firstly, Ernest Hemingway’s original title for The Sun Also Rises was used for foreign-language editions—Fiesta. He changed the American English version to The Sun Also Rises at the behest of his publisher.
and
To Kill a Mockingbird was simply Atticus before Harper Lee decided the title focused too narrowly on one character.
most importantly, mentalfloss.com is the site for you. check it.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Think What Pleases You...
...the film!
[insert cheesy music]
okay, but really,
If I were to make "How I Met My Husband" into a film, here's how it'd go down:
PLOT
The plot for this really writes itself into a movie. I think I'd definitely have to make the beginning a little less vague. There would be more back story with Edie's family and the home life. I think that needs a little more detail to make it into a full length. it's not super clear ever why she isn't living with her family anymore. I don't mean to say that I'd answer all the questions, but give a little bit more to work on. everything else I would keep the same, but I'd have to develop the relationships a little more to add time, no biggie. we'd just get to know the husband a little bit better, more than just a line here or there.
POINT OF VIEW
The point of view needs to stay the same for the bulk of the story. the innocence that Edie brings along with her is crucial to the meaning of the work, and I don't want that to change at all. The beginning (backstory) would begin in a third person omniscient, and work closer and closer. Eventually we'd end up with Edie and her point of view. it'd be a first person narrative, but there'd be dialogue as well. I mean, the interaction between Edie and Chris are pretty important. I'd need to add additional POV changes for when Edie isn't around but the neighbor ladies are still talking.
CHARACTERIZATION
Obviously we'd have full physicals on each character. I don't know who I'd have play who though... Probably Ellen Page as Edie. just sayin'. maybe Josh Duhamel as Chris. I don't know. I think mostly the characters would be almost strictly physically characterized. we wouldn't really know much else. their actions too, would give clues into their personality, but not a whole lot. Other than Edie, we wouldn't see a deeper side of any of the characters. Everyone would be pretty face-value. the mailman would get a little bit more characterized though.
SETTING
again, setting won't change much. since I'm not changing plot, it wouldn't make sense for the story to take place anywhere else, except by an open field. the time period would have to stay the same too. I don't think the TSA would be cool with a guy landing his plane in some open field. I'm pretty sure stuff's pretty strict with air traffic now. I'm not really fond of huge changes from books to movies, anyway. I'll keep the neighborhood and all that too. the vision I have for this house is a similar visual that I had for the house in TKAM, too. not that that is helpful to any of you. but the house Edie's in is nicer. upscale. her childhood home is rundown, across town. small town.
THEME
I think the passiveness and innocence of the short story is perfectly suitable for film adaptation, so (surprise) not much is changing here either. I think that when the relationships develop a little more, the theme will be able to come across more strongly though. the MAJOR theme in this is going to be Edie's (and society as a whole's) desire for people think what they like, so long as they are happy. every relationship and every encounter that shows up is going to help reinforce that. not to the extent that we're saying "okay, okay, enough already, I GET IT!" by the end, but it'll definitely be clear. that, and the innocence that the POV reinforces are going to be key.
just of note:
it'll end with a soundless flash-forward of Edie's life after she meets her husband. it'll end with these images and her saying the last line of the story, fade to black.
BOOM. =]
[insert cheesy music]
okay, but really,
If I were to make "How I Met My Husband" into a film, here's how it'd go down:
PLOT
The plot for this really writes itself into a movie. I think I'd definitely have to make the beginning a little less vague. There would be more back story with Edie's family and the home life. I think that needs a little more detail to make it into a full length. it's not super clear ever why she isn't living with her family anymore. I don't mean to say that I'd answer all the questions, but give a little bit more to work on. everything else I would keep the same, but I'd have to develop the relationships a little more to add time, no biggie. we'd just get to know the husband a little bit better, more than just a line here or there.
POINT OF VIEW
The point of view needs to stay the same for the bulk of the story. the innocence that Edie brings along with her is crucial to the meaning of the work, and I don't want that to change at all. The beginning (backstory) would begin in a third person omniscient, and work closer and closer. Eventually we'd end up with Edie and her point of view. it'd be a first person narrative, but there'd be dialogue as well. I mean, the interaction between Edie and Chris are pretty important. I'd need to add additional POV changes for when Edie isn't around but the neighbor ladies are still talking.
CHARACTERIZATION
Obviously we'd have full physicals on each character. I don't know who I'd have play who though... Probably Ellen Page as Edie. just sayin'. maybe Josh Duhamel as Chris. I don't know. I think mostly the characters would be almost strictly physically characterized. we wouldn't really know much else. their actions too, would give clues into their personality, but not a whole lot. Other than Edie, we wouldn't see a deeper side of any of the characters. Everyone would be pretty face-value. the mailman would get a little bit more characterized though.
SETTING
again, setting won't change much. since I'm not changing plot, it wouldn't make sense for the story to take place anywhere else, except by an open field. the time period would have to stay the same too. I don't think the TSA would be cool with a guy landing his plane in some open field. I'm pretty sure stuff's pretty strict with air traffic now. I'm not really fond of huge changes from books to movies, anyway. I'll keep the neighborhood and all that too. the vision I have for this house is a similar visual that I had for the house in TKAM, too. not that that is helpful to any of you. but the house Edie's in is nicer. upscale. her childhood home is rundown, across town. small town.
THEME
I think the passiveness and innocence of the short story is perfectly suitable for film adaptation, so (surprise) not much is changing here either. I think that when the relationships develop a little more, the theme will be able to come across more strongly though. the MAJOR theme in this is going to be Edie's (and society as a whole's) desire for people think what they like, so long as they are happy. every relationship and every encounter that shows up is going to help reinforce that. not to the extent that we're saying "okay, okay, enough already, I GET IT!" by the end, but it'll definitely be clear. that, and the innocence that the POV reinforces are going to be key.
just of note:
it'll end with a soundless flash-forward of Edie's life after she meets her husband. it'll end with these images and her saying the last line of the story, fade to black.
BOOM. =]
Monday, December 6, 2010
"At least I'm not a book burner, you Nazi cow!"
ohman. I love this movie.
although, after reading the short story there are quite a few differences. large differences.
PLOT
first off, there's a whole second plot. after the voice says "if you build it, he will come" and the field is built and everybody comes to play and it's all happy and cool! but then, WHOABUDDY...
uhm, excuse me? where is this in the story? oh, that's right, in order to make a full movie out of a short story, you've got to add more. so, Ray Kinsella (the main guy) goes out in search of Terrence Mann, a guy who he must take to a baseball game at Fenway in order to settle something (ease this guy's pain). of course, it's not easy and he has to try a few times to get it to go down (Mr. Mann is a pretty angry guy), but it does and everything's grand. The end. but not quite. we're not going into the whole "go the distance" idea. it just gets more complicated. they go to Minnesota to find Moonlight Graham... don't ask.
also, there is a full field built.
Annie DOES call Ray crazy.
and her family actually physically tries to take the farm away from them.
POINT OF VIEW
Everything is told from a third person point of view. A third person limited though. we don't get any sort of insight into the thoughts or anything of any of the characters. we get lots of dialogue, almost exclusively between Ray and another person. this sort of dialogue makes it almost like a first person narrative. I think that in a movie, this sort of dialogue has to happen. in this case, unlike in the text, the third person is more effective than a first person would be.
CHARACTERIZATION
obviously, since this is a screenplay, all of the characters are given physical attributes. the casting though is quite good. each of the physical attributes given in the text are carried out in the movie. Most importantly, Annie and Karen are both characterized more fully. Annie is given a full personality. she's spunky and fiery and passionate about lots of things. Karen is still a quiet, shy girl who loves her daddy. Ray's father is only mentioned and there aren't many good things that Ray has to say.
SETTING
The part that follows the story completely - quotes included - still takes place in Iowa. it's in a cornfield at the back of Ray's house. but then, Ray moves to Boston to find Terrence. They go to Fenway park. Then they go to Minnesota. and then they go back home. so it jumps around a little bit from place to place, but each place has a specific reason to take them there.
THEME
theme theme themey theme.
the theme in this is not at all the same. in the story, it's all about Ray being able to do something for his father. it's all about following dreams. he builds this park to let Shoeless Joe play again. but in the movie, it's about following dreams still, but mostly being able to repay his dad in some way. namely, by bringing back his dad's hero. in allowing for this to happen, Ray finally can "Ease his pain" and restore in some way the relationship with his father.
aaaaw. =]
although, after reading the short story there are quite a few differences. large differences.
PLOT
first off, there's a whole second plot. after the voice says "if you build it, he will come" and the field is built and everybody comes to play and it's all happy and cool! but then, WHOABUDDY...
"Ease his pain."
uhm, excuse me? where is this in the story? oh, that's right, in order to make a full movie out of a short story, you've got to add more. so, Ray Kinsella (the main guy) goes out in search of Terrence Mann, a guy who he must take to a baseball game at Fenway in order to settle something (ease this guy's pain). of course, it's not easy and he has to try a few times to get it to go down (Mr. Mann is a pretty angry guy), but it does and everything's grand. The end. but not quite. we're not going into the whole "go the distance" idea. it just gets more complicated. they go to Minnesota to find Moonlight Graham... don't ask.
also, there is a full field built.
Annie DOES call Ray crazy.
and her family actually physically tries to take the farm away from them.
POINT OF VIEW
Everything is told from a third person point of view. A third person limited though. we don't get any sort of insight into the thoughts or anything of any of the characters. we get lots of dialogue, almost exclusively between Ray and another person. this sort of dialogue makes it almost like a first person narrative. I think that in a movie, this sort of dialogue has to happen. in this case, unlike in the text, the third person is more effective than a first person would be.
CHARACTERIZATION
obviously, since this is a screenplay, all of the characters are given physical attributes. the casting though is quite good. each of the physical attributes given in the text are carried out in the movie. Most importantly, Annie and Karen are both characterized more fully. Annie is given a full personality. she's spunky and fiery and passionate about lots of things. Karen is still a quiet, shy girl who loves her daddy. Ray's father is only mentioned and there aren't many good things that Ray has to say.
SETTING
The part that follows the story completely - quotes included - still takes place in Iowa. it's in a cornfield at the back of Ray's house. but then, Ray moves to Boston to find Terrence. They go to Fenway park. Then they go to Minnesota. and then they go back home. so it jumps around a little bit from place to place, but each place has a specific reason to take them there.
THEME
theme theme themey theme.
the theme in this is not at all the same. in the story, it's all about Ray being able to do something for his father. it's all about following dreams. he builds this park to let Shoeless Joe play again. but in the movie, it's about following dreams still, but mostly being able to repay his dad in some way. namely, by bringing back his dad's hero. in allowing for this to happen, Ray finally can "Ease his pain" and restore in some way the relationship with his father.
aaaaw. =]
Thursday, December 2, 2010
tug-o-war
...the worst kind. ew.
the question that I've heard floating around this whole week is "did the baby actually die?!"
I think that, much like in "A Worn Path", it doesn't really matter if the child is dead or not... what matters is the fact that these "parents" are LITERALLY fighting over their child. cartoons and TV shows always show those cutesy scenes where two people are fighting over a third person and tugging back and forth on their arms until they all fall down comically. but this time it's real. and it's disgusting.
the lack of differentiation between action and dialogue really help to contribute to the fact of what is actually occurring. there is no distraction, and it all happens in such a way that no one can do anything about it. it's a lost cause, and even the reader is helpless to stop reading the action (or dialogue, whichever they may choose) because it just sneaks up with no warning. just like the baby has no way to stop what is going on.
this song is kinda cool. but I only posted it for the VEEEEEEEEEEERY last line.. and when you hear it, you'll know. but it's a terrible connection. I apologize.
the question that I've heard floating around this whole week is "did the baby actually die?!"
I think that, much like in "A Worn Path", it doesn't really matter if the child is dead or not... what matters is the fact that these "parents" are LITERALLY fighting over their child. cartoons and TV shows always show those cutesy scenes where two people are fighting over a third person and tugging back and forth on their arms until they all fall down comically. but this time it's real. and it's disgusting.
the lack of differentiation between action and dialogue really help to contribute to the fact of what is actually occurring. there is no distraction, and it all happens in such a way that no one can do anything about it. it's a lost cause, and even the reader is helpless to stop reading the action (or dialogue, whichever they may choose) because it just sneaks up with no warning. just like the baby has no way to stop what is going on.
this song is kinda cool. but I only posted it for the VEEEEEEEEEEERY last line.. and when you hear it, you'll know. but it's a terrible connection. I apologize.
YOUR MOTHER!
that's the only "joke" I can think of now. sorry.
question three at the end of this story asks about the use of jokes and the importance to the characterization of Zoë.
Zoë, to put it as plainly as possible is eccentric. just matter-of-factly eccentric. I think the fact that she cracks jokes all the time builds (or rather, shields) her character quite nicely. realistically, too. she's suuper sarcastic with everything. I believe that when people go through personality analysis by a psychiatrist, they are told that the frequent use of sarcasm is a way of shielding oneself. I think this definitely fits Zoë, to an extent. even when others are trying to be serious (like about getting married), she can't help but come back with some smart-alecky response. in addition to suggesting that she doesn't like letting people in, it accentuates her lack of seriousness. she feels like life is too short to be worrying about stuff all the time. her constant joking shows that.
question three at the end of this story asks about the use of jokes and the importance to the characterization of Zoë.
Zoë, to put it as plainly as possible is eccentric. just matter-of-factly eccentric. I think the fact that she cracks jokes all the time builds (or rather, shields) her character quite nicely. realistically, too. she's suuper sarcastic with everything. I believe that when people go through personality analysis by a psychiatrist, they are told that the frequent use of sarcasm is a way of shielding oneself. I think this definitely fits Zoë, to an extent. even when others are trying to be serious (like about getting married), she can't help but come back with some smart-alecky response. in addition to suggesting that she doesn't like letting people in, it accentuates her lack of seriousness. she feels like life is too short to be worrying about stuff all the time. her constant joking shows that.
