12/16/13
"A Girl"
The tree has entered my hands,
The sap has ascended my arms,
The tree has grown in my breast -
Downward,
The branches grow out of me, like arms.
Tree you are,
Moss you are,
You are violets with wind above them.
A child - so high - you are,
And all this is folly to the world.
-Ezra Pound
The struggle of wanting to choose another Sylvia Plath poem, but knowing that I should expand my knowledge of poets and poems. Even though I was hesitant, I decided to venture out a choose a poem by a poet that I have not heard of before. I chose "A Girl" by Ezra Pound. At first glance, this poem looks quite simple and is easy to read. However, I believe there is a deeper meaning within this poem.
The first stanza of the poem uses the pronoun "me." It talks as if a tree is growing out of the girl. I am assuming it is a girl because the title of the poem is "A Girl", but the speaker could be a boy. The reason I think that the speaker could also be a boy is because the second stanza uses the pronoun "you." A boy could be talking about himself and then talking about a girl he sees, or the speaker could be a girl talking to a person or an individual. Personally, I believe that the speaker is a girl talking about herself in the first stanza and is talking toward a specific individual in the second stanza.
Trees usually represent life or growth. The first stanza sets up the imagery of a tree entering this girl and then the tree begins to grow out of the girl. The tree entered through the HANDS. It did not enter through the head or the heart. I think it is significant that the tree entered through the hands over any other part of the body. Humans work with their hands, and the hands are one of the most sensitive areas of the body. People touch other people with hands to show comfort or feeling. The tree entered through the hands, so that it could be transferred to other people and grow in other people. The tree spreads its roots and sap throughout the girls body. It takes root in her "breast" and spreads out through her "like arms." The girl is now full of life. The tree could represent life and wisdom. The girl has transformed into a tree herself.
The second stanza focuses on the "you" pronoun. "Tree YOU are. Moss YOU are." It seems that the speaker in the first stanza has realized her own potential and wants to point it out to another individual. The speaker in the first stanza realizes the life and wisdom growing within her, and she wants another individual to realize the beauty, life, and wisdom within his or herself. The speaker says "A child." So the girl speaking seems to be older and wiser and she is speaking to a child. This girl has discovered the tree inside her and wants to enlighten the child to the tree inside his or herself. "Folly" is defined as a lack of sense or foolishness. The idea that a person could be a tree or could be colors in the wind (Pocahontas similarities) is foolish to the world. Not everyone believes that a person could be a tree. Most people in the world find this idea ridiculous. This seems to relate to the idea of innocence versus enlightenment. Those who are innocent do not believe that people can posses the life and wisdom of a tree and of nature. However, a person who is enlightened knows that people can posses the wisdom of a tree and life of nature. The girl in the poem is enlightened with the idea that a person can become full of life like nature is full of life. She is trying to enlighten an innocent child with this idea and make him or her aware of his or her potential.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
12/15/13
Oh The Age of Innocence. I was hoping that I would like this book so much better than I actually did. It was not an awful book! However, it was not what I was expecting. I liked the basic storyline between Newland, Ellen, and May. However, I felt that the novel dragged on at times and all of the connections between the families were confusing. UGH and that ending! HE JUST LEAVES. I have mixed emotions about the ending of the novel. I was angry at first because a part of me wanted to see what Ellen would have done. On the other hand, I kinda like how he just walked away. There seems to be some satisfaction in Newland walking away from the situation. But why did he walk away? What made him decide it was time to leave? Newland says that he was waiting for a signal. Newlands signal was the closing of the shutters. The narrator states, "At length a light shone through the windows, and a moment later a man-servant came out on the balcony, drew up the awnings, and closed the shutters. At that, as if it had been the signal he waited for, Newland Archer got up slowly and walked back alone to his hotel," (Wharton 293). This ending connects to the precious signal Newland waited for. When Ellen was standing on the beach, Newland convinced himself that he would go get her if she turned around. She never turned around, so he never went and got her. Newland seems to live his life merely on signals! I believe that deep down Newland knew that he did not want to interact with Ellen, so he made up a signal that sealed the deal. It convinced him of a feeling that he already had. Did he leave to honor his wife's memory? Did he leave because he did not want to deal with the past? Or did he leave because he would find no satisfaction in seeing Ellen again? I think he left because he finds more satisfaction in fantasizing a situation than actually experiencing a situation. It all goes back to the quote at the beginning of the novel. It states, "and thinking over a pleasure to come often have him a subtler satisfaction than it's realization," (Wharton 6). Sneaking you Mary Wharton, sneaky you sneaking in quotes in the beginning that will be relevant in the end. Newland does not go in because he likes to imagine what it would we like to see Ellen again. Ellen is no longer young and beautiful. She might have changed completely. But if Newland only imagines a scenario in his head, then she cannot disappoint him.
The Age of Innocence definitely had interesting aspects to the story line. I think that the ending was one of my favorite parts. It was interesting to see Newland walk away when most people would think that he would go and see Ellen again. It's also interesting that he stayed with May and the fact that May knew what was going on and his feelings for Ellen the WHOLE time. Yes the novel was slow and different than what I thought it would be. But it did have some interesting and thought provoking elements.
