1/12/14
I have finished reading the prologue of Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. Very very interesting. However, it was not as strange as I thought it would be. One of the first things I noticed is that the invisible man goes from talking about himself to then talking towards the reader. He doesn't say that HE feels a certain he says YOU feel a certain way. He generalizes the emotions to make it seem that the reader could feel these emotions as well. He says "you ache with the need to convince yourself that you do exist in the real world, that you're a part of all the sound and anguish, and you strike out with your fists, you curse and you swear to make them recognize you. And, alas, it's seldom successful," (Ellison 4). Statements like these make the reader question wether or not they have experienced the same feelings the invisible man feels.
The invisible man seems to act on his emotions. He is angry and frustrated that people do not or cannot open their eyes and see him. He almost kills a man because he ran into him. He almost kills him out of pure rage but then decides against it. At the end of the prologue he sates that he was not responsible for almost killing the man. He is the one who ran into him and it was irresponsible of him not to kill him to help society.
The invisible man talks about light and dark quite a few times during the prologue. I think that this indicates that there will be a constant presence of light and dark throughout the novel. The invisible man loves light because without it, he doesn't not exist. The light gives him form and it seems to make him feel visible in the invisible life he lives. One of the issues or conflicts that might be present throughout the novel has to do with light. He is taking the light energy from the Monopolated Light and Power. I find it interesting that the it is name light AND power. This could be seen as literally light and the power that gives energy. Or it could mean that light gives way to actual power. The invisible man feels more a live and it seems more powerful when there is light around him. Because to exist is to have power and without light, he would not exist.
Time. Time is an important aspect to the invisible man that I believe will be an important aspect through the rest of the novel. He is intrigued by time and learns that everyone has their own sense of time. He uses the examples of the fighters. He states, "The yokel had simply stepped inside of his opponents sense of time," (Ellison 8). Once you figure out your own sense of time and someone else's sense of time, you can become invincible. The invisible man thinks that he is invincible, so I think it will be a good point to follow his "invincibility" throughout the novel.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Monday, December 16, 2013
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.
"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.
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!
Saturday, November 30, 2013
11/30/13
Over Thanksgiving break, there were many specials on tv having to do with President Kennedy's assassination. I watched some of these specials with my dad, and he convinced me to read the book Killing Kennedy by Bill O'Reilly. Granted with all of the eating and sleeping, I have only had the chance to read the first 20 pages. But so far, I am quite interested and intrigued. Yes the conspiracy is extremely interesting and even the facts leading up to Kennedy's assassination are interesting, but what I found interesting is the way the book is written. Thanks to AP Lit, I found myself looking at the way the novel was written instead of just reading the book for information. It occurred to me that depending on the way the book is written a reader could be persuaded to believe that Kennedy was a great man or that he was an awful president. The way the book is written could also influence the reader to believe the conspiracy against Kennedy or believe that a single man was in charge of his assassination. In my opinion, O'Reilly does a pretty good job at stating the facts and keeping his opinion out of the novel so far. It dawned on me though that an author has the power to make a reader believe or feel the way he or she wants by using the right syntax and diction. A writer can make you hate a character by using negative diction or make you love a character by using positive diction. How else do we have heroes and enemies?! I do not read a lot of non fiction novels because to be honest I never found anything interesting about non fiction works. Why would I want to read about something in real life when I could escape and read about a fantasy works that I only wish existed. However, the more I think about it, I think non fiction works could be interesting. The author must have to focus on not sounding bias when writing non fiction novels. I know I would personally have a difficult time keeping my opinion out of certain real life situations. A question usually asked in English classes usually is "Can we trust the narrator and author?" "How do we know he or she is not biased?" After reading Frankenstein and Age of Innocence, it is common for authors to put aspects of their own life into their work. If an author hates 15 year old boys who play guitar, then it is likely for them to negatively describe a character like that in his or her novel which could in turn convince the reader that 15 year old boys who play guitar are awful human beings. How can we trust that not every author or narrator is biased? Is it possible for people to not be biased? I think that no matter how hard we try, people will always sound at least a little bit biased. The wording of every novel would have to be bland and perflectly worded as to not make people feel a certain way about a character or situation. Oh so complicated! Anyway it is time for me to either read some more or maybe go take a nap. We'll see which option wins!