I swear to drunk I'm not God!
okay, first let me say that my father is nowhere near a drunkard, but if he were and I got drunk myself, my mother would NOT praise me and say "OH, how brave! you were his guardian angel!" wouldn't happen. but of course that's where the irony comes in.
the son drinks to keep dad from drinking. but that's NOT what his intentions are anyway! he looks at the drink and says "oh, I wonder what that tastes like... *sip*".
anyone else catch the parallel between the son's drinking and the father's?
the father doesn't like what he's doing after the first sip, takes a sip to forget it, and then by the third he's over it.
the son takes a first sip, thinks it's disgusting, takes a second to confirm, and then by the third he's over it as well... hm!
little drunkard...
lolcats...
the son drinks to keep dad from drinking. but that's NOT what his intentions are anyway! he looks at the drink and says "oh, I wonder what that tastes like... *sip*".
anyone else catch the parallel between the son's drinking and the father's?
the father doesn't like what he's doing after the first sip, takes a sip to forget it, and then by the third he's over it.
the son takes a first sip, thinks it's disgusting, takes a second to confirm, and then by the third he's over it as well... hm!
little drunkard...
lolcats...
aaaaaand the winner is...
oh. yikes. you mean you DON'T want to be the winner?
whoops. this is... erm. awkward [IT'SONLYAWKWARDIFYOUMAKIEITAWKWARD!]
the first question in the book asks first what a "lottery" is, and then how that title leads you to think something very different.
a lottery is something that is regarded as a chance event. that perfectly fits the action of a story. everything was indeed random, so based on that we shouldn't really expect anything different? right? WRONG-O! today's society tells us that a lottery is a game where you win. the story provides exactly the opposite. life is not a game, so there goes that theory. most importantly, the "winner" of this particular lottery is anything but! I'm not sure that anyone chalks up the loss of life as a "win" in their scorebook (who would even keep a book of that sort of thing?!) but, in that way, this title is incredibly misleading in terms of what the story presents.
whoops. this is... erm. awkward [IT'SONLYAWKWARDIFYOUMAKIEITAWKWARD!]
the first question in the book asks first what a "lottery" is, and then how that title leads you to think something very different.
a lottery is something that is regarded as a chance event. that perfectly fits the action of a story. everything was indeed random, so based on that we shouldn't really expect anything different? right? WRONG-O! today's society tells us that a lottery is a game where you win. the story provides exactly the opposite. life is not a game, so there goes that theory. most importantly, the "winner" of this particular lottery is anything but! I'm not sure that anyone chalks up the loss of life as a "win" in their scorebook (who would even keep a book of that sort of thing?!) but, in that way, this title is incredibly misleading in terms of what the story presents.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
"If you build it, he will come."
I've said that line and known the storyline behind it since I was... seven? at the oldest? I've seen the movie with my dad countless times, so reading "Shoeless Joe Jackson Comes to Iowa" was a pleasure, let me tell ya. props, W. P. Kinsella.
soherewego:
PLOT
The whole story starts with the narrator (his name is Ray Kinsella in the movie, I found no name in the short story) sitting on his porch "at dusk on a spring evening" when he hears the voice of a ballpark announcer telling him "If you build it, he will come" (511). The obvious question that the reader has with this ambiguous plot beginning is: build what, exactly? and who's going to come? And the story does get to that (what: a baseball diamond. mainly, left field (514), who: "Shoeless" Joe Jackson) but it explains the significance of it (i. e. the whole POINT of the story) in jumpy side-stories. As soon as he finishes his lemonade, he goes into bed, tells his wife what it's going to do, and she says, simply "if it makes you happy you should do it" (512) and then he goes into a story about how wonderful she is for putting up with him - and let's face it, a farmer who is barely breaking even wanting to build a baseball diamond in part of his fields is pretty nuts. He frequently adds anecdotes about his dad as well. these emphasize the importance baseball has to him. He and his dad always bonded over baseball, especially Shoeless Joe Jackson and the "Black Sox Scandal", on which the narrator was raised (514). The last half of the story (516-522) takes place solely in the present, with an interaction between the narrator and Shoeless Joe who has come to play ball in this field. These conversations finalize and conclude the opening statement: "if you build it, he will come." Indeed, in building this "diamond" and taking great care of it (preventing the grass from freezing because of the frost (p.515), asking professionals how to care for it (514)), his dream of encountering this baseball legend happened and because of the anecdotes about his father, we as readers understand just how meaningful this is to the narrator.
POINT OF VIEW
The whole story is told from the narrator's point of view, a first person POV. this is a direct POV too. the narrator is not telling this story as he saw it happen. the story is HIS story. this point of view is incredibly effective in calling attention to the importance that baseball and Shoeless Joe has to this narrator and his father. it makes the relationships between his father and wife more realistic and relateable which further intensifies the ending when Shoeless Joe shows up to play. it's not as if it's being told from an unfeeling, objective point of view. the emotion played on by first-person narrative is imperative for the proper conveyance of the story's meaning.
CHARACTERIZATION
The narrator is characterized almost entirely by his thoughts and actions. in fact, the only physical description given is that he had "ruined his insurance hands" by farming. He likes to make jokes (513), he's very dedicated (he builds a whole diamond, despite dirty looks and possible name calling, 512-13, 516) , and he adores his family (512, 515-16). He even refers to his wife and daughter as his "anyone else" in life (511). The wife is characterized physically: "red hair is short and curly...green eyes of a cat" (516), "a million freckles on her face and arms" (512), "an evil grin...tongue that travels at the speed of light" (516) and also by her actions, as described by the narrator: a series of "It was Annie who got me to"s on 516, her understanding throughout the story. the narrator's father is characterized through the dialogue related to the reader by the narrator. he is passionate about baseball. he has no objection to stating his opinion and was very matter-of-fact in his speech. (514, 516). Lastly, the daughter is also characterized by physical descriptions and her actions as related by the narrator: "an evil grin and bewitching eyes" "a magic about her" "climbs into my lap and watches baseball with me" (516). In essence, those who contribute to the importance of baseball are described more through their words and actions. those who are fundamental to the story but not the central theme are characterized by physical descriptions.
SETTING
The whole story is set in Iowa, the center of the Midwest. being from Indiana (and a family that ADORES baseball), this setting makes perfect sense in terms of the importance baseball had in this family, especially to the men of the family. Annie "understands [her husband] and not always what is happening" (516) in the game, much like the women in families now. this setting makes the story (right down to the love of the Cardinals and hatred of the Yankees, 513) more relateable to modern times. the time frame of this story is at some point after 1951 (the death of Shoeless Joe) (513, 520), likely in the mid- to late-1900s, but not much more detail than that is given. The time period it occurs in does not seem to have much importance to the story itself, beside the fact that it takes place after the death of Shoeless Joe.
THEME
Baseball is life? Is that an acceptable theme? ;]
but really, there are two themes I found in this story. first, the aforementioned love of family. the narrator adores his wife and daughter. he loves(-ed) his father. they all loved him back. this unconditional love, I think, was the most important theme in the whole piece. without the love and support of his family and the passion instilled by it, the second theme would never have been as effective. (cute segue, huh?) THEME 2: hard work and dedication pay off. even if you are crazy. but really, this guy spent seasons of hard work (three, to be specific, 514) to complete this dream he had. he got weird looks from neighbors, I'm sure, his in-laws though he was crazy, and at the end, he was almost despondent because nothing happened. he "waited, and waited, and waited" (516) for something, and then YAY! Shoeless Joe shows up, plays some ball (complains a bit about the lights), compliments the narrator on his field, and all is well. because of his dedication, he was able to build his...
*gasp!* dare I say it?, no, no I can't. too cliché...
whoops, I did it...
nice segue though, huh?
soherewego:
PLOT
The whole story starts with the narrator (his name is Ray Kinsella in the movie, I found no name in the short story) sitting on his porch "at dusk on a spring evening" when he hears the voice of a ballpark announcer telling him "If you build it, he will come" (511). The obvious question that the reader has with this ambiguous plot beginning is: build what, exactly? and who's going to come? And the story does get to that (what: a baseball diamond. mainly, left field (514), who: "Shoeless" Joe Jackson) but it explains the significance of it (i. e. the whole POINT of the story) in jumpy side-stories. As soon as he finishes his lemonade, he goes into bed, tells his wife what it's going to do, and she says, simply "if it makes you happy you should do it" (512) and then he goes into a story about how wonderful she is for putting up with him - and let's face it, a farmer who is barely breaking even wanting to build a baseball diamond in part of his fields is pretty nuts. He frequently adds anecdotes about his dad as well. these emphasize the importance baseball has to him. He and his dad always bonded over baseball, especially Shoeless Joe Jackson and the "Black Sox Scandal", on which the narrator was raised (514). The last half of the story (516-522) takes place solely in the present, with an interaction between the narrator and Shoeless Joe who has come to play ball in this field. These conversations finalize and conclude the opening statement: "if you build it, he will come." Indeed, in building this "diamond" and taking great care of it (preventing the grass from freezing because of the frost (p.515), asking professionals how to care for it (514)), his dream of encountering this baseball legend happened and because of the anecdotes about his father, we as readers understand just how meaningful this is to the narrator.
POINT OF VIEW
The whole story is told from the narrator's point of view, a first person POV. this is a direct POV too. the narrator is not telling this story as he saw it happen. the story is HIS story. this point of view is incredibly effective in calling attention to the importance that baseball and Shoeless Joe has to this narrator and his father. it makes the relationships between his father and wife more realistic and relateable which further intensifies the ending when Shoeless Joe shows up to play. it's not as if it's being told from an unfeeling, objective point of view. the emotion played on by first-person narrative is imperative for the proper conveyance of the story's meaning.
CHARACTERIZATION
The narrator is characterized almost entirely by his thoughts and actions. in fact, the only physical description given is that he had "ruined his insurance hands" by farming. He likes to make jokes (513), he's very dedicated (he builds a whole diamond, despite dirty looks and possible name calling, 512-13, 516) , and he adores his family (512, 515-16). He even refers to his wife and daughter as his "anyone else" in life (511). The wife is characterized physically: "red hair is short and curly...green eyes of a cat" (516), "a million freckles on her face and arms" (512), "an evil grin...tongue that travels at the speed of light" (516) and also by her actions, as described by the narrator: a series of "It was Annie who got me to"s on 516, her understanding throughout the story. the narrator's father is characterized through the dialogue related to the reader by the narrator. he is passionate about baseball. he has no objection to stating his opinion and was very matter-of-fact in his speech. (514, 516). Lastly, the daughter is also characterized by physical descriptions and her actions as related by the narrator: "an evil grin and bewitching eyes" "a magic about her" "climbs into my lap and watches baseball with me" (516). In essence, those who contribute to the importance of baseball are described more through their words and actions. those who are fundamental to the story but not the central theme are characterized by physical descriptions.
SETTING
The whole story is set in Iowa, the center of the Midwest. being from Indiana (and a family that ADORES baseball), this setting makes perfect sense in terms of the importance baseball had in this family, especially to the men of the family. Annie "understands [her husband] and not always what is happening" (516) in the game, much like the women in families now. this setting makes the story (right down to the love of the Cardinals and hatred of the Yankees, 513) more relateable to modern times. the time frame of this story is at some point after 1951 (the death of Shoeless Joe) (513, 520), likely in the mid- to late-1900s, but not much more detail than that is given. The time period it occurs in does not seem to have much importance to the story itself, beside the fact that it takes place after the death of Shoeless Joe.
THEME
Baseball is life? Is that an acceptable theme? ;]
but really, there are two themes I found in this story. first, the aforementioned love of family. the narrator adores his wife and daughter. he loves(-ed) his father. they all loved him back. this unconditional love, I think, was the most important theme in the whole piece. without the love and support of his family and the passion instilled by it, the second theme would never have been as effective. (cute segue, huh?) THEME 2: hard work and dedication pay off. even if you are crazy. but really, this guy spent seasons of hard work (three, to be specific, 514) to complete this dream he had. he got weird looks from neighbors, I'm sure, his in-laws though he was crazy, and at the end, he was almost despondent because nothing happened. he "waited, and waited, and waited" (516) for something, and then YAY! Shoeless Joe shows up, plays some ball (complains a bit about the lights), compliments the narrator on his field, and all is well. because of his dedication, he was able to build his...
*gasp!* dare I say it?, no, no I can't. too cliché...
whoops, I did it...
nice segue though, huh?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
there's a street super close to me called "Brill"
it's about one hundred meters long. if that.
I always feel so creepy when I people watch. I like Miss Brill's take on it. I'm not so much people watching as I am playing a character who people watches. I mean, after all,
I really do feel bad for her though. she doesn't even realize that no one around her likes her. she's an English woman in France teaching English. she's naive. and she just doesn't understand what goes on really. I hope I'm not that person..
also, what's up with the comment about not noticing if the guy was dead? that creeps me out a little bit. I'm not going to lie.
I always feel so creepy when I people watch. I like Miss Brill's take on it. I'm not so much people watching as I am playing a character who people watches. I mean, after all,
"All the world's a stage,(thanks, Bill)
And all the men and women merely players..."
I really do feel bad for her though. she doesn't even realize that no one around her likes her. she's an English woman in France teaching English. she's naive. and she just doesn't understand what goes on really. I hope I'm not that person..
also, what's up with the comment about not noticing if the guy was dead? that creeps me out a little bit. I'm not going to lie.
I hate stories that start with "Once Upon A Time"
I really do.
I really really love the satire and sarcasm used in this story. I absolutely LOVE the passive-aggressive "I don't think I ought to do anything, too. that's so me...
the author is asked to write a children's story. because she "ought" to. so, she writes a story. it has a child IN it. it begins with "Once upon a time there was a perfect family blahblahblah..." and ends with "...and they all lived happily ever after", so it MUST be a children's story, right? and it has a moral too, right? I mean, the more you try to prevent something, the more likely it is to happen, or something like that.... I want to say it's Murphy's Law, but that's slightly different, I think.
and again we get the infamous word choice making everything oh-so-much-more pleasant. at the end of the story, the boy gets attacked by razor wire. but does he die? let's find out... they carry "it". yup. he's dead alright. just a corpse, a measly "it" now.
I really really love the satire and sarcasm used in this story. I absolutely LOVE the passive-aggressive "I don't think I ought to do anything, too. that's so me...
the author is asked to write a children's story. because she "ought" to. so, she writes a story. it has a child IN it. it begins with "Once upon a time there was a perfect family blahblahblah..." and ends with "...and they all lived happily ever after", so it MUST be a children's story, right? and it has a moral too, right? I mean, the more you try to prevent something, the more likely it is to happen, or something like that.... I want to say it's Murphy's Law, but that's slightly different, I think.
and again we get the infamous word choice making everything oh-so-much-more pleasant. at the end of the story, the boy gets attacked by razor wire. but does he die? let's find out... they carry "it". yup. he's dead alright. just a corpse, a measly "it" now.
there's a little boy at St. Roch named Phoenix
... it's sad to think of crazy people named Phoenix. I love that kid.
again, I don't remember the number of the question, but I believe it was the last one regarding "A Worn Path" in the book. It asked if it mattered if the grandson was dead or not or if the story doesn't matter. I think it's really cool that the author, when asked, responded with "well, Phoenix is alive."
and that's all that really matters, I think.
just because the woman is probably mentally ill - okay, probably definitely mentally ill - does not mean that she can't live out her memory of her grandson. she lives her life just fine. a little bit more strangely than most people do, perhaps, but living nonetheless. she harms no one. she seems happy - save for the occasional threat directed towards the plants - and content with the way she is. any maybe that's because she's too naive to know what's truly going on, but I feel like in times like this it doesn't matter. I'm with the author in that it doesn't really have much bearing on the story whether the grandson is alive or not.
