Roots & Rhetoric Episode 1

The podcast "Roots in Rhetoric" explores how nature is used in literature to develop themes. Nature can set the tone, reveal emotions, or symbolize the writer's message. The hosts discuss examples of poetry that highlight the human condition through nature, such as Robert Frost's "The Bonfire" and Robert Browning's "Love Among the Ruins." In "The Bonfire," fire represents war and destruction, while in "Love Among the Ruins," natural imagery contrasts with man-made civilization to reveal the destructive nature of humanity. The hosts discuss the different ways nature is used in poetry and its ability to communicate various ideas. Welcome to Roots in Rhetoric, the podcast where we get to the root of different pieces of literature, both classic and contemporary, that use nature as a primary device for developing their themes. In today's episode, we first will briefly overview nature as a motif, before heading into discussion on our favorite examples of poetry that illustrates the power of this motif to highlight the human condition. Stay tuned for thoughts on Robert Browning's Love Among the Ruins, according to Michaela, Robert Frost's The Bonfire, according to Joshua, Mary Oliver's Wild Geese, in the words of Lexi, and Wild Pansy, by Lisa Bellamy, in the words of Sarah. Nature as an element of literature has been around for centuries and is present across all kinds of literature. In its more literal use, nature in literature acts as a backdrop to the plot and establishes the environment in which the story takes place. But depending on how it is used in literature, it can do many different things. For an example, it can establish a tone or mood in a piece, reveal a character's emotional state, or act as a symbol to represent an aspect of the writer's message. When we talk about nature in this podcast, we're including any descriptions that pertain to the natural world, such as descriptions of landscapes, vegetation, weather, or wildlife. Not only can nature act as a part of the setting, but it can also be an agent in a piece of literature. For an example, nature personified is portrayed as a living entity that has an active effect on what is happening in the piece. With all this being said, in this episode we are going to discuss the different ways that writers use nature in poetry and how it is used to communicate different things. Now let's get to the root of it. First, we're going to look at some classics. Robert Frost's The Bonfire and Robert Browning's Love Among the Ruins. The Bonfire, according to Robert Frost, who is a widely admired and highly honored poet in the 20th century, he's known for the realistic descriptions of rural life. Frost frequently wrote about settings of rural life in New England, using them to examine complex social and philosophical themes. Robert Frost's The Bonfire is about when fire goes wild through the whole town, but the fire can represent war, the forest, a country, or even the whole world. Frost suggests to the reader that war could happen to anyone. And in Love Among the Ruins, it was written pretty much during the Victorian time when advances in science did cause society to go through a crisis in faith. Because of this crisis, humanism, a worldview centered on the nature and importance of humanity, became popular. In other words, they were interested in exploring all facets of human nature. They also became more interested in the sciences and raised an interest in the exploration of the natural world. In this poem, Browning uses natural imagery to drive the attention between the contrasts of nature and civilization, war and peace, to reveal the destructive and immoral characteristics of human nature. All right, Josh. In Robert Frost's The Bonfire, what role does nature play in depicting war? What did you find it was communicating? The element fire came up the most in the poem. The forest is supposed to represent the world or the country. The fire represents war. The main theme of the poem would be violence, so he's talking about fire as war. For example, the poem reveals this concept when Robert Frost says, oh, but war's not for children, it's for men. We are digging almost down to China, my dears, my dears. You thought that, we all thought it. So you're mistaken with ours. Haven't you heard, though, about the ships where war has bounced them out at sea? About the towns where war has come through the opening cause and mixed with droning speed? Further, whereas there's often certain angels and children in the ships and the towns, haven't you heard what he has lived to learn? That he so knew something that he had forgotten. War is for everyone, for children, too. I'm not going to tell you a lesson. The best way is to come up the hill with me. The hair passed far, far enough to be afraid, is quoted. It's significant, but it's the last passage for them, for everyone, which is a reference that's hence through nature. Now, the poem is about the bonfires, which are the lights of the forest, which is the connection that people have, and which is to keep themselves warm. Frost communicates that war is destructive, that thought through the bonfire is its ability to break through all over the forest so that the fire can help the war happen, which it has used to be destructive, particularly in terms of war. I like your interpretation, Josh, of fire being a representation of war, because like you said, fire is destructive, and it blows through everything in its path, very much like how in real life war is unforgiving, and loss and destruction is