Both poems are written directed to one major character who has been prolific in his life but died. Evident with statements such as “Milton!” (London, 1) and “Ah, Douglas” (Paul, 1), both works are examples of apostrophe. The authors do not attempt to communicate to the mentioned characters but creates in the reader an understanding of need in the fallen country and honor and respect for the freedom fighters. However, their approaches to the subject are very distinct from each other.

William Wordsworth’s “London, 1802” has some end rhyme with the pattern (abbccddefgghih), and is therefore well structured, consisting of only one stanza. “Douglass,” on the other hand, has two stanzas to divide the poem in two parts; one reflecting on the past and the second on the present. Another aspect in which these two works differ is in the way they express their ideas. Wordsworth uses extensive comparisons, similes such as “The soul was like a star” (9) and “pure as the naked heavens” (11) to express his idea. The speaker does this as an outside spectator, explaining to Milton the need that England, personified throughout the poem, has for him. The speaker in Douglass uses no similes but simply expressed his own need, as part of the country, as a freedom fighter for a fallen nation.

Lawrence and Wordsworth both show the world’s need for a rescuer, each, however, using a different approach. Those needs are simply England’s need for Milton and the speaker’s personal need for Douglass in his poem.

“Estas son las mañanitas…!” Hermisendo could hear his mom singing in the kitchen as she prepared de corn lawa for supper. A chain of thoughts were triggered as his mind began to wonder on how he came to be. His mother Cleotilde had sacrificed all she had and even signed up at a nocturnal high school to get a diploma while working during the mornings to keep food on her table. Her parents had died during the 1980s yellow fever epidemic only and she was left alone. It is because of her work that Hermisendo was able to finish high school and her effort what motivated him to strive for perfection.

“My country is all I have,” he thought, “and my only way to give back all I received is enrolling in the military service.” Having made up his mind and seeing it was already getting dark, he went back inside. His mother only smiled in amazement at his determination. “Son, God will help you as he helped us get to this point,” she commented, “and if it is His will, He will provide you an open door.” Chills ran down his spine, “open doors could be provided? Is there anything that could impede me from doing this?” he asked his mother. Being born and raised in a small indigenas communities, everyone he came across had the same skin tone and about the same height all speaking with the same campesino accent. “Hermi,” his mother begun, “the military is a place of people from all over Potosí, all looking different, each with a distinct mindset and you will have to find your way in.” She knew the time would come and reality would kick in. Hermisendo, confused but pondering on her mother’s statement, simply left the dinner table and went lay down on his straw mattress. For hours he simply laid there looking at the dim moon through the dense mosquito net covering his window. He wondered how much of the world he yet did not know of.

“Mama!” Hermisendo entered his mother’s room, the day had finally arrived and the military truck would go by at two that afternoon. She woke up and they prayed together before eating breakfast. Hours later, from the side of the road the two could see the cloud of dust coming from around the hill before their town. “Hermisendo,” she advised him, “things will not be easy out there and the simple fact that you will not worship the Pachamama with them will make you stand out, be strong.” He climbed on the back of the dust covered truck where there were about twenty five other men like him and the truck took off. During the seventeen hour of bumpy roads and choking on thick clouds of dust, not a word was said to him and he knew his mom’s advice was long gone by the of phone lines in his hometown. “God,” he whispered as he got off the truck inside the fence surrounded base, “help me.”

That night Hermisendo was informed he was not yet enrolled, but had to go through a one week long “try-out” period. Hours later, a young dark man about 5ft tall with a similar complexity than himself approached him to ask him where he was from. Hermisendo, glad of having the chance to begin a conversation, answered with a smile, “Gopacani.” “I am from a small town minutes away from there,” answered his guest. As so the two began getting to know more about each other until the question came up, “Julian, why so we have to go through tryouts at a public institution to serve our country?” Julian quickly changed his expression and whispered, “We are not like them, they tag us according to our ancestry and both my last name, as I suppose yours is, as from poor indigenas communities that can barely provide for the people’s basic needs. Before coming here, I saw a man who helped me out, and for 1,000 bolivianos, he changed all this. Now, my name is one from the aristocracy in Santa Cruz, and with it came respect and open doors in this place.” Hermisendo thanked him with a nod of the head and simply crumbled on the bed. “How could doors be closed as a result of the family and background I’m so proud of? What gives them the right to say who’s good and who’s not?” For hours he pondered on different questions before slowly falling asleep.

