Taking into consideration the title of the poem, analyze how the poetic devices convey the speaker's attitude toward the sinking of the ship;



The Convergence of the Twain

I
In a solitude of the sea
Deep from human vanity,
And the Pride of Life that planned her, stilly couches she.


II
Steel chambers, late the pyres
Of her salamandrine fires,
Cold currents thrid, and turn to rhythmic tidal lyres.


III
Over the mirrors meant
To glass the opulent
The sea-worm crawls -- grotesque, slimed, dumb, indifferent.


IV
Jewels in joy designed
To ravish the sensuous mind
Lie lightless, all their sparkles bleared and black and blind.


V
Dim moon-eyed fishes near
Gaze at the gilded gear
And query: 'What does this vaingloriousness down here?'...


VI
Well: while was fashioning
This creature of cleaving wing,
The Immanent Will that stirs and urges everything


VII
Prepared a sinister mate
For her -- so gaily great --
A Shape of Ice, for the time far and dissociate.


VIII
And as the smart ship grew
In stature, grace, and hue,
In shadowy silent distance grew the Iceberg too.


IX
Alien they seemed to be:
No mortal eye could see
The intimate welding of their later history,


X
Or sign that they were bent
By paths coincident
On being anon twin halves of one august event,


XI
Till the Spinner of the Years
Said 'Now!' And each one hears,
And consummation comes, and jars two hemispheres

-Thomas Hardy


I am so lost. I don't even know where to start. :-( any help would be so appretiated beyond belief.

Katlin, by answering for yourself the questions at the following site, you will prepare yourself to write your paper:

[72.14.203.104]



Les



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2006 01:15AM by lg.

The Titanic, right. Lots of sites have free essays or some analysis of the poem, including eMule.

[barney.gonzaga.edu]

[tinyurl.com]

[tinyurl.com]

Make sure you merely read them and make your own essay, though. It is easy to get caught plagiarizing the abundance of information available. Plus, some of that info. is incorrect, such as one of those links above, where it was claimed that there is no set pattern to the number of syllables per stanza.

In fact there are three 'feet' in lines 1 & 2 in each stanza and 6 feet in the final. You might speculate on why Hardy did that, and why he rhymed each stanza aaa. Why also are there eleven stanzas?

Speaker's attitude, huh? Poetic devices include metaphor, simile, alliteration, assonance & consonance, and personification. These are the most common, I mean, there are many, many more.

I think Hardy is showing us death, darkness, gloom and foreboding with the particular words and sounds he has chosen. Do you agree? Which choice of words would support or deny this contention? If you disagree, how would you prove your own particular interpretation?

I think that the title also plays off the idea of 'never the twain shall meet'- that the designers, passengers, etc, couldn't believe that the ship could sink.

pam

Bingo.

Some good points made there already. For some reason Emule has been off the air for the last 12 hours or so.

Katlin, if you need to know what ‘poetic devices’ are, you can find lots of information by searching in Google. For instance there’s a short list of the main ones at:
[www.kyrene.k12.az.us] .

I assume you can easily get the gist of the subject of this poem: a luxury liner colliding with an iceberg, and ending up at the bottom of the sea. In other words, the ‘Titanic’ disaster of April 1912.

Nevertheless I suggest you start by looking up in a dictionary any words you aren’t sure of. That will help you feel less intimidated by the poem. If you then start to feel that it’s really a very silly piece of writing, I’d say you are on the right track!

Great disasters tend to produce an outpouring of bad poetry from an emotionally wrenched public. It seems Hardy couldn’t resist. He was almost 72 years old when Titanic sank. He was a celebrated novelist (though he hadn’t published one for more than 13 years), and had been awarded the Order of Merit and ‘the freedom of Dorchester’ (big deal) two years earlier. He probably took himself very seriously. He published this and other late-life poems of his in a book titled ‘Satires of Circumstance’ in 1914. (I wonder whether that title was meant to echo the ‘Pomp and Circumstance’ title of Sir Edward Elgar’s hugely popular patriotic melody ‘Land of Hope and Glory’).

