This year in Review

         As this is my last blog as an AP lit student, I would like to discuss some of my favorite experiences in out class. First though, I must say that the skills and writing experience that I have acquired through taking AP lit are things that I know will come in handy in college. Following my junior year, I had thought that the level fo my writing had peaked especially concerning writing about literature. From sophomore year to junior year, I received consistent A's on my writing and thought that i had reached a level of writing that I was stuck at. However, from my first writing assignment in AP lit (I think this was the Frankenstein open question time writing) I quickly realized that I had a lot to learn and needed to improve a lot. I have found that before I was in AP lit that I was not able to read at the level an AP lit student needs to in order to write intellectual and academic papers on these novel that we have read. However, gradually, through the intensive writing processes and demand that we read closely, I feel so confident in my reading skills now. I notice now that when I read, I pay so much attention to every aspect and symbol and allusion. It gives me a lot of satisfaction that I notice so many different themes and motifs when reading now that I would have not even recognized a year before now. This is one of the many great things about AP lit. I think what many students misunderstand is the purpose of the intensity of this course. Through all the wirting and readinig assignment we have, I think many students can't see the forest through the trees. A lot of times, when bogged down with a lot of work, lit assignments can lose their purpose. However, I think that once everyone has gotten to the end of the year, I truly feel that I have acquired so many skills in writing and reading and have advanced my level of analysis in my writing and reading over the course of this year. It is kind of funny that just like Mrs. Clinch said at the beginning of the year, I cannot help but apply literary analysis to so many aspects fo my everyday life. I find now that as I watch Grey's Anatomy, I am also trying to pin point to meaning of the mug that sits on Derek's desk and why it is half empty versus full! I even think that my vocabulary has advanced substantially from all of the reading we have done. All in all, now that I have basically reached the end of my term in this course, I do not regret in the least bit taking this class despite warnings from previous seniors about the work load. For someone who usually does not read for fun, I am glad that I have been exposed to so many great works of literature through this course.

"I Will Wade Out" E.E. Cummings commentary

    I Will Wade Out

i will wade out
                        till my thighs are steeped in burning flowers
I will take the sun in my mouth
and leap into the ripe air
                                       Alive
                                                 with closed eyes
to dash against darkness
                                       in the sleeping curves of my body
Shall enter fingers of smooth mastery
with chasteness of sea-girls
                                            Will i complete the mystery
                                            of my flesh
I will rise
               After a thousand years
lipping
flowers
             And set my teeth in the silver of the moon

          I believe Cummings's poem is a lot about deciding what type of person and what type of life one wants to live. To the speaker this life is one of spontaneity that follows the movement of nature. If you take a look at the physical structure of the poem, the lines are indented in and out like the waves of the ocean. This type of spontaneous and random motion follows that of another one of Cummings's poems "O Sweet Spontaneous" and "Lets Live Without Thinking" (cool right?). The type of living that the speaker describes is very intense.

          E.E. Cummings had transcendental influences thus, I get from the poem a lot about retreating into nature to become aware of self. Flowers, the sun, the moon, all objects of nature with profound presence and meaning. The sun is symbolic of  death and rebirth, evolution, and divine. The moon is described as a timepiece, personified as a deity, in some cultures associated with insanity and irrationality. Furthermore, the moon represents a feminine symbol, a middle ground between the light of sun and darkness, the realm between conscious and unconscious, a symbol of the soul, and determines a subjects capacity for reflection and adaptation.In some way, shape or form, all of these representations could be connected with the evolution of self and of one's soul.

          There are a few instances of very visual and oxymoronic objects. For instance, "burning flowers" and "sleeping curves". The burning of flowers seems to be like destroying beauty. A flower is a very delicate and gentle object;however, burning is a very violent, strong, and destructive action. Furthermore, curves connote movement, action, winding, and instability while sleeping is non active, without movement. this could be an overstatement but i feel that this juxtaposition goes along with the sense of uncertainty in wading and wavering and possibly not knowing what you want out of life.

            Even with all of this asserting of what the speaker will do, There is still an underlying sense of insecurity in their assertions. After all the poem is titled "I Will Wade Out". Of the many definitions of "wading", one is "to make one's way slowly or laboriously". Thus, the speaker seems to emote uncertainty in his actions and decision about the future. Wading is uncertainty by not having enough confidence to go all in. Wading is almost synonymous with wavering, going back and forth. The words that Cumming's uses connote the same idea: leap, curves, dash.
          What I can take from this poem is about self-actualization even f it is not Cummings's intent. Interpretations and analysis are entirely the readers' though right? Ether way, i understand the pseaker to be expressing that he is reclaiming himself.

A Visit from the Goon Squad First Impressions

Thus far, I am enjoying the style and structure of writing than Jennifer Egan offers. I have never read a book that is not a mystery novel that still requires that I piece together information from each chapter to help understand the next one. It has become really fun to decide which minor characters from a previous chapter have become major characters and often key characters moving forward in the book. My literary circle actually was quite intersting adn delightfl ebcause we often had to back track to figure out which characters were who and who plays central roles in various parts of the novel.So far the book is becoming for me a kind of puzzle. I am having to weave relationships in and out of each chapter and often I am having to calculate years past and ages of character to find out who certain characters are from previous chapters. However, I am really enjoying the dynamic of the text because I have never read a text that is structured in the way Egan constructs this story into a series of intertwining short stories. In the opening chapter, I sense a mix of comedy and introspection Sasha is a classic kleptomaniac, unable to quell her impulses to steal. She has a therapist Coz and already is being shaped as an unstable and possibly volatile character. Coz is unique in herself for a therapist. She is eccentric and surprisingly dislikes eye contact. This detail stood out to me in particular. A therpaisst is an intimate figure, one who has to be able to connect with another’s life and identity in order to offer council. Yet, coz avoids this level of intimacy thorugh a lack of eye contact. Nevertheless, Coz offers advice to Sasha on her theft issues. The idea of Coz being a mentor figure for Sasha reminds me of that same dynamic in Invisible Man. I enjoy finding commonalities in every book we read even when these books are totally different genres. I have noticed most prominently; however, that authors tend to base their central characters around some eternal conflict that inhibits the procession to the climax of the novel. In Hamlet, it was a hesitation over how to avenge his father. In Invisible Man, the central internal conflict was that of the narrator and his struggle to balance between two parallel ideologies which inhibited his identification with himself. Similarly, in Winesburg, Ohio, George Williard had to discover an "ungrotesque" truth that allowed him to escape the small town of Winesburg. Oh and I just thought of this one! Grendel has to revel between two states of existence : meaninglessness and meaning in a world that he is not welcome and viewed as a monster. Unable to establish a human-like existence in the Anglo-Saxon world, Grendel has to decide whether to concede to meaninglessness or embody the role of the monster in order to find meaning in the people's world. I am finding that AP lit has opene my eyes to these types of connections. I do not think that if I would have not taken this class that I would be able to have a level of sophistication in my reading to draw parallels in novels written in totally different time periods and totally different genres.

Billy Collins poetry

Dear Reader

Baudelaire considers you his brother, and Fielding calls out to you every few paragraphs as if to make sure you have not closed the book, and now I am summoning you up again, attentive ghost, dark silent figure standing in the doorway of these words. 