The next morning during breakfast, over the speakers, a harsh voice rang out calling for two names, “Mamani and Perez, to the patio.” To his astonishment, as Hermisendo got up, twenty five to thirty other young, surprised young men got up with him and went to the office.

“Anyone of you who lasts for more than one week here will be a fool or have a will of steel. Not one of you deserves to be here and is not needed here, we don’t understand why you took this choice but here you are and we have to deal with it. On my command, you will run to the fence and back until I command you to stop!” said a tall, built white man of around forty, giving a condescending look to each military prospect in front of him. “Go!” Hermisendo began and quickly realized he was outrunning every one of his peers. However, a sudden cry was heard in the back that made him stop and turn. Before he could see what happened, a sudden blow on his back took him to the ground.

The following day, his group went through the same drill in the morning beginning at dusk but did not stop for lunch. After eight consecutive hours of training, they were excused to their rooms. Three days later, Hermisendo could was too weak and hungry to get up. After extraordinary efforts he reached the patio where there were only five other men waiting, barely staying upright; however, the training that day was just as intensive and supper kept diminishing in size. After the rest of the training that day, Hermisendo looked for his roommates over the whole base, when suddenly; his name rang from the speakers and echoed on every hall, he was requested in the main office. With sweat running down his cheeks, he turned the dusty knob with his trembling hands and walked in to a dim-lighted room where a man was sitting on a chair. He seemed educated, wearing a suit and a tie, gray-haired but probably not over fifty. “Take a seat,” he said. “Allow me to introduce myself, I help young men like you attain things in life, I can make you someone important. I know you have a loving mother who would do anything for you. Listen, for 1,500 bolivianos, I can give you a new identity in this place, the torture will be gone.” Hermisendo sat still, thinking, considering the options. After a couple minutes of silence, he broke out saying “I am proud of my heritage, my family, and who I am and will triumph in life the way I am.” At this, the lawyer quickly changed his pleasant expression into a mocking grin. “Well, I am sorry to inform you we have found illegal substances under your bed as we talk which results in immediate expulsion from our grounds. Have a good day.” And the lawyer quietly stood up and left.

Hermisendo’s dreams crumbled and as he walked past the front guarded gate, he could only think of the shame he would bring to his family from being expelled. Life was not fair and all he could do is helplessly wonder why he was the way he was.

Twenty years later, Hermisendo sat on a rock outside his childhood home watching the sunset. Life had gone by and life did not change. Before his old mother passed away, they set up a store in their small town and sold vegetables he would collect every morning form their field. He thought of what he had accomplished and the goals he still had ahead of him. Suddenly, his twelve year old son approached him to call tell him dinner was ready. “Thank you son,” said his father as he stood up. That night at the table, Juan asked his father for permission to make an announcement in the table and was instantly given permission. “Father, mother, my country is all I have and my only way to give back all I received is enrolling in the military service.” Hermisendo lowered his head, and prayed.

The punctuated characteristics of a villanelle are seen in this work, such as a two rhyme scheme following aba throughout the first 5 triplets and abab in the last stanza, the quatrain. This formal style contributes to clearly portraying W. H. Auden’s main idea by adding a periodical scheme to the work. The first stanza introduces the main argument dealing with a statement concerning the immutability of time and how it doesn’t warn, just passes and goes saying “nothing but I told you so” (1), and the trail of thought continues in the following stanzas. Between the second and fifth stanzas, there is a clear change in the speaker’s attitude towards time, beginning with questioning its purpose in the second stanza to a newly acquired self awareness that time actually could have a reason to come and go and bring forth events without warning. The quatrain at the end helps conclude this idea with the speaker’s reflection on the thought process that just took place, and for the only time in the work, finishing with a question rather than statements when he asks “Will time say nothing but I told you so?” (18).

The structure of the poem also contributes to the work in emphasizing two main points brought forth which together define its theme. The parallelism, personification and capitalization of “Time” (18) and the villanelle poem structure with the first and third lines in the first stanza alternating as the last lines of the following triplets and being the final two lines of the quartet strongly emphasize two distinct statements: “Time will say nothing but I told you so” (1) and “If I could tell you I would let you know” (3). These two phrases depict the speakers understanding of the continuity of time even though he shows to have a desire to know ahead of time what to do before certain events, “if we should weep when clowns put on their show,/if we should stumble when musicians play” (4-5). The speaker, however, does not only want to want to know this but also wishes he could let everyone else know about it, and in the process, help them.

