1 Down, 1 to Go

I cannot believe this semester is over already!! And look how far everyone has come!! From Frankenstein to A Doll's House, we have covered how society affects someone, gender differences, and how external forces can affect the internal conflict. My favorites from this semester are Frankenstein, Grendel, and A Doll's House. Very different yet they all seem to have a similar idea of society affecting the internal conflict. In Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the creature is rejected from society because of his appearance. Through his rejection he is feeling anger and wants to be loved. However, he at first is not a mean and nasty being--he's curious about people. The external forces that caused him pain made him the killing machine that he is in the end. In Grendel by John Gardner, Grendel starts off the same way as the creature--wanting to be loved and curious. But as soon as Hrothgar throws the ax, he knows that the world he was expecting does not exist. After the humans assume he is an awful thing, he again like the creature, turns into an awful being that the external forces influenced. Lastly, A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, it's the same idea but in the end there is no murderer. Nora is influenced by society in being that she does what her husband says and that because she is a woman she cannot do anything business like. It's hogwash. But it's how society was. The way she acts is because of the external forces such as Torvald and her dad teacher her to be the puppet while they tell her what to do. It's what we call "learned helplessness" in AP Psych. But she reverses the conditioning by breaking the cycle and leaving Torvald in the end. All three characters in the end are alone. The external factors of society have made them realize that they are not who they officially would be. Creature realizes that no one will ever love him and is alone, Grendel finds out he can be defeated which crushed his spirit BUT HE DOES NOT DIE, and Nora realizes she does not have to be the housewife that cannot do anything related to business. They all are in a way enlightened in the end--another topic that has come up over and over this semester. My favorite thing to relate our books to is Plato's Allegory with the prisoners. One prisoner makes his way out into the world and comes back and tries to tell the others what has happened. It's kind of amazing how the authors seem to have a hidden language that can they can all communicate to each other with. Maybe that's a weird way of looking at it and it's really just a format that is just really common. But I'm going to pretend I'm one of the prisoners still stuck in the cave in my own fantasy believing that all of the authors have their own language.

A Doll's House

A lot was going through my mind after I read A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen.  I wasn't really sure what to expect when we did out class discussion of what a "doll house" could mean. I didn't know if I should expect a child playing with dolls or if the dolls came to life--I never expected a real house being like a doll house with a puppet master. Never ever. First, I pitied Nora because I thought she was in a rough relationship because she had to hide her "macaroons." Technically, we could say she is in a tough relationship because she can't be fully open with Torvald. LIGHTBULB! The macaroons that she has to hide parallels to Nora and Torvald's relationship!! The macaroons have to be kept secret just like how Nora committed forgery and borrowed money without Torvald's consent is a secret!! Wow. How did I not catch that earlier?? Okay getting off the tangent--second, I had trouble deciding whether or not I like Torvald or not. I feel bad for him because Nora did keep this HUGE secret from him that could have ruined him and his career. However, I totally disliked him after he threw himself a little pitty party because he thought his life was over. No. Think about your wife. Think about what she sacrificed to save YOU you selfish-little-stinker. In the end, I sided with Nora--hmmm I wonder if it has to do with gender.... When we read the second ending Ibsen wrote, I hated it. It completely defeated the entire purpose of the entire play!! Nora is not supposed to give into staying with Torvald to fulfill her motherly and wifely duties. No, she is supposed to go and take care of herself! Ibsen didn't write A Doll's House to talk about how women can be manipulative, and lie, and deceitful and then have them exposed and then they come right back to where they started to fulfill the motherly role. No. That is not at ALL what he was trying to say. When Nora leaves, it's because she has discovered her own independence that she never thought she had. As she grew up, either her father or Torvald always had to take care of her or shoulder the burden for anything. Now she has learned that she can handle things. She does not need a man to always take care of her. On a completely different note, what would have happened if Krogstad had gotten the letter back and Torvald never got to read it? Would Nora claim to be happy still? Or would she realize that she might not have ever been happy and tell Torvald herself to break the chains?? There is an endless amount of possibilities for their situation.

