https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/books/ants-among-elephants-a-memoir-about-the-persistence-of-caste.html
Throughout the passage, Michiko Kakutani reflects on how the book "Ants Among Elephants" reveals the true societal discourse of modern day India. In a short essay, describe how Michiko Kakutani uses literary devices to describe her complex relationship with the book "Ants Among Elephants". You may want to consider devices such as diction and tone.
In the passage, it is made apparent how an outsider to India "looking in" might think that the old days of the Indian Hindu caste system has been completely removed or at least lessened in society. However, as much as it is a shock to Michiko, the truth is far from that point of view. In a reaction to the book "Ants Among Elephants", Michiko Kakutani uses literary devices such as diction and tone to express not only her overall shock at the continued existence of the discriminatory caste system in India, but also her empathy toward people who are discriminated against and disenfranchised.
The evidence of Michiko using tone and diction in unison to show her reaction can be seen throughout the passage, especially in the first sentence where she describes the book as being a very 'unsentimental' and 'poignant' read. She continues on in this showing of sadness and sympathy by what she decides to reveal about the book's own text. She reveals the book's lecture on the caste system, how it works in society, and what it can create to and between people that prevents certain interactions from ever happening. Michiko starts revealing the contents of the book with the phrase (from the book) "everyone knows everyone else. Each caste has its own special role and its own place to live. The Brahmins (who perform priestly functions), the potters, the blacksmiths, the carpenters, the washer people and so on — they each have their own separate place to live within the village. The untouchables, whose special role — whose hereditary duty — is to labor in the fields of others or to do other work that Hindu society considers filthy, are not allowed to live in the village at all. They must live outside the boundaries of the village proper. They are not allowed to enter temples. Not allowed to come near sources of drinking water used by other castes. Not allowed to eat sitting next to a caste Hindu or to use the same utensils" (paragraph 2). This immediately reveals that Michiko is only showing interest in the very downtrodden parts of the book by using this early of an establishment of what we would consider a 'backwards culture'. This trend then continues when Michiko then adds the personal story of the book's author's uncle being turned down by a fair lady in college once she found out he was a lower caste than her, even though she had originally shown interest in him through her flirtations.
Whenever she finds the opportunity, Michiko Kakutani only seems to show the sad parts of the book to reveal her underlying empathy with the characters in it naturally trying to go against a society that is against them from the beginning. Michiko never dwells on the parts in the passage like the author's uncle being a Maoist revolutionary or anything that might invoke hatred in a reader but instead focuses on all the parts that would invoke empathy and sadness in the reader.
Monday, April 30, 2018
Monday, April 23, 2018
Personal Reading
As a bit of a personal reading project I went ahead and tried diving back into Catch-22 from where I left it in the fall when our reading group agreed to abandon it because of it's long pages and structure. Unlike them, I actually found the book to be read rather quickly, even through the more incongruous parts. Personally, I find the book to be just as enjoyable as I did when I first started reading it. It uses so much hypocrisy and seems almost too true to real life for this aspect. Everyone has their secrets, personal quarrels, agendas, and desires that may or may not conflict with each other at any given point in time, and Catch-22 does a marvelous job of illustrating just how all of these things get in the way of the world turning and life going on in a personal sense. The book, for me, speaks volumes about the human condition, the breakdown of morals (as well as morale), and the overall desperation that comes with trying to get out of a situation that breaks men and their characters. It exactly defines what it's like to be in a war, where everything but yourself is an enemy while you're considered someone else's enemy, but you don't exist to make enemies and you don't want to make enemies. I will say I understand my fellow group-mates' plight, however, as I can't see most people understanding what exactly is being said in the story (there are times where even I have to reread some parts, and I'm rather adept I would say at reading this kind of writing). There's plenty of times, even, when the book doesn't seem to want to make sense in the first place and needs to be taken in strides. It's a book where not everything's important ( unlike what Dickens would have you believe, with his five paragraphs of describing a rock in a wheat field) and where some things are just there to be there, which makes it all the more realistic in my opinion. Yossarian, the main character, is not someone who knows why everything exists like a typical main protagonist, nor should he be if he's meant to be defined as an actual person. In fact, several of the other characters of the book are made out to be the exact same way, some of them don't even know things that their job in the story requires them to know. Joseph Heller does an amazing job with this kind of disjointed realism, and it really shines within the book's content. It goes to even further lengths to capitalize on this realism further into the book and I hope to find more of this kind of realism and witty humor in the following parts of the book.
Monday, April 16, 2018
Death of a Salesman Afterword
I will admit, this play hit me in a way that seemed a bit too close to home. The struggles of all of the characters in the book I see or have seen throughout my life expressed in several different ways and have seen reactions to similarly to those of the book's characters. Death of a Salesman not only shows these scenarios and the reactions to them, but projects the emotions and personal feelings toward those actions the characters face to the audience, reflecting just how real the situation is where someone loses everything they hold to the highest degree in their life yet still can't face that reality of everything going from perfect to abysmal. How a house of card can come crashing down so quickly, to the point where some people might not find the willpower to go on living anymore after seeing how easily everything could've been fixed if they had just done this instead or not done anything at all. Death of a Salesman plays on everyone's biggest fear: the fear of failure, regret, and losing sight of the present. This is best expressed through Willy Loman, who is the embodiment of these fears coming to fruition in a person and the most focused main character in the play. Willy has lost all of his hopes and dreams in both his family and his career. His kids seem to have thrown away the future he thought they had and felt they needed to have a sustainable standard of living, even though he knows that he was the main cause of Biff's, the elder and most promising child in Willy's mind, failure and inability to finish high school that could have been easily averted. In addition to that, Willy has not reached the prestige and honor he thought he would have in the salesmanship area of business. All of the connections he had, or thought he had, have either died or never considered him their 'friend' in the first place. On top of that, he's now too old to have any hope of making any new connections and loses his job because of it. With everything in his life going bad, Willy does the only thing anyone in the same position would do: reminisce about when everything was all well and good, ignoring the reality of the situation he's in and never even wanting to acknowledge that it exists. Unfortunately, reality has its way of coming back to hurt anybody who ignores it. Willy feels the full force of this when he finally finds the point in his life that made everything go sour and believes that there's no hope for him any more. To me, this seems exactly what kind of downward spiral most people would fall into if they were to lose every hope, dream, and overall happiness in the real world. The human brain likes to feel happiness, so what it might end up doing is bring the past that made someone happy to the forefront of their consciousness so they can see a reason to continue. This can lead to that person seemingly become out-of-touch with everyone around them and even see their own futility (which can potentially lead to trying to 'end it all' so to speak). This is why this play hit me very close to home: I've sen what happens when someone loses everything or feels like they've lost everything. Just like in the story, it never ends up being pretty at the end.
