About [I]m Nobody! Who Are You? "


PosterĄG Flora Shiu at 12:35:55 11/13/97 from c445-60.svdcc.fju.edu.tw
MentionedĄG

No sooner had I looked at the title" I'm Nobody!
Who are you?" than I was shocked by the tone of the
title. The sentence "I'm Nobody! " seems to embody
the speaker's position with a reasonable and aggressive
tone. The speaker also proclaims his sphere to the
friend "you". Then the speaker asks the friend "you"
what position you belong to. The sentence "Who are
you?" also expresses indirectly "Are you in the same po-
sition ?" and "What side are you on?". When the speaker
asks the friend"Who are you?", maybe the friend says
"I'm nobody,too." Because the speaker wants to make
it sure whether the friend is nobody or not, the
speaker asks the friend "Are you--Nobody--too?" The
dashes signify a sort of suspense and uncertainty.
Maybe the speaker also feels very surprised at the
friend's answer. The speaker can't believe there
is a sort of person existing in the world and the
person has the same attitude or position as his. In
the sentence"Then there's a pair of us.", there is
a kind of hopelessness and unmovedness. However,the
speaker is scared of being known they are nobody
because people in the modern and usual world will
banish, desert, and defy them.
And in the second stanza, the speaker considers
that being somebody is "dreary". The word "dreary"
includes many meanings--boring,unfeeling,dull and
uninteresting. In the vanity of world, most common
people like to become famous, to be somebody, to have
fame, power, and wealth,and to exist in the public eye.
Nevertheless,the speaker describes the happiest thing
most public consider as the dreary thing. The speaker
might even say a world-weary voice, and be a escaper
out from the world. Maybe the speaker thinks "Fame,
wealth, power;all is vanity." is correct from his
vantagepoint. But I can't understand the last three
lines in the second stanza. I hope Ray or other class-
mates can give me answer to the meanings of the last
three lines in second stanza.
After reading Emily Dickinsons's biography, I
was so confused--Why did she have so opposite personality
in her childhood and in her early 30's? She had a
normal childhood-was bright, witty, had friends, went
to parties--it was as usual as others' childhood.
But by her early 30's, she had a enormous and extreme
attitude to the world. She couldn't be satisfied
and happy in the face of fact of life. Perhaps in
the "normal" world, she was a traitor and an unnatural
person. Oppositely, she may think "Why should I look
for empty reputation?" "I just want an unpretentious
style of living and deep-spirited life." "I don't want
to pass the years in vain in quest of empty repure and
material wealth without substantial ability." This
may be a battle between "reality" and "hypocrity" ?







Response:



Reply the post:

Your Name ĄG
E-Mail AddĄG
SUBJECT ĄG
Your opinion ĄG

[Local Preview]