I Carry Your Heart With Me

I Carry Your Heart with Me
E.E Cummings

I carry your heart with me( I carry it
in my heart) I am never without it (anywhere
I go, my dear; and whatever is done by only
me is your doing, my darling) I fear
no fate (for you are my fate, my sweet)
I want no world(for beautiful you are my world,
my true) and it's you are whatever a moon has
always meant and whatever a sun will always sing is you
here is the deepest secret nobody knows ( here is
the root of the root and the bud of the bud and
the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows
higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide) and
this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart
i carry your heart(i carry it in my heart)


I don't even know where to start for this. I'm having trouble really figuring out how it's supposed to sound because it doesn't rhyme! I've always had the hardest time reading poems that don't rhyme! How do you figure out the rhythm?? Is it supposed to be echoey? Is it supposed to be a song? Is it supposed to sound like a conversation between two lovers? It can really go anyway. However, I am reading it as a conversation between two lovers. Two departing lovers I guess I should say. After doing research on E.E. Cummings, I found that he lived in two places--meaning he must have had someone he loved in one place and he would have to leave her to go back to the opposite place. Through his departure to his other home or whatever you want to call it, Cummings would have a hard time leaving her. Therefore, he wrote this poem to show his hardship of going back and leaving her each time. He starts off "I carry your heart with me" as if he's saying that he's taking her love with him. He's not going to forget about her while he's gone--aka he's not going to have a girlfriend in one place, and then a different one in the other. And then he says "I carry it in my heart." Everyone knows that a heart symbolizes love, so by saying that he is carrying hers in his shows how he will be faithful to her and he will not forget about her. I think my favorite line is when he says "I fear no fate (for you are my fate, my sweet)." Does that not make you happy?? He's not scared of anything because he knows no matter what, he will be back for her to love her and be with her for the rest of their lives. And then he tells her, "you are whatever a moon has always meant." The moon is a mysterious being, people always see it and it's glowing beauty, but what exactly does the moon mean? We see it commonly in love scenes or in mysterious scenes when it adds another beauty. The moon give off a softened light. It lights up the dark showing people what they haven't been able to see. This means that the moon and the woman are the same to the speaker. The speaker has no light without his love in the dark, he has no love, and he has to mystery. And lastly the speaker ultimately says his love is better than life itself by comparing her to, "tree called life; which grows higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide." She's better than life itself. She means more to him than life. If she wasn't in his heart as he went from place to place lighting the way, he would have no reason to live.

Blake and Grendel

When I was reading Grendel, I over looked the short poem at the beginning of the book. Whoops :) But I am actually glad I did. If I had read it in the beginning, I do not think I would have appreciated it and have understood it as much. But it makes me wonder, did Gardner really put it there so that I would not understand it? Did he want me to go back in the end and reread it?? I guess I will never ever know. Now, I'm reading the poem again, and I'm thinking about how weird and disturbing it truly is. "Nails him down upon a rock" and "catches his shrieks in cups of gold?" What?? That doesn't exactly make you want to read it over and over and figure out the true meaning and why Gardner used it, does it? I think Gardner used this poem for that exact twisted reason. It is supposed to be hard to read. It is supposed to twist your mind in ways it does not want to think. I mean that is what Grendel had to do. He had to think about everything in an entirely new way, twice even! Between the shaper and the dragon, Grendel had whiplash!! But that's another blog for another day.....maybe. Ok let's think. Gardner uses this poem because....well...I guess he's trying to say that when the baby is born, he will be given to an old woman who knows everything because of her age, and his shrieks of innocence will be caught in the gold cups?? But why gold cups?? When I think of gold cups, I think of kings and queens having a feast with their beautiful plates and silverware and cups. To continue the thought process, I think of Hrothgar and Beowulf. They were considered royalty, right? So if we make Grendel the baby--because he's brand new into the society of men--then it makes sense! Gardner uses the poem to basically summarize Grendel's beginning at life! Grendel does not know anything! When he was hanging in the tree he had no idea what was going to happen to him. But as soon as that axe was thrown at him, he's "shrieks" stopped, and he is no longer not aware of the humans and their capabilities. His innocence can no longer be served to the kings and queens to feast on. They can no longer rest and dine in peace. They now have no innocence to drink, if you will, and their gold cups are empty. The woman no longer has anything to catch, because the baby isn't shrieking anymore. The baby aka Grendel knows. He knows what's going to happen. He knows that without him, the people will still continue to thrive. He knows that the only way to stay alive and experienced, is to attack them. Feast over.