Monday, April 9, 2018
3 Questions on Author
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/books/review-american-war-omar-el-akkad.html
1. Why does the author of the passage find it necessary to include the reviewed book's author's past as a reporter who mainly focused on civil unrest, the War on Terror, and controversial torture methods so early on in the review? Does this help persuade the reader to consider the review as credible?
The reason the review's author includes the author's past with the subjects involved in the reviewed book is to simply inform the reader why and how the book's author is able to write such descriptive and alarming dialogue on the images of torture, civil unrest, drone strikes, and perpetual collective fear in order to receive the critic's reaction. It establishes the author's credibility early while also establishing the critic's credibility by showing just how much research the critic has done into the background of the author and where the author is coming from when approaching these subjects. This adds a slight amount of persuasion to the passage to convince the reader that the critique is, in fact, credible. However, it is relatively negligible as it is expected for critics to look into the background of the books they review. Effectively, all this does alone is prevent the passage from being written off as uncredible and misleading.
2. What does the critic include paragraph 4 in the passage? What does this do to the reader of the critique?
The critic includes paragraph 4 to give the flaws of the book to the reader, establishing that all though their opinion of the book is positive there are still areas where it falls short because of the basic fact that no book is entirely perfect. The author further emphasizes this by stating after the fact that these faults in writing pale in comparison to the overall world the author has created in the book. This furthers the critic's credibility to the reader since she is able to show the negatives of the book in an otherwise positive review.
3. Why does the critic include specific plot points in the review if they are trying to convince readers to read the book? Is giving parts of a book away sometimes beneficial in persuading others to read it?
The critic includes these important plot points in her review to give the reader an idea of the character's relationships in the book itself rather than fruitlessly try to explain exactly how every relationship in the book works. This allows for the reader to help draw their own conclusions on the environment of the book and just how they feel they would like reading about such an environment. Giving specific pieces of a book to readers can be beneficial in persuading readers to read a specific book when put into the right circumstances and when the critic knows to be brief about such a thing. The wording the critic uses in revealing such a point in the book is very generalized and also states that the background of the relationship between the characters is obvious (i.e. likely to come about either early in the book or can be easily expected in the environment of the book's story). However, if this kind of plot revealing gets too descriptive of the actual ending points in a book it would more than likely spoil any joy in reading it.
1. Why does the author of the passage find it necessary to include the reviewed book's author's past as a reporter who mainly focused on civil unrest, the War on Terror, and controversial torture methods so early on in the review? Does this help persuade the reader to consider the review as credible?
The reason the review's author includes the author's past with the subjects involved in the reviewed book is to simply inform the reader why and how the book's author is able to write such descriptive and alarming dialogue on the images of torture, civil unrest, drone strikes, and perpetual collective fear in order to receive the critic's reaction. It establishes the author's credibility early while also establishing the critic's credibility by showing just how much research the critic has done into the background of the author and where the author is coming from when approaching these subjects. This adds a slight amount of persuasion to the passage to convince the reader that the critique is, in fact, credible. However, it is relatively negligible as it is expected for critics to look into the background of the books they review. Effectively, all this does alone is prevent the passage from being written off as uncredible and misleading.
2. What does the critic include paragraph 4 in the passage? What does this do to the reader of the critique?
The critic includes paragraph 4 to give the flaws of the book to the reader, establishing that all though their opinion of the book is positive there are still areas where it falls short because of the basic fact that no book is entirely perfect. The author further emphasizes this by stating after the fact that these faults in writing pale in comparison to the overall world the author has created in the book. This furthers the critic's credibility to the reader since she is able to show the negatives of the book in an otherwise positive review.
3. Why does the critic include specific plot points in the review if they are trying to convince readers to read the book? Is giving parts of a book away sometimes beneficial in persuading others to read it?
The critic includes these important plot points in her review to give the reader an idea of the character's relationships in the book itself rather than fruitlessly try to explain exactly how every relationship in the book works. This allows for the reader to help draw their own conclusions on the environment of the book and just how they feel they would like reading about such an environment. Giving specific pieces of a book to readers can be beneficial in persuading readers to read a specific book when put into the right circumstances and when the critic knows to be brief about such a thing. The wording the critic uses in revealing such a point in the book is very generalized and also states that the background of the relationship between the characters is obvious (i.e. likely to come about either early in the book or can be easily expected in the environment of the book's story). However, if this kind of plot revealing gets too descriptive of the actual ending points in a book it would more than likely spoil any joy in reading it.