always going to be a part of it, or it's always going to be a part of the product, no matter what side you're on. I like what you said about nature showing destruction and war, but what I found interesting about your poem is not only the way that nature is portrayed to show the more destructive side of humans by using fire, but also the way that it portrays nature as a healing sanctuary, like using water. It says, with pitchy hands to wait for snow or rain, oh, let's not wait for rain to make it safe. In these lines, to me, nature is depicted as an unstoppable force, but not one that's unforgiving or unpredictable or invasive. It's kind of like one that's a safe space or a peacemaker. Nature can calm and extinguish the wildfires with rain or snow, so there's a sense of hope that all of this can be cleansed. We can see nature as a kind of role model that's saying, if we follow the example of nature, then we can make it safe for ourselves. Yeah, I agree with you about how the natural symbol here is fire, and how it's used to symbolize war and its destruction. The lines that really stood out to me were, it will have roared first and make sparks with stars, and sweeping around it with a flaming sword made the dim tree stand back in a wider circle. And I like how with the first line, we're able to clearly see the ferocity of the fire roaring and sparking as high as the stars in the sky. And I also think here, there's the first direct connection between the fire and the war through the flaming sword image. And the fire makes the tree stand back or makes other things bend to its will without regard for the consequences, much like a soldier's sword or war does to humanity. And it's always really interesting to me to read Frost's poetry, as I always feel like he subverts traditional ideas of nature as beautiful and peaceful. And instead, nature seems most often to be a kind of formidable force in his poems. But it's interesting what Mikayla brought up about how there's also elements of peace, for instance, the water in this poem. I like how you mentioned that we got to see the good and bad side of nature, Mikayla, especially because we get to see how fire may be a negative force of nature that leads to destruction. But things like snow and water are the more gentle forces of nature, which end the destruction that nature can bring on. I feel that this is a great balance that nature offers, and it's significant how Frost chooses to show this in the bonfire. Primarily, Frost used nature as an analogy in his poetry to convey his ideas. But he draws an inspiration from nature to his metaphors, typically, when he starts a poem by seeing something in the natural world, and then relates it to a scenario that affects people. Yeah, and I honestly have such an appreciation or an admiration, I guess, as I was trying to say, for the poets that can just take inspiration from the natural world, or even observe the natural world, and just see these beautiful elements in it, and write such vivid and beautiful poetry, especially about the human conditions. But I feel like it's just such a lovely and beautiful way to interact with the world around us. I feel like it kind of makes me see the world a little bit differently. Maybe I'll see something and think, oh, that's something that maybe Browning might say that's peaceful or tranquil, so I'll have a different reaction or attitude towards it. But I think it's interesting that in the bonfire, Frost betrays nature in a violent way to comment on destruction and war, because in my poem, Love Among the Ruins, Browning kind of does the opposite. In Love Among the Ruins, Browning uses natural imagery to draw attention to the contrast between nature and civilization, war and peace, to reveal the destructive and immoral characteristics of human nature. So we have descriptions of man-made civilization that was violent and destructive, but also the descriptions of the natural world, which is calm and tranquil. So in the parts of the poem that describe the man-made civilization, we have descriptions of this once big great city that now lies in ruin, and we have details that tell us about this great city. For example, there's descriptions of a palace, old towers, a place where chariots race, bridges and pillars and turrets. With the descriptions of the turrets, we see things related to war. So it's made to emphasize the impact of war and how the civilization reached their doom. But we have descriptions of all these things to show in this great city or depict this great city. And then we have descriptions of the nature that grew and existed over it. So it really emphasizes the distinction between the man-made world and natural environment and how in the man-made world, there's greed and chaos and gluttony that caused their destruction. But in this more natural space, there's peace and tranquility and love, and the peaceful nature juxtaposes the harsh ruins. So if the bonfire uses nature to represent the destruction of war as it is happening, Love Among the Ruins shows the aftermath or the product of war, the things that are left after everything is destroyed. So it shows the devastation of war and what's left, but the peacefulness that is able to exist afterwards. So once this man-made civilization is gone, all that exists is just nature. And we see this distinction made early on in the poem. So in the first stanza and the lines, on the solitary pastures where our sheep have a sleep, tinkle homeward, throw the twilight, stray or stop. So there's a sleepy and dreamlike tone with the