Since you have made a heartfelt plea for help on this poem, I’ll give you my reactions to it at some length, but trust you’ll have the good sense not to treat my views as authoritative or necessarily correct, and that in the end you will put your own views into your essay in your own words.

The poem title (which you are asked to take into consideration) foreshadows that the poem focuses on the physical causes of Titanic’s sinking, described in some abstract mystical way. To me another key phrase showing Hardy’s attitude to the sinking is ‘august event’, in stanza 10. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘august’ as ‘inspiring reverence and adulation, solemnly grand’. Hardy never mentions the loss of more than 1,500 lives. It’s as if some ivory-tower philosopher described the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center simply as an ‘awe-inspiring coming together of engineered objects’.

Hardy seems to think that Titanic deserved her fate. Far from treating her as an example of excellent craftmanship, he piles up image after image of sinful-sounding excess: ‘human vanity’, ‘Pride’, ‘opulent’, ‘Jewels … designed to ravish the sensuous mind’, ‘gilded’, ‘vaingloriousness’, ‘so gaily great’, ‘smart … in stature, grace and hue’. The implication is that he deplored such luxurious indulgence. He might however have maintained he was just being objective, highlighting an example of hubris attracting retaliation by fate (the ‘pride comes before a fall’ principle). The poem is written from the point of view of an omniscient observer able to report the workings of some supernatural will. Hardy calls that ‘the Immanent Will’ in stanza 6, and ‘the Spinner of the Years’ in stanza 11. The latter name suggests a force inclined to even things up for humankind by making bad years follow good years, and vice versa.

The structure of the three-line stanzas in this poem is another device Hardy uses to convey the theme of human presumption being tripped up by fate, especially in stanzas 2 to 8. Two short lines puffing the features of the ship, which no sooner get into their stride with an easy rhyme than they are interrupted and countered by a much longer line of negative content.

The other poetic devices Hardy uses in this poem are, in my opinion, spectacularly unsuccessful. Maybe those failures are not relevant to the particular analysis required for your essay, but you might be able to use some of them to argue that Hardy must have been in a high state of emotion about the sinking of the ship when writing this poem, enough to overwhelm his judgment about what was good or bad writing.

It doesn’t help that he evidently wrote without knowing the real mechanics of the tragedy. He seems to think that the iceberg and the ship were of comparable bulk and shape (he calls them ‘the Twain’ in the title, and ‘twin halves’ in stanza 10) and that they ended up joined together in an embrace (an ‘intimate welding’). If Titanic had somehow become attached to the iceberg she wouldn’t have sunk! In fact she brushed alongside it, and continued a considerable distance past by engine power and momentum, but a submerged spur of the ice had made a fatally long gash in her hull below the water line.

From the title onwards, much of the vocabulary Hardy uses in the poem is ridiculously strained and high-faluting, and only distracts from what was presumably his main theme (fate punishing excess, etc). If he was trying for a supernal style to reflect a lofty point of view, I don’t think it works. Describing fires as ‘salamandrine’ (= capable of surviving fire) makes no sense. Why write ‘thrid’ instead of ‘thread’? Calling a ship a ‘creature of cleaving wing’ because it cuts through waves is an awfully affected poeticism.

His uses of alliteration, particularly ‘bleared and black and blind’, and ‘Gaze at the gilded gear’, serve no good purpose in this poem. As decoration, they are melodramatic and distracting and about as appropriate as cheap costume jewellery at a funeral.

Achieving the third line rhyme in the first stanza by writing ‘stilly couches she’ (= she lies still) is so bad that it’s a wonder he thought it worth continuing. Another awful straining for rhyme occurs in the third line of stanza 7, in which the meter is forced, and ‘disassociate’ is not an adjective recognised by the SOED (recognised is ‘disassociated’).

His image in stanza 5 of ‘moon-eyed fishes’ articulating a question as to what the ship’s gilded gear is doing on the sea-floor, phrased as ‘What does this vaingloriousness down here?’, is ludicrous.

