Last Blog

When I first entered the exam room for AP Lit, I have to admit that I was really nervous. Although we prepared for the exam throughout the entire year, I was just hoping that my skills would reflect what I had learned, and I had learned so much. My desire for a 5 wasn’t because I was hoping for college credit or because I wanted to say that I earned a 5 on AP Literature. I was driven to do my best on the AP exam, so I could give justice to what Mrs. Clinch has done for our class and what she has done for me. While I wasn’t as successful in the poetry and prose passages as I hoped I would be, I actually enjoyed the exam, and I thank Mrs. Clinch for providing me with a new and exciting love for literature.

After first entering Mrs. Clinch’s AP Lit class, I had learned of certain horror stories about all the work that she gives. Still, I looked confidently through my summer reading annotations, thinking that I had at least scraped a low A. Upon received my low B, I was a little bit in shock. I wasn’t used to putting so much work into an assignment and getting a terrible grade out of it. I didn’t realize then that literature was so much more about hard work. Sure, I could have gotten average grades simply putting in effort into my assignments, but I think that I really started being successful in the class when I started enjoying reading, writing, and analyzing.

Honestly, I have always been more of a math and science person, always striving to solve logical problems that have definite answers. I think that before this class, I always did approach my timed writings through a certain logical lens. Now, I can’t honestly and truly say that I am in love with literature. I loved going to class every day and hearing all the brilliant theories in the class. I loved the ability to converse about a book that conveyed so much in so little words. I loved how we all had a teacher who cared so much that she opened up her mind and her heart so that we could appreciate literature just a little bit more.

I’m not the best at conveying emotions, and I really don’t like to show my sentimental side. Still, I think I can get pretty emotional, and sitting here writing this blog is making me sad. I’m not going to see most of the people in high school ever again, and I won’t get to have many more discussions in our amazing, tiny, intelligent, crazy, and wonderful lit class. In fact, I think it is now just hitting me that our lives are about to change. And I absolutely hate change. I hate that we all are going to move away, and as odd as it sounds, I am upset that I am leaving high school. I don’t feel like I am ready to move away, and I really wish that I could spend another four years in Alpharetta, Georgia. Still, I know that I need to move on one day, and it’s going to be really, really hard to let go of all the people in high school. Ms. Clinch, you have prepared so well for all the Lit classes that I am going to take, and I’ll be sure to try to “make the world more beautiful.” I can truly say that, at least for me, you have made literature so incredibly beautiful.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

Reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead has been a pleasure for the past few weeks. Amidst AP exam stresses and graduation problems, it’s nice to sit, read an interesting, appreciate its literary brilliance, and genuinely laugh at the Stoppard’s sheer comedic genius. I have to admit that I recently haven’t given the play the analysis or the appreciation that it deserves. However, I acknowledge that its publication was almost revolutionary and hope to be able to delve deeper into the more important elements of the play.

While reading this play, I wonder what absurdist theater really represents. Sure, it has its theoretical definition, which is the lack of meaning in a world of characters that are almost represented by puppets. However, Tom Stoppard must have a specific purpose in creating such a play. Beyond its obvious entertainment value, Stoppard’s portrayal of the two characters as ignorant fools conveys much about the values of our society. The two titular characters are actually complete opposites of Hamlet. While Hamlet is an intelligent, verbose man, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, frankly, a little stupid. They seemingly don’t have any control over their actions and only follow the stage directions given to them. Is Tom Stoppard telling us that the lives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern parallel the lives in the modern world? Are we all ignorant fools? On a deeper level, are we guided by an outward force, never in control of our actions? While Tom Stoppard’s questions aren’t unique or new, they are important. Even more, Stoppard presents his old questions in a new way. Perhaps, Tom Stoppard is criticizing modern society, but we can create our own stage directions and end our ignorance. Although I haven’t realized the play’s true message, I look forward to reading more and trying to raise some unanswered and most likely unanswerable questions.

