Get help from the best in academic writing.

Analysis of To His Coy Mistress

“To His Coy Mistress” is a very interesting poem. The main plot of the poem is about this guy that tries to pick up a girl for the night. The poem does not tell about the setting. I assumed that it was in a bar, because of the way he talked to her and that is where most guys go to pick up a girl for the evening. We see this poem through the eyes of the guy, by doing this Marvell gives a look into his mind and what he is thinking. This helps to bring the reader into the poem. It allows the reader to get into his mind as the poem goes along. We begin to see the guy develop his words more and more until eventually by the third stanza he is pretty desperate.

In the first stanza we see the guy begin to make a move. He begins to tell her all these sweet lines about how he could spend eternity with her. For instance, he says on line 11, “My vegtable love should grow vastar than empires, and more slow;….” In these two lines he is trying to tell her how his love will grow more and more everytime he sees her. He will love her until the end of time. A few lines later he continues to talk about his everlasting love. He begins to divide his love up between her body parts. He promises to her that he will dedicate a hundred years to her eyes. Then he tells her that he would dedicate two hundred to each breasts. That last line about the breasts I thought was pretty funny. Here you begin to see how his mind begins to shift toward sex. He begins to shift his thoughts from her eyes to her body. He is very nonchalant about it. After the comment about her breasts he says and thirty to the rest. I can just see this guy talking to her. He puts a little emphasis on the breasts comment, and then I picture him mumbling, “oh yea….and thirty thousand to the rest.” The guy is only out for one thing, and that is sex. He is trying to be smooth about it, but in the next stanza we begin to see his patience giving out.

In the second stanza we begin to see the guy’s personality shift.

Banning Harry Potter Impedes Upon Our Rights

Banning Harry Potter Impedes Upon Our Rights

Muggles, Quidditch, and Hermoine. Do any of these words look familiar

to you? If you are over the age of 11 then probably not these three words come

from the Harry Potter book series. Muggles are non-magic people, quidditch is a

ball game, and Hermoine is a young wizard and one of the main characters of the

Potter series. I know these things because I have had the chance to read these

wonderfully imaginative books. I believe it is wrong for the government or

literary groups to ban books because books are a way for children to learn to

read and develop an imagination, censorship impedes on our first amendment

rights, and there is a separation between church and state.

“Great children’s books speak to the unconscious. Children have

strong feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and helplessness, but they haven’t

developed the rational thinking skills to cope with these feelings.” (Keith) I

think this is very true, Harry Potter books speak to children of today’s world.

The article leads on to say that a children’s book can lead to a structured

unconscious way for a child to resolve painful feelings. By reading a book,

children can alleviate stress and anxiety by letting their imagination run wild.

If groups continue to ban books like Harry Potter then they are decreasing a

child potential for happiness. Keith says, “I want them (my children) to read

books of fantasy that speak to and challenge their unconscious to be the best

they can be. Then when they encounter God in their lives, they will have both

the ability to believe in His awesome nature and the discernment to recognize

and follow the truth of His Word.” When I re…

… middle of paper …

…ry about a books content or appropriateness.(Harry)

Although, many challenges are submitted very rarely do books ever end up being

pulled off of the shelves. I think that the people that support banning books

take it a little to far. We have rights protected by the Constitution that can

never be taken away. Why do they say that we need to protect them? I just do

not understand the merit of some of their arguments supporting censorship.

I believe that censorship is not a good thing. It is society telling

us what it thinks is or is not morally ok for us to entertain ourselves with.

Government groups and other boards should not ban books because books are a way

for children to learn how to read and develop their imaginations, banning books

impedes on our first amendment rights, and there is a separation between church

and state.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.