No less ludicrous is his personification of the ship and the iceberg as animate creatures destined to mate physically with each other, which hear and respond to the Spinner of the Years’ sudden command (‘Now!’) to do so.

It is unclear whether his references in stanza 8 to the ship and the iceberg both growing refer to when they were being created (in which case Hardy must have had no idea that icebergs are formed by breaking off from glaciers), or refer to them each appearing larger when viewed from the position of the other as the distance between them closed on the fateful night (in which case it’s a statement of the bleeding obvious, and implies a rather ridiculous swooping to and fro of the narrator’s point of view).

Finally it’s unclear what the expression ‘two hemispheres’ means in the last line of the poem. Is that a continuation of the absurd metaphor of the ship and the iceberg being two identical halves of some predestined unity, or an absurdly affected way of saying ‘the whole world’? By this stage, there’s no absurdity that the poor reader would put past poor old Hardy!

Ian

Points well taken, and I say this as one who enjoys picking on the old masters as much as anybody. Just to add a few points, though, I thought the 3 feet, 3 feet, 6 feet structure reminiscent of Alexander Pope's 'wounded snake drags its slow length along'. That is, quick, quick, sloooow, for the ship versus the iceberg.

Note the following definitions of Salamander:

1. Any of various small lizardlike amphibians of the order Caudata, having porous scaleless skin and four, often weak or rudimentary legs.
2. A mythical creature, generally resembling a lizard, believed capable of living in or withstanding fire.
3. An object, such as a poker, used in fire or capable of withstanding heat.
4. Metallurgy. A mass of solidified material, largely metallic, left in a blast-furnace hearth.
5. A portable stove used to heat or dry buildings under construction.

I, too, object to inversions such as stilly couches she, but this one seems ok to me, although I would be hard pressed to say why. Thrid I thought about as well, and could only infer he wanted the 'ih' sound to match with the corresponding rhythmic mirrors meant used nearby.

Reading the august event, I thought sure the disaster must have been in late summer, but no, it was April 14, 1912.

August = majestic, venerable.

jars two hemispheres = disturbs the whole world.

Salamandrine= bright red. again, the salamander was supposed to be able to live in the midst of fire.

Les, can you do us the favour of editing your post of Dec 2, 2004, so as to shorten that long URL which is currently pushing out the r.h. margin?



Post Edited (01-16-05 06:49)

Danielle, that meaning of salamandrine isn't in the Shorter Oxford. Which dictionary do you get it from?

IanB was far too critical of points that mattered very little. This poem is about the meeting of God's forces, depicted by nature, and human forces. The author clearly sides himself with the almighty, and we can clearly see this through some of the good points that IanB picked out. However, IanB is far too critical of the whole “The author didn’t know that icebergs break off of glaciers” thing. The author probably knew this, but he was just referring that God was planning this whole deal from the beginning--he was creating his iceberg at the same time that humanity was creating his vain ship.
I also think that Ian might not have completely understood the business about the jarring of two hemispheres. At least, I think, that this jarring was of two separate worlds. That is, the world of man and his vanity and also God's world--the world of nature.

Yes, Jack, I was feeling critical when I wrote those comments, and maybe went a bit over the top. I guess I got annoyed by the attitude in the poem, so had to point out all the little things in it I personally found fault with, though - I agree - individually some of them don't matter much.

One aspect I omitted to mention in Hardy's favour is that this poem is far from ordinary. It's memorable for its extraordinary features. I think T S Eliot once said or wrote that the first duty of a poem is to attract attention. 'The Convergence of the Twain' certainly does that. If you find virtue in it that appeals to you, that's good, and I'm not going to say you're wrong.

In interpreting and critiquing poetry there's always room for more than one point of view. I don't claim to be any kind of authority. I'm happy for my views on poems to meet with intelligent disagreement.

That's an interesting suggestion you make about 'two hemispheres'. It never occurred to me it might be referring to the world of God and the world of Man. Maybe that is what Hardy meant. I still think however that my original criticism of the last line was justified, namely that its meaning isn't made clear in the poem.