descriptions, and there's this long, big, and vast pasture where there's fluffy sheep and innocent sheep wandering around. So it's like the audience is made to sit there and count sheep. And the natural world is just so peaceful and dreamy, and it provides tranquility. So we have that distinction of the natural world being peaceful early on. And then afterwards, we have other moments like where the dome and daring palace shot its spires up like fires, or the hundred-gated circuit of a wall bounding all. So these buildings or ruins of the city disrupt the peace, and they attempt to take dominion over the world. So it's like bounding all tall and just like shooting up at the sky. So the peaceful and harsh natural world are like met in the middle, I guess. Or like, not met in the middle, but like, just like at a war and peace won. So we see how this great city is just like dead and gone. So war destroys, nature gives life, and after everything is gone, nature and peace will triumph over destruction and continue to live on. As the last line of the poem says, love is best, it's what will remain. I agree with you, Michaela. In this poem, nature definitely attempts to reverse the degradation and destruction created by human civilization, including war and the wealth-oriented mindset. And one of the stanzas that stood out to me in this respect was the fourth one, where the speaker describes the tower of ancient city in which chariots used to race, and now it's overgrown with blossoming flowers and vines. And again, I think the contrast here between civilization, this ancient kingdom, and nature works really well to convey Browning's commentary. Nature is quite literally taking over the ruins of this once prosperous kingdom, and despite all of its efforts to establish itself, the kingdom and all of its human goals have faded with time, and what's left is only nature. And I think such imagery is used to speak to the humbleness of humanity against nature. As we've been talking about, both of your poems talk about destruction and nature. What does that reveal about human nature to us? In the poem, The Bonfire, the destruction is referenced by fire burning the forest at different times. The first time, the poem mentions the forest getting burned. It was not severe. By the end of the poem, the town was burned. Human nature starts off innocent and with good intentions, and slowly different issues may rise that lead to war. Destruction happens when people disagree. Everyday people aren't as destructive, but nations are large groups of people that can go to war and be destructive over issues when there is a disagreement or unownership of land and resources. The groups of people begin to get bigger. More issues can happen as humans band together and are naturally inclined to have conflict or stress for everyone. Basically, destruction reveals the bad side of human nature. I like that you specifically mention nature showcasing the recklessness of human nature, and letting loose something harmful that just destroys everything. I think this thought is exemplified in the lines, let's all but bring to life this old volcano, if that is what the mountain ever was, and scare ourselves. Let wildfire loose, we will. It basically says let us bring this side out of us and just destroy, because this is what we do. It's kind of like, I guess, they make it seem like it's an inherent characteristic that humans just have this recklessness that they just can let loose at any time and just let it all out. Calling the fire wild in these lines emphasizes the more wild side of human nature, I guess. Making the connection between recklessness and the wild characteristic of the fire. The side of humans that has wars and harms or disrupts the natural peaceful order of nature. The narrative even says, let us do these things and scare ourselves. We should be afraid or ashamed of the things we do. Maybe even suggesting that although humans have this wild side to them, it's not really natural for us to succumb to these impulses because it scares us, but we do it anyway. Yeah, and Josh, I liked your comment about how human nature starts off innocent with good intentions, but then has this ability to transform into something sinister. I thought that worked well with the beginning of the poem, where the speaker makes a small, seemingly harmless fire, stating that if I repent, I may recall it, or that they can still put it out. However, they let it burn and grow, leading to the destruction. And this is illustrated by the line, but the black spread like black death on the ground. And this speaks to perhaps the impulsivity and recklessness within human nature as the speaker lets loose a force that basically obliterates the life around it. And this made me think about another one of his poems, The Road Not Taken, and how it plays into this idea of humans' impulsivity, because we have the speaker contemplating which path, which choice would be best to take, and ends up wishing they chose differently, that perhaps they listen to their gut or their more impulsive side instead of contemplating so long. I honestly really like the use of nature to explore parts of human nature, because I think it makes the most sense to use something natural or naturally occurring to compare to innate human characteristics or tendencies. If you use something like unnatural, it may seem inauthentic or mismatched, and I think that's even more present in my poem, but like in a different way. Nature is just used to explore the better side of human nature that outlasts the bad. Love and