Innocence vs. Experience

Innocence and Experience are always battling each other. One day you are innocent, and the next you know too much and can no longer be considered innocent. But what makes one innocent?? Are you innocent just because you do not know?? For instance, if I don't know about psychology per say, does that mean I am innocent in that matter?? Or, is innocence just a universal idea that is all there at once and goes away at the snap of a finger??? When we talked about William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience, I did not expect them to be reciprocals of each other. I did not think one was about an innocent baby, and then on the other side, there was one about an experienced baby. For instance, in "Infant Joy," the baby and the mother are having a conversation and the mother's voice seems to dominate their conversation. The mom over powers the baby because the baby is a newborn and still has "no name" and is "two days old." The mom is so happy to have the baby and sings to the baby. The baby is just now learning what the world is about. Heck, the baby is brand new! It knows nothing! The baby has no idea what is going on other than that it has things to look at now and is just in a whole new setting! This is why Blake put "Infant Joy" in the Songs of Innocence. The innocent newborn baby is overpowered by the mother who has experience in life. However, when the coin is flipped, the baby explains how the mother and father are both upset. But what are they upset about??? OHH!!! The baby has learned and no longer has innocence!! "Infant Sorrow" does not seem to me like the baby is sad. It seems more to me that the baby is happy while the mom and dad are extremely sad. I mean the dad is crying. How often do men actually cry....?? And how often do women cry....?? Exactly. Women cry a lot more. The word that sticks out to me the most is the "swaddling." It makes me think of how the mom and dad are trying to trap the baby in its innocence and keep it there. When a baby is swaddled, it's kind of stuck--arms to its side and legs bound straight. There's not much you can do after that. The baby even says that it jumps into the "dangerous world." The baby knows life isn't fun and games. The baby knows that it needs to be careful with what it does. That is what I see in both of these songs as the change in innocence and experience. You cannot take away the baby's knowing of the world. However, I liked "Infant Joy" better because it was happy and I did not have to think about the "dangerous world" that Blake talks about.

Nope. Didn't Happen.

While I was reading Grendel by John Gardner, I wasn't exactly enjoying it. I definitely enjoyed it more than following George Williard around everywhere...no offense to Mr. Anderson...My favorite chapter is Chapter 5--when we learn about the dragon. I don't know if that's because I love dragons in general...or if it's because I didn't like the Shaper just because it seemed like a bunch of hocus pocus. Then again, I've always wanted a pet dragon that could fly me to school and make everyone jealous. A big controversy in my class was the end. If you think Grendel dies, I disagree completely. Also, if you think he killed the mountain goat, I disagree completely as well. Gardner doesn't say anything that could make us sway either way. He leaves it to us to decide. And I decided Grendel and the mountain goat don't die and you should too. So Grendel gets aggravated when another goat starts to bother him and this time instead of just yelling at it (because yelling really doesn't do much but make the goat want to bother him more), Grendel starts to throw things at it. First, Grendel rolls a "boulder" at him (139). The goat avoids it and continues to head towards the more and more angry Grendel. Each time Grendel throws something at the goat, the goat gets weaker and weaker. Finally "death shakes his body" (140). The last thing Gardner tells us is that Grendel picks up another stone. We never find out if he kills it or not. We don't know if he gives into his want to kill something, or if he gives into not killing it. We don't know if he gives into the animalistic want to kill something or if he goes back to his original thought of how killing something for no point is savage. We just don't know. It shows how he is torn with inner conflict. This isn't the first time he's struggled with this either--but that's another story. Then in Chapter 12, aka the end, Grendel's "enemies of old" have come to watch him 'die' (173). Grendel mentions a "sheepish smile" that makes me think back to the goat (173).  It's as if Grendel is mimicking the goat because he now understands the difficulty of avoiding death and how it can all be a big mistake or as Grendel says, an "accident" (174). Stupid Grendel, he just had to give into temptation. The last part of me that doesn't think that Grendel dies is when he is faced with the chasm yet again. In the beginning he yelled into it over and over as if he was taunting it. He was challenging the chasm to take him. When he finds himself back at the chasm missing an arm, the "voluntary tumble" that he thinks is going to kill him doesn't happen (173). He's already faced this problem and he's avoided it. So to all you Grendel'sdeadbelievers, he's not. He's simply alive waiting to give a humanish smile to his old friends when he gets his revenge.

