I like the idea that was left by Erica Lucero, that it's about (not) owning the nature.
But, what it also made me think of, that it is that the Nature in this poem could be also read as Life itself. The moment when you think that this is it, this is what I own and this is what I've accomplished, you've settled, you've done, dead.
Because life, living means evolvment, development, and the only things you truly own, things that no one can take away from you, are the lessons you've learnt in school and in life, knowledge through books, experiences and hurt.
You actually cannot own nothing material. The only thing *you've given* is your life.
The fourth line of the first stanza, and the line I admire the most, has an oder of increasing in size in ever greater part or portion, and gives the idea of what this poem is all about. From this line along one, the reader, can deduct the meaning of this poem, which I believe is a good poem but falls a little bit short of being great or near to great.
The lines has power, but poetically they are not a marvel of verse, but of poetic prose in my humble estimation.
I believe or am of the humble opinion that you did, in the total, not bad here in this try, but I have read better poetry from you.
There is no rhyme here and the line are of different lengths, so this can be called a free style poem, though you show carefullness of details and diciton so the poem though in free style do not become too loose. Free style does not ever meas that the poet do not take into mind certain considerations such as stanza length, lines contruction and choice of words; it only has the meaning that it is not metrical poetry, the foot and the meter are not to be taken to task.
It has been my pleasure to have gone through this pieve and have given my humble and imperfect criticism.
I like how Atwood refers to all the hard work you have to do accomplish everything you own and live for. She makes it clear that your struggles in life are not easy and that some roads you take can be very difficult. I like how she ends the poem with like a metaphore of death meaning you just hit a brick wall with no where to go as well as nothing else to do. How the pressure is all on you now and everything you lived for is gone.
is it about the proprietary rights? the transition from 'house' to 'universe' and the defining period of time where the trees and air melt, and change to make the 'owner' realize about the inherent quality of change and stark reality of something more tangible, more permanent, the change itself. Can it be read in the perspective of human drama instead of mere imagery or wordplay. Maybe the person who wrote the lines didn't think of time but of timelessness. What then..
This is a beautiful poem about nature. The main theme of this poem is natures ownership. The first stanza talks about natures beauty and that humans own all of it. The second stanza changes all of this. Margaret Atwood uses personification and imagery to convey natures rejection to the fact that humans own nature. In the third stanza nature restates that humans indeed do not own nature and that humans belong to nature. Instead of the other way around. Natures ownership is a good question. I agree that nature owns us because why else must we return to the ground when we die?