Fragment
Forty in H.D. documents explains the Eros meaning
translated by Anne Carson. Fragment 1 of the poem illustrates what keeping love
means. Just looking at the language, keeping love seems full of sweetness but
with her, “sweetness is more cruel than your hurt.” Then she moves on questioning
“Could Eros be kept?” However, Eros used here has a different meaning than a
desire of wanting something. It is used as a relationship that was been hold on
to. But at the last quote the author answers to his own question “nay, thank
him and the bright goddess that he left us.” By answering this way it supports
the idea of desire is the true Eros since because ‘he’ left Eros now could be
kept as Eros was not able to be kept during the relationship. Then, through
section 3, the “love is bitter and sweet” is emphasized that sweet is bitter
and bitter is sweet it is just a matter of “which is more sweet, the sweetness
or the bitterness? None has spoken it.” as Carson argued “paradox is what takes
shape on the sensitized plate of the poem, a negative image from which positive
pictures can be created.” At the end she said “what need—yet to sing love, love
must first shatter us.” This phrase gives a great example of a paradox between
love and shatter but gives an idea that when love shatter, love exists in a way
of Eros: desire.
There's some really interesting analysis here - I like your attention to word-meanings in the phrase "Could Eros be kept?" and to how H.D.'s understanding of eros might be different. However, I felt that the analysis wasn't very clear, due to some clear editing errors and unclear attribution of the poems. When you finish a post, make sure to go back over the sentences to clean up errors, and give stronger introductory sentences so the reader knows better what you'll be talking about. For formatting poetry citations, please consult MLA guidelines - do not treat it like regular prose writing, i.e. pay attention to line breaks. Lastly, turn to the final remarks you make about paradox and try to see if you can make that more explicit. Would you be able to describe how a line is paradoxical? I expect analytical writing to spell that out more clearly.
ReplyDelete