Billy Collins

In theatre, the fourth wall refers to the audience. In this poem, Billy Collins breaks this barrier between the voice of the speaker and who he/she is addressing by directly referencing the audience, the reader as the title suggests. Collins seems to be commenting or maybe even mocking the conventions of how authors try to engage readers and how readers actually read books. This is ironic in and of itself because as the author of the poem, Billy Collins is mocking himself in a sense. In the first line, the speaker references Baudelaire. from a little research I found that Baudelaire contributed to the idea of modernity. Modernity states that to capture and epitomize the fast paced, fleeting life of urban and technological lifestyle, it is necessary for the artist (or the writer in this case) to portray and capture that experience. Thus, by saying that the reader is in some way connected to Baudelaire, the speaker suggests that the reader may have some connection to Baudelaire's philosophies. Possibly, the speaker suggests that the reader must be engaged or find some relation to the text in order for the text or piece of art to be successful. Next, the speaker mentions Fielding and  how he addresses the reader. Henry Fielding, a satirist would use wit to draw attention to or mock an underlying truth about society. Such type of literature requires that the author constantly engage the reader so that they understand the hidden message in their humor. Furthermore, the speaker then continues to say that he is "summoning you up again" referring to the reader, establishing the author as one that calls upon the reader for their voice or message to be heard. The speaker calls the reader an "attentive ghost". A ghost denotes a soul of a dead person, a disembodies spirit, vagueness, a shadow or semblance, or an evanescent form. thus, the speaker establishes the reader as an idea. this makes sense to me because as a author writes a work, he is not directly speaking to a person or audience but rather writing with the idea of the audience in mind. Thus, the reader becomes a disembodied spirit as they are not physically present for the author to address. The author can only form an idea of what the audience is and how they are characterized. Referring to the reader as dark and silent connote eeriness and an evil entity. Furthermore, the speaker describes the reader to be "standing in the doorway of these words".A person who stands in the doorway brings up an image of someone who is not in a room or out of a room. In the context of the poem, the room is the author's words. Thus, the speaker suggests that the reader is not entirely engulfed in he text nor removed from the text. It is kind of brilliant actually what billy Collins does in the poem. He basically calls out the reader which is ironic because the poem kind of suggests that the reader has to be able to relate to the poem or work according to Baudelaire. thus, Collins does this exactly by examining how the reader reads a poem as they literally read a poem. Like, woah...

What's going on with Invisible Man?

For the past week, out class has been holding seminars for various sections of the novel the Invisible Man. However, unlike most times where these seminars are enlightening and often help me reach some aha! moment in the text, I am left by the end of them wanting more.... whether discussing Lucius Brockway's encounter with the narrator or the riots that close the novel, discussions seem to be trapped in a cyclical bout of racism or just smiply black and white. This an be frustrating because eliminating the black versus white lens opens up the book to so much more meaning that I believe Ellison intended. Maybe I am just too critical. I myself could offer even more to the conversations but i do feel like our class discussion emphasize too much surface level commentary and not enough genuine analysis that comes with really reading a book. I understadn second semester senior syndrome which I myself have become infected with but i really want our class to become more interested (and maybe live up to second period haha). On a side note, out seminar today bothere dme in particular because I feel certain people were being ganged up on  during seminar which takes more away from our class discussion as a whole rather than make themselves seem more intelligent. The atmosphere created by the students in out classroom kind of makes it difficult for me to contribute all of the time for fear of being "judged". Not implicating all students in class but I do feel like a few do not always contribute to the open and nonjudemntal atmosphere that an ap lit open discussion is supposed to yield. I digress, but I think my point has been made. I know that each and eveyr person in the class in intelligent and interested in literature (hopefully at this point) so I just wish that people's intelligence reflected in their efforts in the class. Today I wanted so badly to talk about how Clifton's exit from the brotherhood was not just white people casting off blacks again but how he figuratively falls from a idea of "grace" so that he can be free. And also when the narrator is dreaming at the end and he hears Barbee and brother jack ask him how does it feel to be free and the narrator responds that it is PAINFUL and EMPTY.

Angels versus Demons

If one missed the abundance of light versus dark or black versus white or snow versus soot or sunny versus cloudy or etc., etc. I would have to assume that they had not read Invisible man. Other than an obvious interpretation of these images and symbols as being related to race (i.e. white society versus black society, I think these images offer a unique look into religious entities. The abundance of light v dark and black v white connotate evil versus goodness, a motif that pervades the conflict between angles and demons. I did like how in some of the seminars we introduced the idea of demonic or evil forces in the book. For, instance Brother Jack, Bledsoe, and even Ras the Destroyer. for me, all of these characters made me question what actually constitutes being demonic or simply evil for that matter. Each character construes some image of evil in a unique way. Jack is pointed out to have stolen the identity or soul of the narrator, catapulting him on what one can claim to be a journey to enlightenment or to willful ignorance. Bledsoe betrays the narrator for threat of the narrator exposing his obedience to whites and falseness as a true black man. Finally, Ras the Destroyer is portrayed as a violent figure, clashing against black "brothers" int the brotherhood. I think that these evil figures contrast with characters like Mary, Clifton, and the narrator's grandfather who are almost like holy or Christ like figures, angels. The contrast between angelic and demonic figures throughout the text offers a reading of the book through a religious or worshiping lens. In any religion, the conflict we see between different characters could be a disparity in the ideologies that they believe in and worship. When the narrator becomes wrapped up in the brotherhood, he becomes a worshiper of another religion in which the deity becomes the members of the brotherhood. He pays tribute to the brotherhood through his spread of the brotherhood doctrine, science to the people of Harlem.A sharp contrast to the "religion" that the narrator begins to follow int eh north. In the south, there exists a parallel ideology to that of the northern "religion" of the brotherhood. The southern doctrine is one that idolizes the "white man" as a higher, superior being. This "religion" is so controversial because it is divisive playing blacks against whites. The role of blacks to obey and be polite towards the white people is their form of worship but it is belittling. The fulfillment that the narrator gets from "worshiping" the brotherhood comes from the idea that it embraces the equality of black and white. Whereas the southern doctrine is so absolute in its divisions, the northern doctrine hides behind images of totality and oneness. Looking at the text in this way, the narrator's development could be interpreted as a test of faith. He must decide whether he should stay true to the backwards ideologies of the south or come to learn if the northern religion is even more perverted than the southern doctrine.

Invisible Man...WTF

I can see why Invisible Man is the perfect to use on any AP lit free response ...it is absolutely ambiguous! As I was reading the book I picked up on so many allusions, symbols, etc. From researching Gestalt theory, the three blind mice story, and black nationalism I am still not completely sure of the central "so what?" of the book.. First of all,I cannot choose if the narrator should be considered an antagonist or protagonist. Is this a story about an unfortunate life or redemption. Is the narrator a vicinity of society or just himself. What makes answering these questions so hard is because amid them is the band rip of the polarizing social amps ogre that pervades the entire text. I often wondered while reading it if I could negate the issue of race relations in the understanding of the text but honestly I am not sure. I believe that the narrator's concept of him being an invisible man is due to being a black man. We see at the beginning of the text that he starts off in an underground space where he lives the. E tells the story. At the epilogue we find out that he is back on this hole of a home. Obviously this is symbolic because EVERYTHING in this book has some meaning we just have to find it. But at the same time I feel like the text is referencing race just as much as it is referencing knowledge, power, consciousness, and gender issues. Either way, it is not as surface as just race I know that. The book would have been so much easier to read if that had been the case. Instead I have a chaotic image of fire, riots, and a man retreating back into a weird under ground quarter leaving me questioning, "like ...what?". I know looking at the title is kind of basic surface level stuff but I think Ellison really did title the book emphasizing the invisible man to make the reader take race color out of the picture when reading it. This in and of itself seems like an ironic commentary on race. Maybe as I read the book, the inability of me to look past the narrator's conflicts through a color lens signify me being racist or at least narrow minded in a way. Possibly, if the reader is able to exclude race form their interpretations of the text, the true meaning (whatever that may be) of Ellison's work will come out. I found that I saw significant allusions to songs and African folktale that I am definitely going to look more into. the book offers so much on allusions from Brer Rabbit to Gestalt theory to Louis Armstrong blues songs that I just tried to catalog as much as I could for future reference. Going forward with this book, I do not think that it would be a bad idea to try and read it for a second time and see how my understanding shifts. Maybe , I could find that I know much more about the narrator than what his invisibility suggests.

Hamlet as a philosopher...

In class this last week , my group discussed Hamlet as a philosopher. His "to be, or not to be" soliloquy reveals Hamlet's role as a philosopher and yields well to an existential reading. Existentialism describes the philosophy which includes confusion in an "absurd" world. Also, philosophers like Fichte and early Schelling believe that human existence is action.

