Love for Nature A Symptom of a Lovesick Heart

This study will be a comparison between Wordsworth’s poem and a song written by Sting. Wordsworth’s masterpiece was written a long time ago but Sting’s composition was fairly recent. Wordsworth’s Tintern Abbey and Sting’s Fields of Gold share so many things and at the same time differ in so many respects.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Love for Nature: A Symptom of a Lovesick Heart specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Both share the same passion and love for nature. However, the speakers had different explanations why they love nature. Wordsworth consider nature, the sight, sound and smell of it as a natural healing ointment for the soul, while Sting see nature as a mere reflection of what he felt inside during the period in his life when he fell in love. Love for Nature In the case of Wordsworth the whole poem was written to express love for nature and why the author felt that thi s particular place, the Tintern Abbey deserves to be visited as often as possible. Wordsworth spent a great deal of effort in pointing out that the sound of nature is music to his ears. There is nothing like it in the whole world, the sound of water cascading from mountain springs, the tall rock and even the smoke that comes from dwellings hidden within the forest walls. In this regard Sting and Wordsworth are in agreement. Although the setting for the song was in a field of barley the reader can easily sense that the composer wanted everyone to know that he is a lover of nature. He appreciates the beauty that he sees in nature. This is evidenced by the fact that he simply did not describe his environment as a field full of barley; instead he said that he was standing in the field of gold. There is another common ground. Both writers express regret over the passing of time and their inability to revisit the place that reminds them of the best time of their lives. In Wordsworth this was clearly evident when he said: â€Å"Five years have past; five summers, with the length of five long winters!† (Wordsworth, line 1). In the song the writer said that, â€Å"Many years have passed since those summer days† (Sting, line 23). There was an ache in their heart because they allowed the passage of time and by doing so neglected the one they love. Love for a Woman The major difference in both works is the object of their affection. Wordsworth love nature because of the benefits that it has given to his mind, soul, and body. Sting loved the sky, the wind and the fields of barley because these things remind her of days gone by and the love of his life. He also appreciates nature in the way that it can be used to awaken what was long dormant, not only the love that was in his heart but also the affection in a woman’s heart that needed a wake-up call to arouse her from deep slumber. Wordsworth love the way nature calms his nerves. He found the memory of his last visit as an effective antidote to the depression and weariness that he felt whenever he was in the city, especially when his senses were oppressed and bombarded by the noise and the stress of urban living.Advertising Looking for essay on comparative literature? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More He beautifully described the way he held on to these memories when he wrote: â€Å"As is a landscape to a blind man’s eye† (Wordsworth, line 26) This means that like a blind man who was not born blind he treasures the images stored in his memory before he totally lost his ability to see and he held on to it with a tenacity of a man who suddenly went blind. However, this is where the similarity ends because Wordsworth focused everything on his love for nature, specifically the visual images and other stimuli he felt whenever he visited that particular place. He perfectly captured his obsession of Tintern Abbey and th e surrounding environs with one phrase: â€Å"Thy memory be as a dwelling-place† (Wordsworth, line 142) For the author there is nothing more that can give him so much joy and he is content to freeze that image in his mind and he can survive the rest of his life thinking about this happy thought. But Sting’s Fields of God was a mere backdrop. Surely he appreciated the beauty of the pastoral landscape; however, there is a person within that image that is more important to him than all the fields of barley. The composer of the song is not thankful to the â€Å"west wind† because it calms his nerves, he appreciates it because it can be used as a memory tool, specifically to remind his woman that he moves with the grace and power like the strong and hypnotic gust of a â€Å"west wind† and so she can perhaps be reminded of the promise of true love. Understanding Wordsworth Sting’s song was a useful tool to provide contrast to Wordsworth’s non-stop worship of nature. Without the lyrics to the Fields of Gold it is difficult to make sense of Wordsworth’s 160 lines of poetry because he goes on and on not giving clues as to where he was going. But when one compares it to the song it became obvious that the poem is different from others because there is no woman involved. In poems written about the natural environment, the elements of nature is there as a backdrop or tools that the writer uses to express what he felt inside but this time around Wordsworth was not singing praises to a maiden, he was actually in love with the trees, hills, water, wind etc.