Prufrock and Sherwood

"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by T. S. Eliot and Winesburg, Ohio,  both share the common theme of loneliness. Many of Sherwood's characters find themselves lonely as well as the speaker in "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." To start, in Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson, Wing Biddlebaum is lonely and wants to be with people but is scared to reach out because of his haunting past of being exiled from the town he teaches in. Because of his fear, he stays in his dilapidated house outside of town. He still watches the "berry pickers" (Sherwood 9) with enough space in between them that he doesn't have to converse with them. The speaker in "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," like Wing, has learned from the past and has "known them all already" (Eliot 49).  The speaker knows that he or she has already been presented with the issue yet he or she has a hard time figuring out how to not make the same mistake again. It also sounds a little sassy to me the way it is said. It's like when a teacher says something in class, and then someone asks about it immediately afterwards. Then the class looks at that person like "Hello? Are you dumb?" In the end, both lonely and wanting to be a part of society.
The two works are different in how the speaker and Alice Hindman thinking about their lives. Alice is "dreaming an impossible dream" (Sherwood 109) which relates to the speaker and his or her wondering and questioning, "And how should I presume?" (Eliot 61). They are both struggling with the fact that they aren't sure where to go. Alice knows what she wants but knows she won't get it. She knows she can't reach it no matter what happens. On the other hand, the speaker doesn't know exactly what he or she should do and is looking for the path to the little bit of happiness he or she can get in the last years of his or her life.
Lastly, in the end of the love song, the speaker says, "Till human voices wake us, and we drown" (Eliot 131). It really reminds me of how the characters in Winesburg, Ohio are grotesque. The grotesques are drowning in other's opinions and mistakes. The other people in Winesburg are influencing certain people as they grow older before they become grotesque. However, it's kind of backwards. I know I'm not supposed to refute myself but I can't decide which side I'm on. In Winesburg, Ohio, the characters are trying to help George Williard by sharing their experiences so he does not become a so called grotesque. However, if he does not experience the mistakes first hand, he cannot learn. That's where I am confused. You are drowning in the voices, yet you are learning. Drowning has bad connotations. When you drown, you typically die. Yet, if we compare it to George Williard, he's learning. But is he learning from the bad in others?? Not sure.

Seas of Yellow

Daffodils
William Wordsworth

Robinson, Mark. Daffodil field in South East Cornwall. 2009.
photograpgh. Flickr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cornwall_Daffodils.jpg

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.      


I love love LOVE this poem. Mainly because it remind me of the spring time at my grandparents farm. I don't know how, but there are daffodils everywhere. Literally everywhere--in little patches, big patches, and sometimes even just one or two. It's so pretty and calming to look out and see a sea of yellow and orange. When I read "Daffodils" by William Wordsworth, I remember the spring and walking around the pastures and just being overtaken by all the daffodils. The farm has always been a place where I can go to so I can escape the world--even if it's just for a few hours. The speaker feels the same way. First of all, the speaker says he or she feels as "lonely as a cloud." When I look into the sky, I usually don't see just one single cloud. Usually there is a surplus of white balls in the sky. However, I do occasionally look up and see one single cloud. And I think how awful it would be to be the only one up there. It makes me think of being in a sea all by myself with no one else to be with. The speaker is lost and "lonely" until he or she find the daffodils. The speaker is comforted by the daffodils because of the way they are "dancing in the breeze." Yellow can be a comforting color; therefore, the speaker feels comfort in his or her state of loneliness. The speaker loses all sense of loneliness when looking at the daffodils. The dance the daffodils are doing also lifts his mood. He's taken to a place where he can just gaze at the pictures and forget his loneliness. The speaker even compares them to waves. Waves represent an always moving motion in the speaker's life that just keeps hitting and hitting and hitting him. He cannot control their motion or how strong they come in, he can only look over at the "dancing" daffodils and think about the peacefulness. The daffodils take him away into and alternate universe while he is getting hit over and over again by the rough waves. The speaker even admits that he or she can sit on his or her "couch" and think about the daffodils and be comforted. The speaker can think back to the joyous yellow sea whenever he or she is in a bad place. I mean, how can you be sad looking at daffodils. They are such a happy flower! They grow in the spring too, symbolizing rebirth and a chance to do things again. In the spring, the sadness and loneliness is supposed to vanish. The spring brings "pleasure" to the speaker because he or she knows that the season for being lonely is over. The speaker and I enjoy how we can look back to the sea of yellow in a dark day and feel better.

Hero or Not?