Two quotes that we brought up were the following along with explanations:

"To be, or not to be, that is the question"(3.1.56)

Hamlet could literally be questioning "to act or not to act" which connects to the philosophies of Fichte and Schelling. In this soliloquy, Hamlet questions his own existence seeming very suicidal. It is possible that he feels that since he has lacked action or progress in the plot to avenge the murder of his father, he lacks existence because existence is action. if he is no acting then he is not existing. Nevertheless, I believe Hamlet does not fully grasp what the essence of his existence is. Back in act 1, we see that he is deeply frustrated that his fate holds the revenge of his father on its shoulders. Thus, Hamlet might be expressing here that he is not in control of his own fate, his actions. i also think that Hamlet misinterprets the definition of acting that is existence. We see that he wants to put on a play to "catch" the conscience of the king , Claudius. Also, it is not known whether Hamlet acts mad or truly is mad. Thus, I believe that Hamlet's interpretation of action is putting on a performance or pretending to be something that he is not in order to mask his own true intentions. I think he tries to get rid of his own confusion over the calamitous state of Denmark and his own responsibilities that he tries to distract himself by trying to unmask other men. He tries to get rid of their appearances to show their true nature.

"To sleep, perchance to dream, ay there’s the rub, for in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause-there's the respect that makes calamity of so long life..." (3.1.65-69)

Hamlet acts as a philosopher her as well as he weighs the pros and cons of death. Earlier in the soliloquy Hamlet questions his own physical existence asking if it be better to stand the hardships of life or end one's own life to escape them . However, Hamlet is halted at his seemingly suicidal thoughts by the fact that there is even more uncertainty in death. Hamlet seems to believe that it is man's fear of death that makes him stand living. Why is Hamlet questioning dying though? We agreed that this seems cowardly. He would be giving up on himself and his father. Furthermore, Hamlet considers death yet still finds no hope in his own death. I think Hamlet is unsure of two things here (1) his own fate and (2) the fate of the kingdom

 

Invisible Man

Invisible Man....hmmm where to start? I still do not have a complete grasp on this text yet. It is robust with allusions and meaning which makes it even harder to completely understadn the protagnist and the plot at times. So far;however, I have kept trak of a few motifs and conflicts that I am seeing play out in the text. First off, I think there is an important parallel between educated and noneducated blacks. At the Golden Day, the veterans refer to the protagonist as "school boy". I think this is supposed to be derogatory towards him. It is as if they resenthim because he is trying to get an education. Something to think about further into the book.The next interesting relationship I have noticed is that between the anonymous protagonist (or should I say antagonist???  I will just refer to him as the protagonist for now.) I am not quite sure at the moment) and Mr. Norton, a successful white male that the protagonist is chauffering at the moment. I think the protagonist wants to believe that Mr. norton is different than other white people in society;however, I believe that he holds the same prejudices as the majority of the white class during this time.The protagonist really irks me I have recently discovered. You expect that in a seemingly repressive, racially conscious society that the protagonist would connect more with his own race. However, he is so so so ancious over making himself appealing to the "white man" and pleasing them. He is concerned with this so much so that any blaack person that he meets, he expresses almost a deep rooted animosity or disapporval to them if they conduct themselves in a way that he deems unpleasant in the company of 'white folk". For instance, Mr. Norton meets Trueblood, and really wants to hear his story which he tells very candidly. However, the protagonist is so worried about what he will think when he finds out that Trueblood raped his own daughter.He tries to rush him syaing theat they better get back to campis but Mr. Norton waves his hand away in annoyance. There is a situation of dramatic irony in which the protagonist is aware of Trueblood's story but Mr. norton is blindly unaware of his indiscretions. Teh protagonist possibly does not want black people to look lowly or uncivilized in teh eyes of the white class. Because in this society whites hold teh power, I believe the protagonist feels he has to abide by a certain standard in order to be accepted by them. He is perturbed that people like Trueblood and others at the Golden Day do not seem to censor their conduct in front of white people. thus, I asked my self, why does he seem to be the only black person thus far who is so concerned with being accepted by a class that does not accept him? He says in the porlogue that people do not see him. I interpreted this to mean that "him" is referred to hjis conscious or soul. Thus, he  is overlooked for teh sake of his outward skin color. Maybe he is just trying to better himself in a society where blacks can only hope to rise out of their condition (if even a little bit) by serving the white, superior class. I see his waiting on Mr. Norton and being so concerned with every move he makes in front of him as a form of slavery in itself. He is sacrificing his true self for teh sake of someone else's pleasure (at least I assume he does not wish to do this kind of work ideally).

Poetry

 

When I came last to Ludlow by A.E. Housman When I came last to Ludlow Amidst the moonlight pale, Two friends kept step beside me, Two honest lads and hale. Now Dick lies long in the churchyard, And Ned lies long in jail, And I come home to Ludlow Amidst the moonlight pale. The speaker the poem reflects on when they "came last to Ludlow" suggesting that he is there currently. Ludlow is a town in England. On his last visit to Ludlow the speaker reveals that they were "amidst the moonlight pale". The moon is a feminine symbol. It represents the rhythm of time. Also, the moon reflects inner knowledge and the phases of man's condition on earth. It is the middle ground between the light of the sun and the darkness of night and represents the realsm between the conscious and unconsious, the soul. The speaker refers to the moon as "pale"  connoting that the light of the moon lacks intensity and brilliance. This connection possible suggests that the speaker cannot see clearly or lacking in knowledge. The speaker continues to state that two freinds accompany him, poeple he considers to be "honest lads and hale". They describe that the friends "kept step beside me" suggesting that these people are not only close in proximity but have a close relationship with the speaker. Their characterization of being honest connotes many descriptions including honorable in principles, truthful, and respectable. The speaker also goes on to state that their two friends are "hale" meaning free from disease or infirmity, robust, or vigorous. It is intersting that the speaker references their friends helath. I also think that their may be significance that the speaker walks with two friends. The number two is indicative of duality, opposites, and antithesis. It is also associated with the two natures of Christ, human and divine. If in fact these friends represent duality, this emphasizes their relationship to the speaker. I am not sure how this could relate to the ideas in this poem;however, there is an ABAB rhyme scheme present as well in both stanzas.The transition to the following and concluding stanza can be interperted as a shift. The speaker expressed in the first stanza that his friends were in good health; however, presently "Dick lies lon in the churchyard" and "Ned lies long in jail". Of his two friends, one has passed and the other imprisoned. It is possibel that the speaker is trying to reveal that he is lonely wiht both of his friends gone . He states, "And I come home to Ludlow / Amids the moonlight pale". I beileve their is an emphasis on I in this line as the speaker is now alone. There was once a time whenhis friends wlaked beside him; however, now he continues alone at light suggesting a somber tone. The repetition of the concluding lines with the introduction lines stresses the speakers state of mind as somber and melancholy. However, upon second thought this may not be because of the loss fo his two friends. He expresses the same town before his friends' death adn incarceration as he does after. This revelation suggests that the speaker was not affected by the loss of his friends. Is he twisted? Maybe  I am reading too much into this or perhaps not enough...

Hamlet...

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are cast areas mirrors of one another. They both pledge by heaven to fulfill King Claudius’s request to determine the root of Lord Hamlet’s madness. In this proclamation, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s loyalty and trustworthiness as true companions to Hamlet is to be questioned. Both so readily give up themselves freely to King Claudius’s demands with no concern it seems that the subject of their spying is a friend, Hamlet. Both “sweet talk” Hamlet as “My honoured lord!” and “My most dear lord!” (2.224-25). However, their readiness to act against Hamlet’s behalf only magnifies the falsehood of their claims of honor toeards Lord Hamlet. Both characters play an more major significance in elucidating the sciope of the corruption that has resulted from claudious’s murderous ascent o the Elsinore throne. Hamlet has since learned that Claudius’s hands were  the root of his own father’s death and thus the kingdom that was once a garden is now full of weeds. Hamlet feels as if Claudius has corrupted his family, forming an incestuous marriage with his mother and ousting his father. Thus, it is possible that Claudius is corrupting Hamlet’s other relationships as well, this includes Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. When Hamlet asks as to the reasons fo their presence at Elsinore, both lie saying that they are just visititing. However, it seems as if Hamlet is suspiscious of their true motivations questioning, “were you not sent for? Is it your own inclining” (2.2.77-78). They eventually give in revewling that they were sent for. Their willingness to lieto a close friend on behalf o fteh King discredits their trustworthiness in the scope fo the play. Furthermore, it emphasizes that no one is to really be trusted with Claudius in power as he seems to have a influence on everyone that Hamlet is involved with.Gertrude as well seems to be losing trustworthiness for Hamlet. Her actions and thoughts are tainted by King Cluasius, her now husband. Everything she says is in compliance or extension fo King Claudius’s statements. She only thus far speaks when following Clausius’s statement or directing people. The only time in this scene that reveals Gertrudes hint of remaining concern over her son Hamlet is when she states, “I doubt it is no other but the main, his father’s death and our o’erhasty marriage” that has caused Hamlet to act out of sorts (2.2. 55-56). She is coming to his defense for once since her misguided marriage to Claudius. Thus, there could still be hope for Hamlet to restore the order, the garden that flourished when his Hyperios father was King. Gertrude is not all corrupted by Claudius and shows that she still has some understanding and empathy for her son.

