Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman may have differences in their poetry writing styles; points of view and structure. A good example of it, it’s how Dickenson tends to write longer pieces related to his own life experience, While Whitman contextualized his poetry to his historical context. Nevertheless and undoubtedly both authors share the same recurrence on talking about death in their poems. Each author relates death and how it's related to human beings. For instance, both wrote poems based on the civil war. While Dickenson analyzed death from a more religious point of view, seeing the transcendence of life and good behavior, Whitman relates it to a more human-centered view –e.g. the mother’s poem- where he captivates with seeing the beauty even in the most painful situations. In brief, both apply this Transcendentalism and influence American literature on appreciating life and human beings.
Commons
“How did Faulkner pull it off?” is a question many a fledgling writer has asked themselves while struggling through a period of apprenticeship like that novelist John Barth describes in his 1999 talk "My Faulkner." Barth “reorchestrated” his literary heroes, he says, “in search of my writerly self... downloading my innumerable predecessors as only an insatiable green apprentice can.” Surely a great many writers can relate when Barth says, “it was Faulkner at his most involuted and incantatory who most enchanted me.” For many a writer, the Faulknerian sentence is an irresistible labyrinth. His syntax has a way of weaving itself into the unconscious, emerging as fair to middling imitation.
While studying at Johns Hopkins University, Barth found himself writing about his native Eastern Shore Maryland in a pastiche style of “middle Faulkner and late Joyce.” He may have won some praise from a visiting young William Styron, “but the finished opus didn’t fly—for one thing, because Faulkner intimately knew his Snopses and Compsons and Sartorises, as I did not know my made-up denizens of the Maryland marsh.” The advice to write only what you know may not be worth much as a universal commandment. But studying the way that Faulkner wrote when he turned to the subjects he knew best provides an object lesson on how powerful a literary resource intimacy can be
<span>To be able to defend that women sell their bodies (and that men buy them) one must first abolish the victim and instead redefine the prostitude as a sex worker, a strong woman who knows what she wants. I think u too young to know about it.
</span>
I would agree with you - the conclusion should leave readers with an important thought at the end.
This thought should never be new, or opposing to the previous ideas you had been writing before. It also shouldn't be confusing, but quite conversely - it should explain everything and put everything in place.
There is a paradox in this text because the author recognizes violence should stop but at the same time considers retreat is negative (third option.)
<h3>What is a paradox?</h3>
A paradox refers to a contradiction, this occurs when opposite terms are together in a sentence, claim, or opinion.
<h3>What is the paradox in this text?</h3>
The author has a contradictory opinion about war. First, he states war must stop "we can and should limit the violence and the suffering being inflicted on the civilians as much as possible" and despite this, he then states a retreat is not a good idea since it can have negative effects "resulting political and psychological shockwaves."
Learn more about paradox in: brainly.com/question/3424059
#SPJ1