What is a hero? Is it someone that saves a kitten? Someone that stops a building from burning? Someone that makes you feel better? Someone that causes you to change? Everyone has their own definition of a hero. It really depends on where you are in life. In my life, I have many heroes. Is that even possible? Actually, I take that back. But in Grendel by John Gardner, Grendel doesn't want to believe that he isn't the hero. He doesn't want to be the bad guy even though that is who he is born to be. When he talks to the dragon, the dragon tells him to "seek out gold and sit on it" (74). Basically, the dragon is telling him that everything he will do is pointless and there is no reason to do anything. He tells Grendel he should get his gold aka his pride and greed, and sit on it meaning he should not let it go and keep it for himself symbolizing greed. I don't see Grendel the way the dragon does. Yes I agree with the dragon when he says to Grendel "If you withdraw, you'll instantly be replaced" (73). But this is where Grendel fails in my mind. He should continue with his mindset of not wanting to kill for fun, but killing for food and killing based on need. There is always something that is going to push the people to "poetry, science, religion" and "all that makes them what they are" (73). Grendel is a hidden hero. Without him, the people wouldn't be progressing. He is the hero that helps them become better at what they need to do in life for themselves. Aren't heroes supposed to help share knowledge that will make life better? Isn't he making their life better? I was talking to my friend about it and he helped me think about it in a way I wouldn't have thought about normally. And now I'm changing my thoughts again! There are heroes in everyone's life. Everyone passes on information that helps someone continue on their journey. Isn't a hero who is done with their journey the old wise man in another's journey? *MINDBLOWN!* I literally just had a light-bulb moment. It makes complete sense! Yes! The advisor in the new or main journey is at the end of his or her own journey! That's how the information gets passed down. Therefore, the dragon is at the end of his journey, and he is telling Grendel how he thinks life is about being "found in the frustrations of established order" (67). Grendel can either take it, or leave it. In Grendel's journey, he takes it, but leaves it--if that makes any logical sense. Grendel struggles with it because he doesn't want to be like the dragon, but he sees his point. He goes back and forth between wanting to kill mechanically and not wanting to kill at all. That's a major part of his journey--whether is be a heroic one or not. But keep in mind, a hero causes a change...Grendel has caused a change.

Making Our Own Choices.

     In, Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson, many words are used frequently to show Anderson's opinion on learning and making mistakes. One of the very first words that I noticed repeating a lot was "grotesque" (11). Now when I read or hear the word "grotesque" I bobble about it. I mainly think of something that is gross and something that one would grimace at. But Anderson's use completely baffled me beyond normal baffilization- if that's an actual word. The grotesques are "all of the men and women the writer had ever known" but "were not all horrible...some almost beautiful" (5). Come again. Say what. Soo it's something in between not quite horrible yet not quite beautiful. Thanks, Anderson that's really helpful. But as I kept reading, I started thinking about the people he is talking about. The people make mistakes when they are "young" (4) and learn from them. Another popular word: "young". The grotesques are young. They are learning what they should do, and what they shouldn't. In "Adventure," Ned Currie, "the young man" is seeing Alice Hindman but he's not fully committed to her. He said things "he did not intend to" (103) which causes Alice to fall more in love with him only to get her heart broken. Alice becomes a grotesque because she learns from her mistake of waiting for Ned to return home after he has moved to the big city and has stopped writing letters. Big mistake, Alice. Big mistake. She lost her youth! After Ned she moves to "a middle-aged" fellow. Clearly, she has grown up. She's no longer young. She's lost her ability to not become a grotesque. Ok, random question. If being a grotesque means you have made a mistake and learned from it, doesn't that mean that everyone is a grotesque?? I don't know. Just a little side plank to think about. Going back to the word "young," later on in the novel, a "young reporter" aka George Williard, is learning from Enoch Robinson. Anderson is connecting the characters to show they are all once young and innocent. However, that innocence doesn't last forever. When George is talking to Enoch, Anderson writes, "The old man dropped into a chair...'I thought it might be a good idea to tell you but it isn't" (176). Enoch is going to warn the young George Williard of what is going to happen and what to do and not to do. But if he does, George won't learn. He will, but he won't for himself. He will be wondering how things could have been different. Anderson is commenting on how when other people give advice on what to do and not to do, someone doesn't truly learn. I mean yes they learn and get the idea, but there's always the wonder of what if. What if I did go to that party? What if I did get those boots? What if I went to a thirteen dollar movie instead of buying my sister's birthday present? What if. We all have to learn for ourselves. We can learn from others but it's not implanted into our brains.

God visited Winesburg, Ohio!