Initial Takeaway from the Invisible Man...

From brief summary on back of book I know that the book will eventually reveal itself to be about racial prejudices. It tells of a story that faces the perils of the great racial divide and also narrates the ignorance of society towards race. The effects of racial prejudice are revealed thorugh the perspectives of the people made victim anf those who inflicted prejudice on others. So ,what does the title have ot tell us. Unlike some titles, I believe the “invisible man” will be telling in my understanding of this text. From the firstline of the prologue which states, “I am an invisible man”, I know the protagonist to be the subject of Ellison's title. I will be looking into how his feeling of invisibility plays into his character development.There are a couple of motifs that I have already noticed just in the prologue. As the title suggests, there is reiteration of the idea of being invisible. The main character, whose name is not known yet, even opens the prologue with "I am an invisible man".Since this book is not science fiction, I presume the protagonist’s “invisibility” is completely metaphorical. But, in what sense? Invisibility, is one looks at its denotations, mean 1)not visible; not perceptible by the eye 2) withdrawn from or out of sight; hidden 3) not perceptible or discernible by the mind 4)not ordinariliy found in financial statements or reflected in statistics or a listing 5) concealed from public knowledge.The second motif is that of eyes which is frequently mentioned even throughout the first few pages. It seems that the protagonist’s feeling of invisibility is one that is 1) not visible; not perceptible to the eye. The man states, “I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me”. This is such a telling and profound statement. It is to me a direct commentary on what prejudice and ignorance is, refusing to see what is right in front of you. This type of ignorance is what which causes racism. Furthermore, the nameless protagonists is the victim in this story and generally society is the victimizer. The protagonist speaks of the eyes of people he witnesses. In just the first page, there is mention of the “eyes “ motif four times which seemed to me to represent an idea that could pervay throughout the novel. Eyes are regarded as windows to the soul or as a barometer of emotions. More simply eyes represent focus, clarity, vision, perception, observation. This is ironic as the pople he encounters do not see him . The source of his invisibility is the inability of pople (presumably “society”) to see him. As an African American man, the protagonist is most generally probably speaking of the case between blacks and whites in America. Much of the unrest and turmoil that ensued was dues to a refusal by some to reject social bias and injustice. It will be interesting to see how the speaker copes with his reality even though society perceives a different reality.

 

"Time and Eternity" Emily Dickinson

F I should die,

And you should live,

And time should gurgle on,

And morn should beam,

And noon should burn,

As it has usual done;

If birds should build as early,

And bees as bustling go,--

One might depart at option

From enterprise below!

'Tis sweet to know that stocks will stand

When we with daisies lie,

That commerce will continue,

And trades as briskly fly.

It make the parting tranquil

And keeps the soul serene,

That gentlemen so sprightly

Conduct the pleasing scene!

 

Emily Dickinson poem

Death is to be feared. Its inevitability is daunting, challenging the ephemeral nature of human life. The most notable feature of Emily Dickinson’s “Time and Eternity” remains the tone of the poem, which conveys a unique optimism towards death as well as contentment in the afterlife. Dickinson expresses an objection to the characterization of death as marking an end. Impassive to the obligation to mourn death, the speaker rather espouses the feeling of peace and gratification that arises from one’s passing. The speaker in the poem abolishes angst that arises from the idea of death, reassured nonetheless by the constant cyclic nature of life even following death. Dickinson portrays that in death there can be happiness in the assurance that life will carry on. In the first two lines of the poem, the speaker establishes a contrast between life and death. The speaker’s consideration of “If I should die” conveys a dark and heavy tone that is parallel to “And you should live” which conveys a hope and optimism (1-2). The contrast between the speaker’s statements demonstrates morbidity and promise that qualify Dickinson’s characterization of death as forlorn yet hopeful. The speaker then discusses that “time should gurgle on” even in the wake of her death. The word “gurgle” connotes an irregular or broken flow. Thus, Dickinson acknowledges that time is endless and eternal but but not constant. The speaker parallels the inconsistency of life with the constancy found in death. In death, the speaker states that “morn should beam’ and “noon should burn “further elaborating that time carries on even after one’s death. The imagery of the morning sunshine and the afternoon sun represents that the days will continue “as it always has done “and time will go on after death. The final twelve lines of the poem diverge from the tone expressed in the first section. The speaker transitions from reiterating that time is unchanging and infinite in the wake of death to praise of the constancy of life after death. If the speaker is to pass, she describes that birds “build as early” and the bees “as bustling go” (7-8). Life continues undisturbed by her death instilling in the speaker so much content that she feels as if “one might depart at option from enterprise below!” (9-10). Instead of a mourning for life lost, the speaker that her death would have no impact on the continuation of life. She further expresses the comfort received from knowing that life is uninterrupted absent of her presence. “Commerce will continue” and the economy will prosper (13). “Stocks will stand” even with her death (11) . Nevertheless, the speaker’s apparent feeling of insignificance in the layout of life is not a disturbing thought yet one of joy. Assurance in the continued prosperity of life makes her “soul serene”. The speaker’s reference to her soul is reminiscent of transcendentalist ideals in which the soul is a part of a universal spirit that returns to that universal spirit upon death. Thus, the speaker seems to express a desire in a spiritual elevation in order to escape the constancy of an earthly life. However, the consistency that the speaker tries to escape is also what creates pleasure in the continuing of “gentlemen so sprightly” carrying on after her death. Furthermore, Dickinson structures the lines of the poem in a way that parallels the idea that life is constant in death. In the first seven lines of the poem, the speaker discusses that time is infinite and days never ending even after her death. To parallel this idea, these lines have no rhyme scheme, conveying the eternal yet unpredictable nature of time. On the contrary, the last twelve lines of the poem discuss the speaker’s pleasure and hope in the continuation of life following her death. These lines have an ABAB rhyme structure that portrays the cyclical nature of life and death. Also, The ABAB rhyme scheme demonstrates that life and death are a continual pattern. This pattern is what the speaker wishes to maintain. Emily Dickinson offers a unique outlook on life and death in her poem. The speaker establishes that life is tranquil in its eternal, cyclic continuation. The infinite nature of time seems to dwarf the speaker’s will to live. Throughout the poem, the speaker expresses that life and time will undoubtedly persist even if she does not. The speaker’s hopeful attitude towards death transforms a usually morbid and depressive occurrence into an opportunity to find peace. This peace is found once she departs from mortality to an eternal spirit. The speaker seems to be reassuring the “you” that she addresses in the beginning of the poem that her death is not a time to lament for a life perished. However, she offers comfort in a promise that in her death, life will continue on unscathed. Death is not to be feared nor mourned because life will go on and order will remain as the cycle of life and death continues. Thus, Dickinson conveys an alternative message that death should be appreciated for the peace it brings, not sadness. Death is not a tragedy.