This desire on the part of the speaker is emphasized by the repetition of two phrases by the structure of the poem, which in itself helps portray the author’s idea about time itself and its continuity. Therefore, in the villanelle If I Could Tell You by W. H. Auden, the formal structure greatly contribute to the meaning of the work.

In his article, “The Moral Thinking of Macbeth,” J. Gregory Keller from Purdue University states “evil may arise from thoughtlessness. If that is so, thinking may provide an antidote to evil” (Keller, pg. 41), and then proceeds on to saying that is the “most basic evil” (Keller, pg. 41).  However, it becomes evident the action was well premeditated as Macbeth went through three different stages of reasoning considering the pros and cons of his decision.

When considering the implications of carrying out what Macbeth thought was necessary for his prophecy to become fulfilled, murder, he states “we teach bloody instructions which, being taught, return to plague the inventor” (Macbeth Act I, Scene 7, line 8-10). In his first stage of reflection, he protagonist carefully goes through an analysis of the consequences of committing homicide; however, doing so in a self-centered way as he only meditates on its possible detrimental results in his own personal life. By his statement, Macbeth is implying a series of key ideas. First of all, he accepts the deed he is considering not good, but rather “bloody.” He did not go into it thinking he was doing right, or that he was committing no crime, he was fully aware of his intentions; he then realizes any wrongdoing will come back and hunt the offender. The last realization leads him to begin doubting and hesitating on the idea, but is quickly removed from any doubt by Lady Macbeth who uses his pride against himself for her own ambition.

The process of persuasion begins when his own pride is attacked. Lady Macbeth, knowing her husband is a hero of war with, tells him “when you durst do it, then you were a man” (1. 7. 55-60), directly attacking his masculinity and telling him he will only be a true man when he commits the murder. Macbeth takes the hard blow, but as Shakespeare demonstrates it, the consequences still overweight his hurt pride, for which his spouse moves on to her next strategy, convincing him she is more manly than him. This is done by a simple statement proving herself more cruel and daring than her husband:

…I have given suck, and know

How tender ‘tis to love the babe that milks me;

I would, while it was smiling in my face,

Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums

And dashed the brains out… (1.7.55-60)

“Her assault is once again on his manhood and courage,” (Thompson, pg. 2) and this is especially significant in this time period when respect and honor were earned and shown in the “masculinity” of each individual, in a society that would outcast any man lacking this factor. However, at one point Macbeth seems to awaken and questions her on why is she not the one carrying out the homicide if she is the strongest and “manliest,” to which she answers with excuses such as the resemblance of the king and her father. Ultimately, her domineering role over her husband is what prevails. But being a woman acting while blinded by her own ambition, soon enough she can no longer handle the consequences of the crime committed and ends her life tragically. Preceding this incident, however, her insistence fulfills its purpose and Macbeth gets past his first obstacle, reflection on his actions.

The second stage is based on the moral and ethical issues regarding the treason of the trust King Duncan lay on Macbeth because of two positions he currently holds under the kind, first as kinsman and then as his subject (Keller, 44). As a kinsman, he had the sole responsibility of watching for and protecting the royalty, the king. The action he is thinking about carrying out goes exactly against that role, and therefore, against everything Macbeth has stood for in his life. Today it is very possible, because of the present social implications, to miss the true significance of kinship. In the setting in which “Macbeth” unravels, the society is founded on kinship, which implies trust and protection between individuals; without it, the society would lose its skeleton and simply crumble. Macbeth well knew and understood the implications of breaking that trust.