Ian

Yer both wrong. Clearly, Hardy intended to write a Sea Shanty (also spelled Chantey), which is a shipboard working song. In this case, a Pumping Shanty, intended to be sung while pumping out bilge water.

Shiver me timbers! How'd I miss seeing that?

wasn't Hardy a fatalist who didnt beleive in God? Theres no way the poem was talking about God in any measure if what I've read about Hardy being an atheist is true. Hardy was definetely a fatalist. I dont think he believed in God. Thus, Ian is more correct, the poem is about fate- God not included. (Personal opinion). I'd like it moreso if God were included, but i dont think thats the intention.

Very intresting.

hey we have that prompt for my class as well. thanks for all the help.

Very informative, guys :o) I also have to write about that poem this evening, and now I have a little more confidence.

yeah, me too. thanks. i'd be lost without all of your introspecs on the poem.

To bb - who posted about Hardy being a fatalist.

My understanding is that Hardy was raised religiously, and even thought about becoming a clergyman, but because of tragedies in his life, like the loss of his wife, he questioned his faith. I'm thinking that maybe he never lost his religious beliefs completely, and this poem is his current interpretation of some vengeful higher power.

<3

THANK YOU!!!!!!! really appreciate all the good stuff you guys wrote, it'll be VERY helpful while I'm writing my essay!

To Mr. IanB ...

The literary community thanks you for possibly the most trivial and narrow analysis imaginable. It is so refreshing, after suffering through many years of the intellectual sort of criticism with which academia is plagued, to hear an argument (or perhaps a tantrum) consisting entirely of juvenile dislike. The number of times you apply "ridiculous," "ludicrous," and "absurd" to what is widely seen as one of Hardy's most calculated works makes you an eminent critic indeed - or is there more to critique and analysis than simply whining?

To avoid writing the equivalent of a second doctoral dissertation, I'll ignore your complete lack of any meaningful attempt at analysis - except to say that on a scale of depth, you are a self-important puddle. Yet I do feel compelled to point out a few of your more humorous insights:

You pointed out the fact that (quote) "'disassociate' is not an adjective recognized by the SOED." Zing! Such a damning blow! Surely Hardy's spirit now grovels at your feet. But it seems to me that there has been some precedent for slight alteration in the employ of words - by, say, every major author in the English canon.

Incidentally, Hardy's phrasing "two hemisphere's" is not an "absurdity" as you so charitably claim. It may bear some relevance to the two objects colliding, as you acknowledge in passing, but his likely reason for what would seem to be grandiloquent word choice* is that it allowed him to flesh out the full six iambs. (* note my intentional avoidance of the word "diction," which I find to be the calling card of the sloppy undergrad English major.)

You're on target with your observation that (quote) "great disasters tend to produce an outpouring of bad poetry from an emotionally wrenched public." You only become unforgivably wrong when you attempt to characterize Hardy as a member of this public. In his poem, which takes to task hubristic Man, he implicitly pokes fun at those who view the event as an unforeseeable tragedy. Failing to see where he stands in light of your excellent observation is little short of criminal.

Cordially yours,
and inviting your reply,
Stephen

Stephen, you're so late that your post is comical. Timeliness is everything on the internet. Yesterday's news is nothing.

My question to you is why drag up a 15 month old post to criticise one of only a handful of people concerned enough to post a response. Surely there must be some more recent queries to which your time might be better spent perusing.

We appreciate Ian and his attempts to help students.


Les

besides the fact that we appreciate Ian's attempts to be helpful, he comes accross as extremely less arrogant in his attitude than you, Stephen. I quote:

"but trust you’ll have the good sense not to treat my views as authoritative or necessarily correct"

He dragged up a 15-month-old post because it was absolutely horrible. It was like responding to the lines "To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune..." and saying "This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Shakespeare clearly does not understand that fortune has neither slings nor arrows, and, if it did have them, would not be able to use them, not being animate. In addition, I find the language unbearably strained. What on earth is 'outrageous fortune' supposed to mean, anyway?"