"Love is not at all" & "This once was a love poem"

From the titles, the poems “Love is not all” by Edna St. Vincent Millay and “This once was a love poem” by Jane Hirschfield one would think that both poems eschew love. “Love is not all” begins with the claim that love is not necessary to live, “it is not meat nor drink.” However as the poem progresses the author makes it clear that while love holds no tangible sustenance, love is necessary to live. She claims that she would not trade even the memory of love for the necessities. Jane Hirschfield must have had a different experience with love because she begins “This once was a love poem” acknowledging the excitement and comfort of love, but ends deciding that love is too much trouble and pain to live with. In a sense, it is the opposite of “Love is not at all”—beginning with love and concluding with practicality, while “Love is not at all” begins with practicality and ends with love. “Love is not at all” is a true love poem, although for most of the poem the author seems to discourage love for more practical pursuits like obtaining food or peace, the last line shifts to indicate that in her heart love means more than all practical things. A similar shift happens in line 7, when the author shifts from the concerns of a person with their whole life ahead of him/her, to the concerns of one on his/her deathbed. With this shift Millay indicates that in the end love is what matters most. Hirschfield does the opposite, yet she warns us of this. From the beginning the reader is aware of the author’s aversion to the concept of love because she tells us “this is not a love poem.” Unlike Millay she believes that while love is important in youth, in old age it does not matter most.

I do not know whose side I favor. I like that Hirschfield believes that love isn’t everything, but like Millay, I believe that in the end love is more important than the practicalities of life. I’m still figuring it out.