Usually, I don't pick up too easily on Biblical references in novels or poems or what-have-you. However, a recent assignment of looking for repetitive words got me thinking in a different way. What am I seeing over and over? What does it mean when it's in every story? In Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson, biblical references can be found in just about every chapter. To start, in "The Book of the Grotesque," the old man is having his bed fixed by a carpenter. Immediately, I thought of Jesus and how he was a carpenter. The old man's bed is getting fixed because he wants to see out the window. That got me thinking of when Jesus healed the blind man in John 9 NIV when the blind man "came home seeing." No, the old man is not blind, but he still isn't seeing. By not seeing I mean he doesn't know what's going on in his life anymore. He thinks of death frequently and every time he does he sees what he has done in his life again. As ridiculous as it is, it reminds me of a quote from The Santa Clause, "Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing." Yes, corny, I know. But if the old man can't see out of the window, he's not seeing what's out in the world, or his reflection, or even just a different view. Therefore, the carpenter helps him see.
~Next, in "Hands," there is a "long field...that had produced only a dense crop of "yellow mustard weeds" (9). In Mark 4:30-32, it is said that the "grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown, grows up, and becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow." What I see is that the "fat little old man" (9) is hiding in the mustard weeds. He is hiding from society and the weeds provide the perfect shelter as if he is a bird that hides under the shadow.
~Then in "Paper Pills," there are "twisted little apples" (19) which reminds me of the Garden of Eden. The apples have been sent to people in different cities. Now thinking about the Garden of Eden, the apples tempted Eve, who later gave it to Adam. Because the apples in the Garden of Eden represent sin, the apples that are sent out to people show their sins and how they can be considered "grotesque" (11). Also in "Paper Pills," the girl had a dream "three times" and after the third time, she realizes what has happened. Peter, in Matthew 26 NIV, hears the rooster crows three times before remembering what Jesus had said about denying his acquaintance. Again in "Nobody Knows," George Willard "walked up and down" the street "three times" before he went into the store to get a cigar (47). He, like Peter and the girl, realize after three times what is going on. Third time's the charm, right?
~The last one, is most likely just me going off on an idea that makes no sense whatsoever. In "Death," Elizabeth Willard, dies not only on a day in "March," but also on a "Friday" ( 233). Who died on a Friday? That's right! Jesus was hung on the cross! When do Christians celebrated Easter? That's right! March! Or April if you want to get technical about it.
~I know there is more because there's always something else in a book to dissect either deeper or from a different point. So, if you find any, I would love to hear it!!

Neutral Tones

By Thomas Hardy

We stood by a pond that winter day, 

And the sun was white, as though chidden of God, 

And a few leaves lay on the starving sod; 

     -They had fallen from an ash, and were gray. 

Your eyes on me were as eyes that rove

Over tedious riddles of years ago;

And some words played between us to and fro

     On which lost the more by our love

The smile on your mouth was the deadest thing

Alive enough to have strength to die;

And a grin of bitterness swept thereby

     Like an ominous bird a-wing...

Since then, keen lessons that love deceives, 

And wrings with wrong, have shaped to me

Your face, and the God curst sun, and a tree

     And a pond edged with grayish leaves. 

     Talk about a depressing poem!! I thought my breakup wasn't good but clearly Thomas Hardy was having a much harder time than I was. There is soo much to look at in this poem that my brain is kind of just buzzing around. To start, the words Hardy uses aren't exaclty pleasant. But I really do like his word choices! The words he picks really makes the poem and helps with the after-effect. Ok, so, the couple is at a pond-not a lake, not a river, not the ocean. A pond: an area of water that stands still. No movement and when I think of ponds I think of the icky green junk on the top of the water. I think of frogs too which makes me happy but that's the opposite direction that this poem goes in. The pond is still like the relationship the speaker is in. There is no moving part. Secondly, it's winter. A winter pond, probably frozen over, the air is probably cold, there are a few dead leaves left, and the sun is white. With the pond being frozen over, the life in the pond has gone to the bottom and there is a chance of ice on top. The leftover dead leaves resemble the life that was once there and the memories of it. The speaker's memories are with him or her, but they are no longer good and living. With the white sun, the situation can be innocent. That's interesting because everything else seems to be dead and already over while the sun is innocent. Kind of counteracting each other, yes?

     The line that boggles me is "The smile on your mouth was the deadest thing." Basically, the speaker is saying that even the smile that used to give him joy means absolutely nothing anymore. Ouch! I mean when I look at someone that I used to have feelings for and he is smiling I smile too! I don't think to myself, "Oh, he's smiling. He's dead to me." No! I think about all the good things we once had. Have you noticed that? Maybe it's just me, but the people who are in my life seem to focus on the bad things that happen, not the good. I don't see how one can just forget the good and only take the bad. And then not being completely dead and having the strength to die?! What?! The speaker is pretty harsh! And then it's followed by a "grin of bitterness." Who does that?! Well, ok I just thought of something. Evil people do that. They grin when they have done something bad or evil. So the speaker is evil and sly.  

     I'm also getting a feeling that the speaker has been hurt by love. If the speaker wanted to remember all the good times he or she had with his or her lover, he or she wouldn't be comparing it to death. The speaker will not be able to love the same again and will have trouble loving again. He or she is clearly very hurt and affected by this end. The speaker is now living life thinking about this one breakup. The speaker is living in "Neutral Tones!" 