Hamlet Act 1 Debrief

Angry ghosts, incest, murder, and a hesitant hero-to be? Hamlet already seems to be full of drama and a little bit of comedy.  The ghost of Hamlet's father and ex-King is active and haunting over this seemingly corrupted kingdom. Hamlet is wretched over his mother's distastefully hasty marriage and his uncle's suspicious assumption of the throne. In Act 1 Scene 2, the stage directions that Shakespeare provides hint that the state of Denmark is not as well as it appears. All gather in the castle's council chamber as Claudius prepares to deliver a speech regarding his brothers "death". However, Hamlet is described to be "in black, with downcast eyes". Unaffected by the fanfare of King Claudius, Hamlet is sulking and creepily keeps to himself. Is he angry, stricken with grief, ashamed, alone? Hamlet's responds to Claudius's speech is quite telling. He is almost disgusted by his mother's marriage so fast to his father's brother. Furthermore, he does not view Claudius as the "Hyperion" that his father was to him. Hamlet's familiar affairs are not the only ones that seem to be an "unweeded garden".In Scene 3, Laertes has a conversation with Ophelia, warning her against her relationship with lord Hamlet. He thinks "his will is not his own" and tells her not to give up her "chaste treasure" to Hamlet. Polonius, Ophelia's father also is not fond at all of Ophelia's "rendezvous" with her Hamlet. He believes her to be acting as a prostitute and forbids her from any further interactions with him to which she responds, "I shall obey, my lord". Thus, much can be said for the "state" of Hamlet's family and romantic lives. The kingdom of Denmark has been overtaken by a "serpent" that has seemingly invaded the garden that once prospered when King Hamlet was alive and well. In Scene 5, it is revealed from King Hamlet's ghost that Claudius, his own brother, poisoned and killed him while he was at rest in the garden. His ghost summons Hamlet to avenge his death leaving Hamlet feeling unhappy and pressured immensely by his sudden lofty fate. Thus, Claudius has broken Hamlet's connection with his father and taken his mother from him in marriage. Furthermore, Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia is broken as her brother and father disapprove of him and ban her from seeing him. Hamlet is alone. The only hope he has at reclaiming his father's life and love for Ophelia is by avenging his father which may bring the kingdom of Denmark back into sorts. All affairs seem to be headed south with all resolutions on poor hamlet's shoulders.Horatio and Marcellus are worried for Hamlet’s fate. Horatio believes that Hamlet’s listening to his father’s ghost could draw Hamlet into shear madness. Even though Hamlet promises his father’s spirit that he will fulfill a prophecy to avenge his death, he is not at all sure of himself. “O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!” Hamlet exclaims. He is not excited over this “call to adventure” which may foreshadow Hamlet’s failure as a hero. After all, the archetypal hero is ready for his journey. So is Hamlet a tragic hero?

A Shakesperian Sonnet

To acquiesce my overwhelming anticipation to read Shakespeare's Hamlet, I am reading a few of the poet's sonnets. From over one hundred, I narrowed my broad selection down to sonnet 98. It reads as follows: 

From you have I been absent in the spring,

When proud pied April, dressed in all his trim,

Hath put a spirit of youth in every thing,

That heavy Saturn laughed and leapt with him.

Yet nor the lays of birds, nor the sweet smell

Of different flowers in odour and in hue,

Could make me any summer's story tell,

Or from their proud lap pluck them where they grew: 

Nor did I wonder at the lily's white,

Nor praise the deep vermilion in the rose;

They were but sweet, but figures of delight,

Drawn after you, you pattern of all those.

   Yet seemed it winter still, and you away,

   As with your shadow I with these did play.

 

After first reading, the speaker is expressed to be aloof to the changing seasons evoking a deepening sense of stagnation. This idea is reinforced the speaker's reactions to  the landscape and planets in the midst of this transition form winter to spring. The speaker is "absent" in the spring , expressing that there is a sense of preoccupation or lacking for them. Furthermore, Shakespeare describes Saturn's planetary movement with the seasons representing its rotations at different speeds. In purgatory, Saturn is representative of sloth.  Saturn is also representative of absolving the cardinal sin of sloth, do-nothingness, stagnation. the planetary motion of Saturn abdicates the stagnation of winter in which all planets and life cease to be active and die. It commences the season of spring in which the prosperity of flora and fauna is resumed. Despite the sprouting of lilies, rose and their striking brilliance of color, the speaker remains frigid to these displays of new life and beauty. Mere "figures of delight", the flowers are only figments of a happiness the speaker seems to yearn for their brilliance does not manifest in the rejuvenation of his spirit.In an environment engulfed by the resilience and vivacity of spring, the speaker seems to forbid the welcome of new breath. The speaker's inhibitions to the spring time are further expressed as Shakespeare writes, "yet seemed it winter still". Stuck in winter, it is almost as if time has escaped the speaker. So now, the poem seems to describe a lamentation of years lost. Thus, the speaker chooses to remain in the darkness for winter stating, "As with your shadow I with these did play". The darkness can be interpreted as the past. There is a comfort in the past that the speaker finds. Representative in the new light of spring is the youth that precedes and threatens to replace his existence. As much as the poem portrays the liveliness of spring, it can really be alternately viewed through an entirely polar lens, one of death. If taken from the speaker's point of view, he bemoans over his/her own life. Perhaps the speaker is elderly or regrets some part of their life...

Character Battle

I am really so excited that I cam up with a new blog format to explore my literary interests. For each subsequent novel that we read, I hope to compare and contrast characters within the same text or across texts and decide which trumps the other based on some criteria. This week I am comparing Age of Innocence to A Doll's House  in preparation for the AP Lit final exam essays. This week in the battle dome are Nora form A Doll House and Ellen Olenska from Age of Innocence. Which character is the more noble and free woman? There is no doubt in my mind that Nora is the more noble and courageous of the two women. Both Nora and Ellen are victims of the high standards and strict traditions of society. Nora is trapped in the "doll house" construct just as Ellen is victimized by the American New York society. Both women in some manner escape form the influence of these societal structures. Nora leaves her husband and kids and venture to discover herself aside form her duties as a mother and a wife. Ellen moves back to Paris to escape from the temptations that Archer is and the hardship of trying to find a place in New York Society. However, I believe Nora's escape to be more noble.Unlike Nora, Ellen came to America from the "outside". In many ways, the small group of people who are a part of the new York society are the "doll house", constricted by social customs. Ellen is not a part of this society, coming from Europe and she does not fit in, she is very much an outsider from everyone. Even from other women, Archer recognizes how she is not naive or ignorant like all of the other women of society who concede to the desires of males. However, Nora is a part of the society she is trapped in. She is a wife and mother confined in the walls of this doll house. She comes to realize at the end of the novel that she has blinded herself in her marriage. She does not love her husband nor enjoy her role in motherhood and wifehood.  Nora is almost physically constrained by the walls of the house. This can be seen in the contrast between the outside and inside of the house. The outside is viewed as harsh and cold while inside the doll house is warmth and family. Thus, when Nora decides to leave the house for the unknown she not only sacrifices herself but also she demonstrates that she is not subjugated by the will of society for her to be a domestic figure. Just as a point of comparison between the women, although not as prominently as Ellen, Nora demonstrates a forbidden interest in another off limits man herself. Ellen is interested in ineligible Archer Welland and Nora has very strong flirtatious encounters with Krogstad hmmmm... these women are becoming more and more alike than I first thought.

Happy Birthday Jane Austen!

The End of the Age of Innocence

I am excited for the discussion next week about Age of Innocence. I now the ending will strike different cords with everyone. In my reading of the text, I primarily focused on the effects that strict social conventions have on the members of the society. The way in which Wharton criticizes superficial codes of society is through the character Newland Archer. He very much struggles between a recognition of his love for Ellen Olenska (which is quite taboo) and an obligation to marry May Welland. in this way, Archer is one of the only characters in the novel I feel that is not truly innocent. He doe snot purposefully blind himself to his feelings or position in society like women do. He hates how so many of the women in this upper echelon group of New Yorkers denounce recognition of their knowledge and potential for the sake of becoming some man's wife. They strive to become objectified which is almost inhumane. Every man solely desires to have the most desirable or beautiful woman on his arm and the women concede to the desires of men. Ellen Olenska is a sharp tangent to these women which is very much why Archer is intrigued by her. I have not yet gathered or determined for myself whether he truly loves her or just is enticed by her difference. In the last section of the novel, the book flash forward s to Archer in his fifties and it is quite sad that he never was able to pursue his dream. Throughout the novel, he dreams and fantasizes of what could be with he woman so much so that in out lit circle we were confident that his lust for her would result in a sexual affair. However, this is not what happens at all. He has grown old, had children, and May Welland has died. His current state portrays such rigid stagnation that it draws significant sympathy for the man on my part. To live life for so many years and dream of a life in which you are happy and to not achieve this happiness is the greatest failure in my opinion. However, this draws upon my central question for the end of the text: Who, if anyone, becomes free in the end? Honestly, I would have to argue that no one truly escapes from the judgement and influence of these people. When Archer goes to Europe with his son on business, he is too much a coward, too afraid of how he may be rejected by society to approach the woman himself and sends his son to the woman's door. Even though Countess Olenska moves to Paris, I still do not think she was free from the grips of society. I think she was running away from he true feelings as well towards Archer because she did not  want to disrupt the :social machine" To visualize my ideas about Archer and Ellen''s relationship, imagine two people running in opposite directions, one east and one west. In between them is the society which tries to literally destroy anything or anyone that interferes with its traditions.