peace outlasts the destructive and moral side of human nature, which is made evident by the destructions of the ruins. And if the ruins represent every bad part of human nature, nature represents the good parts that will eventually triumph. So the destruction depicted in the ruins of the city in my poem emphasizes not only the destructiveness of human nature, but also it reveals what humans seem to value. So the speaker describes things in the ruins like a giant wall bounding all, large colonnades and towers that sprang sublime, a chariot ring where the kings and subjects would walk to games. So it's very much like a grand, big city. So to me, these things give a sense that people in this civilization valued grandeur or glory, and they wanted to stand tall over everything else and show off like maybe they thought they were the best city in the world, one that couldn't be defeated. They wanted to like conquer and take dominion over the world around them. So to me, it implies that they're prideful, and ultimately their pride led to their downfall. And the speaker specifically mentioned that there are terrorists digging out of the ground, which emphasizes their love for war and violence that made them become this great city that they claimed to be, but ultimately destroyed them. The narrator also gives evidence to support this idea that the civilization is consumed by their own pride, greed, and materialism to the point of their destruction, and the lions left with glory pricked their hearts up. Dread of shame struck them tame, and that glory and that shame alike the gold brought up and sold. So they left it after glory and feared shame, and they loved and valued gold. So we get a sense that there's materialism there. So they considered gaining or losing wealth akin to glory and failure. And here the speaker describes civilization as being sinful or corrupted, and it gives the context to why the audience is being shown the ruins to begin with. So we're given the reasons why the civilization was destroyed, which suggests that these parts of human nature led to destruction. Yeah, I think you comment on so many important things that he brings up. These shortcomings, this corruption, and human nature's destructiveness. And I really thought about the ending in terms of this, when he says, Earth returns for whole centuries of folly, noise, and sin, shut them in with their triumphs and their glories and the rest. So here the speaker is saying that nature's overtaking this city, and that's only right. And in a way, it's like a payback of some sort for the folly, noise, and sin, these mistakes the kingdom and ultimately the human nature represents. And it seems to me that the speaker is saying that the earth is retaking what it is rightfully owed. After centuries of kingdoms like this one taking over, it's only fair that now nature can return back to its previous tranquility and beauty without human interference. And even more so, I think it comments on the trivialities of human nature and life by showing us, as he said, the material ambitions, which seems so important in our lifetime and how they're bound to fade, basically. I agree with both of your thoughts on the theme of this particular poem, Michaela and Lexi. I thought it was important that you both mentioned that humans were subject to thinking that things like playing games and destroying the natural things around them are more important than preserving and nurturing nature. Lexi, the lines you selected to show that nature always returns and will rightfully take over whatever humans believe was more powerful or important to them every time. Nature is a force of its own, and human nature cannot defeat that force, no matter how much they try. And I felt the lines you chose for this represented this well. Thank you guys for your comments. In those poems that you chose, it seems like the classic poets like to use nature to talk about destruction and the bad parts of nature, but the contemporary poets like Mary Oliver and Lisa Bellamy, they use nature to talk about the more positive parts of human life, like peace and tranquility and resilience. Let's look now at those two examples from these contemporary poets. Starting with Wild Geese, Mary Oliver lived from 1935 to 2019. She was an acclaimed American poet who works and examines the natural world and our place within it. She is known for her keen observations of even the smallest aspects of nature in her use of clear, accessible language. Inspired by her life outdoors in New England, her work is described as rooted in the romantic tradition, but having a distinct lucid style that evokes wonder within the reader. In this 18-line poem, Oliver captures the beauty inherent in nature with her imagery characteristic of her acute style, but the emphasis is on the human condition in relation to that imagery. It's a poem about learning to forgive ourselves, embracing our connection to nature, and opening ourselves up to new possibilities. Wild Pansy is about a garden pansy found in the Midwest that would not encounter as many struggles in its lifespan as the wild pansy did in the poem, and that struggle and triumph are what make the flower. The interconnectedness between humans and nature and understanding how deeply our lives and the lives of the wildlife, like the blue jays, wolves, and flowers, are connected to the natural world. However, in our modern day, so much of the natural world is being exploited for financial gain, which is leading to even more pollution in the world. So both of these poems deal with