Clinging onto Memories

"The sounding cataract

Haunted him like a passion: the tall rock,

The mountain, and the deep and gloomy wood, 

Their colours and their forms, were then to him

An appetite, a feeling, and a love,

That had no need of a remoter charm, 

By thought supplied, or any interest

Unborrow'd from the eye"

When I first read "Tintern Abbey," I didn't take much out of it. I usually don't when I read poems for the first time. But after reading it numerous times and intensely dissecting it in class, I began to understand what William Wordsworth was writing about. Wordsworth is remembering how his memory was a strong feeling for him and that nothing was better. He is remembering how he, when in a bad spot, can look back and remember how peaceful and beautiful the abbey was. The only thing I don't understand is his word choice for his good memory. The word "haunted" really nags me. It's as if the memories were always with him but he didn't want them to be. The words "deep" and "gloomy" also raise my curiosity because if it's a good memory, why is Wordsworth using words that are usually paired with bad things? If I was to use "deep" and "gloomy" I would say, "I was deep in the quick sand" and "The graveyard was gloomy." Those are bad things. Not good things. "Tintern Abbey" remind me of my favorite place in the mountains. I go every summer and I would certainly not use those words to describe my time. Actually, I take that back. I would use "deep." But I would say that we go "deep" in conversation. We have a "haunted chapel." Maybe that's how Wordsworth is using them but that is not how I interpreted them.
Mary Shelley incorporates "Tintern Abbey" into Frankenstein because Victor is mourning the death of Henry Clerval when she brings it in. Victor is thinking about how that beautiful world in nonexistent for him anymore because he has released this awful creature is destroying his life and everyone he cares about. Victor believes that he will never again live in peace and quiet. Victor is also leaning towards that good memory because he doesn't have anything else that's good at the moment to help him get through the death of Clerval. To Victor, the words of "Tintern Abbey" remind him of Clerval and how he had helped him in many ways. Clerval helped him basically come back from almost dying after Creature is released into society. Clerval also helps him in a way he doesn't know. Clerval goes with Victor to be with him when he creates a female creature. Victor realizes his memories of Clerval is all he has left. But that also haunts him because he is the reason Clerval died. If he hadn't created Creature, Clerval would still be living. Victor is realizing the deaths around him are his fault. He now wants to go back to that place where he was happy and not surrounded by death. Victor knows he can never have that same moment back and that everything is changing. He, like Wordsworth, looks back on that perfect moment and clings onto it. They both keep it close to them and think of it often. 

"If you had a chance to change your fate, would you?"

When I walk into a movie theater, I don't plan to analyze a movie in a literary way. Especially when it's an animated-children's movie. But as I watched Brave, I couldn't help myself at analyzing it. There was sooo much to think about! To begin, Merida, has bright red hair. I mean bright red hair. I didn't think anything of it at first. Then again, as the movie went on, I noticed she was daring and ambitious and wild. Her hair is a big poof fall of frills-which to me meant she was all over the place, as she was. She didn't want to be the princess she was destined to be. She was in that awkward stage between teenager and adult. She could still be a child but she wanted to be able to have adult conversations. She didn't want to marry someone she didn't love. Like most of the other Disney princesses, she wanted to fall head over heals for someone. She wanted the power to decide her fate. When it comes down to three bachelors participating tournament to see who wins Merida's hand, she rebels and says "I am Merida, and I'll be shooting for my own hand" which of course aggravates her mother who is doing her duty of queen. Speaking of her mother, her mother has long brown hair that is laced up tight and is very graceful and in control. As usual, there is a hidden female character that is the one really pulling the strings. Her long, straight hair shows she is wise and is used to sticking with the rules. Her mother is the only one in the family who has brown hair. Also, Merida's dad and three brothers are also more ambitious and less likely to follow the rules. When Merida decided she is sick of everyone making decisions for her, she escapes to a witch for help. As we can anticipated, the witch's potion did what Merida asked for, but not in the way she was thinking. Merida's mom is now a bear- the beast of their clan that everyone wants to kill. In an instant, the queen who keeps everything on track, is what everyone hunts. Merida and her mother learn how to understand each other without words and with actions. They have to put their differences aside, and work together to keep Merida's mom alive. In the end, Merida ends up saving her mom with her fierce ambition and learning a very valuable lesson. Never go to a witch for help. But she also learned to look at the other side of the story and see their reasoning. My favorite part in the entire movie is at the end when Merida and her mom ride their horses together, both of their hair down, blowing in the wind freely. Her mom has realized her daughter is not going to be who she wants her to be. Merida is going to be her own person. It also reminds me of everyday problems of mother's knowing exactly who their daughter is going to be before they are even born. I love that I can actually look deeper into movies now and see hidden puzzle pieces. I am solving the mystery to certain words, certain colors, and certain features. With that being said, "If you had a chance to change your fate, would you?"

