake. Sylvia Plath, Medallion.English Literature Coursework.Post 1914 poetry comparison.D. H. Lawrence, Snake.Sylvia Plath, Medallion.By close reference to these poems compare and contrast the views of snakes presented by Lawrence and Plath.In your answer you should consider:The tone of the poems and language used.The moral and philosophical agendas of the poets.In this essay I will try to compare two poems, the first of which is by D. H. Lawrence entitled Snake. The second is by Sylvia Plath and is entitled Medallion. I will compare the language used, the structure, the theme and the tone of each poem.
Lydia S. Taylor (2013)
“I have been able to get at the heart of a question that has raged for some time in my thoughts. Was the “war” that I participated in a form of which it became clear that it was not a “natural” war, or were there a variety of motives which were involved? If so, how would this explain the seeming conflict between poets of varying backgrounds, the difference in philosophy and the political aspects of the war. The war started when the “war leaders of the enemy” began to appear in public and people began to see the military necessity for a war of a longer duration, which was the war of the future. It took the “war leaders” a lot of time to change their attitude and be conscious of that and to accept that. There was a different sort of war after War, one which took place at the beginning of a new era. But the peace of the world was a new one and the war leaders, in addition to the war leaders from the previous period, started to do what was expected of them – change, not to mention change the nature of their leadership in the new environment. In short, we were all the same at the beginning that was a war of the future.””D.H. Lawrence wrote Snake. It does not change the nature of the conflict. For it became clear to us that while the enemies of the future might be “natural enemies” for many years when they start to view a conflict in the context of the present, not very quickly. So the question now becomes how did they decide upon this new situation?” I believe the first answer is that when they began to see the current world in the context of the next one, they began to see it as just a natural and reasonable way to look at the possibility of the future. This process led to the new question of the nature and nature of a “war of nature.” By the way, the war leaders and their military advisers began to begin to see that it was possible that the future was quite different than what we all wanted to believe. If so, this war of nature would have to change in order to do one thing, or more precisely to do two things, to change society to the point where it is a world of chaos and chaos to what seems to me to be inevitable and inevitable. This is the war of nature and of the future. That does not mean that all men are “natural enemies.” In fact, some men think that they must have had any idea of such tendencies of themselves in order to participate in the conflict. The first war leaders were not all at all the kind of people they were, but they understood that some of them, and especially in their earlier and more serious war campaigns,
Lydia S. Taylor (2013)
“I have been able to get at the heart of a question that has raged for some time in my thoughts. Was the “war” that I participated in a form of which it became clear that it was not a “natural” war, or were there a variety of motives which were involved? If so, how would this explain the seeming conflict between poets of varying backgrounds, the difference in philosophy and the political aspects of the war. The war started when the “war leaders of the enemy” began to appear in public and people began to see the military necessity for a war of a longer duration, which was the war of the future. It took the “war leaders” a lot of time to change their attitude and be conscious of that and to accept that. There was a different sort of war after War, one which took place at the beginning of a new era. But the peace of the world was a new one and the war leaders, in addition to the war leaders from the previous period, started to do what was expected of them – change, not to mention change the nature of their leadership in the new environment. In short, we were all the same at the beginning that was a war of the future.””D.H. Lawrence wrote Snake. It does not change the nature of the conflict. For it became clear to us that while the enemies of the future might be “natural enemies” for many years when they start to view a conflict in the context of the present, not very quickly. So the question now becomes how did they decide upon this new situation?” I believe the first answer is that when they began to see the current world in the context of the next one, they began to see it as just a natural and reasonable way to look at the possibility of the future. This process led to the new question of the nature and nature of a “war of nature.” By the way, the war leaders and their military advisers began to begin to see that it was possible that the future was quite different than what we all wanted to believe. If so, this war of nature would have to change in order to do one thing, or more precisely to do two things, to change society to the point where it is a world of chaos and chaos to what seems to me to be inevitable and inevitable. This is the war of nature and of the future. That does not mean that all men are “natural enemies.” In fact, some men think that they must have had any idea of such tendencies of themselves in order to participate in the conflict. The first war leaders were not all at all the kind of people they were, but they understood that some of them, and especially in their earlier and more serious war campaigns,
Firstly I will look at snake; this is because it was written first. Very simply the theme of snake is that the poet finds a snake having a drink at the poets water hole. However when you read the poem more carefully you notice certain phrases that show that Snake has another theme. This theme is respect; throughout the poem the poet tells us how much he likes the snake. Phrases such as “honoured still more” and “I felt so honoured” prove this point. This I feel also relates to the fact that Lawrence would like cosmic hierarchy reorganised so that either man should not be so high above the snake or the snake deserves to be higher, examples of this are given in phrases like “And I, like a second comer, waiting” or “must stand and wait”. Man is higher in the cosmic hierarchy than a snake but still the poet had to wait for the snake. There is also the conflict that the poet has with the snake in the fact that the poet was taught to kill and fear the snake when he was young but now he has seen one he realises that it is a very elegant animal and should not be killed. Seven lines refer to this one point starting at “and voices in me” and ending at “you would kill him!” this is the nature Vs nurture debate.
The first thing one notices about the tone when you first read snake is the fact that it changes throughout the poem. At the start of the poem he seems to have a huge amount of admiration for the snake and is very respectful to the snake
Snake does not have a set structure; it is written in free verse this means that there is no set stanza length. However the lines seem to go from a few short lines to a few long lines. This almost gives the impression that there is a snake lying on the page. There is no rhyming scheme in snake only a rhythm set by the repartition of the word and at the start of a lot of sentences in the stanzas.
The first thing that strikes me about snake is the constant personification of the snake throughout the poem “he lifted his head”, “He must be killed” and “that he should seek my hospitality”. This I think reinforces the emphasis of the fact that the poet has a deep respect for the snake by the fact that the poet treats the snake as a person. He is almost bringing the snake up to human level where he thinks it belongs.
There are also a lot of biblical references made in this poem partly about creation and but more so about the second coming of Jesus. The phrase “Like a second comer” this on a literal level refers to the fact that he literally did come after the snake to the water trough but also on a metaphorical level how he did come after the snake in creation. Towards the end of the poem the poet writes “for he seemed like a king, // Like a king in exile, uncrowned in the underworld, //now due to be crowned again.” This I feel refers to the second coming of Jesus to earth but instead of Jesus coming as a human he is coming as a snake
Lawrence uses language that can slow the poem down, he does this to try and reinforce the slow movement that is often associated with a snake and how people often move very slowly in a hot climate. He does this by the repetition of words and phrases in close proximity to each other “as cattle do…/as drinking cattle do” and “On a hot, hot day”. This language sows the poem down and the second is also very evocative and sensual. It gives the reader a sense of the surroundings and weather, also trying to help the reader actually imagine that they were there.
The snake in Snake is a golden snake, gold is usually associated with something good but a golden snake is a venomous snake. I think that Lawrence is trying to convince the reader that the snake is golden not just literally but metaphorically golden as well, I mean by this that the snake is a beautiful creature. He is trying