Essay of Analysis of "The Odyssey" and "Siren Song"

The Odyssey and the poem "Siren Song" both portray sirens; however, in The Odyssey, the focus is on resolving the "problem" of the sirens, no differently than any other obstacle on his journey, whereas "Siren Song" focuses on the siren as more than merely an obstacle. They share, however, the preying of the siren upon hubris and the desire to be special, as well as, by what happens, illustrating the allure of the sirens in spite of the pain that may be suffered to get there.

The Odyssey initially describes the actions of Odysseus much more than the sirens. The beginning discussion does not describe the sirens at all; it merely states that they were approaching the island of the sirens, and then for the first ten lines it does not even begin to consider the sirens. Instead, the text talks about the actions of Odysseus, who "sliced an ample wheel of beeswax [...] and I stopped the ears of my comrades one by one." Indeed, the only understanding of the sirens comes from their speech; this perspective originates from The Odyssey's point of view. Unlike "Siren Song," The Odyssey focuses on the person who opposes the sirens, Odysseus, more than the sirens themselves. This leads to the Sirens lacking any special quality that would make them any different than any other obstacle - there is nothing personal about them. This is in contrast to "Siren Song, " which focuses almost exclusively on the siren. The point of view is of the siren rather than Odysseus; the differing point of view leads to a differing focus.

Despite this differing focus in point of view, the two poems illustrate very similar themes. Firstly, they illustrate the allure of being a hero when one has hubris. In The Odyssey, the Siren's play up Odysseus' ego, calling him "Achaea's pride and glory!" Similarly, the sirens ask the victim to "help me!" similarly enhancing the victim's ego by the expression of being a damsel in distress who requires a hero (whether Odysseus or any other sailor) to save her.. The sirens also use an emphasis on the uniqueness of the victim to enhance the appeal to the victim's hubris. The sirens appeal to Odysseus in The Odyssey by proclaiming that "never has any sailor passed our shores," demonstrating that Odysseus would be the first (and therefore worthy of note); similarly, in "Siren Song," the sirens say that "only you, only you can [help me] / you are unique," emphasizing the person's separation from the typical and mundane both by the statement that the person is special as well as the repetition of the pronoun "you," which, in the singular, separates the listener from any others. Thus, the sirens use similar strategy in both poems.

Finally, the outcome for the sailor is the same, although differing in degree: the allure of the siren causes pain. Odysseus has to be bound "faster with rope on chafing rope," the tactile imagery of which illustrates the pain of Odysseus. This same pain is experienced by the victim in the other poem, illustrated by the shift between "you are unique" and "at last" that implies that the victim was eaten. In both cases, the sirens were sufficiently alluring to cause the sailor to want to seek them, and in both cases the sailor experiences pain, albeit that Odysseus, due to his intellect, only experiences chafing rope rather than death. Thus do the sirens result in similar outcomes for anyone they attempt to seduce, and the only thing that varies with their extent of success is not the outcome itself, but rather the degree of it.

The two poems portray sirens from entirely different perspectives. The Odyssey focuses on them from the perspective of a hero, thus making them equivalent to an inhuman obstacle, essentially de-personifying them, whereas "Siren Song" focuses on them from the perspective of the sirens themselves. In both cases, however, the tactics of appealing to the desire to be a hero and the result of pain for the victim who attempts to be a hero are the same. Despite the differing points of view, the ultimate portrayal of the Sirens are the same.

Analysis of "I never saw a Moor" and "'Faith' is a fine invention"

Thesis: Whereas "I never saw a Moor" discusses the existence of God directly, "'Faith' is a fine invention" is a commentary on human views of God and science rather than on the subject itself. The two poems connect in that the opinions that Dickenson analyzes in the latter poem are presented in the former.

• "I never saw a Moor" argues directly for the existence of God.
• There is parallel structure between the first and fifth lines, "I never saw a Moor" (1) and "I never spoke with God" (5) as well as with "yet" in lines 3 and 7. 
• This structure serves to illustrate Dickenson's argument that God exists.
• Dickenson claims that she can be as sure that God exists as she can be that any place she has not seen can be, because she is taking both purely on faith, yet it would be ludicrous to deny the existence of the sea.
• "'Faith' is a fine invention", on the other hand, refers to people's viewpoints on God.
• Rather than making direct claims with "I" as she does in the former poem, Dickenson refers to "Gentlemen"; the different pronoun indicates that she is not considering her own feelings, but general human emotion.
• This poem states that people tend to consider God relevant to their day-to-day lives, but irrelevant to science and its "emergencies."
• "When Gentlemen can see" (2) is contrasted with "In an Emergency" (4) by means of the conjunction "But" (3). Thus, the things that people can see, where faith is acceptable, is different than the world people cannot directly observe, in which faith is thrown to the wayside in favor of science.
• This opinion is often how people reconcile science and religion, and Dickenson references this reconciliation in this poem, but does not refer to her own feelings on the matter.
• While Dickenson is critical of the reconciliation of God and science in "'Faith' is a fine invention", she illustrates this opinion herself in "I never saw a Moor".
• Her first poem argues for God on the basis that there are things that science takes for granted (despite a lack of personal experience).
• Thus, she believes in scientific principles, because she will take evidence of photographs as data that illustrates the existence of foreign places.
• However, she also argues for God; therefore, she is arguing both for God and for science, and is therefore expressing an opinion that God can exist in a world with scientific principles - and is therefore displaying a reconciliation of God and science, of faith and empiricism, despite so criticizing this approach in her latter poem.