Look at me for who I am. Not what I look like.

Over the summer, I was planning on reading a lot of books. Starting off with summer reading. I wanted to get that done first so I could relax and enjoy the summer with less-brain-occupational books, if you will. But that didn't happen. Summer took it's course and I got busy with all the fun things summer throws at you. However at the end of summer, I didn't have some time to start reading Look Me in the Eyes by John Elder Robinson. Robinson as a young boy was ostracized. He didn't understand why until a few years ago. Robinson has Aspergers-an Autism like disease that makes socializing difficult. Robinson knew he was different because his classmates would talk with him and he wouldn't say that they wanted him to say. He didnt understand that they liked small talk. He was talking like an adult and thinking like one before they were. Ok something just hit me like a wall of bricks. Creature from Frankenstein is like Robinson! Both outliers and both rejected. For different reasons, yes but same idea. Robinson was rejected because he acts different from so called "normal" people and creature just looks different. Funny now society works isn't it. Do one thing the wrong way and you might as well move to East Africa or a secluded ice cave. I well see that society hasn't changed one bit. Differences are looked down upon. This is the subject that boils my blood. I mean boils my blood. Can everyone stop focusing on themselves and how others are different and stocks on how others a different in their own way? Apparently it's hard to do because we can't seem to get over the fact that people are different. Poor creature started off will a good heart and a bad appearance. He was rejected immediately by his creator and everyone he encountered. Robinson, on the other hand, is the opposite. He looks "normal" but the way he acts is different than what society expects. While at a party, Robinson asked something along the lines of "What's easier to put in a garbage truck,  bowling balls or babies?" First I thought about how weird of a question that was. Second I hoped I had the right answer. Robinson said, "Babies. Because you can use a pitch fork." Who says that. Who thinks like that. That is what I first thought. Society has trained me to noticed the weird and either stay away or gossip about. Am I proud of that? No. Do I want to change it? Yes. It's a lot harder than I thought. In the past couple of weeks I have been trying to be more open minded and give more people the benefit of the doubt. While doing so I've noticed how harsh people are. Including my own family. It's easier to judge those who you do not know, harder to judge the people you do. Maybe that's because we judged them at first and thought "oh, I can see myself being friends with her." There's never a moment where we aren't thinking not to do or to do something. Our brains are always churning about who slept with who, who got a new haircut, or how ugly her labradoodle mix is. So this week, think about creature and Robinson. Think about how you would feel if what you think is normal is different to society. What would you do?

For Each Morning

"For each new morning with it's light, for rest and shelter of the night, for health and food, for love and friends, for everything thy goodness sends." 

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

I absolutely love this quote not only because it is a great prayer but also because it helps me remember what I should be thankful for everyday. I have friends, and food, and I am thankful to wake up in the mornings and start a new day. I thought of Frankenstein's creature because he didn't have "love and friends" but he had everything else. He woke up in the morning and got food or kept trucking along with his sad and lonely life. I had trouble with my feelings towards creature because I felt bad for him because he didn't have anyone. But then I was angry at him for murdering William and Elizabeth. It was just a back and forth, back and forth feeling for me. I felt especially bad when he had spent so much time helping the DeLacey family and learning from them and they ended up rejecting him. If only they could hear his story and realize what he had gone through. All of the trekking by himself and hearing screams every time he went for a walk around people. How miserable would you be if that was you? I would never ever ever EVER be happy. I wonder if I would turn to the same paths creature took. If my creator and the world rejected me, how would I react?? Would my creator be able to listen to me like Victor did to creature?? I'm surprised Victor didn't drop dead with a heart attack after exchanging a few words with creature! After all the suspense of finding creature and killing him all Victor did was listen. Was it really that hard? I mean c'mon. Yes he's a murder and quite hideous but it's one simple conversation. Creature had "rest and shelter" and "food" but he didn't have "love and friends!" I think that's the second most important part of Emerson's quote. We, as humans, obviously need food to survive, but being alone is what truly scares me. When I think of growing up, I'm not scared of not having food or shelter, I'm scared of being alone. I'm scared of dying alone. And that is where I feel the strongest sympathy towards creature. He did die alone. But what flips the coin of anger is when he kills Elizabeth! If I was sad and lonely and just downright miserable, I would not want to inflict that on anyone else. However, I do see where creature was coming from. Creature was able to ask Victor to create another creature. He had the chance but it was destroyed. I, on the other hand, might just turn out to be a frog lady. I might not have the opportunity. Creature's mate, if you will, was right there in front if him, literally. He was watching Victor as he made and destroyed her. And that is what destroyed him and what would probably destroy me too.