Secondly, he was a subject of the King. In this position, he has the responsibility of aiding the king instead of biting the hand that feeds him, a relationship based on loyalty. As Keller states in his article on “The Moral Thinking of Macbeth,” “social groupings depend upon loyalty of group members…and like kinship, trust forms a substratum of every social structure.” As it was previously shown, the protagonist had a deep understanding of the underlying consequences of a crime committed: people would see it, imitate it and soon, a chain reaction of the same crime would break through. In the same way, he knew in a close society such as the one he was living in, murdering the king and breaking that trust bond based on kinship and on loyalty as his subject, Macbeth would “kill (much more) than the king” (Keller, 45), he would kill tradition, he would destroy the solid foundation the nation of Scotland was raised upon. In this situation, he is breaking a “double trust” placed solely on him, “which covers both the intimate relationships one does not choose but on which all human life depends” as is kinship, “and the chosen relations into which one enters with implicit trust in the good will of the other,” being Macbeth a voluntary subject at the will of King Duncan. However, in a time of hesitation, again his wife comes to the picture.

Lady Macbeth sees this moment of weakness and leads him in the direction that will profit her the most, the crown. When he begins to have his thoughts stirred, she goes even further and accuses him of breaking her own trust on him, turning his own doubt and guilt against himself. This is seen in the same instance mentioned above where she admonished him for being weak and lacking courage by showing him she can, even being a woman, be cruel and “brave,” when she adds: “…had I so sworn as you have done to this” (1.7.52). In the balance, his loyalty for his king is outweighed by his loyalty to the spouse he swore eternal promises to at the time of marriage. Again, an ambition-blinded Lady Macbeth drives away any doubt left in her husband and leads him in her most profitable direction, the assassination of the king and his direct heirs; hence, the second stage is overcome in Macbeth’s mind.

After overcoming any obstacle dealing with his own future and wellbeing, only one more barrier remains standing in Macbeth’s mind stopping him from fulfilling the only act that would eliminate the last factor standing between him and the Scottish crown, the rights of others. After thinking so much about his own rights as a human, he begins to analyze those of others, including King Duncan. This begins as Macbeth analyses the moral implications of murder, the taking of another’s life, and attempts to test and determine if in reality the good of committing the crime outweighs its punishment in heaven, to which he states in a soliloquy:

…Duncan hath…been

so clear in his great office, that his virtues

will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued against

the deep damnation of his taking-off (1.7.16-20).

His conscience begins, at this point, to trouble him for even considering such an evil act as a result of which he again hesitates on carrying out. However, he quickly switches perspective. Again, but now indirectly, the manipulations of Lady Macbeth on her husband take root and now he has no need of help to blind himself to the reality of the situation. This last overcome obstacle is determinant evidence that Macbeth did not foolishly or unknowingly committed the crime, he was fully aware of his actions. Shakespeare points this out in a very clear manner, when Macbeth confesses “I have no spur to prick my sided of my intent, but only vaulting ambition…” as the final declaration in his soliloquy at the beginning of Act 1 Scene 7. As this last stage in his reasoning as to why he should not commit the murder is finally cleared, there is nothing stopping the protagonist and the deed is quickly accomplished; however, the consequences prove to be just as detrimental as Macbeth predicted them to be, resulting in the suicide of Lady Macbeth and his own assassination by Macduff.

Macbeth could have easily been a victim of fate, manipulation by his wife, and even a victim of falling prisoner to a lie, the prophecy of his ruling of Scotland. However, even though he did go through a chain of reasons as to why he should not commit the murder, the contrasting reasons were the ones that prevailed, as it is clearly shown in his monologue at the beginning of Act 1 Scene 7. Before committing the crime, the protagonist considered his actions and their consequences, his “double” treachery of the king’s trust as kinsman and subject, and the rights of others equal to his own. Therefore, Macbeth was fully aware of his actions and their implications, constituting his crime as a cold-blooded murder driven by an uncontrollable ambition for power, rather than a “lesser” evil resulting from quick thoughtless action.

Works Cited

He said/She said

Keller, J. Gregory. “The Moral Thinking of Macbeth.” Philosophy and Literature – Volume 29. United States, April 2005.

Mushat Frye, Rolanf. “Macbeth’s Usurping Wife.” Frye, University of Chicago. United States 1955. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2857914

Shakespeare, Cambridge School. “Macbeth.” Cambridge University Press. Edited by Rex Gibson. New York, USA 2005.