Over Thanksgiving break, there were many specials on tv having to do with President Kennedy's assassination. I watched some of these specials with my dad, and he convinced me to read the book Killing Kennedy by Bill O'Reilly. Granted with all of the eating and sleeping, I have only had the chance to read the first 20 pages. But so far, I am quite interested and intrigued. Yes the conspiracy is extremely interesting and even the facts leading up to Kennedy's assassination are interesting, but what I found interesting is the way the book is written. Thanks to AP Lit, I found myself looking at the way the novel was written instead of just reading the book for information. It occurred to me that depending on the way the book is written a reader could be persuaded to believe that Kennedy was a great man or that he was an awful president. The way the book is written could also influence the reader to believe the conspiracy against Kennedy or believe that a single man was in charge of his assassination. In my opinion, O'Reilly does a pretty good job at stating the facts and keeping his opinion out of the novel so far. It dawned on me though that an author has the power to make a reader believe or feel the way he or she wants by using the right syntax and diction. A writer can make you hate a character by using negative diction or make you love a character by using positive diction. How else do we have heroes and enemies?! I do not read a lot of non fiction novels because to be honest I never found anything interesting about non fiction works. Why would I want to read about something in real life when I could escape and read about a fantasy works that I only wish existed. However, the more I think about it, I think non fiction works could be interesting. The author must have to focus on not sounding bias when writing non fiction novels. I know I would personally have a difficult time keeping my opinion out of certain real life situations. A question usually asked in English classes usually is "Can we trust the narrator and author?" "How do we know he or she is not biased?" After reading Frankenstein and Age of Innocence, it is common for authors to put aspects of their own life into their work. If an author hates 15 year old boys who play guitar, then it is likely for them to negatively describe a character like that in his or her novel which could in turn convince the reader that 15 year old boys who play guitar are awful human beings. How can we trust that not every author or narrator is biased? Is it possible for people to not be biased? I think that no matter how hard we try, people will always sound at least a little bit biased. The wording of every novel would have to be bland and perflectly worded as to not make people feel a certain way about a character or situation. Oh so complicated! Anyway it is time for me to either read some more or maybe go take a nap. We'll see which option wins!
Sunday, November 17, 2013
11/17/13
My two favorite poems out of the William Blake packet are "The Divine Image" and "The Human Abstract." These are the two poems that my group was assigned to piece back together. (Shout out to Sven and I for figuring out the order of "The Human Abstract." Trust me, that was no easy task to complete). "The Divine Image" is from Songs of Innocence while "The Human Abstract" is from Songs of Experience. The titles themselves connect yet contrast at the same time. When I hear "divine image" I usually lift the image up to a holy or God-like image. "Human Abstract" makes me think of an imperfect human. I think of all different parts of a human put together, and it is most certainly not God-like. "The Divine Image" seems to discuss God himself, and His interaction with humans. The humans pray to God with emotions of "Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love" to say thank you. The poem seems to say that God is made of these emotions, so he made man of the same emotions. "Mercy has a human heart, Pity a human face, And Love, the human form divine, And Peace, the human dress," all of these emotions make up a part of a man. God is the "human form divine." God is the divine image, and humans have parts of God in them. God must love the humans because they all have a part of God in them. They appear to be God in human form. "The Divine Image" discusses the positive results of the emotions of mercy, pity, peace and love, but "The Human Abstract" talks about the negative side of being made of such emotions. "Pity would be no more, If we did not make somebody Poor." If people did not suffer, pity would not exist. People have to suffer, so that all aspects of human emotions can be felt. "The Catterpiller and Fly, Feed on the Mystery," These insects seem to feed on the mystery of human emotions. "The fruit of Deceit" relates to the Garden of Eden. The fruit is a lie, and it is "ruddy" and bloody. The men search to find the tree with fruit, insects, and Raven, but the tree grows in human brains. This is a tree of emotions that oppose one another. The Gods are searching to understand the humans' emotions and how they act. In this poem of experience, it seems that humans have taken the emotions of God and have manipulated them to fit their own evolution. When a human is innocent, they portray the pure emotions of God, however, when they have experience, they manipulate the pure emotions to fit their own progress and society.