I personally don't think he is, but I think Phoenix would behave in the same (or very similar) manner if he were.
again, I don't remember the number of the question, but I believe it was the last one regarding "A Worn Path" in the book. It asked if it mattered if the grandson was dead or not or if the story doesn't matter. I think it's really cool that the author, when asked, responded with "well, Phoenix is alive."
and that's all that really matters, I think.
just because the woman is probably mentally ill - okay, probably definitely mentally ill - does not mean that she can't live out her memory of her grandson. she lives her life just fine. a little bit more strangely than most people do, perhaps, but living nonetheless. she harms no one. she seems happy - save for the occasional threat directed towards the plants - and content with the way she is. any maybe that's because she's too naive to know what's truly going on, but I feel like in times like this it doesn't matter. I'm with the author in that it doesn't really have much bearing on the story whether the grandson is alive or not.
I personally don't think he is, but I think Phoenix would behave in the same (or very similar) manner if he were.
"Eveline" makes me think of Ben Folds
because he has a song "Emaline". completely unrelated. ohwell.
anyway, this is in response to the first(?) question in the book about this story. it asked why the first paragraph was structured the way it was. the word "invades" was used instead of something else. why was everything in passive voice except for the first paragraph?
the "invades" thing I picked up pretty quickly: no one can control night. it just happens and the darkness that it brings seeps into every crack. using the word "invades" rather than a more pleasant word preps the reader in a way for the unpleasantness that is in this story.
until I really looked into why "invades" was used, I couldn't figure out the purpose of using passive voice. (being a yearbook nerd, I find very little use for it in most circumstances. other than laziness, of course). but! I had an epiphany.. as I was explaining to my small group that "invades" is used because it can't be controlled, I realized that the author used passive voice for similar reasons. passive voice suggests that something happens, but not actively. the person doing the action does not choose to do the action, necessarily. there's a lack of DOING replaced by simply BEING... the passive voice foreshadows the lack of control and action that Eveline exercises in the story, a-HA!
anyway, this is in response to the first(?) question in the book about this story. it asked why the first paragraph was structured the way it was. the word "invades" was used instead of something else. why was everything in passive voice except for the first paragraph?
the "invades" thing I picked up pretty quickly: no one can control night. it just happens and the darkness that it brings seeps into every crack. using the word "invades" rather than a more pleasant word preps the reader in a way for the unpleasantness that is in this story.
until I really looked into why "invades" was used, I couldn't figure out the purpose of using passive voice. (being a yearbook nerd, I find very little use for it in most circumstances. other than laziness, of course). but! I had an epiphany.. as I was explaining to my small group that "invades" is used because it can't be controlled, I realized that the author used passive voice for similar reasons. passive voice suggests that something happens, but not actively. the person doing the action does not choose to do the action, necessarily. there's a lack of DOING replaced by simply BEING... the passive voice foreshadows the lack of control and action that Eveline exercises in the story, a-HA!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
you indecisive twit...
yes, yooooou Bart. you don't even get the rest of your name right now.
can you seriously not make up your mind? or are you just SOO immensely passive aggressive that you make people whip out commands to make you do things? (that image is much more powerful if you think about it in terms of Spanish, just saying)
hey, will you put this away?
--I'd rather not.
well, will you?
--I'd prefer not to.
but are you going to?
--I'd prefer not doing that.
JUST DO IT ALREADY!
--but I'd really rather not.
*facepalm* [sigh of exasperation]
so frustrating. and I think that leaves him with issues in terms of relationships with people (d'obviously). he can't function in the real world [coneofmeaning?!], so he stays where he's comfortable. now, I think that not leaving an office is a bit much. and I think that the first company not calling the police is also ridiculous, but it's a story. whatever, I guess.
he reminds me of myself, as much as it sickens me to say that. but I'm not nearly THAT passive. I hope.
can you seriously not make up your mind? or are you just SOO immensely passive aggressive that you make people whip out commands to make you do things? (that image is much more powerful if you think about it in terms of Spanish, just saying)
hey, will you put this away?
--I'd rather not.
well, will you?
--I'd prefer not to.
but are you going to?
--I'd prefer not doing that.
JUST DO IT ALREADY!
--but I'd really rather not.
*facepalm* [sigh of exasperation]
so frustrating. and I think that leaves him with issues in terms of relationships with people (d'obviously). he can't function in the real world [coneofmeaning?!], so he stays where he's comfortable. now, I think that not leaving an office is a bit much. and I think that the first company not calling the police is also ridiculous, but it's a story. whatever, I guess.
he reminds me of myself, as much as it sickens me to say that. but I'm not nearly THAT passive. I hope.
before moving onto the monster
I'm going to talk about the mother in "Everyday Use" for a little bit. (approximately eight to ten more sentences, probably)
it's hard to tell exactly how each of the characters in this story REALLY is due to the fact that the mother (does she ever get a name?) narrates the whole thing. she seems to have a sort of relationship with Dee that reminds me of the relationship that the prodigal son and his father have. she's happy to see Dee, but seems to be hurt that Dee has changed her name. she seems more hurt that Dee doesn't like the explanation her mother gives as to why she was named Dee. and we see that she shifts back and forth from calling her Dee (Wangero) and Wangero (Dee) as if she doesn't really like choosing between the two.
the mother seems offended that Dee wants to take all of the "important" quilts away.
she's very protective of Maggie.
and by the end of the story she kinda loses it. she doesn't do anything crazy, but she just refuses (finally) to put up with the sense of ownership that Dee walks into a household she's abandoned with.
go mom, right?
it's hard to tell exactly how each of the characters in this story REALLY is due to the fact that the mother (does she ever get a name?) narrates the whole thing. she seems to have a sort of relationship with Dee that reminds me of the relationship that the prodigal son and his father have. she's happy to see Dee, but seems to be hurt that Dee has changed her name. she seems more hurt that Dee doesn't like the explanation her mother gives as to why she was named Dee. and we see that she shifts back and forth from calling her Dee (Wangero) and Wangero (Dee) as if she doesn't really like choosing between the two.
the mother seems offended that Dee wants to take all of the "important" quilts away.
she's very protective of Maggie.
and by the end of the story she kinda loses it. she doesn't do anything crazy, but she just refuses (finally) to put up with the sense of ownership that Dee walks into a household she's abandoned with.
go mom, right?
story quilts
I sorta understand where Dee is coming from in "Everyday Use". I'm one of those people who wants to preserve everything. I don't want anything to get ruined, and I don't want to risk further ruin by trying to fix it myself. but if you really think about it, what would someone be doing with a quilt that would ruin it in five years. that's what Dee seems to think Maggie will do. but really, they mostly just sit on a bed. keeping them hung on the wall won't make a HUUUUGE difference.
also, why did Dee change her name? to try to "reconnect" with her heritage after denying it for all of those years? because of some boy? LAME, I say.
and if she despises the house they live in, why does she make sure that it's in every picture? or did I miss something.
and am I the only one who got the vibe that it's Dee's fault that Maggie is so badly disfigured from the fire? I think not.
also, why did Dee change her name? to try to "reconnect" with her heritage after denying it for all of those years? because of some boy? LAME, I say.
and if she despises the house they live in, why does she make sure that it's in every picture? or did I miss something.
and am I the only one who got the vibe that it's Dee's fault that Maggie is so badly disfigured from the fire? I think not.
"I'm going to the hospital"
are you sure of that, m'love? because it seems to me as if your friends have taken a DIFFERENT turn. not a wrong one necessarily, but a different one.
I don't exactly blame them. I mean, Kenny was a total jerk. he's the bully that every kid hates in highschool. and then he gets out and he's even worse because he's STILL the bully that everyone hates in highschool. still living his "glory days". sure, Tub's a bit on the hefty side, but joking about running him over in a car? not cool.
and Tub, why don't you just eat? I mean, why hide the fact that you have a problem that isn't genetic? people can help you, y'know. and just because Kenny's a jerk doesn't mean everyone is.
also, Frank, grow a backbone. you just sit around and let Kenny make all kinds of awful remarks. and don't do a thing! it's almost as sickening as making the jokes yourself. although, you did encourage Tub to eat his heart out in waffles (pancakes?). that was totally unnecessary though. so graphic. I know he's obese, but I don't need to read about how grotesquely he eats. thanks.
I don't exactly blame them. I mean, Kenny was a total jerk. he's the bully that every kid hates in highschool. and then he gets out and he's even worse because he's STILL the bully that everyone hates in highschool. still living his "glory days". sure, Tub's a bit on the hefty side, but joking about running him over in a car? not cool.
and Tub, why don't you just eat? I mean, why hide the fact that you have a problem that isn't genetic? people can help you, y'know. and just because Kenny's a jerk doesn't mean everyone is.
also, Frank, grow a backbone. you just sit around and let Kenny make all kinds of awful remarks. and don't do a thing! it's almost as sickening as making the jokes yourself. although, you did encourage Tub to eat his heart out in waffles (pancakes?). that was totally unnecessary though. so graphic. I know he's obese, but I don't need to read about how grotesquely he eats. thanks.
Monday, November 8, 2010
now when
deciding what to make this fourth blog about, my OCD wouldn't really let me arbitrarily pick one to do two over, so I decided to look for common ground.
the one thing I found? subtle, dry-ish, humor. ohyes. I have a knack for finding this sort of thing.
first: in "How I Met My Husband", we see this shy, subservient housemaid be courted by this dashing pilot who HAPPENS to be flying his plane and landing in the field behind her house. (is that what the kids call it these days? [toofar?]}. the two of them create this picture-perfect covert relationship, complete with hiding from a wife and unnecessary drama. of course, he PROMISES to write, so like a good girl, she waits for the mail at the mailbox and meets her real husband. the cynic in me loves this. I love that the perfection is ruined in such a pleasant way. also, if she told her husband the truth, it'd cause problems. which is also the case in...
"Interpreter of Maladies" (ooooh, did you see that nice segue?!). first for the humor. Mr. Kapasi's ability to interpret is misinterpreted. oh the irony! Clearly, Mrs. Das must know that translating and problem solving are two completely different beasts, but she shares her deep dark secrets anyway. again, a truth that would potentially ruin her marriage if she told her husband.
"A Rose for Emily" is a little different... there is no husband with whom a marriage can be ruined, per se. but telling the truth about the secret lying (literally) in the house of Miss Emily would definitely cause devastation in the community. which is probably why she keeps it on the DL. also, I wish it were that easy to get out of paying taxes... just sayin'.
the one thing I found? subtle, dry-ish, humor. ohyes. I have a knack for finding this sort of thing.
first: in "How I Met My Husband", we see this shy, subservient housemaid be courted by this dashing pilot who HAPPENS to be flying his plane and landing in the field behind her house. (is that what the kids call it these days? [toofar?]}. the two of them create this picture-perfect covert relationship, complete with hiding from a wife and unnecessary drama. of course, he PROMISES to write, so like a good girl, she waits for the mail at the mailbox and meets her real husband. the cynic in me loves this. I love that the perfection is ruined in such a pleasant way. also, if she told her husband the truth, it'd cause problems. which is also the case in...
"Interpreter of Maladies" (ooooh, did you see that nice segue?!). first for the humor. Mr. Kapasi's ability to interpret is misinterpreted. oh the irony! Clearly, Mrs. Das must know that translating and problem solving are two completely different beasts, but she shares her deep dark secrets anyway. again, a truth that would potentially ruin her marriage if she told her husband.
"A Rose for Emily" is a little different... there is no husband with whom a marriage can be ruined, per se. but telling the truth about the secret lying (literally) in the house of Miss Emily would definitely cause devastation in the community. which is probably why she keeps it on the DL. also, I wish it were that easy to get out of paying taxes... just sayin'.
I'm with everyone else on this one... this is weird.
I personally find it pretty gross that "A Rose For Emily" ends in a rose colored room with a decaying carass. is that really the rose we're supposed to envision? really?
I definitely understand why the book put this short story in POV. It has pretty clear breaks where the people speaking change. the coolest thing about this though is that every change brought a new insight to Miss Emily's life, not necessarily in chronological order, but more like tangents. just like when you're speaking with a group of people and something that one person says gets you to go off onto a similar, related, but not exactly the same topic. rad.
intersting imagery I found in this: she's described using words for death before she's even dead. examples: she is described as having a skeletal frame and that she was so plump she looked like a body long submerged in water, therefore, drowned. yikes? gross? and then she goes and kicks the bucket. after sleeping(?) with a dead man.
so creepy. so gross. yet so intriguing..
I mean, why doesn't she talk about this? why is she hiding a dead body in her house?
the world may never know.
I definitely understand why the book put this short story in POV. It has pretty clear breaks where the people speaking change. the coolest thing about this though is that every change brought a new insight to Miss Emily's life, not necessarily in chronological order, but more like tangents. just like when you're speaking with a group of people and something that one person says gets you to go off onto a similar, related, but not exactly the same topic. rad.
intersting imagery I found in this: she's described using words for death before she's even dead. examples: she is described as having a skeletal frame and that she was so plump she looked like a body long submerged in water, therefore, drowned. yikes? gross? and then she goes and kicks the bucket. after sleeping(?) with a dead man.
so creepy. so gross. yet so intriguing..
I mean, why doesn't she talk about this? why is she hiding a dead body in her house?
the world may never know.
hyperactive love story on some sort of amphetamine...
yeah. I said it.
"Interpreter of Maladies" made me think of a hyperactive love story. on speed. I'm not sure what would ever make someone think that an interpreter is able to solve marital problems... but apparently Mrs. Das thinks that Mr. Kapasi can. the kind of unspoken "thing" they had for one another throughout the story kinda made me sick, too. I mean, really? you will never see this woman again. but you're still trying to get with her? you have a wife, for Christ's sake!
okay, but seriously, think about this in terms of a real relationship, will you? first, there's the infatuation. duh, he keeps checking her out in his rearview. she plays it coy (coneofmeaning?!). next, they start talking. exchange addresses, under the guise of mere picture sharing no less! then, finally, the big boys come to play. the huge bomb drops. the one huge secret that plagues the Das marriage gets dumped on Mr. Kapasi, and he can't deal, so they drift apart because she gets upset. he tries to win her back, she storms off, he saves her from rabid monkeys (okay, maybe they weren't rabid). and maybe that's not exactly "normal", but something similar happens in all failed relationships. then, she loses his address. loses all contact with him. done. all the way through a relationship in a matter of mere paragraphs.
and you thought that I was on crack with the whole "hopped up love story" notion... ha! the plot of this mirrors perfectly how a full relationship works and fails. it's pretty rad, actually.
