The Art and Beauty of Emily Dickinson's Poetry

Emily Dickinson's art is nothing short of genius. It is something miraculous. In this lecture, I consider Dickinson’s life, her innovative poetic style, and her place in the American Renaissance. Learn how to fall in love with Dickinson’s sometimes enigmatic verses and to appreciate her innovative style.
Join the Book Club here: / closereadingpoetry
.
.
.
.
How to read Emily Dickinson
Lecture on Emily Dickinson
Emily Dickinson's life
Emily Dickinson's poetry

[@djlikesthemoose]

Dickinson has always been my favorite poet- ive always loved music and i remember falling in love with her rhythm after just one poem. Thank you so much!! I appreciate these videos more than you know. :)

[@wildsonnets]

Wonderful - thank you for this. I have always said that Whitman is the most American of poets and Dickinson is the most poetic of Americans.

[@closereadingpoetry]

love that distinction!

[@ThomasSimmons-u5x]

Brilliant!

[@ThomasSimmons-u5x]

One of the many things I love about Emily is how, not unlike Beckett, she imagines a thinking Death.

[@ThomasSimmons-u5x]

I often read Dickenson and Bukowski in tandem just to keep me honest. But seriously, Folks - I adore her - The sherry in her eyes.

[@SanStarStudioChannel]

You are so sweet. Thank you so much.✨

[@earmuhammadalmahathi9094]

Make a video on contemporary poetry scene.I found nothing clear.Also tell how to get access to those poetry

[@Actaeon-l6d]

I'd be careful with that whole analytic writing is masculine line of thought lol. That's getting dangerously close to a math is racist kind of thinking. Women think and write in this kind of "analytic" way as well. There is nothing gendered about writing in a more open ended way or a more algorithmic way.

[@closereadingpoetry]

The concern you’ve raised about analytic writing being described as "masculine" is valid in that it’s worth being cautious with generalizations about gender. However, my argument is not at all comparable to the "math is racist" line of reasoning for several key reasons. I've not encountered someone who has made the "math is racist" claim, but I assume that the claim critiques systemic barriers to access and participation in mathematics for marginalized groups, not the inherent nature of mathematical reasoning itself. In contrast, the discussion about analytic writing being associated with masculinity critiques long-standing cultural and historical associations, not the actual capacity of women (or anyone) to think analytically. The other reason -- and perhaps this wasn't sufficiently clear in my presentation -- is that feminine and masculine are modes of orientation not essential to the body. Carl Jung is good on this. Anyone can orient in either way. Also, I hope viewers will know that my argument isn’t suggesting that men are inherently better at analytic writing or that women cannot engage with it. Rather, I’m pointing out that Western intellectual traditions have historically coded certain modes of thinking and writing-such as logic-driven, hierarchical structures-as "masculine," while other forms, like open-ended, intuitive, or narrative approaches, have often been devalued as "feminine." I’m not suggesting a rigid, essentialist framework here but rather offering a critique of how certain writing styles have been socially constructed and valued. And how those style inform our reading and our expectations (and frustrations) as readers!