resilience and renewal, but Lexi, how does Wild Geese use natural imagery to accomplish these themes? In what ways do these images act as symbols for the human spirit? So for this poem, the main natural symbol from my point of view is the wild geese themselves, and that's used to represent the human spirit's connection to nature, and for my opinion, its path to renewal. And it's interesting, the symbol isn't introduced until the latter end of the poem, when Oliver writes, meanwhile the wild geese high in the clean blue air are heading home again, but I think it extends to the reference to the soft animal of your body earlier in the poem. And so right away with that latter line, Oliver links us with nature. She tells us that inside of us is an animal, and that animal is not necessarily as fierce as a tiger, but rather soft and gentle, perhaps like a bird, which is where I'm getting that connection from. And to me, this is meant to give us a perspective about our place in the world and to break down the separation between human and animal slash natural life. And especially in the context with the earlier lines about repent and guilt, I feel Oliver is telling the reader to listen to and embrace what is already within themselves, and to approach their feelings with the level of gentleness that an animal like a bird approaches the world with. And in doing that, I think she's telling us that we can overcome such negative feelings. And with the former line, the flying geese in the clear blue sky evokes a sense of freedom and lightness as they migrate back to their home. And to me, it represents the moment we begin to listen to that voice inside of us, and to forgive ourselves, and we begin to feel as unburdened as if we were in flight, and as if we were returning to our rightful place. And the wild geese also make their final appearance with the line about how the world calls to you, like the wild geese, harsh and exciting. And again, this image links us with the birds who are calling to us, or inviting us to find our place. And Oliver, again, asks us to answer that call, and to open ourselves up to that softness and gentleness inside of us. And again, in the context with the rest of the poem, which references despair and guilt, I think this ending is meant to tell us that it's okay to forgive, and to let go, and to move on, and then we can feel free. That sounds intriguing, because Oliver also manages to use devices such as a certain tone, metaphors, and descriptive images to convey a message that helps a person view life from a different perspective. Oliver makes it clear that the relationship between the wild and the human is coexistence, where one universe continues on if the parallel seems to have stopped. Thus, Oliver is able to move the reader on a comfortable journey as she entangles the natural world and human world. The wild in this piece allows for the reader to recognize nature as an escape from what is expected, and an escape from one's reality. I really liked your poem, Lexi, and I especially love the line that you reference, the line that says, you only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves. I like that there's kind of this, well, I like that she's suggesting that there's a separation between mind and body happening here, because the mind can betray you, it's full of all these anxieties, and shame, and fears, and all the things that might hinder you from living your life, but it's kind of saying it's enough to just let your body live, and exist, and enjoy, and implies that your body is the thing that holds all your feelings, and your desires, and stuff, and you have these personal wants and desires, like they're kind of innate to you, like they're instinctive, but maybe your mind might not let you seek after them, so it's kind of telling you to just enjoy the things that you're naturally drawn to, and let your inner desires speak over all the complicated things like happening inside your head. And these animalistic desires, so to speak, are not like the wild desires, or impulses in a bonfire, instead the animal is very soft, and tame, and overall just gives such a sense of reassurance. I think we're moving away from like the natural world, and I think that this poem kind of is trying to bring us back, like we're all connected as one, and that's why she uses like that animal, yeah, like I like that the animal in us, you know, so I kind of like that, I never noticed that before, but now that I'm hearing your comments, that's what I got from that. I like that, I like that a lot, definitely what you're saying, I think like in in the context of like industrialization, and like civilization, she's definitely like rooting us back into nature, especially, I think that pulls in her background as growing up in New England, and living in New England, and being outside all the time, I definitely feel like that influences her poetry, and brings us back, yeah. Yeah, it's captivating in my opinion that Oliver and Wild Geese manages to take the reader on a consoling journey as she interwines the natural and human world, since in my poem, Wild Geese, that nature recognizes itself as an escape from expectation and reality. Lisa Bellamy uses the unusual life cycle of a seed turning into a flower to give her audience a fresh viewpoint on the natural world, and a hopeful assessment of climate change. This poem appeals to the reader in a variety of ways, which makes it a successful example of environmental poetry. First of all, learning about the lifespan of the seeds creates a feeling of