"Interpreter of Maladies" made me think of a hyperactive love story. on speed. I'm not sure what would ever make someone think that an interpreter is able to solve marital problems... but apparently Mrs. Das thinks that Mr. Kapasi can. the kind of unspoken "thing" they had for one another throughout the story kinda made me sick, too. I mean, really? you will never see this woman again. but you're still trying to get with her? you have a wife, for Christ's sake!
okay, but seriously, think about this in terms of a real relationship, will you? first, there's the infatuation. duh, he keeps checking her out in his rearview. she plays it coy (coneofmeaning?!). next, they start talking. exchange addresses, under the guise of mere picture sharing no less! then, finally, the big boys come to play. the huge bomb drops. the one huge secret that plagues the Das marriage gets dumped on Mr. Kapasi, and he can't deal, so they drift apart because she gets upset. he tries to win her back, she storms off, he saves her from rabid monkeys (okay, maybe they weren't rabid). and maybe that's not exactly "normal", but something similar happens in all failed relationships. then, she loses his address. loses all contact with him. done. all the way through a relationship in a matter of mere paragraphs.
and you thought that I was on crack with the whole "hopped up love story" notion... ha! the plot of this mirrors perfectly how a full relationship works and fails. it's pretty rad, actually.
"I like for people to think what pleases them and makes them happy."
fin.
I personally LOVE the ending of "How I Met My Husband". I find the whole "let's spend five pages talking about this guy that isn't actually her husband" idea quite cool. one of the reflection questions was something about whether or not the end was predictable. I personally sorta saw it coming. I mean, no well-written story ends so perfectly. I KNEW there had to be some twist. now, I didn't expect for the conclusion to happen and be done with quite so quickly... but it made me laugh. for me it was sorta like this: "oh hey, this guy is perfect! he's cute, charming, funny, going places with his life, interested in me, married, he kisses me, promises to write, leaves suddenly on his plane..., andthenImeettheguyI'llactuallymarry. THE END!"
I think that building up all of this backstory that doesn't really matter really sets the stage for some other guy to come in and steal the story. and, even though it's kind of sad, the last line of the story is perfect, just because throughout the story Edie's passive and doesn't want to be the source of conflict, and the same is precisely true at the end.
I personally LOVE the ending of "How I Met My Husband". I find the whole "let's spend five pages talking about this guy that isn't actually her husband" idea quite cool. one of the reflection questions was something about whether or not the end was predictable. I personally sorta saw it coming. I mean, no well-written story ends so perfectly. I KNEW there had to be some twist. now, I didn't expect for the conclusion to happen and be done with quite so quickly... but it made me laugh. for me it was sorta like this: "oh hey, this guy is perfect! he's cute, charming, funny, going places with his life, interested in me, married, he kisses me, promises to write, leaves suddenly on his plane..., andthenImeettheguyI'llactuallymarry. THE END!"
I think that building up all of this backstory that doesn't really matter really sets the stage for some other guy to come in and steal the story. and, even though it's kind of sad, the last line of the story is perfect, just because throughout the story Edie's passive and doesn't want to be the source of conflict, and the same is precisely true at the end.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
just an interesting tidbit:
"To Autumn" by John Keats is Wikipedia's featured article of the day.
just thought I'd share. =]
turns out, my interpretation coincides nicely with the interpretation that the lit nerd (that's not offensive because I'm one too) who wrote the article came up with.
how rad.
just thought I'd share. =]
turns out, my interpretation coincides nicely with the interpretation that the lit nerd (that's not offensive because I'm one too) who wrote the article came up with.
how rad.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
I think it's a bit morbid
to be writing eulogies for people who aren't dead. but that's precisely why an elegy is written. NOT a eulogy. there's a huge difference, obviously, between dead and alive. now, all dead and mostly dead you'd have to consult Miracle Max on. but, dead v. alive, I can do.
anyway, the speaker in the poem definitely sounds a little fearful of his life after his father's death. he says repeatedly that his father is ready to go. this sounds just fine, right? but that's not how he feels. he doesn't want his father to die, obviously. largely due to the fact that he doesn't believe that he'll see his father ever again, I think.
the last few lines really provide some powerful imagery too. his father's death is an embarkation, or so his father thinks. the speaker feels that it is much more permanent though. the speaker feels that his father will not ever see him standing on the dock shouting "Welcome back" because he's never coming back and the speaker is not going to be able to follow him. how sad.
anyway, the speaker in the poem definitely sounds a little fearful of his life after his father's death. he says repeatedly that his father is ready to go. this sounds just fine, right? but that's not how he feels. he doesn't want his father to die, obviously. largely due to the fact that he doesn't believe that he'll see his father ever again, I think.
the last few lines really provide some powerful imagery too. his father's death is an embarkation, or so his father thinks. the speaker feels that it is much more permanent though. the speaker feels that his father will not ever see him standing on the dock shouting "Welcome back" because he's never coming back and the speaker is not going to be able to follow him. how sad.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
we hope you have enjoyed the show...
let's see, according to this poem, SPLHCB consists of... a biker, a homosexual vegetarian, a bisexual, a Jewish lady, and a Libran. interesting. but none of them are looking for one another. it's not that simple... of COURSE it's not that simple.
the way that "Lonely Hearts" breaks up into stanzas, it's quite obvious that it's structured as a series of "personals" in a paper or something. each separate stanza is a new person looking for love. but they're all looking for love. they all want the same thing out of life, but none of them can find it.
they're all resorting to this ad to find love. it's a simple wish, really. and it's a wish that CAN be fulfilled. any shot that these people get they're willing to take. (not that they're desperate, but they're pretty open minded). and hey, "Who knows where it may lead once we've begun?".
let's see, according to this poem, SPLHCB consists of... a biker, a homosexual vegetarian, a bisexual, a Jewish lady, and a Libran. interesting. but none of them are looking for one another. it's not that simple... of COURSE it's not that simple.
the way that "Lonely Hearts" breaks up into stanzas, it's quite obvious that it's structured as a series of "personals" in a paper or something. each separate stanza is a new person looking for love. but they're all looking for love. they all want the same thing out of life, but none of them can find it.
they're all resorting to this ad to find love. it's a simple wish, really. and it's a wish that CAN be fulfilled. any shot that these people get they're willing to take. (not that they're desperate, but they're pretty open minded). and hey, "Who knows where it may lead once we've begun?".
Edward
reminds me of Edward Scissorhands, first of all. but it's name. and the fact that the star is Johnny Depp who stars in the movie of the story that this poem REALLY reminds me of: Sweeney Todd.
the poem is very repetitive. VERY. I'm not sure if you all noticed that or not, but it irritated me.
at first, Edward lies about what really happened. first, he says that the blood on his sword is from his hawk, but mom knows better. same deal with the steer or ox or whatever. he doesn't want to admit that he killed his father. it's quite likely that he feels shame for doing so, and doesn't want to admit to it. however, the mother keeps pushing him to tell her. this leads me to believe that she knew exactly what happened. a normal mother, I think, would have been terrified to find this out, but this mother is surprisingly chill about the whole thing. perhaps too chill? I'm thinking she had something to do with it in some way. I mean, she sure as heck doesn't seem to show any sadness. and she doesn't really make Edward feel bad about anything either. she asks him what'll happen to his family: "let them beg" and what will happen to his dear old mother: he wishes a "curse of hell" upon her. but his plan, apparently is to pack up and leave town.
and his mother seems to support this. not your typical family, I don't think.
I wish I knew who wrote this/when it was written. not that it's necessary, but I'm curious. it's a rather strange topic, y'know?
the poem is very repetitive. VERY. I'm not sure if you all noticed that or not, but it irritated me.
at first, Edward lies about what really happened. first, he says that the blood on his sword is from his hawk, but mom knows better. same deal with the steer or ox or whatever. he doesn't want to admit that he killed his father. it's quite likely that he feels shame for doing so, and doesn't want to admit to it. however, the mother keeps pushing him to tell her. this leads me to believe that she knew exactly what happened. a normal mother, I think, would have been terrified to find this out, but this mother is surprisingly chill about the whole thing. perhaps too chill? I'm thinking she had something to do with it in some way. I mean, she sure as heck doesn't seem to show any sadness. and she doesn't really make Edward feel bad about anything either. she asks him what'll happen to his family: "let them beg" and what will happen to his dear old mother: he wishes a "curse of hell" upon her. but his plan, apparently is to pack up and leave town.
and his mother seems to support this. not your typical family, I don't think.
I wish I knew who wrote this/when it was written. not that it's necessary, but I'm curious. it's a rather strange topic, y'know?
so boycott love, detox just to retox!
so, "Delight in Disorder" is... interesting. and relate-able, I think.
there's definitely that oxymoronic aspect to it. and I like that. I'm a big fan of irony and paradoxes and oxymorons. the "wild civility" of everything makes the world so much more interesting. by this I think that it could be presumed with relative certainty that the speaker means that the best things in life are the things that aren't absolutely predictable. the "wild" side is the coolest part of life, but the civil aspect must be there as well. "civility" is what keeps the world going while the wild things are being enjoyed.
the speaker in the poem also interestingly juxtaposes "pretty" or "good" things with disheveled and disorderly qualities. ribbons and curls fly confusingly, when usually they flutter or wave in the wind. and art, something that has always been regarded for its precise beauty and it's intricacies, is TOO precise. it's too perfect to fit in with what this guy likes.
he prefers to let things come and go and to let things be. he's not into that high-maintenance stuff.
there's definitely that oxymoronic aspect to it. and I like that. I'm a big fan of irony and paradoxes and oxymorons. the "wild civility" of everything makes the world so much more interesting. by this I think that it could be presumed with relative certainty that the speaker means that the best things in life are the things that aren't absolutely predictable. the "wild" side is the coolest part of life, but the civil aspect must be there as well. "civility" is what keeps the world going while the wild things are being enjoyed.
the speaker in the poem also interestingly juxtaposes "pretty" or "good" things with disheveled and disorderly qualities. ribbons and curls fly confusingly, when usually they flutter or wave in the wind. and art, something that has always been regarded for its precise beauty and it's intricacies, is TOO precise. it's too perfect to fit in with what this guy likes.
he prefers to let things come and go and to let things be. he's not into that high-maintenance stuff.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
I'm not sure how to title this one...
"The Apparition" is strange to say the least. it's also very creepy. the speaker definitely conveys a haunted yet angry tone. he tells the girl that his ghost is going to "come to [her] bed" and that her new guy won't do anything for her. the new guy is going to fake being asleep when she tries to wake him up. apparently, this girl can't get anyone better than him. the only guy she can get now is one who will pretend to be asleep while she wakes up in a cold sweat. sound a little bitter/vengeful to anyone else? reminds me of Paranormal Activity. sorta.
the creepiest part isn't even that he's going to haunt her. ohno. the true creepy part comes when he says "what I will say, I will not tell thee now". he's TEASING her. he's saying, "I'm going to make your life miserable, but I won't tell you how." he's going to let the suspense drive her crazy. maybe he won't do anything, and he just knows she won't call his bluff.
the creepiest part isn't even that he's going to haunt her. ohno. the true creepy part comes when he says "what I will say, I will not tell thee now". he's TEASING her. he's saying, "I'm going to make your life miserable, but I won't tell you how." he's going to let the suspense drive her crazy. maybe he won't do anything, and he just knows she won't call his bluff.
does anyone remember
that weird "Crossing Over" show that used to be on TV? where some guy could "contact" dead people. weird. anyway... on to relevant things:
"Crossing the Bar" is about death. of course. but, it doesn't make death the bad guy or anything. in fact, the speaker doesn't even want people sad when he's gone: "and may there be no sadness of farewell/When I embark". Throughout the poem, the speaker makes it pretty clear that he's come to terms with death. he's not afraid of it. he knows it's inevitable, so he's accepting of it. he's got no resignations about life, so he's good to go whenever. the whole image of a sandbar is really interesting to me too. I see it as three very distinct phases: before the bar is where the waves are crashing and things are tumultuous. that part represents life. the sandbar is the "crossing over" point, the "one clear call" that takes him from life to the third phase: the afterlife where it's calm and tranquil. it's the place where he "hope[s] to see [his] Pilot face to face". where he aspires to see God and meet him personally.
this hope is a looking to the future sort of hope whereas in "The Oxen", the hope is more nostalgic and looking backward.
"Crossing the Bar" is about death. of course. but, it doesn't make death the bad guy or anything. in fact, the speaker doesn't even want people sad when he's gone: "and may there be no sadness of farewell/When I embark". Throughout the poem, the speaker makes it pretty clear that he's come to terms with death. he's not afraid of it. he knows it's inevitable, so he's accepting of it. he's got no resignations about life, so he's good to go whenever. the whole image of a sandbar is really interesting to me too. I see it as three very distinct phases: before the bar is where the waves are crashing and things are tumultuous. that part represents life. the sandbar is the "crossing over" point, the "one clear call" that takes him from life to the third phase: the afterlife where it's calm and tranquil. it's the place where he "hope[s] to see [his] Pilot face to face". where he aspires to see God and meet him personally.
this hope is a looking to the future sort of hope whereas in "The Oxen", the hope is more nostalgic and looking backward.
I remember when I used to really be into nostalgia...
"The Oxen" presents an interesting instance. especially for someone who is religious, namely Christian, and celebrates Christmas. in the first two stanzas, we read about a group of small children gathered around what I presume to be a manger scene of some sort. whatever the elder told them they believed. in their childish innocence, there was no reason to doubt what this older, presumably wiser man said: "nor did it occur to one of us there/to doubt". and rightly so. as children, we're taught to listen and learn. it isn't until we mature and age that we begin to question and doubt what we're told. while none of this maturing stage is shown in the any of the four stanzas, the last two reflect on the naïve nature of the speaker's (and everyone's) childhood, but with a nostalgic overtone. he says that if he were in that position again and told that at that very moment "they are all on their knees", that he hopes he could believe it might actually be so.
this hope is a nostalgic, longing-for-innocence-again sort of hope.
the whole tone of the poem sets this nostalgic tone.
this hope is a nostalgic, longing-for-innocence-again sort of hope.
the whole tone of the poem sets this nostalgic tone.
to bash or not to bash?
that really isn't the question. not in "My Mistress' Eyes", anyway. sure, on the surface it seems that the speaker is just talking smack about how his girl can't compare to all of these other beautiful things. he says that her eyes don't shine like the sun and that her skin was a gray-ish hue at best. that all sounds pretty harsh, right? right, but that's not what he actually means. by using all of these cliché comparisons, he satirizes those who use them. he feels that all of those silly poets who shower their girls with this absurd compliments are ridiculous, and it shows in the satirical tone that the poem takes on. the sonnet form of the poem allows the reader to break up the first part into the satire and then the last four actually expressing what he really feels. what he REALLY feels is this: she's beautiful. sure, maybe she's not a goddess, but who has seen a goddess anyway? no one. he finds no value in lying to her about how beautiful he thinks she is. his love isn't any weaker than those super mushy poets just because he's realistic.
I'm with this guy.
I'm with this guy.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
iiiiit's laundry day!