I think that it was extremely wise and sneaky for John Gardner to put an expert of a Blake poem in the beginning of Grendel. It seems as if he was trying to warn us of Grendel's transformation. Grendel begins is life innocent of the world. He knows nothing out of his own little cave and his mother. Once Grendel explores the outside world and becomes connected with Hrothgar, he has gained experience. Grendel's own life journeys from innocence to experience. He ends up hating the men's society just as Blake did. Grendel thinks that the men's society is based on sacrifice (which is exactly what Blake thought). Sneaky Gardner, very very sneaky.
My two favorite poems out of the William Blake packet are "The Divine Image" and "The Human Abstract." These are the two poems that my group was assigned to piece back together. (Shout out to Sven and I for figuring out the order of "The Human Abstract." Trust me, that was no easy task to complete). "The Divine Image" is from Songs of Innocence while "The Human Abstract" is from Songs of Experience. The titles themselves connect yet contrast at the same time. When I hear "divine image" I usually lift the image up to a holy or God-like image. "Human Abstract" makes me think of an imperfect human. I think of all different parts of a human put together, and it is most certainly not God-like. "The Divine Image" seems to discuss God himself, and His interaction with humans. The humans pray to God with emotions of "Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love" to say thank you. The poem seems to say that God is made of these emotions, so he made man of the same emotions. "Mercy has a human heart, Pity a human face, And Love, the human form divine, And Peace, the human dress," all of these emotions make up a part of a man. God is the "human form divine." God is the divine image, and humans have parts of God in them. God must love the humans because they all have a part of God in them. They appear to be God in human form. "The Divine Image" discusses the positive results of the emotions of mercy, pity, peace and love, but "The Human Abstract" talks about the negative side of being made of such emotions. "Pity would be no more, If we did not make somebody Poor." If people did not suffer, pity would not exist. People have to suffer, so that all aspects of human emotions can be felt. "The Catterpiller and Fly, Feed on the Mystery," These insects seem to feed on the mystery of human emotions. "The fruit of Deceit" relates to the Garden of Eden. The fruit is a lie, and it is "ruddy" and bloody. The men search to find the tree with fruit, insects, and Raven, but the tree grows in human brains. This is a tree of emotions that oppose one another. The Gods are searching to understand the humans' emotions and how they act. In this poem of experience, it seems that humans have taken the emotions of God and have manipulated them to fit their own evolution. When a human is innocent, they portray the pure emotions of God, however, when they have experience, they manipulate the pure emotions to fit their own progress and society.
I think that it was extremely wise and sneaky for John Gardner to put an expert of a Blake poem in the beginning of Grendel. It seems as if he was trying to warn us of Grendel's transformation. Grendel begins is life innocent of the world. He knows nothing out of his own little cave and his mother. Once Grendel explores the outside world and becomes connected with Hrothgar, he has gained experience. Grendel's own life journeys from innocence to experience. He ends up hating the men's society just as Blake did. Grendel thinks that the men's society is based on sacrifice (which is exactly what Blake thought). Sneaky Gardner, very very sneaky.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
11/10/13
Female Author
All day she plays at chess with the bones of the world:
Favored (while suddenly the rains begin
Beyond the window) she lies on cushions curled
And nibbles an occasional bonbon of sin.
Prim, pink-breasted, feminine, she nurses
Chocolate fancies in rose-papered rooms
Where polished higboys whisper creaking curses
And hothouse roses shed immortal blooms.
The garnets on her fingers twinkle quick
And blood reflects across the manuscript;
She muses on the odor, sweet and sick,
Of festering gardenias in a crypt,
And lost in subtle metaphor, retreats
From gray child faces crying in the streets.
