Jordan Hersh
Analyzed by Jordan Hersh
¨Sekhmet, The Lion-Headed Goddess Of War¨ by Margaret Atwood
Image found on creativecommons.org |
¨He was the sort of man
who wouldn't hurt a fly.
Many flies are now alive
while he is not.
He was not my patron.
He preferred full granaries, I battle.
My roar meant slaughter.
Yet here we are together
in the same museum.
That's not what I see, though, the fitful
crowds of staring children
learning the lesson of multi-
cultural obliteration, sic transit
and so on.¨ (poem found on PoemHunter.com)
The Author
Margret Atwood is an author and environmental activist, as well as an inventor, teacher, and novelist. She was born in 1939 in Ottawa, Canada and has lived in many different Canadian cities throughout her life. She has written over 40 books of fiction, poetry, and essays.
Analysis
This poem is describing a man who was peaceful, would never hurt anyone, but was killed in battle. The author talks about how even though the soldier is dead, children are still being taught how to take lives in battle, as if the death of the soldier was meaningless. I think the author could be the wife of this soldier, because she seems to be extremely passionate about who she is talking describing. However, the author could also be the former-peer of the soldier, because she says, ¨He was not my patron.¨ (line 5) Patron meaning teacher/ authority in this context. The author uses hyperbole when she describes the man as someone, ¨who wouldn´t hurt a fly." (line 2) The author uses this hyperbole to show how peaceful he was and how he was not the stereotypical soldier. When the author uses the phrase, ¨My roar meant slaughter.¨ (line 8) The words ¨roar" and ¨slaughter¨ convey a sense of urgency and violence, while the word ¨meant¨ shows that the author´s opinion of battle has changed. The author uses the term ¨obliteration" which has the connotation of unnecessary brutality. Normally when there is a rhyme scheme in poems, it is the author trying to show unification, but the lack of it in this poem shows that the author wants to make it clear that she and the soldier are separated (in this poem, it is by death). The stanza division was a purposeful move with the author trying to show the difference in her view of the world and the soldier's. The tone of this piece could be described as ashamed or melancholic. The author uses the phrase, "Yet we are here together in the same museum." (line 9-10) To show that she does not feel as though deserves to be in the same space as him, also throughout the poem she contrasts her more violent tendencies with his peaceful views. The author sees her former tendencies as destructive, and almost envies his kindness. The theme of this poem is that no matter how long ago someone died, they can still impact your decisions.
I completely agree with your analysis of this poem. This is a loved one of the deceased talking about how they don't want their friends death to go in vain. The man who died seems to have been a Big Friendly Giant. Though he was a soldier, he "wouldn't hurt a fly." This entire poem is a plea for peace.
ReplyDelete