I've never thought about love as laundry. or as anything at all related to laundry. but in "Sorting Laundry", that's exactly what it's compared to. the speaker "folds" her love into herself. just as one folds clothes. everything about their relationship is part of this "laundry" imagery. the pillowcases hold dreams, towels refuse to bleach colors, just like their passion. not only do they not fade, they "refus[e], even after years,/ to bleach into respectability" (lines 14,15), suggesting that it's not just waiting for things to get to a normal level, this passion and love is so intense that they can't even get it to fall to a "respectable" level. their little kinks get left if they can't be worked out, and then determined to be "in style". by the end of the poem, the speaker goes so far as to say that if she were to "fold/ only [her] own clothes", meaning to be if she were alone, that even all her folded laundry wouldn't fill the other side of the bed.
not even all her dirty laundry can fill the void. how touching.
not even all her dirty laundry can fill the void. how touching.
you mean the summer novels actually have relevance?!
reading "APO 96226" reminded me of reading The Things They Carried. it intensifies a reality that was realized in the novel. there's no way to accurately describe war until you've been there. the mother of the soldier asks how things are, and, of course, the soldier gives her basic, vague, pleasant images of the world he's surrounded by. this isn't enough for the curious mother, of course. she continues to ask for more detail, "don't hold back. How is it there?", and the son, not wanting to upset his mother, still says simply, "the sunsets here are spectacular!" the true irony of the piece comes when the son finally tells her a gruesome detail after all of her pleading and the father says, generally, don't do that anymore; you're upsetting your mother. despite what she's said all along, the mother really doesn't want to know "all about it".
the reality of all of the war is that no one knows what goes on if they're not actually there, and even those who think that they want to know what goes on really don't when they finally hear.
the reality of all of the war is that no one knows what goes on if they're not actually there, and even those who think that they want to know what goes on really don't when they finally hear.
c'mon barbie, let's go party
I really don't like that song, though the "Dutch" version is quite humorous.
anyway,
I really liked this poem. sure, it was a bit morbid, and maybe a bit dramatic on the surface, but when really analyzed, it's clear that society holds men and women to different standards. In the poem, this girl is not described as anything other than a girl with intelligence, health, strong arms, a sex drive, and ability to work with her hands well. nothing wrong with that, right? I mean, in a guy, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. in fact, all of that is EXPECTED to be present in a being of the male gender. but she's a girl. and somehow all of these are flaws.
the speaker intentionally leaves out any physical description as to whether the girl is pretty or ugly. it's SOCIETY's view of the girl that gets projected. according to society, she's just a "fat nose on thick legs" (like 11) and that's such a terrible thing that she feels the need to apologize for it. the ridicule and shame she feels for being the way she is grows to be so intense that she kills herself. only then, at the funeral, does anyone ever look at her and say "doesn't she look pretty?". for whatever reason, society couldn't accept her for who she was and what she looked like when she was alive. only in death could she find that people did find beauty in her. the tragedy in this isn't exaggerated either, and that's the most haunting part.
anyway,
I really liked this poem. sure, it was a bit morbid, and maybe a bit dramatic on the surface, but when really analyzed, it's clear that society holds men and women to different standards. In the poem, this girl is not described as anything other than a girl with intelligence, health, strong arms, a sex drive, and ability to work with her hands well. nothing wrong with that, right? I mean, in a guy, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. in fact, all of that is EXPECTED to be present in a being of the male gender. but she's a girl. and somehow all of these are flaws.
the speaker intentionally leaves out any physical description as to whether the girl is pretty or ugly. it's SOCIETY's view of the girl that gets projected. according to society, she's just a "fat nose on thick legs" (like 11) and that's such a terrible thing that she feels the need to apologize for it. the ridicule and shame she feels for being the way she is grows to be so intense that she kills herself. only then, at the funeral, does anyone ever look at her and say "doesn't she look pretty?". for whatever reason, society couldn't accept her for who she was and what she looked like when she was alive. only in death could she find that people did find beauty in her. the tragedy in this isn't exaggerated either, and that's the most haunting part.
go 'head! don't conform just like all the other "nonconformists"!
as much as I'm bothered by Emily Dickinson's writing style in regards to her poetry, I must say I agree with her a fair amount. I don't mean to say that I'm on the edge of a mental breakdown or anything, but in "Much madness is divinest Sense", I can't help but cheer her on as she expresses how "mad" it is to conform. Simply put, conformity = sense = madness. by conforming, you make sense to the rest of the world, but you're actually mad. in fact, a syllogism applied here would say that conformity = madness, and I don't disagree. without thinking in terms of what is best for one as an individual, said person is doomed to end up behaving in manners that make no sense. "mob mentality" takes over and creates an unthinking livelihood that ultimately leads to madness.
conversely, she also suggests that nonconformity = madness = sense. if the same concept is applied as before, nonconformity looks crazy in the eyes of society, but creates a thinking, doing, way of life. this thinking makes that madness translate into sense in the whole scheme of things.
and to quote Dr. Seuss, "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
I couldn't have said it better.
conversely, she also suggests that nonconformity = madness = sense. if the same concept is applied as before, nonconformity looks crazy in the eyes of society, but creates a thinking, doing, way of life. this thinking makes that madness translate into sense in the whole scheme of things.
and to quote Dr. Seuss, "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
I couldn't have said it better.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
and, now for the favorite:
"February".
ohdear.
"Students will enjoy this poem because they can relate to it."
yes. I relate SO well to a lady obsessed with hockey and ...strange details about her cat(s). but honestly, I can relate. she hates February. so do I. for me, it's the most frustratingly ridiculous month there is. first of all, it's not even a "full" month. it's 29 days on a good year. and that only happens once every four years. that's STILL less than the shortest of all the months (in terms of daytime, I believe that would be November...) also, you've got the God-awful cold that plagues the entire state. and, last and most certainly least positive, you've got Valentine's Day. the one day a year that people find excuses/the 'nads to express their "true love" for another person and/or spend inordinate amounts of money on silly gifts that no one ever actually uses (chocolate is the ONE exception to this). and suddenly, all is right in the world! there's no more pollution, there's no more financial issues, and there's FINALLY world peace! right? ...RIGHT?
false. I'm with the speaker in this poem: when February rolls around, I want nothing more than to lay in my bed, but I get up and get out anyway. just because the whole world seems to stop doesn't mean I get to. even though everything is miserable (or everyone else has forgotten momentarily how miserable our plight is), you've still got to get some positivity going: stop complaining and go DO something. your internal conflicts don't excuse you from continuing to do the right thing.
also, your cats don't care.
ohdear.
"Students will enjoy this poem because they can relate to it."
yes. I relate SO well to a lady obsessed with hockey and ...strange details about her cat(s). but honestly, I can relate. she hates February. so do I. for me, it's the most frustratingly ridiculous month there is. first of all, it's not even a "full" month. it's 29 days on a good year. and that only happens once every four years. that's STILL less than the shortest of all the months (in terms of daytime, I believe that would be November...) also, you've got the God-awful cold that plagues the entire state. and, last and most certainly least positive, you've got Valentine's Day. the one day a year that people find excuses/the 'nads to express their "true love" for another person and/or spend inordinate amounts of money on silly gifts that no one ever actually uses (chocolate is the ONE exception to this). and suddenly, all is right in the world! there's no more pollution, there's no more financial issues, and there's FINALLY world peace! right? ...RIGHT?
false. I'm with the speaker in this poem: when February rolls around, I want nothing more than to lay in my bed, but I get up and get out anyway. just because the whole world seems to stop doesn't mean I get to. even though everything is miserable (or everyone else has forgotten momentarily how miserable our plight is), you've still got to get some positivity going: stop complaining and go DO something. your internal conflicts don't excuse you from continuing to do the right thing.
also, your cats don't care.
and yet again,
Inception comes into play in my blogs. in Dream Deferred, the dreams are of a different caliber, I think, but I hear "dream" and I think "Inception" (it's like those silly little word association games they have you do sometimes just for fun).
so what does happen to a dream when it's not allowed to come to fruition? I personally think that it does more harm than good. it's a good way to let frustration and regret and guilt build. this, of course depends on the severity of the dream being withheld though. obviously if a dream is ridiculously far-fetched and forgotten through a maturing process, it's not really a bad thing. oppositely, a dream that is created or thought of in a sensible way using logic and good judgment and then forgotten or smothered is likely to harbor some unsafe feelings. that is where the "drying up", "festering", "stinking", "crusting", "sagging" dreams come in: when they've been deferred and are of high-caliber.
another interesting aspect of this poem is the use of simile to describe/suggest all the other options save the separated, italicized, metaphor-ized (is that even a word?) last line. "Or does it explode? seems to suggest what the speaker really feels happens to these dreams that are allowed to fall to the wayside. in an indirect way, he urges the reader to avoid that. by using the image of a bomb (or other object that explodes), he provides a destructive, violent sense of the danger that comes with not chasing after a dream.
so what does happen to a dream when it's not allowed to come to fruition? I personally think that it does more harm than good. it's a good way to let frustration and regret and guilt build. this, of course depends on the severity of the dream being withheld though. obviously if a dream is ridiculously far-fetched and forgotten through a maturing process, it's not really a bad thing. oppositely, a dream that is created or thought of in a sensible way using logic and good judgment and then forgotten or smothered is likely to harbor some unsafe feelings. that is where the "drying up", "festering", "stinking", "crusting", "sagging" dreams come in: when they've been deferred and are of high-caliber.
another interesting aspect of this poem is the use of simile to describe/suggest all the other options save the separated, italicized, metaphor-ized (is that even a word?) last line. "Or does it explode? seems to suggest what the speaker really feels happens to these dreams that are allowed to fall to the wayside. in an indirect way, he urges the reader to avoid that. by using the image of a bomb (or other object that explodes), he provides a destructive, violent sense of the danger that comes with not chasing after a dream.
since I don't entirely understand
"Ranas" oh, wait, "Toads" (it might as well have been in Spanish), I figured I'd blog about it and hope that someone comments it along the line and makes me feel better about myself. or worse. whichever.
The first "toad" is obviously work. the speaker states that right off the bat. I love the diction and imagery that the author uses here too. In the first two lines alone we have "Why should I let the toad work/Squat on my life?" then it begins to get more gruesome in the ways that the speaker wants this toad gone. it's a plague to society, he seems to feel. however, it's a necessary evil. the speaker realizes that without work, life just wouldn't function the same way. he also comments though that people complain all the time about the work they do and how their kids would "starve" if they were to stop working, "and yet/[n]o one actually starves.
the other toad I think is reality. just in general. the two are always there. they go hand in hand, but there's a balance. one can't put all of his time and energy into work, or he loses touch with reality. but at the same time, work exists as a part of this reality. it's a delicate balance that must be maintained. and while these two prevent one from "getting/[t]he fame and the girl and the money/[a]ll at one sitting," (lines 30-32), the two are intertwined, but not connected. I feel the speaker sums up the relationship nicely in the last stanza, particularly the last two lines: "But I do say it's hard to lose either,/[w]hen you have both."
The first "toad" is obviously work. the speaker states that right off the bat. I love the diction and imagery that the author uses here too. In the first two lines alone we have "Why should I let the toad work/Squat on my life?" then it begins to get more gruesome in the ways that the speaker wants this toad gone. it's a plague to society, he seems to feel. however, it's a necessary evil. the speaker realizes that without work, life just wouldn't function the same way. he also comments though that people complain all the time about the work they do and how their kids would "starve" if they were to stop working, "and yet/[n]o one actually starves.
the other toad I think is reality. just in general. the two are always there. they go hand in hand, but there's a balance. one can't put all of his time and energy into work, or he loses touch with reality. but at the same time, work exists as a part of this reality. it's a delicate balance that must be maintained. and while these two prevent one from "getting/[t]he fame and the girl and the money/[a]ll at one sitting," (lines 30-32), the two are intertwined, but not connected. I feel the speaker sums up the relationship nicely in the last stanza, particularly the last two lines: "But I do say it's hard to lose either,/[w]hen you have both."
Emily Dickinson is a strange one...
forreal though. I can't tell if I like her yet or not. I will say this much: she's not big on long, complicated sentences and stanzas. I like that. the syntax of her sentences is indeed a little strange though, as she uses unnecessary hyphens, I feel. however, that's not quite the focus of "I taste a liquor never brewed". I personally love the imagery in this. I also found it quite interesting that before reading this poem I had just finished reading a little blurb about how "Mountain Dew" got its name, and then "Dew" comes up again in line 6 of the poem. (curious about how that relates? check it: http://wiki.name.com/en/Mountain_Dew) all of the imagery either relates to wildlife or to alcohol. it's not a literal alcohol though. the metaphor that I see is that life, namely, summertime, provides a natural euphoria or "drunkenness" that is unparalleled, even by alcohol.
The speaker even goes so far as to say "[w]hen [b]utterflies -- renounce their "drams" --/I shall but drink the more!" (line 11,12) to me, this is not a "I can drink you under the table" challenge so much as it is a statement of how absolutely intoxicating the fresh air is. even butterflies, creatures who spend all day outside "drinking", will get tired of this before the speaker will. the last stanza, too, seems to imply that those who have never tried this (saints and seraphs) have no idea what it's like, so they watch intently as the "[t]ippler lean[s] against the -- [s]un". they watch the "drunkards" in awe of their behavior and their seemingly carefree personalities.
The speaker even goes so far as to say "[w]hen [b]utterflies -- renounce their "drams" --/I shall but drink the more!" (line 11,12) to me, this is not a "I can drink you under the table" challenge so much as it is a statement of how absolutely intoxicating the fresh air is. even butterflies, creatures who spend all day outside "drinking", will get tired of this before the speaker will. the last stanza, too, seems to imply that those who have never tried this (saints and seraphs) have no idea what it's like, so they watch intently as the "[t]ippler lean[s] against the -- [s]un". they watch the "drunkards" in awe of their behavior and their seemingly carefree personalities.
am I the only one that just sings
"Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" when I start reading "Bright Star"? I mean, I can't be the only one, right? or maybe I am. maybe I'm all alone in the world, just like a star up above the world so high (see how nicely that segued?). In "Bright Star", the poem obviously addresses this star. It's a poem of direct address, but it also contains apostrophe. obviously, this star isn't going to respond, yet the speaker expresses just how fond of the star's qualities he is. he doesn't so much compliment the star as he would a person, but he speaks of the qualities he wishes were his own: "eternal lids apart" (line 3), "still steadfast, still unchangeable" (line 9).
essentially, the speaker wants to be eternal (The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, anybody?). he wants to be able to watch life and the world change and not change himself. he wants to be able to stay forever in the position he's in (with his lover) and never be alone. the need for companionship is the only part keeping the speaker from wanting with all of his being to be this "Bright Star".
essentially, the speaker wants to be eternal (The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, anybody?). he wants to be able to watch life and the world change and not change himself. he wants to be able to stay forever in the position he's in (with his lover) and never be alone. the need for companionship is the only part keeping the speaker from wanting with all of his being to be this "Bright Star".
Thursday, September 9, 2010
"my mind is set on overdrive"
and to top it all off, some Brain Stew by Green Day.
senses dulled.
face is numb.
guess that's the point of delirium.
onmyownherewego.