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Community Read Update
While I am still reading Death of a Salesman, I decided that with the knowledge of the first act of the book in my head I would go back and reread the introduction to see if it made more sense than when I first read it. It is not that I did not read the introduction in the first place, but simply that the introduction consisted of a fair amount of 'holes' in it that seemed to require a better understanding of the book's actual story to fill in the gaps. These 'holes' were quite easily filled by the first act and made the entire introductory passage become a lot more clear and up front about why the play was written and what Arthur Miller's motivations were in writing it. In the introduction, it is revealed that Miller wanted to write a book that referred less to the bigger picture of America and more to the details, the fine print, the 'little guy': the general population of the country. This want to write a book about such a seemingly insignificant subject in the grand steam of things was in part inspired by Arthur Miller's other hit play The Crucible and its success in the subversive telling of what McCarthyist America, an age in American history where people were 'witch hunted' for their supposed loyalty communism and when the play was written, and what that ideological pressure did to certain people and communities within the United States through a fictional story during the Salem Witch Trials (where people were similarly persecuted through faulty/biased evidence). Miller didn't want to be a playwright who only focused on political discourse and the trickle-down of that discourse into the common man's life. Instead, he also wanted to focus on how society, traditions, and ambitions directly affected the individual person's life. Miller then had to think of a way to deliver this message to the public in a more digestible form than a journalism article. He soon found it in the form of one of his uncles. During his childhood, Miller was often seen as being in competitions with one of his cousins by his uncle (the cousin's dad, to avoid confusion). Miller's uncle would often brag about the cousin's achievements in just about every way imaginable. Sports, academia, scholarships, there was no apparent end to the list of Miller's cousin's accomplishments. Miller also states in the intro that, even after his uncle just saw the premier of The Crucible with him the first words he said out of the theater was that Miller's cousin was doing well. This gave Miller the idea for the character of Willy Loman and his ambitions for himself and his boys to become rich and great like their neighbors and their relatives. Miller then goes on to mention how, after he had the character of Willy and what he strives for in life, it was simply a matter of seeing how that world would come crashing down as Willy looses hope in both himself and his dreams.
Monday, March 19, 2018
Control On or Off?
Unless you have been under a rock as a self-sufficient amoeba for the past several years (or don't live in America), you would have at least heard the term "gun control" once within that time span. Whether it came from someone for gun control, against it, or merely heard of the national walkout that happened because of a recent shooting in Florida, you would be able to tell that it is quite a hotly-debated topic throughout the United States. The main reason for these talks is in light of the amount of mass shootings there have been in the United States since the Columbine Massacre in 1999, particularly similar to the massacre in that many of the shootings have happened at elementary, middle, and high schools all throughout the country. However, even with a stacking death toll, people from any perspective on the issue have yet to fully and effectively react to the reoccurring incidents.
There are many sides to the issue of gun control, as there are with anything involving citizen rights. One side of the argument wishes to ban guns outright in the United States, with an argument consisting of phrases like "People do not need access to their own guns if police and national guard forces have the job of protecting the citizens." This side of the argument seems rather unpopular, since many realize that police and national guard are often too few to respond to every small occurrence and situation that happens within any major center of population in a timely manner. This is most definitely not a positive attribute, especially in situations where time is of the essence to have a desired outcome through police forces. This side also has the ridiculous notion that "Guns kill people". While there is truth to the phrase, the context they use it is rather perverse in a sense that they do not see the person behind the firearm doing the killing, but the gun itself as if it were some sentient being of its own. This only ends up adding to the reasons why this side is found to be unpopular with many.
Another side of the argument on gun control hold the notion that the civilian population deserves to have access to all guns ever to be made by human beings in order to be compliant with their second amendment rights in the United States Constitution. This side also believes in the timely delivery of guns and that everyone has a right to them, meaning no background checks should be required. This side has support from a fairly large group of people and organizations, such as the NRA and even some Republican-aligned politicians.
The final well-known and recognized side of this debate is the one I personally find to be the most able to settle the issue with compromise and justice. This side advocates that the civilian population does, in fact, deserve to own firearms. However, before receiving them they should be subject to a background check (to see if they have a criminal record or a mental health issue) and a relatively long wait period after purchase (such as 2 weeks to a month). I find this to be the most reasonable side to find a compromise with since it would lower gun accessibility for potential murderers while also allowing unsuspicious persons to own guns that they may use within appropriate reason. In other words the entire basis of their argument is the compromise that would settle the debate and appease the majority of both sides.
There are many sides to the issue of gun control, as there are with anything involving citizen rights. One side of the argument wishes to ban guns outright in the United States, with an argument consisting of phrases like "People do not need access to their own guns if police and national guard forces have the job of protecting the citizens." This side of the argument seems rather unpopular, since many realize that police and national guard are often too few to respond to every small occurrence and situation that happens within any major center of population in a timely manner. This is most definitely not a positive attribute, especially in situations where time is of the essence to have a desired outcome through police forces. This side also has the ridiculous notion that "Guns kill people". While there is truth to the phrase, the context they use it is rather perverse in a sense that they do not see the person behind the firearm doing the killing, but the gun itself as if it were some sentient being of its own. This only ends up adding to the reasons why this side is found to be unpopular with many.
Another side of the argument on gun control hold the notion that the civilian population deserves to have access to all guns ever to be made by human beings in order to be compliant with their second amendment rights in the United States Constitution. This side also believes in the timely delivery of guns and that everyone has a right to them, meaning no background checks should be required. This side has support from a fairly large group of people and organizations, such as the NRA and even some Republican-aligned politicians.
