Spring Break Timed Writing #1

Comparison of "Fog" by Carl Sandburg and "In a Station of the Metro" by Ezra Pound: Concerning the Use of Nature

bold='error'

Nature has often inspired many writers to incorporate aspects of its presence in their works. "Fog" by Carl Sandburg and "In a Station of the Metro" do just that. However, the way in which they incorporate nautre distinguishes their poem from the other. Sandburg personifiest hte fog which "comes" and "sits looking," whereas Pound simply uses nature as an analogy, in order to express the "faces in the crowd."

First of all, Sandburg personifies the "fog" in order to make it seem more real, and less like an inanimate form of nature. By using present tense, the "fog" seems alive and intelligent as it "sits looking/over harbor and city." The incorporation of the metaphor of "fog" coming "on little cat feet" expresses how quietly it comes, yet also sneakily, without anyone noticing. Then, line five depicts "fog" "looking" "on silent haunches." "Haunches" refers to the metaphor of a "cat" once again, maintaining the same meaning from before. Finally, the "fog" "moves on." With this final line, Sandburg alluddes to an idea that nature will keep on doing whatever it does, despite the construction of "harbor" or "city." Therefore, through the personification of "fog"nad the metaphorical use of the "cat," the "fog" is portrayed as a being above tha tof humans, not really caring enough about them to interact. But like a cat, watches with a critical eye of the happenings, and then carries on with whatever it wants to do.

However, Pound applies nature in a somewhat different way. The juxtaposition between "faces" and "petals" unites the two, instead of separating as Sandburg previously did. Because of this union, and the lack of personification of nature, the result is somewhat obscure. Instead of having an intelligent depiction, the "faces" and "petals" seem unresponsive: masses in a trivial location.

This difference portrays the poetic idea and relation to peoples' existence. By personifiying nature, Sandburg creates an intelligent, and somewhat godlike figure. In contrast, Pound does not elaborate on the "petals," and seems to draw the conclusion that nature and humans are similar.

I would give myself a 4 or 5 out of 9. I think I took the poems too literally, and was not very clear through my writing what I wanted to express. Also, I use the words "portray" and "depict" way too much. Some of my sentences don't really make sense, such as "This difference portrays the poetic idea nad relation to peoples' existence." What poetic idea? What relation to Peoples' existence? I meant to say nature in relation to people, but it came out wrong.