>Poundlife slips by like a field mouse.Not shaking the grass>MccarthyI am a mouse in a grassbole crouching. But I can hear come whicket and swish the clocklike blade of the cradle.
>>24881763Andrew Marvell’s Mower’s address to the glow-worms:Ye country comets that portendNo war nor prince’s funeral,Shining unto no higher endThan to presage the grass’s fall.
>>24881774>cometsA stretch desu. Faulkner's snuffed but glowing matchstick in falling is a better metaphor for comets.
>>24881763McCarthy's sentence doesn't even make sense
>>24881788https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_cradle
>>24881784He’s talking about glow-worms, not actual comets.
>>24881797And I am saying comparing gloworms to comets is a stretch. Comets are most noticeable for tails, while gloworms are static.
>>24881805How does someone so literal-minded find his way to poetry? Marvell was having fun calling tiny lights ‘country comets.’ The charm comes from the deliberate exaggeration.
>Corhack McHackthyThe other guy did it better by default.
>>24881763Obviously Pound's. They're expressing and describing different things, despite the mouse subject matter, but Pound's is more superbly executed and far more emotionally potent. The attraction of McCarthy's prose is mostly in its fulfilling the role of an attenuated verse. Ever since the reading public's aversion to poetry become palpable, people have gone to prose for musical qualities in literature. The McCarthy quote is even mostly iambic, a suitably rigid metric for his rather one-note 'fate is cruel and inescapable' tone.>>24881774Based Marvell poster. His Mower poems are extremely underrated.
>>24881858You're retarded>>24881812Bad metaphors are bad. That's not being literal-minded
>>24881858>but Pound's is more superbly executed and far more emotionally potent.Poundfags everyone. His reads like a lyric from one of those pretentious modern songwriters.
>>24881860NTA you were originally arguing with, but you seem to lack the minimal linguistic education or intelligence required to appreciate poetry. When you see the word 'comet', you see the visual image of a comet, like most of us, but you fail to also see it as a word separated from the visual image, a word with an endless variety of literary associations and potential. You need to learn to see the latter if you ever want to enjoy poetry.
>>24881876Goddamn you're retarded. We call those bad metaphors. If your mancrush hadn't written that verse you'd be agreeing with me.
>>24881860I guess that makes Shakespeare wrong to call Juliet the sun, because she doesn’t literally glow.
>>24881878Anon, metaphors don't have to depend upon a literal visual resemblance. What you call a 'bad metaphor' comprises a significant amount of the metaphors used in poetry.
>>24881882No that is a perfect metaphor. Because it relates Juliet with a glow that made her hard to ignore. You have comprehension problems, anon. I'll give you a much better figure of speech for gloworms: st. Elmo's fire. It's not just the visual acuity of gloworms not matching comets; even in the realms of being they have little to no overlap. Shakespeare linked Juliet with the sun metaphorically, because for romeo her realms of being overlapped with that of the sun in their warmth, brightness, ineluctability et al. Mower was grasping for an unusual simile and came up with this, and I have the right to judge it not good.
>>24881888See>>24881901
>>24881866You think that because you're incapable of scansion and cannot hear it correctly. Also its original context is important.
>>24881916Still reads like a lyric from taylor swift or newsom. Cope.
>>24881901but Juliet looks nothing like the sun.>Mower was graspingMarvell is the name. Comets are supposed to be omens, by saying these ‘country comets’ portend nothing significant, he’s highlighting their innocuousness. Ironic contrast - the glow-worms aren’t just beautiful, but also uncomplicated.
>>24881763>freeverseslop>andslop
>>24881901>even in the realms of being they have little to no overlapMaybe you should read the poems and understand what Marvell is trying to do in them? They're mythological and mystical, he's not describing a realistic setting, he's describing a deified pre-fall nature. But also, as the other anon said, the exaggerated description of the glow worms is the point, and this exaggerating tendency is repeated throughout the poem, and the entirety of that quoted stanza depends on the application of the astrological significance of comets to glow worms. You seem to have missed the entire point of the comet metaphor.>Mower was graspingLol, do you even know who Marvell is? Ofc you're not fit to talk about English poetry if you don't even know who one of the most famous English poets was.
>>24881933>>24881970>this metaphor is good because my hero wrote itFuck off
>>24881985You already failed to understand the very obvious astrological meaning of the metaphor, you're a moron.