The final well-known and recognized side of this debate is the one I personally find to be the most able to settle the issue with compromise and justice. This side advocates that the civilian population does, in fact, deserve to own firearms. However, before receiving them they should be subject to a background check (to see if they have a criminal record or a mental health issue) and a relatively long wait period after purchase (such as 2 weeks to a month). I find this to be the most reasonable side to find a compromise with since it would lower gun accessibility for potential murderers while also allowing unsuspicious persons to own guns that they may use within appropriate reason. In other words the entire basis of their argument is the compromise that would settle the debate and appease the majority of both sides.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
AP Multiple Choice Questions
Questions 1-5 involve the passage from The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle
1. The first paragraph is mainly in the pattern of
A) question then answer
B) point, counter point
C) statement, rebuttal
D) Dialogue, interruption
Answer: C
Godfrey never truly asks a straight-forward question and Peregrine never gives an actual answer to Godfrey's statements, ruling out A. While Godfrey does make points as to why he must know the nature of Peregrine's relationship with his sister, Peregrine's response is less like a counter point and more like a glancing response with a slight undertone against Godfrey once he becomes persistent, ruling out B. Peregrine never stops Godfrey in the middle of a sentence or during his dialogue in any way, ruling out D. Godfrey says a statement to Peregrine, to which he responds with simply refusing to answer fully or answer at all.
2. The second paragraph differs from the first in that
A) It uses repetition of actions to mimic the first paragraph's dialogue
B) It reveals the men's raw emotions toward each other
C) It foreshadows what will happen next in the story
D) It reveals how both characters are not truly honorable
Answer: B
In the first paragraph, much of the dialogue was more reserved in emotions and rather refined to the point where it seemed both characters weren't truly fighting with each other. However, the second paragraph, with its physicality, is able to reveal the true emotions of the characters through their actions (i.e. Peregrine's rage when he is superficially wounded) making B correct. This causes A to be false, since the dialogue was rather reserved in emotion. There is no evidence of foreshadowing what's next in the story, removing C. The fight does not seem to involve any underhanded maneuvers, nor is there any mention of a dishonorable act, scratching off D.
3. The dominant technique in paragraph 2 is
A) Imagery
B) Dialogue
C) Metaphor
D) Euphemism
Answer: A
Dialogue is very little and is not shown in the traditional sense and there is hardly anything more graphic happening during the fight than what is described, eliminating B and D. Metaphors are hardly present as well, eliminating C. Imagery can be seen throughout the passage, with things like Peregrine's cut sending him into a rage potentially showing he is ill-tempered. This makes C correct.
4. In context, the word "jealous" (line 7) most nearly means
A) Envious
B) Intolerant
C) Protective
D) Suspicious
Answer: C
Protective is the only clear choice in context that works with the sentence.
5. What is the shared irony between paragraphs 1 and 2
A) Paragraph 2 shows a barbaric way of ending a dispute while paragraph 1 shows a civilized way
B) Paragraph 1 uses traditional dialogue while paragraph 2 uses narrated dialogue
C) Paragraph 2 uses physical injuries as opposed to mental ones
D) In paragraph 1 Peregrine seems able to win the confrontation due to his wit while in paragraph 2 he becomes overconfident and loses
Answer: D
B and C do not follow the definition of irony and can therefore be eliminated. While sword fighting is physical, at the time the book was written dueling in civilization was a social norm and was acceptable as being a civil dispute, eliminating A. D is correct due to Peregrine having the edge in the beginning yet experiencing a downfall after the author has built him up to be the one rooted for by the reader.
1. The first paragraph is mainly in the pattern of
A) question then answer
B) point, counter point
C) statement, rebuttal
D) Dialogue, interruption
Answer: C
Godfrey never truly asks a straight-forward question and Peregrine never gives an actual answer to Godfrey's statements, ruling out A. While Godfrey does make points as to why he must know the nature of Peregrine's relationship with his sister, Peregrine's response is less like a counter point and more like a glancing response with a slight undertone against Godfrey once he becomes persistent, ruling out B. Peregrine never stops Godfrey in the middle of a sentence or during his dialogue in any way, ruling out D. Godfrey says a statement to Peregrine, to which he responds with simply refusing to answer fully or answer at all.
2. The second paragraph differs from the first in that
A) It uses repetition of actions to mimic the first paragraph's dialogue
B) It reveals the men's raw emotions toward each other
C) It foreshadows what will happen next in the story
D) It reveals how both characters are not truly honorable
Answer: B
In the first paragraph, much of the dialogue was more reserved in emotions and rather refined to the point where it seemed both characters weren't truly fighting with each other. However, the second paragraph, with its physicality, is able to reveal the true emotions of the characters through their actions (i.e. Peregrine's rage when he is superficially wounded) making B correct. This causes A to be false, since the dialogue was rather reserved in emotion. There is no evidence of foreshadowing what's next in the story, removing C. The fight does not seem to involve any underhanded maneuvers, nor is there any mention of a dishonorable act, scratching off D.
3. The dominant technique in paragraph 2 is
A) Imagery
B) Dialogue
C) Metaphor
D) Euphemism
Answer: A
Dialogue is very little and is not shown in the traditional sense and there is hardly anything more graphic happening during the fight than what is described, eliminating B and D. Metaphors are hardly present as well, eliminating C. Imagery can be seen throughout the passage, with things like Peregrine's cut sending him into a rage potentially showing he is ill-tempered. This makes C correct.
4. In context, the word "jealous" (line 7) most nearly means
A) Envious
B) Intolerant
C) Protective
D) Suspicious
Answer: C
Protective is the only clear choice in context that works with the sentence.
5. What is the shared irony between paragraphs 1 and 2
A) Paragraph 2 shows a barbaric way of ending a dispute while paragraph 1 shows a civilized way
B) Paragraph 1 uses traditional dialogue while paragraph 2 uses narrated dialogue
C) Paragraph 2 uses physical injuries as opposed to mental ones
D) In paragraph 1 Peregrine seems able to win the confrontation due to his wit while in paragraph 2 he becomes overconfident and loses
Answer: D
B and C do not follow the definition of irony and can therefore be eliminated. While sword fighting is physical, at the time the book was written dueling in civilization was a social norm and was acceptable as being a civil dispute, eliminating A. D is correct due to Peregrine having the edge in the beginning yet experiencing a downfall after the author has built him up to be the one rooted for by the reader.