Oh The Age of Innocence. I was hoping that I would like this book so much better than I actually did. It was not an awful book! However, it was not what I was expecting. I liked the basic storyline between Newland, Ellen, and May. However, I felt that the novel dragged on at times and all of the connections between the families were confusing. UGH and that ending! HE JUST LEAVES. I have mixed emotions about the ending of the novel. I was angry at first because a part of me wanted to see what Ellen would have done. On the other hand, I kinda like how he just walked away. There seems to be some satisfaction in Newland walking away from the situation. But why did he walk away? What made him decide it was time to leave? Newland says that he was waiting for a signal. Newlands signal was the closing of the shutters. The narrator states, "At length a light shone through the windows, and a moment later a man-servant came out on the balcony, drew up the awnings, and closed the shutters. At that, as if it had been the signal he waited for, Newland Archer got up slowly and walked back alone to his hotel," (Wharton 293). This ending connects to the precious signal Newland waited for. When Ellen was standing on the beach, Newland convinced himself that he would go get her if she turned around. She never turned around, so he never went and got her. Newland seems to live his life merely on signals! I believe that deep down Newland knew that he did not want to interact with Ellen, so he made up a signal that sealed the deal. It convinced him of a feeling that he already had. Did he leave to honor his wife's memory? Did he leave because he did not want to deal with the past? Or did he leave because he would find no satisfaction in seeing Ellen again? I think he left because he finds more satisfaction in fantasizing a situation than actually experiencing a situation. It all goes back to the quote at the beginning of the novel. It states, "and thinking over a pleasure to come often have him a subtler satisfaction than it's realization," (Wharton 6). Sneaking you Mary Wharton, sneaky you sneaking in quotes in the beginning that will be relevant in the end. Newland does not go in because he likes to imagine what it would we like to see Ellen again. Ellen is no longer young and beautiful. She might have changed completely. But if Newland only imagines a scenario in his head, then she cannot disappoint him.
The Age of Innocence definitely had interesting aspects to the story line. I think that the ending was one of my favorite parts. It was interesting to see Newland walk away when most people would think that he would go and see Ellen again. It's also interesting that he stayed with May and the fact that May knew what was going on and his feelings for Ellen the WHOLE time. Yes the novel was slow and different than what I thought it would be. But it did have some interesting and thought provoking elements.
12/14/13
Our class discussion on A Doll House was quite interesting. I thought for the most part, everyone seemed to agree on many of the questions that were posed during the discussion. For example, when it came to the German ending, we all seemed to hate it. How could we not? It changed the WHOLE meaning of the poem! It completed defeated Nora's transformation as a character. In about three sentences, Ibsen changed the whole play. Nora would have gone back to the life as a doll in the doll house if she had stayed with Torvald and the children. Another question that came up when we were discussing was about Nora's decision to leave and whether or not it was selfish of her to leave her children. Personally I think Nora was being selfish, but I think she had to leave to complete her arch as a character. At first I thought Nora was making a good decision because she was breaking the cycle. The cycle that has started with her father and continued with Torvald and is now continuing with her children. However, a good point was brought up yesterday. Nora could be actually continuing the cycle. Nora grew up without a mother, so her father treated her as a doll. Since Nora left her children, Torvald could begin to treat his children as dolls and the cycle will never be broken. Could Nora be a hero if she selfishly left her children behind? I don't think so. A hero sacrifices things for other people. Nora is sacrificing her family and her children's lives for herself. Her duties are to herself. Will she ever go back to the Doll house? I don't think so. I think since she left without thinking of her family, she will learn to live without them and find something better.
Who do you feel sympathy for at the end of the play? This was a question that most people could not agree on. Some people said Torvald because he was just following the standards of society when it was Nora who lied and scammed. Some people said Nora because she is married to an awful man and is treated badly. And, some people said both! My very first reaction to this question was "neither," Yes Torvald followed the rules of society, but he treated Nora like a child and if he had opened his eyes he would have seen that Nora was playing him. Yes Nora lied and scammed to help save her husbands life, but she is blind to the "doll" life she is living and does not take charge. I believe that the fault for their situation at the end is both of their faults. That is why I have little sympathy for both of them.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading A Doll House. I liked it SO much better than The Age of Innocence. It was easier to get involved with the characters and it was easier to follow and understand. There was also a plus in hearing fellow students read each part!
Our class discussion on A Doll House was quite interesting. I thought for the most part, everyone seemed to agree on many of the questions that were posed during the discussion. For example, when it came to the German ending, we all seemed to hate it. How could we not? It changed the WHOLE meaning of the poem! It completed defeated Nora's transformation as a character. In about three sentences, Ibsen changed the whole play. Nora would have gone back to the life as a doll in the doll house if she had stayed with Torvald and the children. Another question that came up when we were discussing was about Nora's decision to leave and whether or not it was selfish of her to leave her children. Personally I think Nora was being selfish, but I think she had to leave to complete her arch as a character. At first I thought Nora was making a good decision because she was breaking the cycle. The cycle that has started with her father and continued with Torvald and is now continuing with her children. However, a good point was brought up yesterday. Nora could be actually continuing the cycle. Nora grew up without a mother, so her father treated her as a doll. Since Nora left her children, Torvald could begin to treat his children as dolls and the cycle will never be broken. Could Nora be a hero if she selfishly left her children behind? I don't think so. A hero sacrifices things for other people. Nora is sacrificing her family and her children's lives for herself. Her duties are to herself. Will she ever go back to the Doll house? I don't think so. I think since she left without thinking of her family, she will learn to live without them and find something better.
Who do you feel sympathy for at the end of the play? This was a question that most people could not agree on. Some people said Torvald because he was just following the standards of society when it was Nora who lied and scammed. Some people said Nora because she is married to an awful man and is treated badly. And, some people said both! My very first reaction to this question was "neither," Yes Torvald followed the rules of society, but he treated Nora like a child and if he had opened his eyes he would have seen that Nora was playing him. Yes Nora lied and scammed to help save her husbands life, but she is blind to the "doll" life she is living and does not take charge. I believe that the fault for their situation at the end is both of their faults. That is why I have little sympathy for both of them.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading A Doll House. I liked it SO much better than The Age of Innocence. It was easier to get involved with the characters and it was easier to follow and understand. There was also a plus in hearing fellow students read each part!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)