The+Song+of+the+Mad+Prince

Why is "The Song of the Mad Prince" written in stanzas? Either way you interpret the word //mad//, it still seems rather unnatural. People who have gone insane can not speak with rhythm, let alone make coherent sentences (I, myself do not spend much time around insane people, but it doesn't seem logical), and angry people hardly do either. I'm having a difficult time grasping the tone of the poem: is it lackadaisical, like the prince is wandering by himself (as I imagine), or is it energetic, like he is having an interesting conversation with himself, or what? Is it bad of me to be putting all these situations in my mind?

The mad prince almost seems like he's riddling himself, and when he comes to a quote that he said, he's taken by surprise. The stanza helps with this riddling quality of it. What else does it do? 1205271957

I beg to differ on the opinion that the insane or angry or mad or however you wish to define the mental state of the prince cannot speak in rhythm or form coherent sentences. Just because you are crazy or insane does not mean that the ability to think logically and use stanzas is lost. Obviously, it is a different kind of logic that the insane or mad uses, but in many circumstances it can still be considered logic, but maybe just a little bit off-kilter. It seems to me that the prince is having an interesting conversation with himself and then is somewhat surprised when he gets to the end. I don’t see him as lazy because many of his references like “rust to a harrow” actually makes some sense, in a roundabout way. I think the stanza helps define the qualities of the mad prince’s insanity. When someone usually thinks of an insane person, they tend to think off-their-rocker crazy and sitting in a corner babbling in a straight jacket. But the fact that the poem, and I guess maybe even his thought process, is structured and follows a logical format, suggests that he is not as crazy as one might expect and is still using some form of logic, even if it is a bit different from what everyone else uses. 1205275989

In all honesty, I'm also somewhat annoyed of people stereotyping "insane" or "mad" people as straight jacket, foaming at the mouth, mumbling to themselves. Insane can just be a different way of thinking, a different method of learning, and different way of expressing what you think and feel. Mad and insane don't necessarily mean that you've lost all comprehension of the world around you. Obviously the mad prince recognizes the world around him, the people in it, and what they are saying. I don't think anyone would consider the thought that he might just be angry because the content of the poem is not necessarily normal. Many times, we refer to scientists as "mad," but in all reality, they might just be some of the smartest people on Earth using their talents in the "wrong" way. In the last stanza of this poem, the poet writes, "Life's troubled bubble broken." I thought this was a great part of the poem because this mad prince is realizing the connection between life's troubles and death. Anyone else thinking anything similar?1205279531

However, we also can't defend insanity as if it's a mere educational disorder. It's not just a "different method of learning;" it's the sensation of losing the capability to think and act rationally. True, that may not keep a body from speaking in rhythmic sentences, but it certainly doesn't mean that you're just being uniquely expressive.

I personally think that the poem is written in stanzas because the Prince is singing to himself about what happened. In regards to the tone, to me it seems almost like the prince is analyzing the situation. It's as if he is going through what happened (the death of his lover) over and over in his mind, and is trying to make sense of it. His ideas are almost something I could hear Vardaman or Darl saying in "As I Lay Dying." That's my opinion on the subject1205282531

I agree with Nick about the definition of madness and the use of stanzas. This mad prince is telling himself the story of the woman, but maybe he is not just talking, rather singing. When I read this poem I saw a grown man sitting in the fetal position in the corner of a room telling himself the story of the dead woman. But on my second reading, I noticed that the prince was the one talking whenever death was mentioned. Did anybody else notice that all the questions directly relating to the death of the woman were what he or "I" said? Is it possible that he killed the woman? Is this why he's mad? But what exactly makes him mad...the thought of killing someone? 1205292351

At any rate, the Mad Prince is Mad for more reasons that just he possibly killed the woman. Let's not forget this is someone who advocates "Peacock Pie", at least when talks to the sparrow, as well as "Moss for a pillow". These are not normal creature comforts, or at least not in today's world. Mabye peacock pie was some sort of revered delicacy in whatever context De La Mare wrote this, but as for the "Moss for a Pillow", I'm pretty sure that's not very enviable to the normal person. But he also is mad because he thinks that killing a woman is good because it will break her "troubled bubble." He is mad in multiple ways. Besides, the stanzas are the lines by other people, note "The old King to the sparrow:. . . Rust to the harrow:. . . Sexton to the willow:. .. "This puts to rest the sophistication of the mad prince: just because a character has two lines in poem does not mean that he is the author.1205392388

Being mad or crazy just means that your mind does not function the way a normal human mind might function and it is easy to see from the poem that the prince is still mad. He may not be the type of madness in which he sits in a corner all day spouting nonsensical jargon as people carry him away in a padded van but he is still mad none the less. This can be seen in the fact that he is constantly talking to himself in a structured way, but he is talking to himself none the less. There is also mentioned of the fact that a women recently died and the fact that he seems to try and skate the issue by asking himself if she is dead and then responding "thats what I said". It is almost like Vardeman trying to cope with death as was stated by the above posters but this is a different type of dealing with death. In this the person not only has to deal with the fact that the other person will never be there but also with the fact that it is because of him that the other person will never be there and that is the worst sort of madness to get used to of all. user:DGr-c

I am not really unsure of the stanza structure. I mean i dont get why they were broke up the stanzas the way they did. It doesnt have any central structure around the dead woman, or maybe it does. I mean the last stanza does describe the woman's place in death, literally in the ground. But, what on earth is the first stanza saying? so confused. I mean the second is the woman actually dying and the third is the woman in the ground. but, what is the first in that sequence? 1205464233