My spell check (almost through fate) propelled me to consider another important issue within the play. When I wrote Rosencrantz and Guildenstern “are,” the spell check incorrectly prompted me to change the “are” to an “is.” It’s ironic because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are actually almost like one. In class, we discussed distinguishing them, and unlike the characters in other novels, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern don’t have distinctive dialogue, and I wouldn’t be able to designate specific characteristics between the two. I think their unity represents a lack of identity especially characteristic in modern times. In fact, Fight Club brought up the same issue of the growing lack of identity. However in Palahniuk’s novel, there is one man composed of two very distinctive personalities. In Stoppard’s play, there are two men composed of one very similar personality. In essence, both works send messages on identity. I think that Tom Stoppard especially wanted to show the degeneration of people into one ignorant mass, represented by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Still, if the two characters are controlled by fate, can they ever really control their lack of identity and growing ignorance? Can we control any ignorance that we have? The play raises so many deep questions that I have a feeling I’m going to be left unsatisfied at the end.

Fight Club

I recently watched Fight Club after finishing the book, and I was surprised at how much I liked the movie. While the novel is definitely more detailed and has a clearer message, the movie captures the essence of the book well. One specific scene in the movie that I like was the chemical burn scene. Edward Norton plays out the scene with the same pain that the narrator of Fight Club shows. Even more, I thought that the movie captured the same fragmented style. For example, scenes were cut into the middle and the narrator’s random thoughts were interspersed throughout the entire novel. The main difference between the two occurs at the end. There is no hospital scene, and the ending is less ambiguous in the film. In the epilogue of the novel, there actually seems to be the possibility that Tyler Durden will return. People are waiting for Tyler Durden. However, the shot in the movie is the final end of Tyler Durden. In addition, the movie makes it more obvious that the shot ends Tyler. In the novel, the impact of the shot is up for interpretation.

Fight Club was an interesting read, and although scholars debate its literary merit, I think that the themes and devices used in the novel are clever and significant. In terms of merit, I wonder if modern authors don’t get the credit they deserve simply because the novels are different and don’t follow any of the normal conventions. What makes a novel have literary merit? For Fight Club, Palahniuk uses symbolism, figurative language, and his distinctive style to convey his message. His incorporation of Tyler Durden successfully conveys main motifs of redemption and sacrifice. On top of that, his novel is well-written and has many layers to it. I believe that a novel’s merit is determined by the message and way the author conveys the message. I hope that the debate over Fight Club isn’t simply a result of its recent publication and mass appeal.

I recently used Fight Club for the open question timed writing on the practice AP exam, and I though it fit extremely well with the question asked. The prompt asked about the importance of a mentor and how that mentor shapes the main character’s view of the world. In the entire novel, Tyler Durden shapes the narrator. Durden discusses his views about the world (“you must hit bottom in order to be successful”) and implicitly makes the narrator stronger. At the end, the narrator becomes strong enough to kill off Tyler Durden himself. The whole question worked so well because the entire novel was about Durden as the mentor and views about the world.

Now that we are starting Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, I actually see many of the same elements in both works. Both have a fragmented style and ignorant characters. Even more, there is a search for meaning, which is never really there. Just as the narrator is lost in his own world, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are lost.

Battle Royal

After preparing for our seminar, I realized how many connections there are between the battle royal and the rest of the novel. The white men around the narrator are similar to the brotherhood. In fact, the two words I noticed that surrounded both of them were “responsibility” and “equality.” While the white men in the battle royal frown at the mention of equality, the brotherhood initially seems to espouse such equality. However, towards the end, the brotherhood seems to be less interested in equality and more interested in power. In the same way, the white men try to control the black boys by making them participate in the humiliating act of the battle royal. The “big shots,” by showing a sexualized white woman, could control the black boys because they are forbidden to look at white women but are also attracted to the naked lady. This sense of control continues on to when the narrator and other boys participate in the battle royal. However, both the narrator and the woman are trapped and belittled by the white men. By recognizing the woman’s fear, the narrator learns more of the evils produced by white men. Another important connection I saw was between the gold coins and the Negro bank that was in Mary’s room. In the novel, the bank stays with the narrator in the briefcase. The gold coins connect to the Negro bank, as “it was choking, filled to the throat with coins.” Ellison seems to say that money can be a violent force because, in both cases, the scramble for money causes some sort of violent action. These gold coins also connect to the fact that the Brotherhood is giving the narrator money. By the end, the narrator’s participation in the Brotherhood leads to his own downfall, and he seems to be choking. In addition, another important motif in the entire chapter and the entire novel is the circus imagery. In fact, the dream the narrator has at the end is about a circus. The nude woman is described as a “circus kewpie dolls.” Even one of the boys is described as a vulnerable circus seal. After researching the importance of such imagery, I learned that Ellison incorporates circus images because it shows the unpredictable nature of the world. In addition, in a circus, everything is controlled, and the narrator and the other boys are controlled in the battle royal scene. The brotherhood can also be considered as a circus because they try to control in order to execute a perfect, scientific plan. Connected to the circus imagery is all the animal imagery. In the beginning, Bledsoe also forms his hand into cages. If the narrator is seen as a wild animal, Bledsoe is the one to trap and tame the narrator. At the end of the novel, it seems as if the ones in power are also described as an animal. Brother Jack is a Cyclops and a bull terrier. Mr. Norton is a frightened animal in the epilogue. One possible interpretation for the incorporation of animal imagery is that Ellison is trying to show that everyone is trapped. In the end, the narrator seems to trap Mr. Norton as he mocks Mr. Norton’s previous concept of fate.