Personal Choice
There are plenty of different ways one can perceive just about anything in the known world. For instance, one person could find certain joke or pun hilarious while another might find it plain stupid or even overtly rude. One might find a particular author to be a master of his craft while another might find him absolutely terrible. These differences in perception, however, are not all bad. Actually, they are quite the opposite. Varieties on perception of a specific thing not only leads to new points of view on a subject being discovered, but can also lead to artistic inspiration to help further put the minor points of view into the limelight which can then have drastic affects on the overall situation of the world. A particularly specific example of this event would be Joseph Conrad's very own Heart of Darkness. In the novel, a new and seemingly naive seaman sets out to Africa to assist with the management and shipping of trade goods from Her Majesty's colonies in Africa. However, the sailor soon learns that ,where he went to find adventure, there is nothing but tragedy, corruption, and evil in the darkness of the jungles in Africa. During the time period the book was written in, the majority of the European powers and their people ,in the terms of imperialism, perceived themselves as being righteous and just for having imperial ambitions in Africa. They would carry that notion so far as to say they were even liberators to the African and other colonial peoples from their original, "barbaric" ways of life and sought to instill true, "good" European culture in their colonial states. However, Heart of Darkness would prove to be quite the wrench in the gears of those ideas and perceptions by giving the true point of view of the situations of European colonies, specifically those under British rule. Heart of Darkness showed the public the truth of just how corrupted, evil, and disgusting the colonies were. They were not pieces of land that were continually invested in to better the lives of non-Europeans. No, they were instead invested in only for the betterment of the Europeans themselves. They were created solely for profit by any means necessary, nothing more. With this new perception reaching more mainstream attention, the vast political attitude towards colonies in other parts of the world changed in Britain. There wasn't much clamor for reform or anything like that on the mainland, but suddenly the arguments for colonization slowly became more and more invalid. Eventually, as we know, Britain lost support for keeping it's overseas land and allowed for the independence of just about every square inch, saving a few islands, to pass through its government with hardly any opposition from anyone save a select few. These kinds of events that completely shift the world stage have happened and, hopefully, will continue to happen throughout world history. It is very good when in a society the few can be heard and have the potential to become the many which in itself would have endless possibilities for things like political reform and technological growth. All with a simple scribble from a pen.
Saturday, March 3, 2018
16th Century Poem
(goes with Nick's The Passionate Shepherd to his Love)
The Nymph’s Reply to the Shepherd
If all the world and love were young,
And truth in every Shepherd’s tongue,
These pretty pleasures might me move,
To live with thee, and be thy love.
Time drives the flocks from field to fold,
When Rivers rage and Rocks grow cold,
And Philomel becometh dumb,
The rest complains of cares to come.
The flowers do fade, and wanton fields,
To wayward winter reckoning yields,
A honey tongue, a heart of gall,
Is fancy’s spring, but sorrow’s fall.
Thy gowns, thy shoes, thy beds of Roses,
Thy cap, thy kirtle, and thy posies
Soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten:
In folly ripe, in reason rotten.
Thy belt of straw and Ivy buds,
The Coral clasps and amber studs,
All these in me no means can move
To come to thee and be thy love.
But could youth last, and love still breed,
Had joys no date, nor age no need,
Then these delights my mind might move
To live with thee, and be thy love.
Sir Walter Raleigh is a 16th century author who is very well-known for his time. He wrote this poem in response to another poem by Christopher Marlowe titled "The Shepard to his Love". In Marlowe's poem, a shepherd is trying to woo a beautiful woman into being his lover because of the passion he has for her. He promises her a bed of roses and several other trinkets that would have sentimental value to attempt to reflect the girl's infinite beauty. However, as we see in this poem, she is unamused by his offer of material possessions that he himself cannot hope to procure for her. This is best shown by the lines " If all the world and love were young, And truth in every shepherd's tongue, These pretty pleasures might me move, To live with thee and be thy love" These lines spell out for the shepherd that the girl knows he's making promises he can't keep just so he can get her to like him more and that she would rather have him tell what he can truly give her if he ever expects to woo her. She then follows this statement up with reasons why, even if the shepherd was able to provide these material possessions, he would still be unable to woo her since everything he has promised either breaks or withers after a time. This is directly said in the lines "Thy gown, thy, shoes, thy beds of Roses, Thy cap, thy kirtle, and thy posies Soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten." While most would see this as the shepherd's utter rejection, however, in the last stanza the girl gives the shepherd hope by basically stating that if time stood still and everything was preserved she would accept his gesture. This is quite the turn around, in my humble opinion. At first, it looks like all hope is lost for the shepherd. However, even though he is still rejected in the end, the shepherd is told that he has given a fair proposal that would even be considered acceptable to the common girl. It's just that the shepherd had come across one who is more into the long-term side of relationships and love, someone who is focused on building something to last eternity, rather than some simple trinket lover. This speaks volumes about the time period, where women were still being put forth to marriages and relationships they didn't want to be in and therefore never experienced true love. The poem shows what most of those girls would have wanted: relationships built upon foundations of mutual respect and trust that would blossom into the love of their life.
