Emily Dickinson (10 December 1830 – 15 May 1886 / Amherst / Massachusetts)

This does not make sense. True The heart etc.... But she admits it sometimes moves. And when it moves it must express itself with speech which is not a prank and tears which are not a trick of the nerve.

Awesome, concise writing. Truly, the heart can only be change if it want to, not tears nor speech.

Indeed stone heart cannot be melt by speech or tears in life!

Is it possible for Pruchnicki to comment on a poem without picking on people? My comments were heavily qualified with quotes, but 'Speech' is not a prank of parliament in an absolute way, i.e. not all (the absolute) speech in parliament is a prank. There are many able and fluent speakers in Parliament. They do not all do what either Pruchnicki or Dickinson say they do. It is Pruchnicki's criticism that almost always begins chug chug and then ends up in the wrong siding!

Aside from the usual nit-picking by some of our more polished scribblers on this site, most readers managed to state the obvious, though a 'line's apparent absoluteness' (does he mean 'certainty'?) confuses this reader!

Listen to any deliberative body (like the British Parliament or the United States Congress or the United Nations) and tell me if what these assembled members do in session is not like the engine of a freight train that starts slowly, chug by chug, building up a head of steam to propel the heavily loaded cars! Note how long it takes the speakers, some of whom love to hear the sound of their own voices, to begin to move an argument from A to B to C, etc. The drive wheels on the locomotive move almost imperceptibly at first. The dashes after 'Speech' and 'Tears' suggest that kind of slow motion common to both politicians and trains. Note that speeches do not always move the argument the way their makers intend. Sometimes even a strong appeal to the emotions (that 'trick of the nerve' mentioned in the second line) does not avail and the train sits motionless in the station. No matter the weight of the cargo, the gravity of the argument, nothing happens, and as speakers in the houses mentioned put it - the motion fails!

Do not neglect to explore the metaphor Dickinson uses to illustrate what in the end is a very simple thought, but one expressed in a memorable fashion!

Should it not be ''Speech' - can be a prank of Parliament' etc. Are the quotes round 'Speech' and 'Tears' enough to qualify the line's apparent absoluteness? With that qualification, the poem says that the heart can be so heavy with feeling that words and tears cannot express it. Sometimes a sorrow, or a joy, ar too much, too weighty, for the faculties that usually express them.

A few simple words to capture the depths of the heart. Frivolous seem other things, when it comes to the heart.

Speech may be the way people of wisdom shared their thoughts to elaborate a point, yet tears are expression of an emotional state induced by nerve-stirred sentiments; while those who are heavy laden with freight become too shock to even move or express true feelings.... I might be right?

Speech may be the way people of knowledge shared their thoughts to elaborate a point, yet tears are expression of an emotional state induced by nerve-stirred sentiments; while those who are heavy laden with freight become too shock to even move or express true feelings.... I might be right?

I'm doing a project on Emily Dickinson for my 11th grade American Literature class, and i need to find a poem by Miss Emily Dickinson and then analyze it, i chose this poem, but i don't really understand it, so if anybody could please explain it to me and help me to better understand it, i would be extremely grateful.