Understanding Emily Dickinson

"Faith" is a fine invention

185

"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see—
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency. 

Emily Dickinson

First off, the first line immediately reminds me of the statement in Grendel when the monster states, how religion is lunatic theory or something to that degree. I digress. Anyway, although this poem is very short, Dickinson conveys a significant message in such little text. I think Dickinson is commenting (possibly criticizing) briefly the hypocrisy of man and religion. In times of need when there is life or an outcome is certain, man does not call upon or practice in faith. Only in times of need, when the fear of uncertainty dons upon man and the future is out of his hands do they call upon a higher power to save them from their troubles. Dickinson uses metaphor to compare the treatment of faith by man as an invention, something that is manmade, a fallacy, or not concrete and true. When Dickinson calls faith an invention, she is describing how man do not display a devotion to their faith in time when they can "see" or in other words in times when their lives are pleasant and the future seems certain. However, Dickinson states that in emergencies. In modern times, I relate this to the idea of praying only when you need something. This is using God. If this is truly what Dickinson was trying to express, it speaks volumes about her thoughts about men in her society. The poem could state about man that once we become too great in our thinking and views of ourselves, our value of God decreases greatly. This includes places mortal desires and priorities over those of God. The microscopes represent the difficulty of sight.  Microscopes are optical instruments that have magnifying lens or a combination of lens for inspecting objects too small to be seen or too small to be seen directly and in detail by the unaided eye. Microscopes aid humans in their vision of things not distinguishable to the naked human eye. I think the microscopes are symbolic of the presence yet invisibility o f harmful things in life. Furthermore, the microscopes portray to me some kind o juxtaposition between the positions of humans as the small objects in which are magnified by God. Thus, since we are not able to see these things bring about considerable uncertainty. In these times of uncertainty, which I believe Dickinson characterizes as emergencies, man calls upon Go to help see what we mortals cannot see because God sees all. God is the microscope. He is an entity that, sees, hears, and watches all even when we cannot see things that are right in front of us. Dickinson could very p[possibly be criticizing the abuse of religion by man. Religion is not a seasonal or occasional devotion. It is one in which one’s life must be fully dedicated to the word and values of your faith. Finally, even the structure of the poem lends itself to the two main contrasting ideas I mentioned. The dash after the first line separates the two ideas structurally.

Cumming's Poetry

i carry your heart with me by E. E. Cummings

i carry your heart with me(i carry it in
my heart)i am never without it(anywhere
i go you 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)

The poem encompasses an exaggeration right from the start in that it is physically impossible to carry someone’s heart inside your own. This exaggeration though shows the powerful feelings love has brought into E.E. Cummings’ life.

The poem only has one major shift that can be identified and it occurs in the transition between stanza two and three. The entire poem is about the strong emotions that love makes you feel but in the third stanza, there are no real descriptions of the love that is felt like there is in the first and second stanza.

From the E.E. Cummings poems I have read, he always alters the physical structure of his stanzas in some way that is significant to the meaning of the poem. I will touch on this after I try to analyze Cumming's meaning benign the work. upon first reading the work strikes me as a profession of love  to some woman. This is not just any love however, this is a deep connection. He "carrries" her heart meaning this person is with him in physicality and spirit, an achievement only feasible through a deep romantic connection. The speaker states that he carries the other's heart inside of his own. Their hearts (representative of internal love and care) are one meaning that they have become one being, beating together in the name of love. This unity is expressed when the speaker states, "anywhere i go you go, my dear..." (line 2-3). 

In the second stanza, the speaker continues to pour his "heart" out to the person that he loves. However, I think that this love could be negative.  The love the speaker feels is blinding. He feels no fear of the future (or sense of it for that matter).

Also, I think Cumming's use of parentheses inside the poem represent how this object of the speakers affection is so close to them that they are inside of him. Like a part of the same being.

I think the theme of this poem is that love unites and prevails over all. The speaker reveals that the "deepest secret"  is that love is the meaning of life, The tree is symbolic of life and "here is the roost" which is love. This love is "higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide". Love is not an idea but an entity in this poem. Cumming's almost makes a devotion like love seem like a religious practice in his elevation of its effect on existence and spirit. 

*p.s. I just realized how I kind of made a huge assumption about the poem based on gender stereotypes. I assumed that the professor of love is a man. this is most likely because, stereotypically, men are the one who are the pursuers in a romantic relationship. 

Initial thoughts on Age of Innocence

     Our first Literature circle assignment was the first ten chapters of Age of Innocence and thus far, I cannot see past the blazing gender stereotypes that pervade almost every part of the novel. So far, Edith Wharton (if she truly wanted this to be a "muckraking-esque" piece) succeeds in making me annoyed by the blind neutrality to gender discrimination in this "elite" New York society. The story introduces us to Newland Archer whom I cannot tell so far if the man is characteristic of an antagonist or protagonist. He seems to float around the skirts of this high society men. However, there is a point of distinction in his self awareness (besides the mere fact that eh seems to be the only one who is self aware or introspective at all). He claims that he is different from these superficial men though, but I will just have to see as I read further into the novel. I have noticed a lot too that women are pretty much like objects. the first metaphor that comes to my mind is a Thanksgiving turkey (I am already in the holiday spirit). For instance, at the Opera, the women basically "dress" themselves up in their finest jewels and attire to attract the eye of these high society men. This objectification is so central to the livelihood of this society I believe. Women seem just to be another object to attain just as the newest garment or best decor.. Thus, the I think that further into the book there will be the persistence of men having dominance over women. The objectification of women not only is impressed upon men I feel but also ingrained into the conditioning of the young women. I can only presume that from childhood they are taught to be obedient, soft-spoken, and kind basically be submissive and don't speak your mind so that you might find a good husband. The funny thing is though that the women in this cult of domesticity appear to be perfectly contempt with their "bottom fo the ladder" social status. May Welland is perfectly oblivious to Archer's sly and well-hidden view of her as a child.
      Thus, I I cannot refrain from referencing the title of the text. The "age of innocence" I believe is the period in time in which Wharton lived in which the only thing that fed the continuance of such ignorant, elite living is the innocence of women. Maybe she is stressing the strength of women. It seems that they are pawns in the grand scheme of things but maybe they are really keeping everything together...more to come on this later.

Blake and Literature Connections

In the epigraph of Grendel, an excerpt is included from William Blake's poem "The Mental Traveler". When I researched the critical reception of this poem, many critics agreed that the poem expresses so many contradicting ideas that it is difficult for the reader to identify to anyone. Even this relates to Grendel in some ways. Grendel, a monster, is affected by his not human yet not entirely animal form. Thus, as he feels himself to possess a combination of both creatures, he also feels a combination of sadness and frustration at his isolation from humans and his angst towards the thoughtlessness of animals. Furthermore, the character Orc first is from Blake's poem. Orc is representative of rebellion yet he is a positive figure. Thus, as a breaker of tradition, this character is a metaphor towards Grendel's disruption of thane culture and system. "The Mental Traveller" and Grendel both address the cyclic nature of life. In Grendel this is representative by the zodiac signs and the seasons which mark cosmic rotations as a tracker of time. Grendel’s actions too have a cyclic nature. As a youth, Grendel experienced a tragic event that wounded him mentally and physically. When Grendel is stuck in the tree, he describes the shrieks and call for help. It can even be said that Grendel has been tortured his whole life. Thus, he continues a cycle of pain and torture towards others through his terrorizing of the thanes. By terrorizing them, Grendel attempts to interrupt the order of their society and in doing so he is trying to break out of his own cycle of torture. Blake's poem has been thought to portray the idea of liberty. In Grendel, this concept is reminiscent in Plato's allegory of the cave in which Grendel's venture from outside of the cave is him trying to gain his freedom. Furthermore, I think the image of the “woman old” is manifested in the book through Grendel’s mother. In the poem, this woman is a very painful figure for the boy. In the novel, I think Gardner parallels this woman to the frustration and pain that Grendel’s mother has caused Grendel. Progressively in the novel, Grendel becomes more and more critical and disgusted by his mother’s seemingly thoughtless and mechanical actions. He wishes not to be reduced to the likes of an animal yet his mother seems to be stuck in her role as a monster. When Grendel screams for his mother’s help she does not come even further distancing himself from her. I think that Grendel gradually outgrows his mother. He is enlightened simply by the fact that he decides to leave his cave to venture into the unknown. Thus, when she does not answer his calls, I feel this is because she cannot understand him anymore because she is not enlightened. At this point, I am not quite sure if Gardner‘s novel was entirely influenced by Blake’s poem; however, both works address similar and connected themes. My question really is: Is Grendel is more of an extension of Beowulf or “The Mental Traveler”?