familiarity. The stages of the seed conception, birth, growth, and flowering are visible to us, very comparable to the average human lifespan. In addition, we grow, are born, mature, and blossom into adulthood. Readers are able to close the distance between themselves and the natural world. This contributes to the development of the notion of human-natural-environment connection, which highlights the significance of environmental preservation and protection. Yeah, I like that you mentioned this sense of familiarity Bellamy creates between the reader and the seedling, and one of the ways she did this from my perspective is by personifying it. She really gives it a narrative voice and links it to very human actions and ideas, such as being an orphan, being able to remember the encounter with the bird, to call it for mercy, etc. And as such, it made me link it as a symbol for humans and the whole poem sort of as a metaphor for the adversity we experience, and how that's able to transform us into something beautiful and strong and thriving like a flower. Or also, as you said, the stages we can encounter as we move through our lifespan and into adulthood. And I also thought it was interesting that in this poem, in contrast to mine, my example, the bird is not necessarily super like soft and gentle, but a little bit severe and harsh, eating and then abandoning the seedling. And I thought that spoke to the duality of nature, which I think also transitions to our later discussion. It's interesting that you describe the bird as abandoning the seed, Lexi, because I agree that the bird is more harsh than soft and gentle, but I actually saw the bird's actions as nature being a kind of backseat mother in this poem. It just seems that nature is portrayed as the life-giving force or the master of faith, since in the beginning it gives the seed life. And as the seed continues to live and experience things, it kind of takes care of it in a way. It guides it and controls what happens to it. Like when the seed calls out for mercy in the rain and only a wolf walks by, the seed kind of sees this as a bad thing and curses its luck, but the wolf used its nose to push the seed into the earth and as a result protected it from the rain. So it kind of nurtured it and took care of it. So maybe nature in this way is kind of being more peaceful and caring. And maybe that's meant to say that even in all the seemingly bad things that are happening to us, there's always a good side, or maybe even saying for the best, or just to say that there's always a sense of hope. To add on to your comment, Michaela, regarding the bird abandoning the seed representing another figure, I wanted to say that I agree with this statement. I find the blue jay at the beginning of the poem to act as a parental figure where the seed was once safe, but as we know, the seed gets rejected from the blue jay out into the open. I feel that this rejection of the seed is a way to represent life because that seed is no longer protected by the safety the bird offers it. This is similar to our lives as humans, as we must grow up and go out into the real world, which is quite harsh and cruel. This blue jay being a mother figure is clearly mentioned as well in the poem in the line that states, she has swallowed me in her homeland when she spied me, lying easy under the sun briefly. I called her mother before I passed her a gullet like a ghost. I found this representation of parenthood and life to be clever from Lisa Bellamy's perspective. You guys are both right. It is very interesting to see these different symbols in the poems, but how would you characterize the tone of the poet takes regarding nature? What's the purpose of this characterization? So in my poem, Wild Geese, I thought that nature was characterized both by severity and harshness and also tranquility, and I thought that that paralleled the ebbs and flows of the human condition. So at the start of the poem, nature is immediately linked with harshness, with the line, you do not have to walk on your knees for a hundred miles through the desert repenting. So the first instance of nature in the poem is this desert, which for me is often evocative of barrenness and starkness, and I thought this image is used to mirror the negative condition of the speaker who is repenting or feeling remorseful. So like a person trudging through the bleak desert, this you character in the poem is trying to persevere through a period of intense regret. And then however, this more somber tone shifts mid-poem to one of sort of a calm optimism, and I saw this in the line, meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain are moving across the landscapes, over the prairies and the deep trees, the mountains and the rivers. So here I thought the poet paints the world going on while this you character experiences this low point described earlier, and the natural world continues to progress its routine, the sun shines, the rain falls, the fields and trees and mountains still stand, and the river still flows. So in my opinion, this picture of tranquility and stability is meant to give the grief evoked in the earlier lines more of a perspective, and I don't think it's to minimize it, but to perhaps bring clarity to the situation by showing the reader that like the natural world that continues to live and flourish, this you character or the reader can continue past their grief, this feeling of barrenness that they've been experiencing, and that it can be overcome. And then the tone sort of becomes a mixture of the previous sentiments