-Sylvia Plath
Sylvia Plath strikes again. From the title itself, the reader can conclude that the poem is most likely going to be about a female. A female author literally wrote the poem (Sylvia Plath), and a female is the main focus of the poem. Words such as pink, feminine, rose-papered all relate to women. However, this poem highlights the more feminine qualities of a woman, but pins a grim and creepy twist to the stereotypical characteristics. The poem begins by saying that the woman plays chess with "bones of the world." Would anyone normally think of a female playing chess with bones of the world? Nope not normally. This could possibly mean that women actually run the world. They watch over everyone, and once they are gone, they use their bones to play games. Women take control and play games with the remains of the people they once knew. She lays on her posh cushion and takes and "nibbles" on a sin. Plath is highlighting the prim and proper qualities of a woman, but seems to be making fun of these qualities at the same time. This woman is proper, yet she nibbles on sin. In my opinion, he word "nibbles" in the sense to have a mocking tone. The woman knows that she is expected to be dainty and clean, yet she mocks these expectation by taking small bites of a sin. She commits these sins with a sly attitude. She knows it is unexpected for her to sin, yet she does it anyway. Oddly enough, I could not find the definition for a "higboy." Urban dictionary gave me a glorious description, "some weird word used by Sylvia Plath in her poem 'Female Author.'" Yes thank you for that fistful of knowledge. Safe to say, I am not sure what this word means. The poem continues describing feminine qualities of a room, but then takes an eerie twist when it says "whisper creaking curses." Could these curses be the curses a woman faces? This woman is forced in to a life full of cushions, and pink things, and rose-papered rooms. She is cursed with a prim and proper life, and the house she is in will not let her forget it. Garnets are defined as deep red, precious stones. There is an interesting connection between a red stone and the deep red color of blood. She seems mesmerized by the blood and by the smell of the blood. She seems more interested in the blood than the prim house around her. The odor is "sweet and sick" which is contradictory. The odor is similar to gardenias in a crypt. The flowers are described in a grim way by relating them to flowers given to dead people resting in a crypt. This woman seems to be related to death. She hides from the "gray child faces" outside her house. People who are dead are usually described as having a gray or white hue to their face. This woman is surrounded by prim and proper, feminine things, yet she is also surrounded by death. This poem could be mocking the prim and proper steryotypes that go along with being a woman by connecting them to qualities of death.
Female Author
All day she plays at chess with the bones of the world:
Favored (while suddenly the rains begin
Beyond the window) she lies on cushions curled
And nibbles an occasional bonbon of sin.
Prim, pink-breasted, feminine, she nurses
Chocolate fancies in rose-papered rooms
Where polished higboys whisper creaking curses
And hothouse roses shed immortal blooms.
The garnets on her fingers twinkle quick
And blood reflects across the manuscript;
She muses on the odor, sweet and sick,
Of festering gardenias in a crypt,
And lost in subtle metaphor, retreats
From gray child faces crying in the streets.
-Sylvia Plath
Sylvia Plath strikes again. From the title itself, the reader can conclude that the poem is most likely going to be about a female. A female author literally wrote the poem (Sylvia Plath), and a female is the main focus of the poem. Words such as pink, feminine, rose-papered all relate to women. However, this poem highlights the more feminine qualities of a woman, but pins a grim and creepy twist to the stereotypical characteristics. The poem begins by saying that the woman plays chess with "bones of the world." Would anyone normally think of a female playing chess with bones of the world? Nope not normally. This could possibly mean that women actually run the world. They watch over everyone, and once they are gone, they use their bones to play games. Women take control and play games with the remains of the people they once knew. She lays on her posh cushion and takes and "nibbles" on a sin. Plath is highlighting the prim and proper qualities of a woman, but seems to be making fun of these qualities at the same time. This woman is proper, yet she nibbles on sin. In my opinion, he word "nibbles" in the sense to have a mocking tone. The woman knows that she is expected to be dainty and clean, yet she mocks these expectation by taking small bites of a sin. She commits these sins with a sly attitude. She knows it is unexpected for her to sin, yet she does it anyway. Oddly enough, I could not find the definition for a "higboy." Urban dictionary gave me a glorious description, "some weird word used by Sylvia Plath in her poem 'Female Author.'" Yes thank you for that fistful of knowledge. Safe to say, I am not sure what this word means. The poem continues describing feminine qualities of a room, but then takes an eerie twist when it says "whisper creaking curses." Could these curses be the curses a woman faces? This woman is forced in to a life full of cushions, and pink things, and rose-papered rooms. She is cursed with a prim and proper life, and the house she is in will not let her forget it. Garnets are defined as deep red, precious stones. There is an interesting connection between a red stone and the deep red color of blood. She seems mesmerized by the blood and by the smell of the blood. She seems more interested in the blood than the prim house around her. The odor is "sweet and sick" which is contradictory. The odor is similar to gardenias in a crypt. The flowers are described in a grim way by relating them to flowers given to dead people resting in a crypt. This woman seems to be related to death. She hides from the "gray child faces" outside her house. People who are dead are usually described as having a gray or white hue to their face. This woman is surrounded by prim and proper, feminine things, yet she is also surrounded by death. This poem could be mocking the prim and proper steryotypes that go along with being a woman by connecting them to qualities of death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)