is the author of the book being addressed. Although one can never assume that the poet is the speaker, in this case it does seem to be the case. The author has written a book that she is dissatisfied with. Friends had it published, so that it was open to the public. She was embarrassed by this and tried to improve it, but has not been successful. She judges herself, as a result, as a poor writer.
The poem is written as an extended metaphor (a comparison that is continued throughout the poem) with the book being compared to a child. The child is a “brat”, “unfit for light”, has an “irksome” face full of “blemishes”, uneven feet, and it hobbles. These terms, aspects of a defective child, all refer to negative aspects that she sees in her book. She sends the child out into the world because she is a poor mother, meaning the book has been published and cannot be recalled and shows what a poor author she is.
The poem is an unhappy one as the speaker criticises her own ability to write well and regrets that the book was ever published. The poem has twenty-four lines with no division into stanzas, as if it is an outpouring of condemnation on herself. The poem has the rhyme scheme of aa bb cc, etc., so has this formal constraint.
Analysis
| Lines | Comment | |
| 1–6 | The speaker addresses the book as her “offspring”, child of her “feeble brain” (line 1). She kept it with her until unwise friends, thinking to help her, sent it out for publishing, even though it was full of errors (“in rags”) (line 5). The publisher also did not attempt to correct any errors, as anyone who reads the book will see. | The comparison of book with child is made right from the start. The author feels responsible for the book, just as a mother would of a deformed child who would keep the child away from the public. Her friends were “true” (line 3), thinking to have her work published, but she doesn’t think they were “wise” (line 3) to do so. |
| 7–14 | The book came back from the printers and the author was very embarrassed (“my blushing was not small”) (line 7) by it, which named her as author (“mother call”) (line 8). She threw it aside and then as one would with a child, she looked at it again with affection because it was hers. She tried to improve it, but the more she did the more mistakes she saw. | The comparison of book with child is continued. In those days a retarded child, or one crippled or malformed, would be kept away from the public. She would have preferred to keep the book away from the public but it is too late. So she tries to improve it, make it respectable, in terms of her comparison. Washing the child’s face is compared to cleaning up the book. |
| 15–19 | The speaker tried to improve the writing and make it appear better, but could not. In terms of her metaphor she tried to straighten the child’s feet and dress it in better clothes, but was unable to. | The metaphor continues with the reference to “feet” and “hobbling” (lines 15 and 16), suggesting that the child is crippled and could not walk properly. Her efforts made no difference as the child “still run’st more hobbling” than it should, just as the book was still not right. By referring to dressing the child and finding only rough home-made material to do it with, the speaker is saying that she doesn’t have the skill to improve her book. She gives up almost and says the book must be read as it is, just as the child, dressed in its poor clothing will go out and be seen by people. |
| 20–24 | The speaker warns the book to stay away from critics and to be read only by people who don’t know her (“where yet thou art not known”) (line 20). She criticises herself as a mother who, too poor to keep a child, sends it out of the house, meaning that she is unable to improve the book, and it will have to be read in its faulty form since it is already out in public. | The author/mother is embarrassed by her book/child. She acknowledges her inadequacy and inability to be a good writer/mother. The book/child remains deformed. She hopes the book will only be read by people who do not know her so that they cannot directly criticise her.The reference to a missing father links the child to an impoverished household where there is no breadwinner. This extends the metaphor to include a lack in the author – she has no husband to help her with the book. (In fact, as the notes on p. 11 of the anthology tell us, the poet’s husband was often away from home.) |
Contextual questions
1.Do you think a mother with a deformed child should feel guilty? (2)
2.Identify the alliteration (repetition of initial letters) in the first few lines and say how it adds to meaning. (2)
3.Quote two phrases from the poem that indicate that the author is embarrassed by her book. (2)
4.What evidence do you find in the poem that supports the idea that the author is exaggerating the flaws of her book or is extremely unhappy with it? Use your own words but refer to the poem. (4)
(10)
The Indian Burying Ground by Philip Freneau
(See p. 13 in Poems From All Over)
| Title: | The speaker is describing his thoughts when he visits a Native American burying ground. |
| Theme: | The different between the way Native Americans and Europeans bury their dead and what it means. |
| Mood: | Sombre, serious. |
Discussion
What the speaker is doing is comparing the burial rites of the Native Americans with those of Europeans. He is criticising the Christian, European idea that the “after-life” is different from that here on earth. He uses the Native American way as a point of comparison.
The poem consists of ten four-line stanzas with the rhyme scheme abab and is simple in style.
Analysis
| Stanza | Comment | |
| 1 | The speaker is expressing his opinion of the European/Christian belief that there is life after death. Europeans bury their dead lying down, ready for an eternal sleep. | “I still my opinion keep” (line 1) implies that the speaker has thought this before, and has his opinion confirmed when he visits the Indian burying ground. Saying “In spite of …” tells the reader that he is going to say something controversial. He knows what the learned men say but he disagrees. The use of “we” (line 3) points out that he is a European. |
| 2 | The Native Americans, the “ancients” (line 5), do things differently. When people die (are “[released from life]”), they continue life as it was before, sitting with others and taking part of the joys of living (“joyous feast”) (line 8). | The speaker is saying that it is the Native Americans who believe in life after death, as is shown by the fact that they bury their dead sitting upright, ready to continue with life. |
| 3 | The Native Americans are buried with the things they will need in their future life: pictures, bowls, meat, and these all point to “activity” (line 12), a continuation of life. | The speaker is saying that the fact that the living bury their dead with useful things shows that they believe in life after death, not an eternal sleep. The “venison, for a journey dressed” (line 10) means that the dead person will have meat to eat on the journey he is undertaking thus will continue to live. |
| 4 | The dead “Indian” (Native American) has been buried with this bow and arrow, ready to use, as he did in life (“not the old ideas gone”) (line 16); the old ideas of his life will continue. | Europeans think that life after death is very different from their lives on earth; they believe the old life “ideas” (a different kind of life) are “gone”, they don’t exist in the same way. This is not so in Native American belief. We see this again with the mention of the bow and arrow ready for action as life after death continues as before. |
| 5 | The speaker is showing someone (“Thou, stranger”) (line 17) around the burial ground and warns him to be respectful (“No fraud upon the dead commit”) (line 18). He shows him the rises (“swelling turf”) (line 19) and tells him that these dead are not lying (like European dead do) but sitting. | Notice the repetition of the how the body is buried, the position (“seated” line 7 and “sit” line 20). This is an
|