in the final lines of the poem, where she describes the world offers itself to your imagination, calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting. So nature from my perspective in these lines is simultaneously as peaceful as geese flying in the open air, and formidable, or as the speaker states, harsh and exciting. So I think these lines really pull together the poem, and it combines this somberness and calmness evoked earlier into sort of one mixed dual feeling. And to me, such a characterization is used by Oliver to tell the reader that like nature, life is both beautiful and tranquil, and so on, and so forth. So I think it's used to give the reader a perspective and a feeling of being a part of the system in all of its complexity. And it tells us that the feelings of regret and peace experienced in our lives are natural. And for me, as a reader, I just, I think that brings a lot of comfort and contributes to why I love the poem so much. Oh, thank you so much for sharing that with us. And I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to you, Olivia. And I'm going to turn it over to you, Olivia, to tell us a little bit more about I really like what you said about nature continuing its natural progression in the poem. And I like that you referenced the line, meanwhile, the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain are moving across the landscape. I like your comment about how this represents tranquility and stability. To me, it depicts nature, not as a harsh, unpredictable force, but more of like an unstoppable force that is like definite and dependable. So no matter what, nature and life will exist and live on despite all the bad things happening around you or the bad things happening to you or the bad things happening inside your head. Even with the description of like the rain being pebbles, it's not like harsh rain. It's a light, calm rain, like little pebbles. So it really adds to the whole peacefulness of the poem and kind of connects back to Robert Browning's poem, Love Among the Ruins, because like, its nature and its stability and the peace it brings is what's going to be left after, you know, all the bad things have happened, I guess. It's dependable. It'll continue to live on. The tone of Wild Geese is one of their earnestness. The speaker speaks to us readers sincerely, hoping to impart valuable knowledge that would ease our problems and enhance our quality of life. The poem lacks any hint of irony and any indication that the speaker's viewpoints are inherently wrong or flawed. Furthermore, there is no indication that the speaker has any hidden agenda when offering us readers her counsel. The speaker wants to convey their knowledge of the natural world as a large and healing refuge with a sincerity and even more hopeful desire. Nevertheless, it's possible that the speaker uses the readers to address themselves. Lyon's 14 assumptions by the speaker is that the readers, whoever you are, are experiencing intense emotional upheaval. However, the speaker isn't addressing a particular individual, rather they are addressing a broad and abstract audience that strangely enough may comprise themselves. In other words, they can be among those who require hearing the exact message that they are conveying. The poem assumes a more non-tone and earnestness hinge with a regret if we accept this idea. The utilization of the emotional element in poetry is another method that engages the reader. Bellamy opens the poem in a humorous line, I was shot out of the back of the end of a blue jay, because who doesn't enjoy a good joke about defecation? She then alludes to the blue jay being thought as an exceeding mother evoking and sentimental pull of a mother figure. But after that, we are met with the pressing feeling that the seed is expelled from its mother, the blue jay's behind, leaving it an orphan. More melancholy feelings comfort us when we discover that the seed is finally abandoned in Chile in the earth. Having lost its way in the world, how could you not feel sorry for the child seed that was left in the chilly earth? You have undoubtedly experienced moments of feeling lost and alone and in need of assistance. The difficulties the seeds are facing now that they are on their own are revealed after this. When it cries out for compassion like humans do when they are in a rut and seeking guidance from God, it is met by the enemy, the great terrible wolf. However, it does not end here. Next, the seed has to encounter the sink and pollution of our world that had been riddled with climate change. As Bellamy described it, I cursed the happenstance of this world. I smelled his hot stink. She really slapped us in the face with that one, showing no mercy as she describes our earth for what it is at the current moment. It's really interesting that you mentioned this feeling of loss and other forms of adversity that the seedling like us faces. And like Oliver's poem, nature seems at first characterized by harshness, in my opinion, as a little seedling is eaten by both the bird and the wolverine and showered by the rain. However, towards the end of the poem, it seems like nature acts as a more positive force, germinating a seed and allowing it to inevitably grow. So like Oliver's poem, nature is both linked to intensity. For Oliver's poem, this is done through the image of the desert. And for Bellamy's, I think the animals before it's linked with a more optimistic tone. And for Oliver's, again, this is the geese flying in the sky. And for Bellamy's, the seedling growing into