There are different connotations in each of these poems also, making them different. Each of these pieces imply different things to different extents. Akhmatova’s version leaves an abundant amount of information to figure out for ourselves while Szymborska’s uses connotation in a manner which gives us more detail as to what is going on. Although there are many differences in the two different versions of the same poem, several things contribute to the similarities among them. One of the most noticeable similarities is of course the general theme the story line, and tone.
While both Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson's works seem to be quite different from the outside, they share many similarities. Religion, death and other common things make them similar, even though their views are different. You can see the similarities while reading both authors’ works. Both of them have forever changed the American views of poetry and style of poetry. They have great voices too, and brought about different beliefs into society that are still around today.
In both Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman’s works, they emphasize some differences in their writing. In Dickinson’s works she shows that her works are short and simple poems, while Whitman’s poems and often long and complex. With Dickinson showing that her works are short and simple, while Whitman brings on a more sophisticated style, it truly shows that they use their own unique style of writing. In both Whitman and Dickinson works they have been known for being such unique artist and being original, while people try so hardly to impersonate their style, but they are unable to come close to accomplishing it. Whitman wrote in ambitious proportions, while creating a style of rhythmic structure, creating stanzas and complex lines.
In poems feelings and ideas are expressed in fewer words and the techniques used in poems are different as well. Another thing that makes poems a little different is that their meanings are a bit difficult to understand and the language seems to be manipulated in; other words, a poet can create a language of their own. The poems of “When we two Parted”, “A Pity, We Were Such a Good Invention”, and “Modern Love” all have the same theme of being broken hearted, but their use of vocabulary’s, emotions, and thoughts are very different allowing the poems to be unique. Therefore, Poems can be interpreted for anyone there is no direct reference as to who. For instance, reading a poem with a known theme and then having the ability to read what the author has written for that theme makes the poem interesting, for their choices of vocabulary and their thoughts are all different.
While Wordsworth formatted his poetry into beautiful ballads, Whitman wrote in more relatable poems, some of which truly did not follow any form. According to William E. H. Meyer Jr., “Indeed, the very substance of Whitman 's ‘barbaric yawp,’ in contrast to Wordsworth 's ‘plaintive numbers,’ is the revolutionary and unbridgeable gap that exists between a ‘song of myself’ and a ‘prelude’ or ‘lyrical ballad.’”(Meyer 83). While Wordsworth keeps more structure and regulation in his ballads, Whitman does what feels most effective. This allows for Whitman to be slightly more organic in form than Wordsworth. However, this difference can also be seen as an addition to Wordsworth, as Wordsworth advocated for organic form.
Same can also be said about poetry, “Poetry is, in certain vitals ways, distinct from other forms of writing” (847). However, the biggest difference between these three are the answers in the end. In a book you will receive the answer to your question as you continue, the lyrics will tell you what happened and how they feel, but sometimes in poetry one might not ever find an answer. The poems by Hardy, Thomas “The Ruined Maid” (852) and Kennedy, X.J. “In a Prominent Bar in Secaucus One Day” (884) although these poems have many things that makes them alike, a more explained detail and examples will help one understand and see how they are more different and alike.
These perceptions helped her make metaphors that embraced experiences far beyond the limited compass of Amherst village life” (373). The literature book says this of Whitman, “Suddenly, poetry was no longer a matter of organized word structures that neatly clicked shut at the last line;” (350). Even though these two writers were so different in so many ways, they obtained what the other had not done. Whitman popularized free verse, while Dickinson cherished the use of metaphors and ideas of comparing two like things to make a deeper meaning to everything in life.
Although difficult and challenging, I have compared and contrasted the works of two American Poets, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Dickinson, based on literary elements used in their writings. Their differences both in style and subject are contradictory to the fact that both Poe and Dickinson are writers/poets of the same personal nature. The use of literary elements showcase the iconic statuses of the writings created by such reserved yet fame dependent poets such as Poe and Dickinson. To an extent, their chosen elements are what create their uniqueness. Further, it establishes a uniform perception that they are similar yet different poets of the personal essence.
Applications of a Connectionist Model of Poetic Meter to Problems in Generative Metrics Meter is one of the most distinctive formal features of English verse. Yet theoretical approaches to metrical analysis have proved problematical for a number of reasons. Traditional metrics, based upon scansion systems derived from Latin forms, is strong and flexible in its ability to describe individual units of a line, but fails to describe well the dynamics of the line as a whole and the lexical and syntactic structures which underlie that line. Moreover, traditional metrics does not address the general issue of metricality: most lines of poetry show some variation from metrical norms through the substitution of irregular units (such as a trochee opening an iambic line). When do such variations, which are permissible in individual units, render the line as a whole unmetrical?
Although a fairly common term, its relatively frequent use alongside Frost’s usually vivid and descriptive imagery make it a characteristic of his works worth exploring. Upon evaluation, it becomes evident that Frost’s most potent reason for the use of the word “something” is to infuse an element of doubt or uncertainty into his poetry. It is perhaps an instilled ambiguity that Frost describes as distinctive of good poetry – often found in his better works with a “tantalizing vagueness”. Before drawing conclusions though, it is wise to explore all avenues of possible meaning with regard to Robert Frost’s use of the word “something”. An important aspect to realize is that Frost raised concerns over readers’ far-fetched assumptions in their understanding of his poetry.