Comparative Analysis

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Comparative Analysis
On the surface, the poems ‘Because I could not Stop for Death,’ by Emily Dickinson and ‘Departure Lounge,’ by Mervyn Morris may look very different. However, upon close examination, one sees that these poems center on the same theme, the theme of travel. One can also see that the two authors also make use of some similar ways of writing. The authors’ use of broken rhyme scheme and irony reveal their insecurities about traveling.
The two poems do not have a rhyme scheme. Just as one cannot predict the point of the next line of a poem that lacks a rhyme scheme, the authors intentionally use a broken rhyme scheme in the poems to show that one cannot predict how traveling to a particular place shall turn out. Therefore, by using a broken rhyme scheme, the authors manage to show that they do not find traveling entertaining because it has an aspect of unpredictability.
Dickinson writes, “We slowly drove – He knew no haste, And I had put away, My labor and my leisure too, For His Civility” She is describing Death. The statement is ironical because everyone knows that death is a bad thing because it hurts people (Brueckner and Fischer 214). As such, it lacks civility. Morris writes, “The young man, when the flight is called, is blowing his nose to clear the sadness of departure. The girl who’s leaving looks Composed.” This statement is ironical because women tend to be more emotional than men are, and as such, one would expect the man to be composed as the woman cries.

By using irony, these authors manage to show that traveling comes with an aspect of confusion.
As shown, the two poems have clear similarities. One can see this by closely examining the literary elements used by the poets. The authors of the poems use broken rhyme scheme and irony to show their feelings about traveling. They are insecure because traveling comes with aspects of unpredictability and confusion.

Works Cited
Brueckner, Anthony L., and John Martin Fischer. “Why is death bad?.” Philosophical Studies 50.2 (1986): 213-221.