Chapter 10-Nihil ex nihilo

The last sentence in Grendel  "nihil ex nihilo, I always" (Gardner).So, not being a premier authority on philosophy which I presume the statement correspond to I decided to do a little background research (I admit this included a brief reference to wikipedia). Translated to English the statement reads "nothing comes from nothing" (sounds so existentialist right,. Ill touch on that shortly). Apparently, this is a philosophical idea by Parmenides, a Greek philosopher who also wrote that reality (or "what is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary and unchanging (contrasts to the dragon!). The Greek people also believed that things cannot vanish into nothingness and nothing is created from nothing it is transformed into another something. This all inclusive  (and exclusive for that matter) theory is a lot to contemplate along with existentialist ideals but I will take a crack at it. The webster dictionary defines the phrase as, "from nothing nothing is produced". What I get from this is more so that everything is connected than the meaninglessness of life. Every thing and being in existence is due to a transformation of being from something else. For instance, a really simple example is when a baby is born. This child comes from a man and a woman and not out of pure immaculate conception. The transform of energy from one thing to another is what connects everything. In existentialism (specifically nihilist theory), there is an emphasis that life has no meaning; however, for the individual nihilism presents the opportunity for them to create their own meaning of life. It also asserts the idea that "I am nothing". In the context of the book, Grendel struggles with finding his identity and identifying himself with his surroundings. He faces many different opposing views on existence and its purpose from the Shaper and the dragon that cause his internal conflict.

The Shaper in Anglosaxon society

So far in the text, there is a lot of focus on Grendel's internal conflict. he observes the world, takes in what he sees and often criticizes it. this is no exception when it comes to the Shaper. The Shaper appears in Grendel as a teller of the histories of the tribes and keeper of the memories of battles. The Shaper is the same figure to the scop in Beowulf. This figure is quintessential to the livelihood of the warrior culture and their longevity. His role in society is elaborated throughout the story.However, what was the exact role of this figure in Anglo Saxon culture and what was their role in society? Upon research, I was informed that in Anglo Saxon culture, poetry was at the heart of tribal life and was highly regarded as they valued many forms of the arts. The Shaper would play a harp as he told the stories like a song. He did not merely speak the histories of the people, he was the sole keeper, a record of all their achievements and failures, an authority on their ties and values. His responsibility was so central to the future of the tribes since stories were upheld through an oral tradition. This is why we see in Beowulf that boasting and being able to propel your status through an eloquent telling of your status and family ties is a large part of status in warrior society and respect from peers. From this we can see that Anglo-Saxon culture values spoken word and the art of story telling. Off on a tangent, this directly contrasted to what I thought Sherwood Anderson asserts in Winesburg, Ohio. throughout the novel there seems to be an emphasis on the lack of credibility and genuineness (not sure if this is a word or not ) of what people say versus what they truly are internally. In contrast to the Shaper, Grendel perceives that he crafts the stories out of thin air, disregarding the truth of the history of kings and thanes.The way in whichever he Shaper told the stories is most likely how it was to be remembered and dissipated i for future generations. Accordingly, the Shaper enjoyed high social status for their importance in tribal life. Warrior culture valued the idea of legacy and immortality through your deeds and thus the Shaper perpetuated these histories and tales. Also, the Shaper acted as a vessel to communicate the values of the warrior culture like variance, fame and courage. He  also inspired people to act and called them to action by inciting them through telling of past brave heroes. In context of the novel, Grendel feels to have conflicting feeling over this character, but why would he care is a question I keep asking myself. The Shaper tells of the history of warriors and kings, of people. He hails and praises their bravery in past wars and battles. However, Grendel feels as if he sensationalizes the past and distorts the truth, changing the future. Possibly, Grendel feels that because of this, the Shaper marginalizes himself as a thoughtless creature, no different than the intrepid goat he loathes.

The Origin of Zodiac Signs

The zodiac signs that we know today are actually quite modern. It is only in the early modern era that these signs were ascribed as symbols representing the twelve divisions of the ecliptic which has been around since the Hellenistic period. In its earliest origins, the zodiac symbols come from Babylonian astronomy. The zodiac symbols each are one of the twelve divisions of "celestial longitude". Celestial longitude is simply a system used to represent the locations of the planets and space matter in the Solar System.  Each sector was thirty degrees and could be used for predictions of the locations of the planets. However, Babylonian techniques were novice as the evolution of astronomy progressed. Thus, constellations began to be used . Each of them were given the current names we see today of the zodiac signs. The zodiac signs and representations we know today were developed by astronomer Ptolemy Each sign can be depicted by a figure, most of the time an animal. Throughout Grendel, each chapter is representative of one of these zodiac signs and helps crucially in understanding the novel as a whole. Gardner uses them as a "motif" in a sense. Each zodiac sign has a corresponding color, planet ,season, and element. The following is a comprehensive table of  the signs and their appropriate meanings for personal knowledge and to refer to as reference in my reading of Grendel.

Aries

• Element: fire, Planet: mars, Symbol: the ram
• acting first and thinking second, a child
• the heroic ideal is the cycle of life
• chapter: 1

Taurus

• Element: earth, Planet: Venus,Symbol: the bull
• strength, steadfastness, possession, dangerous,material security, acquiring wealth
• heroic ideal is care and love for living things
• chapter: 2

Gemini

• Element: air, Planet: mercury, Symbol: twins
• versatile, duality, rapidity
• heroic ideal is value in poetry and art
• chapter: 3

Cancer

• Element: water, Planet: the moon, Symbol: the crab
• tenacity, protection of vulnerabilities, hard exterior, soft interior
• heroic ideal is the home
• chapter: 4

Leo

• Element: fire, Planet: sun, Symbol: lion
• feline nature, strength
• heroic ideal is knowledge
• chapter: 5

Virgo

• Element: earth,Planet: mercury, Symbol: virgin
• harvest, prosperity
• heroic value is heroism
• chapter: 6

Libra

• Element: air, Planet: Venus,Symbol: scales
• balance, harmony
• heroic value is balance and marriage
• chapter: 7

Scorpio

• Element: water, Planets: mars, Pluto, Symbol: scorpion
• transformation, rebirth, consciousness
• heroic value is loyalty
• chapter: 8

Sagittarius

• Element: fire, Planet: Jupiter, Symbol: the centaur
• philosophy, paradox, duality,ambitions
• chapter: 9

Capricorn

• Element: earth, Planet: Saturn, Symbol: sea goat
• spiritual wisdom, no satisfaction of the individual ego
• chapter: 10

Aquarius

• Element: air, Planets: Saturn, Uranus, Symbol: the water bearer
• detachment, mental energy
• chapter: 11

Pisces

• Element: water, Planets: Jupiter, Neptune, Symbol: the two fishes
• intuition, knowledge, self-fulfillment and heroism, balance in struggle
• chapter: 12