Emily Dickinson provides a very interesting sensation while reading "I Felt A Funeral In My Brain". the use of sounds is so integral to the poem, but all the senses play a huge role. it's a very "sensing" poem. I mean, the title itself employs the sense of touch. she "heard them lift the casket" and "creak" across her soul. I can't imagine that with all of these conflicting senses and images that this funeral was a real funeral. firstly, the speaker would have to be inside the casket if it were, making them dead and senseless. so that's a no-go.
rather, I see this whole thing as a system of decision making. the "mourners, to and fro" are the two opposing sides that continue to move around and change things up on the speaker. when things had calmed down for a bit, the beating started. the over-thinking and over-analyzing started, making her go numb for a while. then, the ideas shifted just enough for note, and things became clear, allowing the speaker to see reason and know what decision to make. this process was a long one in this particular instance, but I think a lot of decision making follows a similar pattern. the other argument one could make is that this is about a mental breakdown, but I think that takes the ordinary struggle of decision making that is present a step too far.
senses dulled.
face is numb.
guess that's the point of delirium.
onmyownherewego.
Emily Dickinson provides a very interesting sensation while reading "I Felt A Funeral In My Brain". the use of sounds is so integral to the poem, but all the senses play a huge role. it's a very "sensing" poem. I mean, the title itself employs the sense of touch. she "heard them lift the casket" and "creak" across her soul. I can't imagine that with all of these conflicting senses and images that this funeral was a real funeral. firstly, the speaker would have to be inside the casket if it were, making them dead and senseless. so that's a no-go.
rather, I see this whole thing as a system of decision making. the "mourners, to and fro" are the two opposing sides that continue to move around and change things up on the speaker. when things had calmed down for a bit, the beating started. the over-thinking and over-analyzing started, making her go numb for a while. then, the ideas shifted just enough for note, and things became clear, allowing the speaker to see reason and know what decision to make. this process was a long one in this particular instance, but I think a lot of decision making follows a similar pattern. the other argument one could make is that this is about a mental breakdown, but I think that takes the ordinary struggle of decision making that is present a step too far.
"After Apple-Picking"
oh, Robert Frost, you and your allegories.
I find this poem to be full of regret. I mean, the speaker's "ladder" is still pointed toward heaven, but he's got a whole basket of "apples" still to fill. to me, this screams "I'm going to die eventually and I haven't done anything productive with my life yet". the speaker tells how he's left some apples up in the tree. these are missed opportunities that he either passed up or didn't have the initiative to go after. However, he also says "For I have had too much of apple-picking: I am overtired" which suggests that he's been doing a lot or did a lot at one point and just got burnt out. right now he doesn't have the time or effort to continue to pick apples, take risks, discover new opportunities.
I haven't determined for certain if death is imminent or not, but for whatever reason the speaker doesn't feel like there's any more he can do. something tells me from the attitude of it though that no matter how much he may regret not doing more, he isn't going to try to fix that now. he does say that eventually he'll be sleeping, but he clarifies and says that it might just be "human sleep" and he's not sure either. regardless, the speaker is overwhelmed and has begun to overthink past mistakes or shortcomings, but isn't really going to try to fix them.
I find this poem to be full of regret. I mean, the speaker's "ladder" is still pointed toward heaven, but he's got a whole basket of "apples" still to fill. to me, this screams "I'm going to die eventually and I haven't done anything productive with my life yet". the speaker tells how he's left some apples up in the tree. these are missed opportunities that he either passed up or didn't have the initiative to go after. However, he also says "For I have had too much of apple-picking: I am overtired" which suggests that he's been doing a lot or did a lot at one point and just got burnt out. right now he doesn't have the time or effort to continue to pick apples, take risks, discover new opportunities.
I haven't determined for certain if death is imminent or not, but for whatever reason the speaker doesn't feel like there's any more he can do. something tells me from the attitude of it though that no matter how much he may regret not doing more, he isn't going to try to fix that now. he does say that eventually he'll be sleeping, but he clarifies and says that it might just be "human sleep" and he's not sure either. regardless, the speaker is overwhelmed and has begun to overthink past mistakes or shortcomings, but isn't really going to try to fix them.
"Dear ____, this has always been about..."
"To Autumn" by John Keats seems to be a very sensual poem. the imagery used is incredibly vivid and forces the reader to be IN this autumn setting. seemingly effortlessly the reader slinks into this autumn day, much like Keats perceives autumn to just slink in and blend. with its smooth, fluid movements, autumn arrives without much disturbance. according to Keats, one wouldn't just wake up one morning and be able to say "whoa! what happened to summer?! it's autumn already?!". the shift is much more gradual than that and this poem shows it through its imagery.
it doesn't rush to get to the end, but it doesn't drag on either. there is just a steady patience that accurately couples the way autumn arrives. the poem makes autumn to be a time to relax and tie things up. it's a wind-down time. it's the opposite of springtime where things are just getting going. spring gets things up and moving whereas autumn allows them to sloooow doooown.
it doesn't rush to get to the end, but it doesn't drag on either. there is just a steady patience that accurately couples the way autumn arrives. the poem makes autumn to be a time to relax and tie things up. it's a wind-down time. it's the opposite of springtime where things are just getting going. spring gets things up and moving whereas autumn allows them to sloooow doooown.
"Sunday, bloody Sunday"
yup, two for two. this time a Paramore quote that doesn't QUITE fit the poem, but has the word "Sunday" in it.
of course, I'm speaking of "Those Winter Sundays" by Robert Hayden. this piece to me suggested growth. when the poem opens, the speaker seems a bit bitter. He doesn't understand why his father does things the way he does. this implementation of the child as the speaker. because of the closeness that exists between the father/son, it gives the poem more validity and more emotion. this speaker tells how "no one thanked him [his father]" yet, every day the father got up and did what needed to be done.
an interesting allegory that was brought up today in class that I really was able to see was the idea that the "father" was God. that the chores that he does, though seemingly mundane and unnecessary, are all for a greater good. He sometimes (often) goes unnoticed until later in life and then His presence is realized.
it's definitely clear that by the final stanza the speaker appreciates the work and effort that the father has put in over the years, even if it hasn't always been shown. this change from following grudgingly to fully appreciating the work shows emotional growth from the speaker's perspective.
of course, I'm speaking of "Those Winter Sundays" by Robert Hayden. this piece to me suggested growth. when the poem opens, the speaker seems a bit bitter. He doesn't understand why his father does things the way he does. this implementation of the child as the speaker. because of the closeness that exists between the father/son, it gives the poem more validity and more emotion. this speaker tells how "no one thanked him [his father]" yet, every day the father got up and did what needed to be done.
an interesting allegory that was brought up today in class that I really was able to see was the idea that the "father" was God. that the chores that he does, though seemingly mundane and unnecessary, are all for a greater good. He sometimes (often) goes unnoticed until later in life and then His presence is realized.
it's definitely clear that by the final stanza the speaker appreciates the work and effort that the father has put in over the years, even if it hasn't always been shown. this change from following grudgingly to fully appreciating the work shows emotional growth from the speaker's perspective.
"but there's no place like London... "
why yes, that is a Johnny Depp/Sweeney Todd quote. thanks for noticing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xrt7-Xu2Fk
I actually feel that the song I've referenced here pairs nicely with the theme of William Blake's "London". Blake seems to have a rather dark and cynical view of London and the people in it. As a whole, London does not provide a very pleasant atmosphere. The people bear "marks of weakness, marks of woe" 4 and each voice is a "cry". In "the hapless Soldier's sigh" there is ruin. The "marriage hearse" brings "blights and plagues". In no way does the author present London in a pleasant manner. In fact, it's just the opposite. In the Sweeney Todd song, London is "filled with people who are filled with [excrement] and the vermin of the world inhabit it." This tone of cynicism is quite apparent throughout. the speaker in the poem sees the darkness that London brings out and it is so overwhelming that he can see little else. Darkness and unpleasantness are definitely tones in this particular piece.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xrt7-Xu2Fk
I actually feel that the song I've referenced here pairs nicely with the theme of William Blake's "London". Blake seems to have a rather dark and cynical view of London and the people in it. As a whole, London does not provide a very pleasant atmosphere. The people bear "marks of weakness, marks of woe" 4 and each voice is a "cry". In "the hapless Soldier's sigh" there is ruin. The "marriage hearse" brings "blights and plagues". In no way does the author present London in a pleasant manner. In fact, it's just the opposite. In the Sweeney Todd song, London is "filled with people who are filled with [excrement] and the vermin of the world inhabit it." This tone of cynicism is quite apparent throughout. the speaker in the poem sees the darkness that London brings out and it is so overwhelming that he can see little else. Darkness and unpleasantness are definitely tones in this particular piece.
Monday, September 6, 2010
we're not arguing, we're having a heated discussion...
I've always sorta debated this topic of whether or not poetry can have one interpretation back and forth in my head. I've always felt that poetry was more of an interpretive thing, sorta like the Bible: most of the stories aren't really supposed to be taken literally. in fact, if they are taken verbatim we get a pretty screwey world out of it. usually, I'm okay with having a few different insights and interpretations of things. I don't need a set answer for everything. in fact, a small part of the reason that I do well in school is that I can write an answer that isn't exactly right, but it's close enough that it can be interpreted as the correct response.
so, even though my language-oriented brain encourages me to think that things are more interpretive and not set-in-stone answers, I see the logic in the argument that Perrine makes. while obviously there are some pieces of poetry that maybe have no significance or relevance to modern times, there are still central themes that must be interpreted. poetry isn't written for no reason. it almost always has an underlying purpose and interpretation that is waiting to be discovered. obviously some writers are more cryptic about it than others, but Perrine makes a good point:
the best interpretation is the one that can be most closely applied without stretching or leaving out any important details.
but notice, it's the best interpretation, not necessarily THE interpretation. it's like those pesky standardized test questions that say "choose the MOST CORRECT option". those are almost always the most difficult to get right because of the lack of definitive knowledge that yes, this answer is THE answer, and none of the rest could work. it's the same with interpreting poetry. I do agree with Perrine in that there is a way to correctly apply an interpretation without a lot of stretching and really having to squint to see how it works. I understand that perfectly. now, whether or not I could actually do it myself, I'm not sure. given his argument and proof, I see that there is a correct application, but I'm still not sure that there's only ONE interpretation. he hasn't gotten me convinced on that one yet.
so, even though my language-oriented brain encourages me to think that things are more interpretive and not set-in-stone answers, I see the logic in the argument that Perrine makes. while obviously there are some pieces of poetry that maybe have no significance or relevance to modern times, there are still central themes that must be interpreted. poetry isn't written for no reason. it almost always has an underlying purpose and interpretation that is waiting to be discovered. obviously some writers are more cryptic about it than others, but Perrine makes a good point:
the best interpretation is the one that can be most closely applied without stretching or leaving out any important details.
but notice, it's the best interpretation, not necessarily THE interpretation. it's like those pesky standardized test questions that say "choose the MOST CORRECT option". those are almost always the most difficult to get right because of the lack of definitive knowledge that yes, this answer is THE answer, and none of the rest could work. it's the same with interpreting poetry. I do agree with Perrine in that there is a way to correctly apply an interpretation without a lot of stretching and really having to squint to see how it works. I understand that perfectly. now, whether or not I could actually do it myself, I'm not sure. given his argument and proof, I see that there is a correct application, but I'm still not sure that there's only ONE interpretation. he hasn't gotten me convinced on that one yet.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
see? reading benefits everyone - TTTC
"... I guess it's like being inside a book that nobody's reading...an old one. It's up on the library shelf, so you're safe and everything, but the book hasn't been checked out for a long, long time. All you can do is wait. Just hope somebody'll pick it up and start reading."(p. 232)
I've always had this sort of thought about things. I've had this idea that memories are what really keep people alive. especially after death. we're always told not to dwell on the past, sure. that's good. that's fantastic, it's silly to dwell on the past and regret things. however, reflecting on memories is not a bad thing. in fact, that's what keeps the spirit of things alive. the respect and memory of someone who is either dead or no longer a part of your life. this person could be a friend, a family member, or just some person you used to see every day. these memories are what keeps life flowing, I think. the more we try to forget the past, the more likely we are to make the same mistakes. so, instead of forgetting the past, just don't dwell on it. reflect from time to time, but don't stay for too long. you've got life in the present to live and that's much more important.
if the world is ending, I'm throwing the party - TTTC
"They proposed toasts. They lifted their canteens and drank to the old man's family and ancestors, his many grandchildren, his newfound life after death. It was more than mockery. There was a formality to it, like a funeral without the sadness."(p. 215)
this whole piece starts with the platoon stumbling across the body of an old man. each of them shakes the corpse's hand. I know I'm not the only one that found this immensely creepy. I mean, it's a dead body for Christ's sake. as if it couldn't get more creepy, the prop him up and have a conversation with him! I don't blame O'Brien for not wanting to take part in this. there's just something that's not right about this. I'm not sure it's disrespect. I mean, they're not defacing the body in any way, but there's a lack of sincerity, it seems. there's no sadness. there's no respect in that way. for me, a funeral without sadness is kinda like a half-hearted apology: if you're not doing it for the right reasons, you might as well not do it... maybe that's just me.
are "ladies of the night" involved in this? - TTTC
"That was the phrase everyone used: the night life. A language trick. It made things seem tolerable. How's the Nam treating you? one guy would ask, and some other guy would say, Hey, one big party, just living the night life. It was a tense time for everybody..."(p. 208)
can you say understatement? "it was a tense time for everybody." really? tense? that's the best you've got. how about it was a living hell for everybody? somehow, I don't think that if you asked any one person who was involved in this they would simply say "Eh, it was tense." no. there's no way. I understand using "night life" as a euphemism for whatever it was they were going through. it's a war. it's probable that no one really wanted to talk about what was really happening. understood, but there's no avoiding the understatement.
the things that go bump in the night - TTTC
"Out beyond the wire, the paddies would seem to swirl and sway; the trees would take human form; clumps of grass would glide through the night like sappers."(p. 199)
here, in the middle of the night, we see a number of things personified. the paddies swirl and sway. the trees take human form (can it get more obvious?). the grass would glide. of course, none of this is really meant to be poetic right here. it's more that it's nighttime, and everything is scarier at night. trees become beings. and everything moves on its own accord. this hypersensitivity is heightened, too, by the fact that O'Brien (with the help of Azar) is exacting his revenge on Jorgenson at this point. even while he's trying to scare Jorgenson, he's being scared himself by the sheer nature of things. how's that for irony? but all of this (which has been previously forshadowed [hah!]) is overcome by the hypersensitivity and personification of everything around.
gangrene is not a weird shade of green - TTTC
"After the rot cleared up, once I could think straight, I devoted a lot of time to figuring ways to get back at him."(p. 181)
so even in war, there's revenge. or something like it. this little piece is sort of a cliff hanger. I mean, there's a break in the story here, and it doesn't continue forward with the story directly afterward. it gives a little side-note about what you can learn from being shot. but this excerpt seems to be a foreshadowing of something to come. as I continued to read this chapter, it became more and more clear to me that O'Brien was going to do SOMETHING to get Jorgenson back. I was never sure what he was going to do exactly. that's not the point. the main idea here is that something would be done. a lot of devoted time can't go unwasted, I guess. you don't almost let someone die of shock in a war and expect not to get something nasty in return? is that really the lesson here?