Power-hungry Characters

After participating in the seminar today, I noticed many interesting connections in the novel. First of all, Dr. Bledsoe connected well to the grandfather’s advice. The grandfather says, “Live with your head in the lion’s mouth. I want you to overcome ’em with yeses, undermine ’em with grins, agree ’em to death and destruction, let ’em swoller you till they vomit or bust wide open.” A major component of the discussion was whether or not Dr. Bledsoe was a representation of the grandfather’s advice. If he is, then Bledsoe is basically living with his “head in the lion’s mouth.” While I believe that Bledsoe is trying to undermine white authority, I am not sure about his attitude towards the whites. I thought that the grandfather’s advice was an important metaphor. When the grandfather says, “live with your head in the lion’s mouth,” the lion represents the whites. Therefore, the whites are dangerous, but the blacks should live with the white mentality as their “head,” or way of thinking, is in their mouth. One important line that shows that Bledsoe is potentially taking the grandfather’s advice is when he says “Why, the dumbest black bastard in the cotton patch knows that the only way to please a white man is to tell him a lie!” Obviously, Bledsoe wants to please the white men. His attitude begs the question—why does he want to please the white man? I think that is more about power. Much of the novel revolves around power-hungry characters. Both the Founder and Ras the Destroyer are kings and need power. Even Mr. Norton seeks power as he supposedly controls the fate of others. Bledsoe, involved in this power struggle, participates in making the black people feel inferior and in need of control by somebody else.

One significant part of the novel that we touched briefly upon in class was the narrator’s discussion with the veteran. From their entire conversation, I thought the most important quotation was when the veteran says, “He believes in you as he believes in the beat of his heart. He believes that great false wisdom taught slaves and pragmatists alike, that white is right. I can tell you his destiny. He’ll do your bidding, and for that his blindness is his chief asset.” Firstly, the incorporation of “white is right” connects well to the later liberty paint scene (which is our next discussion). “White is right” is part of the company’s slogan. Since another meaning of right is pure or moral, the quotation, as the veteran mentions “false” wisdom, shows that white truly isn’t right. Just as the white paint is tainted, the white wisdom is false. It is also interesting that the veteran mentions “blindness,” which appear almost everywhere throughout the whole novel. The narrator is “blind” in that he doesn’t realize that Mr. Norton wants to be powerful through the narrator. For Mr. Norton, the narrator is just part of a scorecard. As the novel progresses, I think that the narrator seems to lose some of his blindness, especially when he encounters Mr. Norton again at the end.

Fight Club is very different than what I expected it to be like. One important part of the novel is the relationship between the narrator and Tyler Durden. I noticed that Durden is always the more powerful character. In the first chapter, Durden is the one pushing the gun in the narrator’s mouth and seems to be forcing the destruction. In addition, the fact that both characters are on a tower is very significant. It shows that they, at least Durden, feels the need to be above everyone. The narrator even describes the people below them to be a shag carpet. As a shag carpet, Palahniuk shows that Durden wants to exhibit control over a mass of people and Durden doesn’t even seem to distinguish each person. It isn’t surprising that, later on, Durden proclaims that the world is his now. The power-hungry Durden gives an explanation for the fight club revealed later on.

Another important character is Marla Singer. I looked up the meaning of her name and thought it was pretty significant. For example, it is a variant of singe, which means “to burn.” In fact, throughout the entire novel, there are many images of burning. Marla burns the cigarette against her arm, and the narrator’s apartment just burns to shreds. I think that all the burning, especially in regards to Marla, shows that Marla is figuratively burning the narrator and Tyler Durden. She flirts with both men, but I think that Marla likes the narrator more. She is more flirtatious towards him, and the narrator, although unreliable, says at the beginning that Marla Singer wants him. Thus, Marla’s attitude foreshadows that there will be some conflict between Durden and the narrator because of Marla.