The Life and Times of John Gardner

John C. Gardner was a poet, novelist, dramatist, translator, and teacher who died in 1982. Gardner was raised in New York state and  attended school through 11th grade. He wrote numerous novels, plays, transliterations of medieval texts, he also wrote three influential works on the art of writing including On Becoming a Novelist, The Art of Fiction, and On Moral Fiction. Many of his students, such as Raymond Carver and Charles Johnson became very successful writers. Additionally, he wrote children's stories such as "Dragon, Dragon" (possibly have anything to do with the dragon in chapter 5 of Grendel??? just a thought!) plays and "Days of Vengeance" and  composed operas, and paintings, and played the French horn (having studied music at the Eastman School of Music). As a youth, he attended public school and worked on his father's farm, where, in April 1945, his younger brother Gilbert was killed in an accident with a tractor. Gardner, who was driving the tractor felt enormous guilt for his brother's death. his deep guilt over this affair is speculated to have spurred the influence in some of his works. I think that the existentialism in Grendel could be a result of this. The strong bond between two brothers defines their period of growing up together during childhood. Thus, when a part of this bond is lost especially on account of the other, there could be a loss of identity. This parallels to the "I am nothing" ideal of existentialist thinkers. Gardner possibly felt that he did not deserve to live a life of meaning when he felt responsible for taking that of his own brother.In his short story "Redemption" written in 1977, Gardner reflects on this traumatic experience through a fictional account. Gardner is most acclaimed and well known for his novel Grendel which retells the Beowulf epic from the monster's point of view. In 1978, Gardner's book of literary criticism, On Moral Fiction, caused great controversy in the writer community. He criticizes other authors take on fiction. Some of these authors had praised Gardner for his own work. In Grendel, there are many isolated and strong willed characters. Each character represents a distinct point of view that the main antagonist (as I perceive him to be) struggles to comprehend and decide which he agrees with. John Gardner's life ended tragically in an accident on his motorcycle. in 1982 he passed away in Pennsylvania.  From reading a biography I was able to discover that he was lay to rest next to his younger brother which really touched me.Hopefully this put any guilt he may have had over the incident even in adulthood at rest. 

Prufrock and Winesburg

The most exhilarating thing about understanding literature is being able to make connections  between texts and the real world. This is no exception when it comes The Love Song of Alfred Prufrock and Winesburg, Ohio. Because they are both modernist texts it is clear to recognize their similarities.There is a similar use of symbolism in both texts. In , there is a constant present of windows. These windows serve multiple, meaningful functions including as a symbol of knowledge, understanding, and  truth. When characters like the old man wish to see out of windows they are searching for clarity and the ability to understand something greater. Similarly, there is mention of windows in Eliot’s poem. Eliot uses parts to represent a whole known as fragmentation. Anderson also uses this in . In Winesburg, Ohio , especially in the story”Hands”  and “Paper Pills” , there is discussion of hands and knuckles. Wing Biddlebaum’s hands serve a larger function in the context of his identity.In Eliot's poem, the speaker recognizes the people around him as eyes. These eyes are a part of the whole human but represent the judgment and watching that he feels people are around him. . Also, throughout the poem certain grounds of people are recognized as  by a part of their figure, women are identified by their fingers. Futhermore, Eliot touches on love in the poem much like in Winesburg, Ohio. It is hard to tell whether Prufrock is actually in love or not. This reminded me of George Williard and Helen White. After George's "sophistication" he expresses that with Helen he can feel his own growth into adulthood. They share a special bond , a romantic one you could say. However, whenever they give into lust they quickly back off from each other. In this way it is not clear whether the two are in love either. The most exciting connection I made between the two texts has to be that both texts explore a distrust or uselessness of words and verbal communication. When Prufrock states, "It is impossible to say just what I mean!" he is exclaiming the inadequacy of words themselves. I saw this same idea in "Paper Pills" in which Dr. Reefy and his wife can tell what each other are feeling by simply looking at each other which stressed to me inner conscious over outer appearance.I think that you can parallel the irony of the titles of the two works as well. This poem is described as a love song yet is not a conventional or typical one in any sense. Much like Winesburg, Ohio which I thought was not so much about the small, rural town itself as the lives of its residents.
My overall take away from the Prufrock poem was that this man is isolated in some shape or form (an idea that comes up frequently in Winesburg, Ohio). The imagery in the beginning of the poem portray a run down city of cheap hotels and dirty streets (this reminded me of Enoch for some reason).

Respect for "Respectability"

    All of the stories in Sherwood Anderson's piece Winesburg, Ohio do not shy from commentary on sex, gender discrimination, or society. The story "Respectability" is no exception. For some reason, I really got this text. I am not implying that my interpretation is golden and accurate but I was able to relate all the characters, weather, and scenery to some central theme that purveyed throughout Winesburg, Ohio. In the beginning of the story, an anonymous narrator describes a monkey. This monkey is a metaphor for the primal nature of man in society. The narrator states, "...women linger for a moment, trying to remember which one of her male acquaintances  in some faint way resembles" (Anderson 113). The image of women drawing parallels between men he know and his grotesque monkey directly relates he creature to men in society. Unbeknownst to the people, this monkey is a mirror of themselves. Looking at it, women see a parallel between men, reiterating Anderson's emphasis on man's primitively towards women In an "iron cage", the creature is trapped (Anderson 113). This is an allusion of the feelings of the main character Wash Williams. He is trapped by the stigma on men in his society. Men, in such a primal nature, succumb to the sexual temptation of the physical form of women. They are also tolerated to "possess" women in such non romantic objectifying manner. Wash Williams despises this characterization and is disused and disappointed that society marginalizes all men his way because he wants more than a relationship to satisfy society. He wants a relationship to satisfy his desire to actually have a connection with another aside from physical compatibility.  He sees George kissing Belle Carpenter enter even though he is not in love with her. He wants to warn George against his type of usurpation of love for sexual desire.

Wash Williams's view of men and women is quite ambiguous. Then narrator states, firs of all, he hated women. "Bitches," he called hem. His feeling toward men was somewhat different. He pitied them. "Does no  man  is life be managed for him by some bitch or any other?" (Anderson 114). I feel that Wash hates that women acquiesce to their degrading role in society. Women in a twentieth century society are meant to be submissive and to be at the hand of some man. They are viewed as objects to men and are sexualized by them. Also, they are vessels for prosperity and to carry he legacy of a man. Contrarily, Wash pities men for their weakness to the sexual temptation that women impose in order to fulfill their role in society as wives and mothers. Wash feels ha there is no living in this and he hates the fact that in his society, people live for society and not themselves and their true desires.

However, Wash is guilty of grotesque behavior as well. The same way that he views his peers as grotesque for abiding by the “truths” of social construct, he is a grotesque being (at last during his marriage) for insisting on the truth that women are all pure, beautiful, gentle, and honorable creatures. It is not until his wife corrupts this truth that he rejects all notions of the order of society at least in Winesburg, Ohio. He admits that he once did love stating,” ‘I loved her’ he said. ‘I don’t claim not to be a fool…’” (Anderson 118). The love he feels for his wife is indicative of his admiration for her purity and beauty. 

Sherwood Anderson: a literary....

          Sherwood Anderson is either a hypocrite or a failure or maybe both. Apologies for the direct introduction and for die-hard Sherwood fans .The Book of Grotesque introduces the idea of a grotesque being. In Anderson's portrayal through the old man, this entails someone who claims some "truth"  as his own and tries to live by it. However, outside of the text, is Anderson's role as an author not to express some universal truth?! This text is obviously of literary merit and from Perrine's definition of the characteristics of a piece of literary fiction, a text of literary merit attempts to "reveal some truth about it [life]"(Perrine 204). However, believing in some truth and even more trying to spread/express it is what makes someone a grotesque. This is so crazy to me! Maybe we cannot help but be a grotesque. Nobody is a perfect being and everyone believes in something at the least. Quite possibly this could have been Anderson's message (?). Futhermore, if you take a look at the story "The Strength of God", Reverend Hartman is portrayed as grotesque because he wishes to spread some truth of the gospel, the word of God. He hopes his that as he speaks the word of God it will be heard by many. This truth of God and the Bible is what makes him a grotesque. Even as I am writing this I am perplexed. Perhaps Anderson's book is about more than just this idea of grotesques. Maybe he is criticizing the fact that we as readers will take this idea of a grotesque as a truth and try to apply it to the text (whoa this just all came to me). And maybe, Anderson is emphasizing that people cannot help but be grotesques because even he is a grotesque himself. So i am even more confused as ever. Does this mean that the book is about nothing at all. how do we apply meaning without believing in some truth. If we find a meaning in life we have a perceived purpose to achieve to satisfy this meaning. This is our truth. Through writing this entry, i am even more intrigued by Winesburg,Ohio and even Sherwood Anderson himself. More to come on these thoughts later...