a flower. So I think they both acknowledge the nuance and complexity of nature and in doing so. And as we were talking about earlier, and its metaphorical implications, I think this also applies to the ebbs and flows of human life, too. Kind of bringing it back to what Sarah was saying about like, emotion in the poem or the emotional elements in the poem. For such a seemingly simple poem, it takes us on an emotional roller coaster. Like on the outside, it could appear as like this cute little poem about a seed, but from it, we're made to feel like all these different kinds of things. And it's made to do all these different kinds of things to us, I guess. Like we're made to feel happy, sentimental, melancholy, and then feel like a sense of loss. And then at the very end, like Lexi said, like, we're meant to feel optimism. And also, as you mentioned, Lexi, the poem represents like the ebbs and flows in human life. So I guess that includes all the emotions that we could feel as we go through it. Since we're on the topic of adversity, why would our poem suggest that we unburden ourselves from society's demands so that we can regain our childhood wonder and nature? Yeah, so for Wild Geese, Oliver does evoke a sense of heaviness and burden in parts of the work, which the rest of the poem asks us to try to overcome, I think. The You character is literally walking on their knees, repenting for 100 miles through the desert, perhaps because they are trying to be good all the time, like the speaker references in the very first line. And this leaves them in a state where they're full of despair and very lonely, as described in line 6 and 13. And Oliver, like mentioned before, asks us to release ourselves from this burden and instead listen to the soft animal of our bodies. And in doing so, I think she's saying we can relieve ourselves from guilt and pain and loneliness that we've been carrying around with us. And we can become as free as the wild geese, high in the clean blue air, letting go of the past and instead reuniting with a sense of wonder and freedom, I think. Yeah, I thought your mentioning of how Oliver's poem allowed for a sense of heaviness or burdening was significant. I feel that the lines tell me about your despair, yours, and I will tell you mine. Meanwhile, the world goes on was a good example of this because it shows how we all face some hardships and times of despair, but the world must go on. I thought this message was particularly important as well since it creates a sense of hope. Specifically, the lines that create this theme of hope leading out of despair are, whoever you are, no matter how lonely, the world offers itself to your imagination, calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting, over and over announcing your place in the family of things. These lines are powerful as it shows how no matter what a person is facing or how lonely they may feel, the world, or specifically nature, will always have a place for them. I like that your poem, or the thought that your poem makes us want to regain our childlike sense of nature. I think the romantics would agree with that sentiment. They'd be so happy with our conversation. But I like that you mentioned becoming free as a wild geese and not releasing ourselves from the burden of trying to be good all the time, unites us with a sense of wonder, unites us with a sense of wonder of nature. It allows us to be appreciative of nature and the peace or clarity that it brings, almost like it allows us to fall in love with the world around us and life itself, like when we're younger. In the poem when it says the wild geese, high in the clean air, are heading home again, I interpret home as being a state of mind or a state of being. When you're going back home, you're going back to being whole or maybe your childlike self, where you fall in love with the world again, and you have excitement or anticipation for the future, and you don't have any of the burdens that you have as you go through life. Our poem would suggest that because they can see the interconnection between the human and nature and understand how deeply our lives and life of the wildlife, like the blue jays, wolves, and flower are connected to the natural world. However, in our modern day, so much as the natural world is being exploited for financial gain, which is leading to even more pollution in the world. However, if we get people to understand and see the importance and beauty of wildlife, perhaps they would be more likely to want to help. They may include volunteering, donating money, and or land, taking education courses to learn about the land, and ways to help with schools. If we can utilize poetry to help the readers see the connections and parallels between nature and humanity. I agree with you, Sarah. Literature like this has such a power to reframe our perspectives on our own individual lives and also the larger community. Along with the implications about climate change, I also saw Bellamy asking us to reframe our perspective on our own past, like Oliver does, too. The seedling goes through a lot, as we discussed earlier, but it seems to be able to persevere and is very resilient, growing into something beautiful despite the things that have happened to it. And as such, I think Bellamy suggests that we can do the same, and that in doing so, we can perhaps be free, like Oliver said we can. And that wraps up this week's episode of Roots in Rhetoric. Thank you guys, as always, for tuning in and staying up to date. And always remember to get to the root of it.