I had a hard time trying to figure out what the fight club really means. The narrator seems to engage in the therapy sessions and the fight club because he needs comfort. The narrator says that, in the fight club, he is more alive than ever. The fight club and the fighting is almost a rebirth. By fighting, the narrator is resurrected. He gains a sense of himself and his own body. In the same way, the therapy sessions allow the narrator gets a sense of himself. Compared to Bob, the narrator feels like more of a man. It is significant that Bob has testicular cancer because Bob feels like less of a man. I wonder if the narrator gains a sense of manhood by going to the particular Sunday night therapy session.

I also wonder why the narrator is unnamed. I think it shows that Tyler Durden is the more prominent one. It also shows that the narrator’s own insecurities can generalize to everyone. The narrator is like the narrator of Invisible Man in that they are both unnamed. Compared to Durden, the narrator does seem invisible. I am excited to find out why the narrator says that Durden and he used to be friends in the beginning. I am also waiting for more information on what the fight club means to the narrator.

The Invisibility of the Invisible Man

I finally finished reading Invisible Man last night and, once the action started picking up, it turned out to be an interesting book. However, I still think that the narrator could have condensed his story into 200 fewer pages. Although I was reading the novel closely, I had a hard time understanding the narrator’s theories. What did he really mean when he said he was invisible? When first realizes his invisibility (after the Tod Clifton funeral), the narrator says that he is going to lie to both sides—the Brotherhood and the black people of Harlem. Still, how does that make him invisible? Perhaps, he is trying to say that no one really cares about what he does and his actions won’t affect the people of Harlem. Or maybe he realizes that he is actually outside history because he is just a pawn in the Brotherhood game. The narrator keeps repeating that he is invisible, but I don’t have a full grasp on what he means. Hopefully, our five seminars will clear up some of my confusion.

Towards the end, the narrator reminded me a lot of Frankenstein in that there was a duality to his character. More specifically, the narrator says that he is both the victim and the victimizer. While he is lying to the black people of Harlem (the victims), he is also hurt by his own lying. Just like Frankenstein, the narrator is creating something, albeit intangible, that is destroying himself. The only difference is that the narrator knows what he is doing. I wonder whether this victimization and duality of character lead the narrator to have angry feelings to the white people in particular. In one section, he says that all the white peoples he encountered (Bledsoe and Mr. Norton and Brother Jack) because one big entity. What does he feel towards that entity? Does he feel like Ras the Destroyer who hates all white people? Or does he simply feel like white interests will always prevail? I think that the narrator does have a negative view especially after he discovered that Jack wrote the letter that he was going “too fast.” I think the reason that he goes into the whole was to hide from all the people that are seeking to use him. In fact, I think that the narrator was afraid.

In the epilogue, I thought the most significant scene was between Mr. Norton and the narrator. It was ironic that Mr. Norton doesn’t even remember his destiny now, showing that Mr. Norton never really cared about the welfare of the black college student. Their interaction reminds me of Brer Rabbit, where the narrator is the rabbit, or slave. As the rabbit or slave, the narrator seems to trick Mr. Norton, a sly fox, out of making the narrator part of his scorecard. The end still brings up important questions. Does this mean that the narrator is successful at the end? Has the narrator truly and happily “plunged out of history”? Is he representative of the entire black race?

The scene with Mr. Norton in Invisible Man was really strange. Firstly, it exposed the great disparity between whites and blacks during those times. Furthermore, it showed that Mr. Norton has some underlying intriguing, if not creepy, desires. He discusses the beauty and pureness of his daughter. When I first read the section, I felt as if his love was more than just family love; instead, I sensed some sexual tension. My hunches were confirmed after learning about Trueblood’s story. I am fascinated more by Trueblood than by Mr. Norton. Particularly, Trueblood’s dream was especially unique and weird. The first thing I noticed that it was a “big, white bedroom.” It was almost as if Trueblood had entered a very pure and heavenly state, which is very different from the physical state he was in. Furthermore, everything in the room “was white.” Perhaps, the white refers to the own difference between blacks and whites. Trueblood may aspire to have the privileges of being white.