Sir Walter Raleigh is a 16th century author who is very well-known for his time. He wrote this poem in response to another poem by Christopher Marlowe titled "The Shepard to his Love". In Marlowe's poem, a shepherd is trying to woo a beautiful woman into being his lover because of the passion he has for her. He promises her a bed of roses and several other trinkets that would have sentimental value to attempt to reflect the girl's infinite beauty. However, as we see in this poem, she is unamused by his offer of material possessions that he himself cannot hope to procure for her. This is best shown by the lines " If all the world and love were young, And truth in every shepherd's tongue, These pretty pleasures might me move, To live with thee and be thy love" These lines spell out for the shepherd that the girl knows he's making promises he can't keep just so he can get her to like him more and that she would rather have him tell what he can truly give her if he ever expects to woo her. She then follows this statement up with reasons why, even if the shepherd was able to provide these material possessions, he would still be unable to woo her since everything he has promised either breaks or withers after a time. This is directly said in the lines "Thy gown, thy, shoes, thy beds of Roses, Thy cap, thy kirtle, and thy posies Soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten." While most would see this as the shepherd's utter rejection, however, in the last stanza the girl gives the shepherd hope by basically stating that if time stood still and everything was preserved she would accept his gesture. This is quite the turn around, in my humble opinion. At first, it looks like all hope is lost for the shepherd. However, even though he is still rejected in the end, the shepherd is told that he has given a fair proposal that would even be considered acceptable to the common girl. It's just that the shepherd had come across one who is more into the long-term side of relationships and love, someone who is focused on building something to last eternity, rather than some simple trinket lover. This speaks volumes about the time period, where women were still being put forth to marriages and relationships they didn't want to be in and therefore never experienced true love. The poem shows what most of those girls would have wanted: relationships built upon foundations of mutual respect and trust that would blossom into the love of their life.
Community Read Progress (Act 1)
For my community read book I chose Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller. The book follows around the Loman family, specifically the character of Willy Loman as he sees where he is now and remembers the good old days of promise and hope. What makes this book interesting is the audience is given Willy's entire way of thinking and mental state throughout the play. This, however, is not like the audience is getting everything translated from Willy's mind, however. What the audience truly gets is the completely raw, hysteric information that runs through Willy's head at any given moment, mainly being a flashback to the past and the thought of how things used to be so good for Willy back then with a comparison thrown in from the reality he lives in currently. This consistent and sometimes unexpected jolting from past to present, then back to the past soon reveals Willy's true psychological condition that his family sees to the audience and just how it feels to be in the middle of that hysteria. Constantly being reminded of failures that prevented the metaphorical gold medal of life for him from ever being reached, of how the going was so good that overconfidence caused several missteps, and how all of those missteps have led to Willy crashing down the stairs, so to speak. His warped psychological state is truly shown when Willy contradicts himself in his own speech and yet fails to realize it. This is best reflected when Willy tells his wife, Laura, that "Biff [his son] is a lazy bum!" (Miller 5) yet just a few seconds later he says "There's one thing about Biff-he's not lazy." (Miller 6). Laura doesn't even give examples of how Biff isn't lazy, Willy just changes his mind right on the spot without even acknowledging or realizing what he said previously. In the play, it's unknown up to this point what specifically causes this seeming mental discourse inside Willy's mind. It's evident to the audience that it's because of his inability to be successful, but the book has yet to reveal what specifically made success completely unobtainable. This method of approaching the plot is very intriguing to say the least. It leaves the audience 'in the dark', forcing them to reflect on what they would define as a personal world-ending event which brings out the same amount of fear and dread in the audience that Willy Lowman has for his family and the future. The book is able to put the audience in the same desperate circumstances as Willy without ever requiring the audience to have experienced a similar ordeal in the past. This makes the book fantastic to read and all the more enveloping for the audience. It's able to hit close to home just enough to make everyone concerned if they might one day experience the same fate as Willy Lowman; unsuccessful and washed-up to the point where there is seemingly no way out of this endless pit of grief and despair.
New Yorker Short Story
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/01/whoever-is-there-come-on-through
The short story Whoever Is There, Come On Through by Colin Barrett is a very vague and intriguing story that is able to force the mind to wonder what kind of tensions and strains exist within the characters as well as what are the strengths and hardships caused by friendships. The story mainly focuses on two specific characters: Eileen and Murt. Both of them are young adults and both of them live in the same small town together (as they have for seemingly their whole lives). They have also been good friends for a while now, ever since secondary school. Right out of the gate, however, it is definitely clear that Eileen and Murt have sort of this mutual awkwardness going on between them since they are both apparently picky about what they are asking and they both select subjects to talk about for specific reasons and are not completely open to one another on everything they want to ask. This already foreshadows that, despite being good friends, some time has passed that has caused Murt and Eileen to become a bit more distant from each other. This is further revealed when the book states that after Eileen takes Murt to his uncle's from the bus stop he doesn't even invite her in even though, once she gets the courage to go in herself, Murt's family wouldn't mind her company at all. This series of interactions reveals to the reader that the largest hardship of friendships is keeping in touch and catching-up with each other on a regular basis. Distance does no make the heart grow fonder, and regularly scheduled communication will ensure a last comfortableness in the friendship between the two people involved. The story right after showing the reader this, however, reveals that friendships and fondness never truly go away, since once Eileen invites herself in, Murt actually begins to come out of his seemingly depressive state a bit more and shows progress back towards that comfortable, friendly relationship with Eileen. A little later, another weakness of friendship is revealed. when Murt enters Eileen's house, he seems to almost immediately go to the bathroom only to climb out the back window to see if he could. the weakness shown is that, for a friendship to last, both parties need to want it to last. Murt's sudden disappearance from the scene for relatively no reason at all shows that his depressive state means that he can't just become best friends with Eileen again right away and will either be required to get out of this state or never rectify what the two had previously. Further into the story, however, the text is able to show another major hardship of friendship: being able to be there for each other. When Murt's brother, Jamie, is going to be a dad he throws a little gathering at the local bar to celebrate. Murt wonders if Eileen will join them, and she does. She then proceeds to get unfortunately wasted. During this time it's revealed to her that Murt is only staying with his uncle for a little while and is actually going with his mother after the party. This broods in Eileen's mind as a bad idea, since that would mean there friendship might never reach it's prime again when she feels Murt could use it most now after just getting out of the hospital. While this does end up ruining the two character's build-up, it just goes to show that friendships are fantastic to have, but do require a certain amount of maintenance to continue to function.
