There seems to be something wrong, counterproductive and absurd in these academic analyses of poems, which dissect the verses to the point of highlighting the expressive effect of each of the letters that make up its words. The contradiction is obvious when we see the result: endless paragraphs that seem to hide the essence of the verses rather than elucidate it. It is curious: these academics see alliteration, assonance before the very meaning of the words they read. There is no denying that such expressive resources sometimes reinforce an idea; but that is what they do: reinforce, and are merely auxiliary. It is even ridiculous to want to see the analyst as having expressive intent in sibilants when the author has limited himself to using plural words, not to mention worse examples. What is this? Finally, we are left with the feeling that there is an attempt to idealize the futile to the detriment of the essential.