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Stop there and let me correct it I wanna live a life from a new perspective - TTTC
"As we stared at each other, neither of us moving, I felt something go shut in my heart while something else swung open."(p. 179)
this reminds me of the whole "when one door shuts another door opens" quote that every person ever has said when something bad happens. but this seems like a doubly positive experience. O'Brien has returned to Vietnam to do... something. sure, technically it's to return Kiowa's moccasins to "his" burial place, but there's something else, it seems. he goes back to try to find closure, I think. I'm not sure he ever finds complete closure. I think after something like that it's nearly impossible to find complete closure, but he gets close. it seems that he's almost waiting for one of the Vietnamese farmers to wave him over to talk to him. he's waiting anxiously. and is probably relieved when nothing happens, but somehow, that solemn raising of the shovel allows O'Brien to find some sense of peace. the negativity that had kept a hold on his heart for so long had been broken. that part shut out, maybe. and then the new part swinging open is a new understanding of what happened to him emotionally, physically, spiritually, and in all other aspects. this trip was way more than returning shoes. it was about gaining new perspective.
story-truth vs. happening-truth - TTTC
It's time to be blunt. I'm forty-three years old, true, and I'm a writer now, and a long time ago I walked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier. Almost everything else is invented. But it's not a game. It's a form."(p. 171)
In "Good Form", O'Brien wants to make it very clear that what he (or anyone else says) happened and what actually happened are very different. but I'm still left a little confused. how can he honestly say "Yes, I killed a man" and at the same time honestly say "Of course not"? is it because there is that separation between what actually happened and what he remembers? is it because he has purposely forgotten the true event? or is this just more rationalizing on his part?
according to the excerpt, it's really not any of those. it's not a game to see who can create the most elaborate story, it's just how things are done. stories are fabricated. they are re-told. they are warped. and somehow, they become some part of the truth. they become the story-truth. the happening-truth gets hidden. it's a perfectly orchestrated cover-up that no one can or will discover.
mistakes = tragedy in war - TTTC
"A stupid mistake. That's all it was, a mistake, but it had killed Kiowa."(p. 161)
"In the field though, the causes were immediate. A moment of carelessness or bad judgment or plain stupidity carried consequences that lasted forever."(p. 170)
wow, if that doesn't make you re- and over-think all of your actions first...
sure, in a war environment every decision has a little bit more gravity, especially if you're in command, but this whole "think before you act" idea has been around since the beginning of time probably. it's still pretty powerful, I think. there's no greater guilt than knowing you could have prevented something, but didn't because you were distracted or not paying attention or lazy. it's a plague that I find especially prevalent in today's society, sadly. if only people were a liiiiittle more tolerant or a liiitle more attentive, proactive, focused... the world could be a better place.
in this chapter, "In The Field", we see the other soldiers talking to one another more. we definitely get a taste of colloquialism in use. sure, it doesn't seem that different from what we use when we speak, but it's still colloquial. for example: "Screw him." (p. 159) and "Man, I got to find it." (p. 165) in formal English are grammatically incorrect and/or inappropriate in formal situations, but given the circumstances are completely okay.
varying degrees of courage - TTTC
"Courage was not always a matter of yes or no. Sometimes it came in degrees, like the cold; sometimes you were very brave up to a point and then beyond that point you were not so brave."(p. 141)
isn't that true though? I mean, we can't ALL be brave all the time, can we? in "Speaking of Courage" O'Brien uses the post-war life of Norman Bowker as an anecdote. he shares with the reader the terrible stress and emotion and fear that accompanies any given situation during a war. in this particular anecdote, he tells of how Norman almost got his Silver Star (an award that my grandfather is also still hoping to receive). but how something happened in the heat of the moment, and his courage was gone. in this little side story, we are shown that Norman was not a coward. he did not let Kiowa sink into that field on purpose. there was something paralyzing, something uncontrollable about that situation that drained all of his courage. though he was courageous in general, this one instance his courage wasn't strong enough. the "temperature" had fallen too far too quickly, and there was nothing he could do.
so it goes.
dancing. style. respect. - TTTC
"'Why's she dancing?' Azar said, and Henry Dobbins said it didn't matter why, she just was."(p. 129)
there are many things that I'll never understand. some things are pretty concrete, like how it is that John Steinbeck created the entire storyline for "The Grapes of Wrath" before writing a single word. or quantum physics. stuff like that. pretty concrete. there are other more abstract things, like how people can choose to focus solely on negative aspects of something, rather than finding something positive to work on. I think that's the beauty in this tiny little chapter too. while all these soldiers are taken aback by the horror and tragedy that they've come across, they find this little girl dancing. she's found something positive that she's going to express, and that's all. she doesn't feel a need to mourn outwardly right now, even though all her family is dead. this dance is her release. in some way, she is mourning, but in her own way.
Azar doesn't understand this. Dobbins didn't really either, but he respected it enough that he wasn't about to let someone else disrespect it. it's a basic respect that gets shown. it's a beautiful lesson: just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean you can't respect it.
easier said than done? - TTTC
"Even now I haven't finished sorting it out. Sometimes I forgive myself, other times I don't. In the ordinary hours of life I try not to dwell on it."(p. 128)
in "Ambush", too, O'Brien uses a definite flashback. only in this flashback, he focuses more on his own thoughts and less on the physical aspects. he focuses less on the man he killed and more on the situation. the war, this event, caused him more confusion and made things even more difficult to sort out. he wonders from time to time what would have happened, but still there's no "rewind". the "comforting" words of Kiley (basically, "he'd've been killed anyway") are no consolation for O'Brien, a man who seems to want to be able to tell his daughter that he's never killed anyone.
he seems to rationalize in this flashback. there's more "well, I just wanted to scare him off" and even a "he had warning" to try to justify what happened. this all, of course is absolutely human, but in order to fully forgive himself, he knows he'll have to fully accept whatever did happen on that trail outside My Khe.
"I'm just saying the truth. Like oatmeal" gross... - TTTC
in "The Man I Killed", O'Brien really likes to build the suspense. he paints an extremely vivid picture of exactly what was going on, what the man looked like, and what he was doing. there was nothing to miss and everything left to anticipate. the imagery used here is absolutely impossible to ignore. he describes this man in full once:
wow. I'm not sure it could get much more detailed, but then he goes on! he describes, remorsefully it seems, where the body was positioned and more about his shape, slenderness. he compares him to a woman and a child, both vulnerable images, multiple times. it is quite clear that he feels an immense amount of remorse for this man, but even with Kiowa's prodding ("I'm serious. Nothing anybody could do. Come on, stop staring.")[p. 120], O'Brien can't seem to let this one go. sometimes that happens, I guess. such is war. such is life.
"His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye was shut, his other eye was a star-shaped hole, his eyebrows were thin and arched like a woman's, his nose was undamaged, his clean black hair was swept upward into a cowlick at the rear of the skull, his forehead was lightly freckled, his fingernails were clean, the skin at his left cheek was peeled back in three ragged strips, his right cheek was smooth and hairless, there was a butterfly on his chin, his neck ws open to the spinal cord and the blood there was think and shiny and it was this wound that had killed him."(p. 118)
wow. I'm not sure it could get much more detailed, but then he goes on! he describes, remorsefully it seems, where the body was positioned and more about his shape, slenderness. he compares him to a woman and a child, both vulnerable images, multiple times. it is quite clear that he feels an immense amount of remorse for this man, but even with Kiowa's prodding ("I'm serious. Nothing anybody could do. Come on, stop staring.")[p. 120], O'Brien can't seem to let this one go. sometimes that happens, I guess. such is war. such is life.
do Wiki facts count, too? - TTTC
"It turned us into a platoon of believers. You don't dispute facts."(p. 112)
again with the faith references. I can't help but remember a quote I've heard a thousand times when war and faith are mixed: "there are no atheists in foxholes."
in this instance, they're talking about a guy who wears his (ex)girlfriends pantyhose around his neck at all times. it's just one of the many things this particular guy carried with him all the time. they all thought he was nuts for doing it, but when he made it through a number of improbable situations because of them, everyone started believing that maybe there was something to it. as O'Brien put it, they were "believers" now. this faith wasn't necessarily in God, but it was faith in something. that's how I feel a lot of people are, they need to put faith in some higher power, so they turn to religion, any religion, and call themselves a believer, just to have somewhere to turn. and as far as I'm concerned, that's a fine strategy to have. it's not my strategy, but hey, if it works, it works. you don't dispute the facts.
where broken is (not) easily fixed - TTTC
"What happened ... was what happened to all of them. You come over clean and you get dirty and then afterward it's never the same. A question of degree. Some make it intact, some don't make it at all."(p. 109)
Again, in the chapter "Sweethart of the Song Tra Bong" O'Brien reinforces the theme that war changes people in unspeakable ways. the excerpted quote by Rat Kiley emphasizes this quite simply. the change really does come in degrees, though. it's the same in any situation. once you've experienced something, you're changed in some way. there's no going back, there's no "rewind" button or a "Ctrl + z" function that reverses the effect of something. it's like a statue that breaks: sure, you can glue the pieces back together. maybe it's a quick fix, maybe it takes a little more reconstruction. but no matter what, you're going to be able to see the little crack and glue line that gets left behind. maybe others can't see it right away, but as soon as they know it's there, they can't avoid it either.
this theme of irreversible events and their subsequent effects has shown up many times in the book thus far, and I'm sure it will show up again.
"all smiles", eh? - TTTC
all of "The Dentist" is definitely a flashback for O'Brien, but focusing on that lit term seems to be taking the easy way out. especially since there's a better one to use. so, I'll focus more on the hyperbole being used. firstly, I'm thinking that Lemon is speaking in hyperbole when he says that "in high school he'd had a couple bad experiences with dentists. Real sadism. Torture chamber stuff." (p. 83). there's also another example being used, by Lemon: "...told him he had a monster toothache. A killer - like a nail in his jaw." (p. 84). not only is there no toothache, but even if there were, a simple toothache would not kill. not right away, anyway. not until it gets infected and affects your bloodstream.
the most obvious hyperbole in this chapter though is the final line:
there's no way that after yanking a perfectly good tooth out that someone feels just fine in the morning. sure, pride has a role in that. and maybe the "all smiles" is meant to be figurative, but literally speaking, there's no way for that to be possible. take it from a girl who had to wear braces for five years and get "perfectly good" (but in the way) teeth pulled in order to allow for the new ones to grow it. you're not "all smiles" until it's all over with.
the most obvious hyperbole in this chapter though is the final line:
"There was some pain, no doubt, but in the morning Curt Lemon was all smiles."(p. 84)
there's no way that after yanking a perfectly good tooth out that someone feels just fine in the morning. sure, pride has a role in that. and maybe the "all smiles" is meant to be figurative, but literally speaking, there's no way for that to be possible. take it from a girl who had to wear braces for five years and get "perfectly good" (but in the way) teeth pulled in order to allow for the new ones to grow it. you're not "all smiles" until it's all over with.
just war? - TTTC
the chapter "How To Tell A True War Story" got me thinking a little. instead of merely focusing on how to relate the book to myself, I'll relate it to bigger-picture things. like, is there a "just war"? do they exist? if so, how? personally, I can't ever find a good base to build an argument for a "just war". sure, the church has guidelines, but it's sort of a "yeah, when pigs fly we'll have a 'just war'" (although we did have that H1N1 epidemic...). though O'Brien never really makes an explicit argument against the war, he never finds morality in it. consequently, he never finds morality in any war story that gets told thereafter:
the other thing that this quote reminds me of is a lyric of a favorite song of mine that goes "the best part of "believe" is the "lie". I think that this especially rings true in this instance. O'Brien tells us that there is no morality in the war stories. if this is so, wouldn't it be the same to say there is no morality in the war itself? I think so.
"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it."(p. 65)
the other thing that this quote reminds me of is a lyric of a favorite song of mine that goes "the best part of "believe" is the "lie". I think that this especially rings true in this instance. O'Brien tells us that there is no morality in the war stories. if this is so, wouldn't it be the same to say there is no morality in the war itself? I think so.
frenemies? not in the war game - TTTC
"No safe ground: enemies everywhere. No front or rear. At night he had trouble sleeping - a skittish feeling - always on guard, hearing strange noises in the dark, imagining a grenade rolling into his foxhole or the tickle of a knife against his ear. The distinction between good guys and bad guys disappeared for him."(p. 60)
I've found so far that nearly all of these could be applied easily to my life. I hope that I'm mostly normal in the sense that they could be applied to everyone's life if you look at it objectively. I mean, obviously none of us (the class of 2011) have fought in any wars, but I've got a feeling that almost everyone can relate to a messed up relationship. or a feeling that there's no one to turn to. that's what O'Brien's really focused on here. when you've lost a friend or you've got someone "out to get you", the whole world changes. not literally of course, the world doesn't revolve around you, but that little bit of paranoia can really warp things. especially in a situation where you're completely co-dependent, like in a war, if there's one person that you feel isn't completely with you, there's that fear and doubt that there could be others. the chapter "Enemies" really highlights the devastating mental effects paranoia can have in this sort of situation. the subsequent chapter, "Friends", shows just how foolish that paranoia is sometimes. such is war. such is life.
cowardly irony - TTTC
"The day was cloudy. I passed through towns with familiar names, through the pine forests and down to the prairie, and then to Vietnam, where I was a soldier, and then home again. I survived, but it's not a happy ending. I was a coward. I went to the war."(p. 58)
I've never associated cowardice with fighting in a war... apparently, O'Brien does. he was too embarrassed NOT to go to the war, so he decides to go. the irony of this though really sticks out to me. you would think that it would be exactly the opposite. you would think that a coward would be the one not to go to the war. I think that he feels like a coward because he does what everyone expects of him. he doesn't feel like he's making the decision for himself, and that makes him a coward. he goes to the war because he's too afraid of what everyone else will think if he doesn't. granted, he went, fought, and came home, but because of this he will never be the same.
ping-pong and peace - TTTC
"On occasions the war was like a Ping-Pong ball. You could put a fancy spin on it, you could make it dance."(p. 31)
so in a way, the war is whatever you made it out to be. if you decided to make it a positive experience, sometimes you could. other times, there was just too much devastation. too much bad stuff. like when something awful happens in our lives, we can recall that moment at the drop of a hat (recall 9/11: I'm sure you remember where you were and probably how you felt...). this happened in the war too:
"The bad stuff never stops happening: it lives in its own dimension, replaying itself over and over. But the war wasn't all that way."(p. 31)
but the important thing for this is that not everything was that way. there were some good times. it wasn't all negative. no matter how bleak things seemed at any given moment, there were always going to be that time when there was a small feeling of peace. even in a war.