The short story Whoever Is There, Come On Through by Colin Barrett is a very vague and intriguing story that is able to force the mind to wonder what kind of tensions and strains exist within the characters as well as what are the strengths and hardships caused by friendships. The story mainly focuses on two specific characters: Eileen and Murt. Both of them are young adults and both of them live in the same small town together (as they have for seemingly their whole lives). They have also been good friends for a while now, ever since secondary school. Right out of the gate, however, it is definitely clear that Eileen and Murt have sort of this mutual awkwardness going on between them since they are both apparently picky about what they are asking and they both select subjects to talk about for specific reasons and are not completely open to one another on everything they want to ask. This already foreshadows that, despite being good friends, some time has passed that has caused Murt and Eileen to become a bit more distant from each other. This is further revealed when the book states that after Eileen takes Murt to his uncle's from the bus stop he doesn't even invite her in even though, once she gets the courage to go in herself, Murt's family wouldn't mind her company at all. This series of interactions reveals to the reader that the largest hardship of friendships is keeping in touch and catching-up with each other on a regular basis. Distance does no make the heart grow fonder, and regularly scheduled communication will ensure a last comfortableness in the friendship between the two people involved. The story right after showing the reader this, however, reveals that friendships and fondness never truly go away, since once Eileen invites herself in, Murt actually begins to come out of his seemingly depressive state a bit more and shows progress back towards that comfortable, friendly relationship with Eileen. A little later, another weakness of friendship is revealed. when Murt enters Eileen's house, he seems to almost immediately go to the bathroom only to climb out the back window to see if he could. the weakness shown is that, for a friendship to last, both parties need to want it to last. Murt's sudden disappearance from the scene for relatively no reason at all shows that his depressive state means that he can't just become best friends with Eileen again right away and will either be required to get out of this state or never rectify what the two had previously. Further into the story, however, the text is able to show another major hardship of friendship: being able to be there for each other. When Murt's brother, Jamie, is going to be a dad he throws a little gathering at the local bar to celebrate. Murt wonders if Eileen will join them, and she does. She then proceeds to get unfortunately wasted. During this time it's revealed to her that Murt is only staying with his uncle for a little while and is actually going with his mother after the party. This broods in Eileen's mind as a bad idea, since that would mean there friendship might never reach it's prime again when she feels Murt could use it most now after just getting out of the hospital. While this does end up ruining the two character's build-up, it just goes to show that friendships are fantastic to have, but do require a certain amount of maintenance to continue to function.
Friday, February 2, 2018
Harlem Renaissance Poem
If We Must Die
If we must die, let it not be like hogs
Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,
While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,
Making their mock at our accursèd lot.
If we must die, O let us nobly die,
So that our precious blood may not be shed
In vain; then even the monsters we defy
Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!
O kinsmen! we must meet the common foe!
Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,
And for their thousand blows deal one death-blow!
What though before us lies the open grave?
Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,
Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!
-Claude McKay
This poem's focus, unlike most others, is actually very straight-forward considering the time period within which it was written. The Harlem Renaissance was an artistic period in America that saw the rise of African-American authors and painters into the common view of American culture. With this newfound attention, the question of civil rights became an even more prominent issue in the country. This poem is a product of the rise in popularity of this issue. The poem calls for African Americans to rise up against the anti-black sentiment in America and stand for the civil liberties they are entitled to in the country as members of the human race. The poem also states how ,when they die, they would rather have died fighting for their cause of liberty rather than in contempt of their current situation as a shunned minority, and that even when the odds are insurmountably against them they will continue to fight for their noble rights to basic human rights. However, it is interesting how Claude McKay depicts African Americans in America as hogs because of the parallels between a hog and slave's life. Both lived in constant filth, were bought and sold by landowners, and were sometimes even slaughtered or mutilated to prevent others from attempting to escape. With slaves all being free by the time of this poem, McKay is basically calling for other African Americans to use their newfound abilities as free men who are not beaten, mutilated, and treated like filth to end what remains of segregation and their undesirablility.
If we must die, let it not be like hogs
Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,
While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,
Making their mock at our accursèd lot.
If we must die, O let us nobly die,
So that our precious blood may not be shed
In vain; then even the monsters we defy
Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!
O kinsmen! we must meet the common foe!
Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,
And for their thousand blows deal one death-blow!
What though before us lies the open grave?
Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,
Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!
-Claude McKay
This poem's focus, unlike most others, is actually very straight-forward considering the time period within which it was written. The Harlem Renaissance was an artistic period in America that saw the rise of African-American authors and painters into the common view of American culture. With this newfound attention, the question of civil rights became an even more prominent issue in the country. This poem is a product of the rise in popularity of this issue. The poem calls for African Americans to rise up against the anti-black sentiment in America and stand for the civil liberties they are entitled to in the country as members of the human race. The poem also states how ,when they die, they would rather have died fighting for their cause of liberty rather than in contempt of their current situation as a shunned minority, and that even when the odds are insurmountably against them they will continue to fight for their noble rights to basic human rights. However, it is interesting how Claude McKay depicts African Americans in America as hogs because of the parallels between a hog and slave's life. Both lived in constant filth, were bought and sold by landowners, and were sometimes even slaughtered or mutilated to prevent others from attempting to escape. With slaves all being free by the time of this poem, McKay is basically calling for other African Americans to use their newfound abilities as free men who are not beaten, mutilated, and treated like filth to end what remains of segregation and their undesirablility.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
New Yorker Poem
War and Peace
Chana Bloch
I made a big wish on the evening star,
Venus, or was it Mars,
but it was a low-flying plane
headed east.