It becomes evident even from the title that each character is in essence symbolic of an abstract idea in life, such as Goodman being an innocent man who desires to experiment with the evil in the world and his wife Faith attempting to hold him back. In the story, “Faith, as (Goodman’s) wife was aptly named,” represents exactly that, and the fact that Goodman is married to her symbolizes his longing to cling to a faith. However, in spite of her efforts to keep him with her, he departs from Faith and in doing so, from all convictions and moral values that restrained him in the past from falling to evil. The dark path in the forest that Goodman takes and penetrates further and further in itself represents how an innocent man can unknowingly fall deeper and deeper into evil without ever taking a direct part in it and a main idea conveyed by the author is how the path seems to close back behind him as he walks, as if there was at that point no turning back anymore or at least no way to get back the innocence he once had. Then, however, as he moves far enough into the darkness of the woods, he encounters a being who the reader can easily conclude is the devil himself. It is at this point, a point where the innocent human is already surrendered by evil, when he is asked to take his personal decision to take a direct role in that evil.

One of the first thing done by this new character is offer Goodman a walking staff which would represents Goodman’s complete separation from his values and a personal decision to now lean on evil forces; the fact that the staff resembled a snake shows the treachery involved in this offer and how prone he would be to being bitten and even killed by keeping this so close to his arm. The next stage involves his eyes being open to reality as Brown begins to see all the people he once admired to be respectable and exemplary Christians such as the deacon in church and his parents walking directly towards the ritual, and before turning back, catches a glimpse of his wife following the same path. At this point, as Faith is gone, his faith in anything left good in the world vanished too, and he follows her. Humans with good values and morals are often deceived by evil to great extents, but those convictions can come back in the last minutes as is the case as Goodman asks his wife to “look up to heaven and resists the evil one.” This last action makes everything else vanish and leaves him alone in the middle of the forest. The next morning, unclear to the reader if Goodman simply had a dream or a life-changing experience, the protagonist begins to see people different and becomes aware of the evil in the world.

Good people, such as the stereotypical man represented by Goodman Brown, shows how crucial it is to attain a firm set of convictions and moral values so that when temptation comes, it will not lure a good man away. However, Hawthorne also showed the importance of being aware of evil surrounding man rather than being blinded to the truth and then succumbing to evil unaware of what it really is.

The title of the piece, “Siren Song,” is in itself a concise way of drawing out the moral or purpose of the poem.  The song of the sirens is a widely known element within Greek mythology and is part of many ancient accounts; for example, Homer’s Odyssey. Fundamentally, the myth is about women, often two or three, who are half birds and half human. They live on an island with a rocky coast, and lure any sailors around into their trap by singing an irresistible melody the men follow with their ships and then crash into the rocks, trapped. In life today, the myth represents the many desires men blindly follow only to crash and be trapped, with very few ways out.

It is interesting that the narrator of the poem is one of the sirens; however, she is unlike the typical siren because she is not content with what she does and is looking for a way out of it. In the piece, her dislike for her position is shown in a somewhat comical manner when she states “I don’t enjoy it here/squatting on this island/looking picturesque and mythical” (lines 13-15), and proceeds to saying “I don’t enjoy singing” (27). The picture created by these descriptions is one of a “girl” squatted on the shore of an island, bored and discontented with her life and daily duties.  In addition, the enjambment in the narration turns the poem into a one-person dialogue and puts pauses within sentences where the narrator would have paused to regain her thoughts if it were a monologue in a real life setting. Another important fact is that almost the poem is divided into stanzas that are composed of one periodic sentence and each line a loose sentence that portray the thought process of the narrator while speaking and convey a clear idea only when read as a complete sentence from the start to the period.

By the repetitive use of the word throughout the poem, it is notable that a key element is the song, written six times. The song represents in the story the bait sirens use to attract men to them and, consequently, destroy them; however, it is also a symbol of the many different factors in life that cover their true identity with a veil so attractive that anyone who sees it is drawn into it to his ruin. In Atwood’s work, the narrator tells the reader about the song and also warns about its destructiveness mentioning the “beached skulls” (6) and how “anyone who has heard it is dead” (9), but at the same time, proving its effectiveness. The enjambment of the lines and the unique division of stanzas builds curiosity and anticipation in the mind of the reader, drawing him to the end of the poem where the ambiguity of this “song” would be clarified. In this way, the reader falls prey to the siren’s bait, who well acquainted of all this, states “it is a boring song/but it works every time” (26-27). By saying this, the narrator expresses the simplicity of the song and the stupidity and unawareness of men who are trapped by it “every time.”