There is also a lot of explicit sexual imagery in the story. For example, Trueblood says “I tries to git out.” Thus, his words in the dream parallel his own wishes when he is awake. Even more, the fact that he says “git” instead of “get” shows that Trueblood is uneducated, and, as an uneducated man, commits a heinous crime. However, Mr. Norton is simply listening with a great fascination and almost desire. He seems to be sickly fulfilling his own fantasy with his daughter through Trueblood’s story. Still, back to the dream, I wonder what the lady in the story signifies. Is she a representation of Trueblood’s daughter? Is it important that she is white? Does she signify a forbidden desire for Trueblood, or even all black men? The lady reminds me of the first seedy girl with the American flag painted on her. It seems, at least in these sections, that the white women represent the ideal beauty for the black men (probably because they are forbidden women).

The next odd part comes when the lady starts screaming, and Trueblood goes deaf. I think that the deafness parallels to the invisibility that the narrator feels. There is no communication between the lady and Trueblood in the same way that the invisible man has decided to have no communication with others. Then, after Trueblood wakes out of his dream, everything becomes a mess. Why does Mr. Norton get so faint at hearing the story? While I at first thought that the sheer sickness of the story affected him, I think that, as mentioned before, it has mostly to do with his sexual feelings for his daughter. In addition, Mr. Norton continues to feel faint because of his presence with the black, rambunctious crowd. I thought it was really interesting that, even in the bar, Mr. Norton kept discussing how his destiny lied in the black people. More than destiny, Mr. Norton tries to exert control over the narrator. I wonder what kind of attitude the narrator will adopt to Mr. Norton in the end.

"To be or not to be"

When I started analyzing the “to be or not to be” speech for the paper, I noticed many interesting lines that seem to connect to other parts of the play. For one, his words made his later harsh words to Ophelia clearer. For example, when Hamlet brings up the “pangs of despised love,” it is almost as if Hamlet is remembering this misery from past experience. When I first read the soliloquy, I thought that Hamlet was simply listing troubles in life, and those troubles were generalized to everyone. However, Hamlet, with his mention of love, seems to be truly about Ophelia’s earlier rejection. Thus, when he says “I did love you once,” Hamlet rejects Ophelia because he can no longer take all that pain. Similarly, when Hamlet mentions the “patient merit of th’ unworthy,” he describes the rejection and denial that he feels. This rejection and denial also seems to be a product of his mother’s betrayal. Later in the play, Hamlet talks rudely towards his mother, and all his resentment is expressed in this speech. Considering all his relationships with women, it isn’t surprising that Hamlet feels so hopeless and life and is considering committing suicide.

Another thing that I found interesting was the references to suicide. While I vaguely knew that the speech was about suicide, I didn’t find all the specific hints that Shakespeare placed in the speech. For example, he includes “mortal coil.” While it could be clutter/fuss (as my footnotes say), I realized that it also alludes to a coil of rope. Thus, the mortal coil is subtle imagery for hanging oneself, especially since the coil is mortal. Still, the “mortal coil” could also point to Hamlet’s wanting to end Claudius’s life because. Another instance of suicide imagery is when he discusses the “bare bodkin.” A bodkin, a tool like a dagger, was especially used as a means of suicide in the ancient times. Therefore, there are many indications that Hamlet wants to commit suicide.

While reading the speech, I also wondered why he always equated sleep with death. This metaphor reveals much about Hamlet’s attitude towards death. I think that sleep is a supposedly peaceful time, and Hamlet now thinks of death as a way to bring peace. It is debatable, however, whether or not the death of Hamlet or the death of Claudius will bring peace. In the end, it seems as if both deaths bring the peace. Finally, I saw a fascinating connection when Hamlet says, “sicklied o’er with the pale cast.” This line connects to disease and sickness. In fact, it shows why Hamlet progressively becomes mad throughout the play. It is all the pains of being alive that make Hamlet go crazy. Although Hamlet is partly aware of his madness, his miserable thoughts in this speech and the other speech show that not of all his madness is feigned.

Analyzing his speech has been challenging especially since I feel like Hamlet is very repetitive. However, when I read it over again, I realize that each line adds new meaning. It is especially difficult to analyze because there are so many potential meanings in his speech.