Venus, or was it Mars,
but it was a low-flying plane
headed east.
I saw the little foxes on the hillside
with their pointy red ears;
up close, a fallen branch of autumn.
with their pointy red ears;
up close, a fallen branch of autumn.
When the guide clapped his hands,
the brilliant apples on the tree got frightened
and flew away.
the brilliant apples on the tree got frightened
and flew away.
The marriage I called Gibraltar
went down like a ship
scraping the rocky strait.
went down like a ship
scraping the rocky strait.
I thought the war would bring peace.
The road signs all said
This Way to the Future, so we ran out
with flag and shovel, elated, planting—
This poem is very attention-grabbing. This is not just because the title is equivalent to that of an exasperatingly long novel. The reason this poem grabs attention is because it is an exact representation of how some things are not always as they seem and how this can lead to unforeseen consequences. This is first revealed when the author makes a few simple first-sight mistakes such as thinking a plane was a star and a branch with red and orange leaves was actually a group of foxes. Then we reach a section where a guide claps his hands and the apples the author sees on the tree near them fly away. This is clearly another sight error, as apples can't fly, but there's something that separates this event from the other two. Birds are sometimes used as symbols of peace in nature (doves, for instance) and with a title like War and Peace, it only seems fitting that this event resembles a foreshadowing of events to follow involving the human race as a whole. The poem then goes on to describe how a marriage, called Gibraltar, had ended. While not being related to sight, this passage still continues to follow the same pattern as the other lines in that the marriage would be supposedly called Gibraltar for the region's beauty. However, the name ends up being applied after the marriage ends prematurely due to the notoriously rocky strait (which was clearly not the original intention of the name). The poem then ends on a cliffhanger who's conclusion can be accurately inferred based on this pattern of the unwanted being unexpected and occurring and with the previous phrase 'I thought the war would bring peace'. The inferred ending is that, while everyone thought claiming land would allow the human race to grow into the future, it only ended up causing halts to beneficial technological progress because of the wars over specific areas of land. This wraps up the poem quite nicely and brings the whole point of the poem into the big picture of the entire human race.
The road signs all said
This Way to the Future, so we ran out
with flag and shovel, elated, planting—
This poem is very attention-grabbing. This is not just because the title is equivalent to that of an exasperatingly long novel. The reason this poem grabs attention is because it is an exact representation of how some things are not always as they seem and how this can lead to unforeseen consequences. This is first revealed when the author makes a few simple first-sight mistakes such as thinking a plane was a star and a branch with red and orange leaves was actually a group of foxes. Then we reach a section where a guide claps his hands and the apples the author sees on the tree near them fly away. This is clearly another sight error, as apples can't fly, but there's something that separates this event from the other two. Birds are sometimes used as symbols of peace in nature (doves, for instance) and with a title like War and Peace, it only seems fitting that this event resembles a foreshadowing of events to follow involving the human race as a whole. The poem then goes on to describe how a marriage, called Gibraltar, had ended. While not being related to sight, this passage still continues to follow the same pattern as the other lines in that the marriage would be supposedly called Gibraltar for the region's beauty. However, the name ends up being applied after the marriage ends prematurely due to the notoriously rocky strait (which was clearly not the original intention of the name). The poem then ends on a cliffhanger who's conclusion can be accurately inferred based on this pattern of the unwanted being unexpected and occurring and with the previous phrase 'I thought the war would bring peace'. The inferred ending is that, while everyone thought claiming land would allow the human race to grow into the future, it only ended up causing halts to beneficial technological progress because of the wars over specific areas of land. This wraps up the poem quite nicely and brings the whole point of the poem into the big picture of the entire human race.
Romantic Period Poem
I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud
BY WILLIAM WORDSWORTH
I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.
Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the milky way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.
The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
I gazed—and gazed—but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:
For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.
This poem is a very exquisite piece of writing in that it is able to romanticize what is seemingly unromanticizable: loneliness, the seeming exact opposite of romance. When one begins reading, they are immediately introduced to a whole new perspective on the subject of solitude and loneliness in life. The author describes how while he is alone he is not truly alone. He goes on to explain how this is possible by describe how he sees a crowd fluttering and dancing near him ,however the organisms in the crowd are not humans like most would suspect, but are instead daffodils in the breeze. After describing the daffodils more clearly and vividly the author further describes his surroundings on the bay and how, as a poet, he is in such jocund company with the daffodils and waves and even the stars in the sky. By the end, the author shows the reader that the place was, in fact, not real (or at least not the current surroundings of the author) but instead in the author's imagination, his 'happy place' if you will. The author, throughout the poem, continues to romanticize the solitude he feels by revealing to the reader that, while he is alone and without a companion, he is happy and longs to be in that state ,no matter whether literally or mentally.
This poem is a very exquisite piece of writing in that it is able to romanticize what is seemingly unromanticizable: loneliness, the seeming exact opposite of romance. When one begins reading, they are immediately introduced to a whole new perspective on the subject of solitude and loneliness in life. The author describes how while he is alone he is not truly alone. He goes on to explain how this is possible by describe how he sees a crowd fluttering and dancing near him ,however the organisms in the crowd are not humans like most would suspect, but are instead daffodils in the breeze. After describing the daffodils more clearly and vividly the author further describes his surroundings on the bay and how, as a poet, he is in such jocund company with the daffodils and waves and even the stars in the sky. By the end, the author shows the reader that the place was, in fact, not real (or at least not the current surroundings of the author) but instead in the author's imagination, his 'happy place' if you will. The author, throughout the poem, continues to romanticize the solitude he feels by revealing to the reader that, while he is alone and without a companion, he is happy and longs to be in that state ,no matter whether literally or mentally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)