Free Essays on O Sweet Spontaneous - Linguistic Analysis Of Poem By Ee Cummings

do not necessarily bring a new par... Free Essays on O Sweet Spontaneous - Linguistic Analysis Of Poem By Ee Cummings Free Essays on O Sweet Spontaneous - Linguistic Analysis Of Poem By Ee Cummings American Literature 1865-Present O sweet spontaneous In stark contrast of style, e e cummings’ poetry rejected most rules of English grammar. Cummings used word positioning in conjunction with other grammatical idiosyncrasies to express his ideas about the celebration of individualism, love and the essence of spring. Other quirks would include using desired capitalization rather than when appropriate, â€Å"incorrect† use of parenthesis and other punctuation. Cummings’ modernism and artistic experimentalism culminated in a radical poetic language and he created an eccentric style. Although cummings’ poetry can be a difficult read as he writes for a sophisticated audience, his writing is readable through in-depth analysis, thereby creating work that is critically interesting and satisfying to the reader. In the analysis of the poem â€Å"O sweet spontaneous† cummings speaks of his love of Mother Earth, and he also displays his disdain of humanity. He writes that although humankind performs scientific research, pollutes the earth, and even tries to destroy her, she responds to the abuses with the greatest strength and gift of all, life. His poetic and linguistic techniques make this poem flow as it shapes the images that cummings wants the reader to mentally see and spiritually feel. Using poetic literary features of alliteration and assonance, and modifiers, cummings draws the reader a dark picture of humanity as he presents his unique view of the earth. The effect of numerous devices demonstrates his linguistic capability creating precision, invention, and deliberation. O sweet spontaneous offers two specific graphological features, the consistent use of the non-capital letters (common in cummings’ poetry), with the exception of the first letter - actually used as a word, and the olde English use. Cummings’ use of deep spacing between the stanzas and the indention of words do not necessarily bring a new par...

Authors vs. authors

Authors vs. authors Authors vs. authors? Hi. At Reedsy we live, sleep, and all but photosynthesise self-publishing news and discussion. Even if you were living under a rock, a massive rock, like a boulder, you wouldn’t have been able to avoid the suddenly very loudly proclaimed views of authors both traditionally published and self-published over the whole Amazon-Hachette blood war that’s been happening for over a month by now. So we had to say something. In fact, we said two things. Below you can find Ricardo’s take, and you can find Dave’s perspective over here.–Petition vs. petitionOne thought came to my mind when I read Barry Eisler’s article on last week’s two recent and infamous (in certain circles anyway) petitions: Have you guys forgotten that you’re all authors? Shouldn’t you all be on the same page?A little context for those totally unfamiliar with these things. You’re probably aware of the Amazon vs Hachette clash, right? But you probably don’t know why these two publishing giants are at each other’s throats (because, by the way, Barry is right: Hachette is part of the Lagardà ¨re group, which is also a giant). Well, don’t feel bad about it - it’s starting to seem like no one else is much more informed than you are.When trying to research what exactly Amazon and Hachette are fighting about about, it’s diff icult to get any details more specific than ‘pricing and distribution’ (who could have guessed, right?). Whatever’s going on, everyone is worried this could affect†¦ well, everyone (even self-published authors?†¦)On Wednesday Douglas Preston published an open letter to readers, asking them to email Jeff Bezos to tell him†¦ something. To be nicer to Hachette, maybe? Because when you don’t know what the problem is, it’s difficult to ask for solutions.Rather than emailing Amazon, Hugh Howey, Barry Eisler, and other self-published authors responded with with their own petition, including plenty of persuasive detail about everything Amazon has done for them (making self-publishing possible), and their bad experiences with traditional publishing. This makes Howey Bezos’s defender.Where does that leave us (meaning, still, readers)? Who should we be listening to? Speaking totally personally, I like what Howey said. More importantly, ev en there’s a lot of truth on both sides, I feel I can endorse Howey in a way I just can’t endorse Preston et al. Why? Because they speak with clarity. They say they side with Amazon and against Hachette, and say it plain and clear. Preston’s letter is eloquence without effect, reiterating a problem without resolving it: â€Å"we are not siding with anyone†. Come on†¦An author voice for the publishers?Well, I’m afraid we still don’t have an answer to this vital question. For now, it’s self-pub authors vs. â€Å"some trad† authors. And that’s bad enough. Were it to be truly trad. vs. pub, that would be worse.Until now, I’ve always seen mutual respect between self-publishing authors and mainstream ones. Hugh Howey’s battle was against publishers and bookshops, not against authors. As a reader, I don’t want that to change.