The Nameless Narrator

There are many motifs that I have noticed in the beginning pages of Invisible Man. The narrator always seems up to bring up sight and seeing. For example, in the prologue, there is a comment about “inner eyes,” which are “those eyes with which they look through their physical eyes upon reality.” These inner eyes pass judgment upon the narrator, and such judgment results in the narrator’s invisibility. Although the “physical eyes” may literally see the narrator, the inner eyes—or the mind behind those eyes—refuse the narrator’s own presence. However, I find it particularly peculiar that he is “not complaining, nor [is he] protesting either.” Why does he not want to be seen? Shortly after, he says, “it occurred to me that the man had not seen me.” It is almost as if he uses not being seen to his advantage. After beating up the man, he is amused by the fact that he was “mugged by an invisible man!” I think that this incident was a turning point in his own view towards his invisibility, or his “blackness.” Presently, he is accustomed to such invisibility.

The image of “blackness” recurs once again in an important, yet odd scene in the novel. In the song, “…there was blackness” but the black is “bloody.” There is an important contradiction within the song, as the black is red. Since the darkness—or invisibility—is also blood, the invisibility is like a wound for the narrator. This wound has become a part of the lives of African Americans. However, the woman that breaks from the unified voice at the end was distinct from the blackness and invisibility because she loved a white man. In other words, she does not blend in with the fellow African Americans in one unique respect, but this one important distinction results in an attempt to break free from that invisibility. Perhaps, her “freedom” arises from no more darkness.

I also want to consider the significance of his home, better known as his “hole.” His “hole” is underground, so it could possibly be a symbol of hell as it is almost like a “hellhole.” This hell comparison becomes especially pronounced when he describes his place as warm. However, the similarities break down when he seems to like his hole. Maybe, he has simply become part of the hole and can’t recognize the misery around him. Or, perhaps, he thinks that his hole is much better than the prejudiced world above him. Interestingly enough, his residence is below everyone else, just as African Americans were supposedly below the whites in the time period after the Civil War.

Finally, I was also interested by the brutality of the battle royal juxtaposed with the sophistication of his speech. I wonder why the narrator chose to engage in the battle and why he feels the need to submit to the whims of the whites. Does the nameless narrator believe that his submission is actually a form of action? The resulting speech shows that he has the competency and skills of an educated person, but he is still forced to engage in demeaning tasks. Still, the whole scene at the ballroom is still confusing and I’m not sure of its import. To me, the narrator’s submission is frustrating, and I wonder if the “action” he discusses in the first paragraph will become a reality.

The Dust in "Church Monuments"

I thought that the poem “Church Monuments” was a very interesting read despite its difficult language. In the first stanza, the speaker seems to be praying in a church as his “soul repairs to her devotion.” However, the speaker then starts talking about his “flesh.” He at first says that he “entombs” his flesh, most likely referencing when he dies and his body is buried. The third line provides evidence for the speaker’s attitude towards his flesh. He believes that the flesh will “make an acquaintance with dust.” The mention of dust almost reminds me of Grendel, where the dust signified the passage of time. In the same way, the speaker hints to the flesh’s own passage into dust. The flesh will become dust with the “blast of death’s incessant motion.” It almost seems as if the speaker regards death as a negative and destructive force. Still, he realizes that everyone must feel death’s “motion.”

In the second stanza, the speaker says that he “gladly trusts [his] body to this school.” I think that the “school” refers to the earth of the graveyard. When he says to “find his birth written in dusty heraldry and lines,” the dusty heraldry and lines refers to the tombstones that discuss the details of the body. Still, the tombstones will eventually disintegrate into dust just as the body does. As the body knows dust will become dust, the “jet and marble put up for signs” are almost comical because they hint at permanence that isn’t there. The speaker then asks the sole question in the entire poem—“What shall point out them,/ When they shall bow, and kneel, and fall down flat/ To kiss those heaps, which now they have in trust?” I am actually not sure about the significance of the question, but it might be mocking people that “kiss the heaps of dust.” In other words, those that revere the dead do not know that the body has simply turned to dust just as everything does.

Finally, in the fourth stanza, the speaker gives advice to his body. He first warns against when the body should get “wanton in cravings.” He says that “flesh is but the glass, which holds the dust/ That measures all our time; which also shall/ Be crumbled into dust.” In other words, flesh shouldn’t gain so much pride because it is the only holder of dust. Flesh holds the spirit and soul “that measures all time”. However, just as flesh becomes dust, the spirit and soul also become dust. Despite the flesh’s subservience to the soul, both entities become dust. Finally, the speaker prepares his flesh for the impending death. He says that the ashes are “tame and free from lust.” In the same way, flesh should calmly and freely accept death.

