"Why, Professor Dumbledore, you look absolutely ravishing!"

"Take me to you, imprison me, for I, / Except you enthrall me, never shall be free, / Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me" ("Batter my heart, three-personed God," 12-14).

In this poem, the speaker is addressing God, asking Him to "batter" him so that he can "rise and stand" (1-3). That paradox is nice and everything, but I'm going to focus on the last three lines, which contain two paradoxes. Both paradoxes are resolved by the double meanings of certain words (like "batter" in this first example). Okay, the last two paradoxes . . .

The speaker asks God to "imprison" him, for unless God "enthralls" him, he cannot be "free." At first glance, that makes no sense because one who is imprisoned is not free. However, the word "enthrall" can mean to captivate in a charming way or in a slavery-y way. The speaker is suggesting that it would be oh-so-charming if God were to enslave him; that would make him free of evil.

Then, the speaker asks God to "ravish" him, for unless God ravishes him, he cannot be chaste. If we just use one definition of "ravish" -- to rape -- this statement seems contradictory. Rape is not chaste. However, "ravish" can also mean to fill with joy, which is more of what the speaker is requesting.

My argument here is that the speaker wants to be figuratively imprisoned and raped, and he literally wants to be charmed and filled with joy. Iiii sincerely hope it's not the other way around.

"We sit down in our Thinking Chair and think, think, thiiiink."

"Much Madness is divinest Sense -- / To a discerning Eye -- / Much Sense -- the starkest Madness --" ("Much Madness is divinest Sense," 1-3).

My new strategy is to blog about the weirdest poems of the unit, so I'll naturally begin with Emily Dickinson.

That quote up there is a paradox, which I know because equating madness and sense is an apparent contradiction and because the first question in the book told me so. Since it's a paradox, there must be some sort of truth behind it. Let's investigate.

"To a discerning eye" (2) suggests that the speaker sides with those who equate insanity and good sense. Dickinson also writes that those who "demur" are viewed as dangerous and are "handled with a chain" (7-8), so she is not with the majority. "Handled with a chain" sounds like an understatement to me; "handled" is a very light way of saying "imprisoned" or "strangled." Let's keep investigating.

"Madness" is a fairly ambiguous word -- insanity has many interpretations -- but that word "demur" shrinks the area of interpretation to some kind of objection. Here's what I have written in my Handy Dandy Notebook (ding!):

• The speaker sees a connection between insanity and sense.
• The majority sees a connection between compliance and sense.
• When a person objects, the majority suppresses them.

This poem gives me the idea that the speaker doesn't think that locking up all the crazy rebels is such a good idea. (I mean, they're probably going to escape, anyway.)