boy, you've got to carry that weight... - TTTC
"They shared the weight of memory. They took up what others could no longer bear. Often, they carried each other, the wounded or weak. They carried infections. They carried chess sets, basketballs, Vietnamese-English dictionaries, insignia of rank, Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts, plastic cards imprinted with the Code of Conduct. They carried diseases..."(p. 14)
just like every other person who ever read this book, I picked up on the anaphora of "the things they carried" that completely dominates the first chapter. nearly every phrase/sentence begins with some form of that phrase. and sure, the repetition gets a little tiresome after a few pages, but each time the point comes together more.
not only are these soldiers carrying physical things (necessities, superstitious trinkets, etc), but they are also carrying other baggage. they're carrying emotional, moral, physical baggage. they're carrying diseases which will probably be later communicated to other people.
all of this repetition further instills the difficulty and incomprehensibility of war. just as we can never know for sure how they felt or how they really were. Jimmy Cross on page 29 asks O'Brien to "make [him] out to be a good guy, okay? Brave and handsome, all that stuff. Best platoon leader ever."
the only thing we can ever know about what these guys stood for is what other people have chosen to say about them. the only way we can ever know about what happened is to listen to what the people were there have to say about it.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
TSAR - TSAR
I understand the placement of the separation in this novel, but why call them separate books? it's all the same story; however, each book can be summed up into one basic idea:
a relationship is introduced (Book I)
relationships are broken (Book II)
things are mended or left behind (Book III)
until just now, (literally just now, 11:22 PM on Thursday, 12 August)I never really understood the connection to the title. Why "The Sun Also Rises"? Why "Also"? I never understood why that was important. I mean, "The Sun Rises" was just too plain for Hemingway or something? But no, I've now interpreted it as more of a way to move on. just as relationships, friendships, people, places, things, events, etc, rise and fall, so does the sun. The sun, the source of all life, goes through the same phases as the world as a whole does. the sun goes through the same rise and fall as a human being does. not literally of course, but we never see the Earth move. it's the Sun that moves.
the whole book, in telling the seemingly unimportant tale of this group of friends, creates an extended metaphor, conceit, even, with the sun, the cycle of life. the rise and fall, rage and grace, depression and elation that govern the whole world and the steps taken to either mend or leave behind these pieces. the very last line of the book,
the sun also rises.
a relationship is introduced (Book I)
relationships are broken (Book II)
things are mended or left behind (Book III)
until just now, (literally just now, 11:22 PM on Thursday, 12 August)I never really understood the connection to the title. Why "The Sun Also Rises"? Why "Also"? I never understood why that was important. I mean, "The Sun Rises" was just too plain for Hemingway or something? But no, I've now interpreted it as more of a way to move on. just as relationships, friendships, people, places, things, events, etc, rise and fall, so does the sun. The sun, the source of all life, goes through the same phases as the world as a whole does. the sun goes through the same rise and fall as a human being does. not literally of course, but we never see the Earth move. it's the Sun that moves.
the whole book, in telling the seemingly unimportant tale of this group of friends, creates an extended metaphor, conceit, even, with the sun, the cycle of life. the rise and fall, rage and grace, depression and elation that govern the whole world and the steps taken to either mend or leave behind these pieces. the very last line of the book,
"Yes, isn't it pretty to think so?" (p. 251)emphasizes this fact in a way that is profound, yet simple. it's human nature to think that everything is fine and will work out well, but the fact is that not everything will happen as planned, but even when things look dark,
the sun also rises.
POV - TSAR
"The three of us sat at the table, and it seemed as though about six people were missing."p. 228
it's interesting how empty a room can feel when only a handful of people leave. it's like at a party with sixty people, if the ten people you've been hanging out with leave, the party might as well be empty. those other forty-nine may or may not notice that anything has changed, but for the person involved, everything changes.
that's the biggest sense I've gotten with this book. as a separate reader, detached from the story, one can't help but be bored, lost, and confused by it. the story never seems to go anywhere unless one places themselves INTO the story. it's for this reason that a third-person or objective POV would never work in this sort of story. it MUST be in first-person. the reader must be inside the head and mindset of one of the characters and place themselves with all of the others as the story is told. if not for this, nothing ever changes and the whole story means nothing. that emotion is never there, and that emotion is vital to the whole story.
anaphora and atmospheres - TSAR
"oh, rot"
I can't count the number of times that I've read this line from Brett... it's really a catch-all phrase for her. especially on p. 213, it's used as an anaphora. each thing she says begins with or contains this phrase. until I read this book, I had never heard this used, so I've had to come up with my own significance for it.
much like an "oh, man" in today's language, this could really be used in excitement, disappointment, shock, disgust, and just about any other emotion out there. I think the interesting part of this is the "rot" part though. because rot seems to be much stronger than "man" or even a profanity. rot automatically gives a negative connotation. there is no positivity in the word "rot". as such, I find it very fitting for Brett to be the one to use this term so frequently, especially since, according to Mike, "She hasn't had an absolutely happy life, Brett. Damned shame, too. She enjoys things so." (p. 207) Brett's really had a rough way to go. this little "oh, rot" phrase of hers is her way of saying "oh well" it seems. she doesn't stay too focused on any one thing (or person) for too long. it's quite an understatement for her to say simply "oh, rot" in some of the circumstances, but that's her way of dealing with things.
she doesn't let things get to her and she does what she feels like doing. she lives her whole life in a hedonistic mindset, and though I think she takes that to an extreme, I think we all could stand to do the same for a little bit (just ask Ms. Sander...).
I can't count the number of times that I've read this line from Brett... it's really a catch-all phrase for her. especially on p. 213, it's used as an anaphora. each thing she says begins with or contains this phrase. until I read this book, I had never heard this used, so I've had to come up with my own significance for it.
much like an "oh, man" in today's language, this could really be used in excitement, disappointment, shock, disgust, and just about any other emotion out there. I think the interesting part of this is the "rot" part though. because rot seems to be much stronger than "man" or even a profanity. rot automatically gives a negative connotation. there is no positivity in the word "rot". as such, I find it very fitting for Brett to be the one to use this term so frequently, especially since, according to Mike, "She hasn't had an absolutely happy life, Brett. Damned shame, too. She enjoys things so." (p. 207) Brett's really had a rough way to go. this little "oh, rot" phrase of hers is her way of saying "oh well" it seems. she doesn't stay too focused on any one thing (or person) for too long. it's quite an understatement for her to say simply "oh, rot" in some of the circumstances, but that's her way of dealing with things.
she doesn't let things get to her and she does what she feels like doing. she lives her whole life in a hedonistic mindset, and though I think she takes that to an extreme, I think we all could stand to do the same for a little bit (just ask Ms. Sander...).
wait, so who's a pimp? - TSAR
Cohn basically beats the crap out of Romero, the bullfighter. but first, he beats the crap out of Jake for being a... wait a second, a pimp? because he let Brett leave with Romero? shouldn't Mike be the one angry? not Cohn? but then again, Cohn's the one still "in love" with Brett. Jake's gotten over her ("to hell with you, Brett Ashley" p. 152) and now NO ONE likes Cohn anymore... but then we see some real remorse from Cohn. Jake goes to check on him (p. 198) and he's crying. he's so upset about what he's done and he has this conversation with Jake:
I drawn two important things from this: one, Jake doesn't really seem to care much. he doesn't explicitly forgive Cohn which either means that he was never offended by him OR that he can't forgive him yet, if ever.
the second thing, Cohn says he's lost EVERYTHING now... does that mean he's lost his wife, too? is he leaving her, the opposite?
"You were the only friend I had, and I loved Brett so."p. 198
"Well, so long."
"I guess it isn't any use. I guess it isn't any damn use."
"What?"
"Everything. Please say you forgive me, Jake."
"Sure, it's all right."
"I felt so terribly. I've been through such hell, Jake. Now everything's gone. Everything."
"Well, so long. I've got to go."
I drawn two important things from this: one, Jake doesn't really seem to care much. he doesn't explicitly forgive Cohn which either means that he was never offended by him OR that he can't forgive him yet, if ever.
the second thing, Cohn says he's lost EVERYTHING now... does that mean he's lost his wife, too? is he leaving her, the opposite?
parties and foils (no, this isn't fencing) - TSAR
Jake misses the first running of the bulls in Pamplona because he's sleeping. he's so tired that he doesn't hear the partying going on outside and only wakes up when a rocket explodes to release the bulls. Imagine this for me, dear reader: being in Pamplona during the running of the bulls AND just after Spain's won their first World Cup in HISTORY. it'd be nuts... no one would sleep. I was in a tiny pueblo when I was there and I still couldn't sleep for three days there was so much activity. I didn't even have the running of the bulls to keep me up either. (though those were interesting to watch on TV).
also, how rude is it for Brett to be gushing over Romero ("My God! he's a lovely boy, and how I would love to see him get into those clothes..." p. 181) while her fiancé is sitting right next to her? I mean really, how little tact do you need to do such a thing? her attitude/personality is really starting to bother me. I would definitely call her a foil though. she contrasts Jake (who I would definitely call the main character) in nearly every way. sure, the two are friends, but when it comes to behavior and morals and actions, Brett does without thinking. Jake's more of the thinking type.
also, how rude is it for Brett to be gushing over Romero ("My God! he's a lovely boy, and how I would love to see him get into those clothes..." p. 181) while her fiancé is sitting right next to her? I mean really, how little tact do you need to do such a thing? her attitude/personality is really starting to bother me. I would definitely call her a foil though. she contrasts Jake (who I would definitely call the main character) in nearly every way. sure, the two are friends, but when it comes to behavior and morals and actions, Brett does without thinking. Jake's more of the thinking type.
payment, metaphor style - TSAR
"I thought I had paid for everything. Not like the woman pays and pays. No idea of retribution or punishment. Just exchange of values. You gave up something and got something else. Or you worked for something. You paid some way for everything that was any good... Either you paid by learning about them, or by experience, or by taking chances, or by money. Enjoying living was learning to get your money's worth and knowing when you had it. You could get your money's worth. The world was a good place to buy in. It seemed like a fine philosophy."Jake, to himself, p. 152
this quote really stuck out to me when I read it. not only is it strikingly beautiful in the simplicity of it, but it's got a lot of truth to it. in this part, the world is metaphorically linked to the stock market or a business endeavor: one has to "buy in" to be a part of it. in order to reap the full benefits of the final product, some part of one's property, be it intellectual or physical or emotional, must be spent in order to really be living. it's so true that in order to be fully living, there are sacrifices that must be made. no person can go through life without sacrificing some small part of themselves. again, Hemingway has presented yet another timeless aspect in life: nothing is free.
(bull)fights and zombies - TSAR
Chapter thirteen is interesting. quite interesting. of course there's drinking, but this time Mike (why is he sometimes Mike and sometimes Michael?) gets a little out of hand and starts verbally attacking Robert for all kinds of things, mostly for hanging around Brett: "Tell me, Robert. Why do you follow Brett around like a bloody steer? Don't you know you're not wanted? ... Why do you follow Brett around? Haven't you any manners? How do you think it makes me feel?" (p. 146,7) which sounds mostly like the alcohol caused him to finally let his jealousy show, but Brett (and almost everyone else) seems to back him or not say anything to stop him except, "you're drunk". However, true to form, when they separate the two and then meet up later, they both pretend that nothing's wrong. reminds me of a Blink-182 song: "...and I'll smile, and you'll wave; we'll pretend it's okay. the charade, it won't last..."
and it really is a charade. almost everything in this book is a charade of some sort. the characters never really fully express themselves and the only one you get a true sense of personality from is Jake (because we're in his head, too, just like zombies. [the Cranberries, anyone?])
and FINALLY, the first bullfight. not that I like 'em, I'm actually very against them, but there was talk of them, and I was waiting for the first one in the book.
and it really is a charade. almost everything in this book is a charade of some sort. the characters never really fully express themselves and the only one you get a true sense of personality from is Jake (because we're in his head, too, just like zombies. [the Cranberries, anyone?])
and FINALLY, the first bullfight. not that I like 'em, I'm actually very against them, but there was talk of them, and I was waiting for the first one in the book.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
character and characterization - TSAR
I'm feeling a little wholesome characterization time. yay!
since this:
is the closest we get to direct characterization, I'd say that everything's going by indirect characterization. it hasn't been stated explicitly how a person is, so they're being characterized by their actions, what they say, and by describing them in other ways that aren't character traits.
so far, I'm feeling that Jake's sort of a static character. I'm not seeing him change much. he's basically always the level-headed mediator.
I can't really classify the others because they're not always there like Jake is.
Brett could be round or dynamic, but I'm not sure which. I'm not sure if she's really going to change that much, but she never seems to be the same. at the same time, I'm not positive if she's got multiple dimensions, but she seems pretty real, as in, I can relate to her in some way. not in the (lack of) morals sense, but it's not hard to picture her as a real person.
since this:
"Should we answer it?"
"We might as well, there's no need for us to be snooty." (p. 133)
is the closest we get to direct characterization, I'd say that everything's going by indirect characterization. it hasn't been stated explicitly how a person is, so they're being characterized by their actions, what they say, and by describing them in other ways that aren't character traits.
so far, I'm feeling that Jake's sort of a static character. I'm not seeing him change much. he's basically always the level-headed mediator.
I can't really classify the others because they're not always there like Jake is.
Brett could be round or dynamic, but I'm not sure which. I'm not sure if she's really going to change that much, but she never seems to be the same. at the same time, I'm not positive if she's got multiple dimensions, but she seems pretty real, as in, I can relate to her in some way. not in the (lack of) morals sense, but it's not hard to picture her as a real person.
expatirate = hipster? - TSAR
"You're an expatriate. You've lost touch with the soil. You get precious. Fake European standards have ruined you. You drink yourself to death. You become obsessed by sex. You spend all your time talking, not working. You are an expatriate, see? You hang around cafés." p. 120
sounds like the a hipster to me.. haha. let's consult urbandictionary.com, shall we? : hipster, noun: aged indie kids, still maintain the air of snobbery, still shop at salvation army, and still have a completely astonishing array of knowledge when it comes to obscure music, pop-culture non-sequiturs, and political sneers. Absolutely a blast to be friends with, hell to be enemies of, hipsters are the most bi-polar of all the stereotypes when it comes to how they treat you. yep. basically a hipster.
so, Bill thinks that Jake's a hipster (how awful!), but also thinks that the Civil War was about Lincoln being homosexual. also, sex explains everything. how insightful. you're brilliant, Bill. brilliant. not quite an aphorism, seeing as how it's not a general truth that you've shared, but there could be some real symbolism here, if you want to be completely politically incorrect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)