When readers describe the literature, it is summarized. One might think that each person's summary is the same, but that is far from true. A summary differs by interpretation, style and other stamps of personalization. No two summarizes are ever the same because no two people ever see the same things in a piece of literature.
Every summary leaves out a great deal, yet no true summary is false. A summary makes an assertion and thus implicitly is an argument. One must offer evidence to support one's views when summarizing. It doesn't mean that the statements in a summary are proven, but it means that they are supported by evidence.
In describing (summarizing) a poem, in addition to giving a brief statement of what happens in the poem, generally the meter and the pattern are mentioned. (It is not necessary in this case to mention meter and pattern.)
The analysis of literature cannot be completely separated from the summary because when one summarizes one naturally analyzes what is read. However, analysis draws attention to various parts of the writing., asking why? what? and how are the actions related to one another? (Can you now understand how summary is related to analysis? In part, to summarize one must analyze.) (To analyze, you ask yourself why?, what? and how are the various parts related?)
Interpreting a piece of literature is telling what the piece means, asking oneself what does that mean? Many times, probably most of the time, there are many meanings, some the author intended and some not intended by the writer, yet perceived by the reader.
Evaluations (judgments) are always based upon assumptions. The point is in evaluation of a piece of literature the reader must know why you value (evaluate) the material as you do. It is not enough to say, "This is a good work." You must say why. You must tell the reader why you value (judge) the work as great, good, etc. Example: You might say, "Lincoln was a great president. Andrew Jackson was a strong president, but he is never categorized by scholars as having been a great president." Now, you must have supporting evidence to back your evaluation, your judgment.
Theorizing is answering, or attempting to answer, such questions about the work as "What is truth, anyway?" Does this have a meaning in itself or is the meaning whatever we say it is? Example: A three legged stool never stands or does it? Is the stool an accident by the craftsman?
Now, with all that explanation, Please read the following poem and describe it (summarize), analyze (In this case, just answer the question, how are the the lines in the poem related to each other?), interpret (what does it mean to you), judge (evaluate it good or bad and why), and theorize (Does this have meaning in itself or is the meaning of the poem whatever we say it is?) (You will need 5 paragraphs of approximately 5 - 7 sentences each. Punctuate correctly. Watch the grammar!!)
In this blog only, do NOT answer the three questions that were listed on the syllabus. I have decided to cut those from this blog. Just answer the 5 questions that are above.. ..
Mending Wall
by Robert Frost
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen -ground-swell under it
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and make repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding.
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made.
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out.
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there,
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, Like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
