PRELIM EXAMS

Batalla, Freya Ramille A. 1-LITERATURE

A Critique Paper on ‘The Personal’ Analysis of ‘Achilles In Love’

 The language used by the writer is clear, concise and straightforward. After stating the concept

of ‘the personal’ as how Orr described it, they went straight to the analysis of the personal

aspect of the poem like they mean serious business. They were able to get their points across

in a matter of few sentences, focusing their arguments on only two to three interpretations of

‘the personal’ and relating these interpretations based on the context of the poem. The flow of

ideas is well-organized and proper use of spelling, punctuation and grammar is observed.

 The writer chose two definitions of the personal according to Orr (2011): “it is much more than

our information but how we see ourselves, how we see others, how we think other’s see us,

and how they actually see us” and “it is the pure expression of our experiences.” From this

perspective, they have asserted the personal nature of the poem as based more on the context

rather than the content and not so much about the author of the poem revealing raw information

about himself but rather about him presenting an experience, whether it be a real one or purely

fictional. This particular point made by the writer makes sense and I completely agree with

their statement.

 I disagree with what the writer claimed about Dunn’s poem, ‘Achilles In Love’, as being deep

and complicated to understand. Dunn’s language was simple yet detailed that there isn’t really

much analysis to be done about the poem’s central message. He only used a mythical character

who was nearly invincible except for his heel to portray how love strips us off our guard and

makes us vulnerable yet surprisingly, we would all still be willing to sacrifice for its name.

 The writer failed to cite what I believe Orr (2011) really meant to be ‘the personal’ that readers

experience which is the “sense of embarrassment” that one feels while reading a poem due to
 PRELIM EXAMS

“a sudden revelation of a private identity that we feel like we are not supposed to see”. They

overlooked the “question of juxtaposition” that Orr emphasized in his essay. Their chosen

definition of ‘the personal’, while not necessarily incorrect, is rather loose; they didn’t closely

scrutinize the content, the context nor how these might reveal other possible personal aspects

of the poem. Based on the definition that they went along with, I think that almost every poem

then can be considered personal as a poetic work’s meaning does not rely only on what is being

stated but also on the context of how it is being delivered as well. Therefore, ‘the personal’

element of the poem based on their given analysis does not seem quite personal to the poem at

all in the sense that it is vague and not particularized enough.

 Though the writer was partially successful in proving how the poem can be considered personal

in terms of their chosen definition of Orr, their points could have been further explained in

concrete detail and backed up with more evidences and analysis. They could have introduced

a little bit about the poem first to give the reader some overview about its theme and message.

They also could have been more specific and paid more attention to the content and the context

of the poem itself and how these contribute to ‘the personal’ aspect of the poem.