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.