Analysis Of One Perfect Rose Essays - Poetic Form, British Poetry

Analysis Of One Perfect Rose In her poem ?One Perfect Rose,? Dorothy Parker misleads the reader throughout the first and second stanzas into believing this poem is a romantic tribute to a tender moment from her past through her word choice and style of writing. However, the tone of the entire poem dramatically changes upon reading the third and final stanza when Parker allows the reader to understand her true intention of the poem, which is a cynical and perhaps bewildered view of the memory. And, with this shift in the tone in the third stanza, there is a shift in the meaning of the entire poem, leading the reader to believe that the first two stanzas were not, in fact, sweet but instead a sarcastic and bitter account of this past moment. In the first stanza, Dorothy Parker uses specific words to create a double meaning. She uses words like ?tenderly,? ?pure,? and ?perfect? to describe both the rose and it's sender. The words directly influence the reader's initial reaction to the poem, as does the way in which she writes the poem. The stanza has four lines with every other line rhyming (ABAB format). It is short and sweet with a melodic quality in it's reading. This musical quality definitely helps to lull the reader into the belief that the poem's intention is to come across as a romantic recollection. However, in reading the poem through a second time, equipped with the knowledge of it's true bitter notions, the reader sees what is purposely hidden but directly affects the overall tone. Parker mentions first and foremost the fact that this gentleman sent her ?a single flow'r? and ends the stanza with the phrase ?one perfect rose.? There is a repetition here that at first the reader passes off as her noting the delicacy of the solitary flower. Upon reading the last stanza, it is realized that she is actually pointing out the fact that the only thing she received was one flower-that's it. And, although there is a melodic quality to the rhythm to this poem, this rhythm accentuates the abruptness of her speech. She cuts lines off and speaks in short fragmented sentences. This, again, is something that is not noticed in the first read-through, but it does stand out after this initial reading. It almost seems as if Parker could not be bothered to spend too much time on the poem: it's as if it was not worth the time or the effort. The second stanza is similar in content to the first. There are words Parker uses to deceive the reader at first- ?fragile,? ?heart,? ?love,? and ?perfect.? There are again four lines to the stanza with the odd and the even lines rhyming. And, of course, there are those words that the reader misses the first time reading it through. Her use of the word ?floweret? is a perfect example of this. She cunningly makes a show of the fact that this is one, single flower by itself, but because the word rhymes with the word ?amulet? two lines down, this mocking goes unnoticed. As does her the true meaning of the line ?Love long has taken for his amulet?. Using this rose as the unknown gentleman's call sign at first seems cute. Superman has his ?S,? this gentleman has his ?One perfect rose.? The reader comes to realize that this symbol is not an honorable one. In the third and final stanza, Parker really shines the light on her true intention for this poem. She continues with the same format as the previous two stanzas, four lines with every other line rhyming and short, fragmented lines. However, her real feelings come out loud and clear in this stanza where they did not in the first two. She did not want that one, singe rose. She wanted more, perhaps ?one perfect limousine.? Here not only does she inform us what she wanted; she mocks what she did receive. Each line ends with the line ?One perfect rose,? including the last stanza. And. In using the phrase ?one perfect limousine? she makes her feeling completely obvious. The rose was unnecessary and unwanted. Using it three time over in the same phrase

Why you should share your opinions out loudâ€not over email

Why you should share your opinions out loud- not over email Who among us hasn’t been in this situation: You receive an email or text from someone you know and wonder, â€Å"What did they mean by that?† â€Å"Are they mad at me- or maybe they were just in a rush† The truth is, although email has made it easier than ever before to send and receive messages with all of the people in our lives- from friends and family members to professional contacts and more- it can be argued that the ease and convenience we’ve gained from modern forms of conversing have been offset by an unfortunate increase in a more impersonal approach to communication, and more opportunities for the mistranslation of a message’s meaning and intent. For humans- and for all animals, really- things like context, body language, and emotion factor heavily into how messages are delivered and received, and when these things are taken out of the equation, which happens when communicating over email, trouble can ensue.According to a recent Psycholog y Today article, â€Å"Research by UCLA psychology professor emeritus Albert Mehrabian found that 7 percent of a message was derived from the words, 38 percent from the intonation, and 55 percent from the facial expression or  body language. In other words, the vast majority of communication is not carried by our words alone†¦Not surprisingly, research shows we communicate most effectively in real-life, real-time conversation.†Just think about it- if only 7% of our messages are derived from the actual words we use, that’s a whopping 93% that’s left to speculation, guesswork, and possible misinterpretation when we communicate over email without the helpful cues that face-to-face communication provides!This gets especially important when you’re talking with someone about a potentially controversial subject or have opposing views on a topic. According to a recent article on Ladders, when we’re facing someone with a point of view that’s i n opposition to our own, we respond more favorably and humanely when the conversations includes voice vs. words, which helps to keep discourse civil.The Ladders article suggests that vocal communication may be a better vehicle for controversial conversations because â€Å"those vocal tics of inflection, intonation, and normal pauses humanize us in ways that get lost over a text message where emotion is implied in emoji and punctuation, and tone is easy to miscommunicate†¦If you want your controversial take to be seen as more than mindless drivel, get off your keyboard and give the person a call.†This information can have a profound effect on how we operate at work. These days, so much of our work lives are spent alone at our desks, silently typing away a volley of email missives on our computers and phones all day. With the volume of email we send out, it would be quite a challenge to stop and think about how each and every message we send will be construed by every rece iver- that would be exhausting!Therefore, some general rules of thumb might be helpful here: use email when sending simple and straightforward messages that are free from emotion, critical evaluation, and potentially controversial opinions. If your messages do contain these items, consider stepping away from your keyboard and engaging in a face-to-face conversation- old-fashioned perhaps, but it just might save you from an uncomfortable, awkward, or embarrassing situation.