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Love for Nature: A Symptom of a Lovesick Heart specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Conclusion There were similarities and differences in both compositions. What was prevalent was the use of nature as the backdrop or central focus of the author’s work. Sting used the f ields of barley as memory guide to remind him of the good old days and to inspire him that a dormant love can be revived. Wordsworth on the other hand was simply in love with nature, particularly that corner of the planet he calls Tintern Abbey. The comparison highlights Wordsworth’s obsession with nature and made clear that the poem was not for a woman but for himself. Works Cited Roberts, Edgar. Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. 9th ed. Sting. â€Å"Fields of Gold.† Accessed from https://www.sting.com/ This essay on Love for Nature: A Symptom of a Lovesick Heart was written and submitted by user Myla Ware to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Animal Farm compared to the Russian Revolution Essays - Free Essays

Animal Farm compared to the Russian Revolution Essays - Free Essays Animal Farm compared to the Russian Revolution Animal Farm by George Orwell Animal Farm compared to the Russian Revolution All of the characters in Animal farm have counterparts in real life. This book was based on the Russian Revolution, and all the important populace of the revolution are symbolized. Some of the animals represent individuals in the Russian Revolution, and some types of animals represent different types of Russian citizens. The book carries out much like the actual revolution. It starts out with hopes of an empire where all are equal and the unfair unjust leader is thrown out. Then it moves on to where some individuals begin to take more power than is rightfully theirs. At the end the rulers have completely taken over and the kingdom is as it was under the original rulers. I will compare the animals from top of the social class to the bottom. At the top were the pigs. Each pig represented someone different in the revolution. Old Major is compared to Lenin. He was an ideologist who dreamed up a wonderful government where all the animals were equal and the humans, or the czars, were pushed out. Unfortunately his dream would never materialize. Then we are left with his predecessors. The first is Snowball. Snowball believed one hundred percent in Old Majors ideals. He wanted all the things Old Major wanted, such as the welfare of the animals. In the Russian Revolution his counterpart would be Trotsky. Trotsky believed and wanted the same things as Lenin, and wanted to continue what Lenin had started. Then comes Napoleon. Napoleon was selfish and greedy. He did not want to share the power or the decision making with any other individual. This was the same for Stalin. At first Napoleon and Snowball shared the decision making and had debates about what course of action they would take. This worked for awhile. Then Napoleon grew weary of long debates, and he thought he could make the decision by himself. He then forced Snowball out of the farm and started to spread lies about Snowball to get the entire farm against him. Stalin did the same thing against Trotsky and forced Trotsky into hiding into Mexico, where he was eventually assassinated. Both Stalin and Napoleon ruined any hopes of equal and fare government and instead set up dictatorships. Then comes the final important pig, Squealer. Squealer did not make the decisions in the government but acted more like the controlled media as in the Russian government. His job was to influence the people by exaggerating and re-writing history and sometimes telling plain lies all together. The people would listen to him, and he would always listen to Napoleon. Other animals were the worker class type citizens. The types of citizens range from hard working to selfish and lazy. Molly, for instance, only cared about her ribbons, and wasnt much of a thinker. All she wanted to do was eat sugar, and look pretty. Benjamin was a critic who always said Ive seen that before and Itll never work. The cat was just plain lazy, and was always disappearing whenever work had to be done. The ducks were weak and did not get much done. Then there were other donkeys which worked much harder and never thought of their own needs. The pigeons acted as message carriers spreading propaganda between farms, spreading Napoleons words from farm to farm, or in the actual Russian Revolution, country to country. Although all these animals are very different, they all shared one common trait. They were all weak. They all let Napoleon take over without much resistance. Just like Stalin took over Russia. These animals were too weak, too scared, or just lacked the intelligence required to do something about it. This is where it is the fault of the people. They should have stood up to Napoleon for what they fought for in the first place. The people must stand up to those who would destroy the system or else all is lost. I think that this story was a good representation of the actual Russian Revolution. But it is even more than that. It shows how people can let certain individuals get away with