The structure of poems, allusions and the title are often factors that are more influential than even the words itself because they set the flow, the rhythm of how the piece is to be read and portrayed. In this way, Margaret Atwood was able to convey the idea of vanities in life drawing people straight to their destruction by the metaphorical comparison to a siren.

“Oedipus” by Sophocles and “Macbeth” by Shakespeare are both tragic plays which, even though they originate in different times, they share a common phenomenon, fate. However, these two plays strongly contrast in that Shakespeare’s protagonist shatters his life attempting to reach his destiny and follow fate; on the other hand, Sophocles presents a man whose life is ruined as he tries to escape his fate.

Both works, “Macbeth” and “Oedipus,” are well-known tragic plays that illicit important world views on matters of life. They are similar in that their plots are centered on one main concept, their protagonist’s fate and reach a resolution as they are fulfilled to the letter. Both characters were foretold directly or indirectly what their destinies were to be and inevitably, they come true. Macbeth was told by three witches that he would become king, and even though it is unclear whether they possessed supernatural powers or invented the story, it became a reality in his mind and a goal to pursue. Likewise, Oedipus was punished by the gods for killing a sacred being, a sphinx, and his fate of killing his father and marrying his mother infallibly materializes in his future even though he tries to run away and even becomes certain he has succeeded in doing so. As a result, he cries out “I am agony…My Destiny, my dark power, what a leap you made” (Sophocles, pg. 238). However, these two works also have major contrasting differences.

In “Oedipus,” Sophocles writes about a man who is hunted down by his cruel fate, and whose life is ruined attempting to run away from it, strongly reflecting the ancient Greek perspective on the matter and the god’s involvement in the lives of humans. This viewpoint intrinsically shows the unbounded power the Greek gods had, being the goddesses of destiny among this group, and demonstrates man’s helpless position. Oedipus’ had achieved greatness in his youth and had earned kingship and the love of his people, but at the least expected moment, a curse set upon him many years before was triggered and over the course of one day, his fate came true and his life was ruined. Fate played a huge role in the lives of humans and as was believed by the ancient Greeks, their lives were simply directed by an arbitrary decision of imperfect gods and goddesses. As was previously mentioned, Oedipus knew his fate shaped by a curse cast on him; however, even when being aware it was not possible to escape that fate, he attempted to run away from it; however, it haunted him. Little by little he puts pieces together and states “I’ve called down a dreadful curse upon myself,” followed by his defense “I simply didn’t know!” (Sophocles, pg. 203). In the end, “what will come will come” as an oracle in “Oedipus the King states, “even if I shroud it all in silence” (Sophocles, pg. 178). Oedipus’ foretold destiny was fulfilled and had devastating results in his life as his wife commits suicide and he extracts his own eyes in shame for his wrongdoing.

Contrastingly, Macbeth is a character whose life was changed by his attempt to pursue his fate; however, with similar detrimental consequences as it came true, his death. His downfall begins as he is foretold his “destiny” by three witches, being there no confirmation on the veracity of their claims when the tell Macbeth he “shalt be king thereafter” (Shakespeare, Act 1 Scene 3). As this is prophesized, Macbeth begins to ponder on how this could come to be and the only plausible solution at the time seems to be eliminating the actual king and his heirs. After doing so, he becomes king and his prophecy is fulfilled. However, the situation changes as he is oppressed by outside and inner forces, including his own conscience. Hallucinations such as seeing in his hand a “dagger of the mind, a false creation, proceeding from the heat oppressed brain” (Shakespeare, Act 2 Scene 1) constantly tormented him and his wife, finally ending with her life as she commits suicide. As for Macbeth, his kingship soon comes to an end as he is killed as a result of his tyrannical rule over Scotland. His fate became a reality and he reached the goal he pursued, but the inevitable tragic end also came with it and destroyed his newly acquired life.

In both of these tragic plays, “Macbeth” by Shakespeare and “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles, a catastrophic fate transforms the lives of the protagonists and ultimately becomes a sad reality for both of them whether they flee from it or pursue it. In this way, the authors present fate and destiny as the unavoidable reality every human will have to face, and whether it is a simple statement made by strangers or satirical act of unmerciful gods, it shows life is not in our hands but rests in the power of outside forces.