Do roses ever cry? Is all they do all they are? Static beauty? Oh dear rose would you satisfy my curiosity? Was it worth it? Sacrificing your soul Under such resolve Trusting his love Would be your perfect wind To drift you in the right path Sacrificing your freedom... I call it treason Against mother nature I despise your existence dear rose Such persistence! Insignificant! Is all you are One day your petals will fall And you shall recall these words As the withering takes you whole As sorrow becomes your soul Roses can't cry Roses never cry
I really enjoyed this poem, the rhetorical nature of the poem adds to the intensity of the embedded theme. The use of nature within poetry is most often a cliché but within this poem I feel that it breaks that norm. The poem begins with the personification of a Rose and as the reader we question this along with the narrator of the poem. The "static beauty" is a great image, an idle thing of great beauty yet unable to do anything with this beauty. Is the roses beauty its purpose in life? Too appear beautiful to the world yet in an attempt to preserve this beauty it remains still? The Rose remains beautiful and idle to maintain "his love" but in doing so prevents the transition of growth.
It wishes to remain beautiful, to be an object of desire for this individuals love, to drift on his wind hoping to drift into the right path. But this idle act relinquishes the rose of any freedom and replaces it with passivity, an act that appears unnatural. This passivity is despised by the narrator. I believe we are lead to believe that the narrator is personifying the rose as his/hers past self and the the narrator scalds their past self.
This is all my own interpretation but either way the poem is very good. The shift in tone is very clear within line 11 to 12, which is reinforced by the juxtaposition of the "freedom" and "treason" imagery. All in all, well done.
I really enjoyed this poem, the rhetorical nature of the poem adds to the intensity of the embedded theme. The use of nature within poetry is most often a cliché but within this poem I feel that it breaks that norm. The poem begins with the personification of a Rose and as the reader we question this along with the narrator of the poem. The "static beauty" is a great image, an idle thing of great beauty yet unable to do anything with this beauty. Is the roses beauty its purpose in life? Too appear beautiful to the world yet in an attempt to preserve this beauty it remains still? The Rose remains beautiful and idle to maintain "his love" but in doing so prevents the transition of growth.
It wishes to remain beautiful, to be an object of desire for this individuals love, to drift on his wind hoping to drift into the right path. But this idle act relinquishes the rose of any freedom and replaces it with passivity, an act that appears unnatural. This passivity is despised by the narrator. I believe we are lead to believe that the narrator is personifying the rose as his/hers past self and the the narrator scalds their past self.
This is all my own interpretation but either way the poem is very good. The shift in tone is very clear within line 11 to 12, which is reinforced by the juxtaposition of the "freedom" and "treason" imagery. All in all, well done.