57. DONALD TRUMP: THE MODERN EMILY DICKINSON?

Last month, Chris sought to understand – insofar as any sane person can – the use of language by Donald Trump. Is he a skilled orator playing 4D chess? Or just a teenage boy trapped in the body of a 78-year-old man? In any case, his unusual use of capitalisation has a surprising forebearer: 19th-century American poet Emily Dickinson.

On the face of it, there isn't a lot of similarity between the two figures. Dickinson was quiet and reclusive, doing little to promote the 1,800 poems she wrote in her lifetime – a stark contrast with the bombastic and self-aggrandising Trump. The only obvious commonality in personality appears to be their trouble forming sincere human connection. But, like Trump, Dickinson adopted an idiosyncratic way of writing. In the words of the Emily Dickinson Museum, she "most often punctuated her poems with dashes, rather than the more expected array of periods, commas, and other punctuation marks. She also capitalized interior words, not just words at the beginning of a line. Her reasons are not entirely clear."

We don't have any indication from Dickinson as to how or why she adopted such a style, but she appears to be imparting a sense of importance or resonance to everyday words that would lack such qualities when in lowercase. In other words, her use of language makes the ordinary extraordinary.

"I'll tell you how the Sun rose –

A Ribbon at a time –

The steeples swam in Amethyst

The news, like Squirrels, ran –"

Not a million miles then from Trump's 'boosted stance' to intensify his (typically outrageous) claims and heighten the emotional response of his audience.

"4.2 million hard working Americans –

Have already received a large Bonus – and/or Pay Increase –

Because of our recently Passed – Tax Cut & Jobs Bill –

...and it will only get better!"

So, is Donald Trump the next Emily Dickinson? Realistically, no. Where one makes the ordinary extraordinary, the other makes the ludicrous feel inevitable. One refines, the other bludgeons. Neither's style can be fully explained by historians, present and future, but only one will be studied in English classes – at least I hope so.

- Josh