For me, this poem was probably one of the hardest poems we have looked at so far. Many of the lines don’t point to a direct interpretation, but I think that its complex nature is fitting because death and dust are both very complicated subjects.

"My Papa's Waltz"

Since our poetry fishbowl discussions are tomorrow, I thought that I would offer some of my insights on the poem assigned to me—“My Papa’s Waltz.”

-The first line is “The whiskey on your breath.” Such an opening brings up an image of drunkenness. Furthermore, the fact that the speaker, a man looking back on his younger days, can name the exact drink—whiskey—suggests that the father’s drunkenness is actually regular and significant.

-In the second line (“Could make a small boy dizzy”), the reader learns that the narrator seems to be remembering his days as a young boy with his father. While the incorporation of the word “dizzy” is part of the fact that the boy is engaged in a waltz, the word also has a negative connotation. It’s almost as if his father’s destructive behavior is making him dizzy.

-Finally, the third line shows that the waltz isn’t something that is exactly enjoyable. The boy “hung on like death.” The word “death” implies that there is some darkness associated with the waltz. Furthermore, “hung” can also refer to death by hanging. Perhaps, by dancing with his father, the boy is slowly dying as he witness his father’s destructive behaviors. He then goes on to say that “such waltzing was not easy.” Such a statement is ironic because dancing should be easy and free. In fact, it’s not just the waltzing that’s not easy; being with his father is hard.

-By the second stanza, the destruction becomes even more pronounced. As the speaker says “we romped until the pans,” the inclusion of “romped” makes it seem as if the dance is more than just horseplay. In fact, it shows that the dance is actually violent. It is so violent, in reality, that the “pan’s slid from the kitchen shelf.”

-When the speaker says, “My mother’s countenance/Could not unfrown itself,” it at first seems as if the mother’s disappointment lies in the pans falling from the kitchen shelf. However, the mother is so upset that she was never smiling and always had a frown on her face.

-Finally, the third stanza gives evidence to physical abuse. The speaker says, “The hand that held my wrist/Was battered on one knuckle.” The hand was battered suggesting that the father has been beating the boy. Even the fact it was on one “knuckle” shows that fists have been made, and acts of aggression have happened.

-The next line says, “At every step you missed/My right ear scraped a buckle.” While this could show the dancing, it also shows that the father is using a belt—often a form of beating children. When the father misses a step, it seems like he is almost stumbling and is beating his child under the influence of alcohol.

-Finally, the speaker says “You beat time on my head.” Again, the word “beat” is relevant to the abuse that seems to be occurring. However, I am not sure why the speaker says he beat “time.” What is the significance of time? Does it have to do with the time of the day? Or perhaps it is important because it signals how much time the boy has left to endure the abuse?

-Throughout the whole poem, the child seems to obey his father despite the abuse. The poem, interestingly enough, is also in iambic trimester, which is similar to the beat of a waltz.

Gender Roles

While reading an analysis by David Bevington, an editor of one of the editions of Hamlet, I was especially interested in Bevington’s beliefs that “Ophelia is more innocent than her father and brother, and truly more affectionate towards Hamlet.” The specific gender roles in Hamlet are very much apparent. Ophelia, a woman, is seemingly more “innocent” and “affectionate” that her masculine relatives. Still, I included “seemingly” because I am still not sure how to define the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet. In the two movies we have watched, there have been two different interpretations—one in which Ophelia is frail and innocent and the other in which Ophelia has already submitted to her relationship to Hamlet. Therefore, while Bevington might suppose Ophelia as innocent, appearances are deceiving, as evidenced by Hamlet’s and Claudius’s own respective facades.

However, while I’m not completely sure about Ophelia’s innocence, I can still sympathize with Ophelia. She is under the control of three men and isn’t free to exert her own independence. In fact, Ophelia and even Gertrude both have very few lines in the play, showing their relative unimportance and lack of strength. Ophelia demonstrates her passivity by simply conceding to the commands of her father and her brother. Even today, when we acted out the scene between Ophelia and Hamlet, Hamlet grabs Ophelia’s arm with such a tight hold in a way that is perhaps Hamlet’s way of declaring his power over her.

I feel that it is also important to compare the two central female characters in the play, Ophelia and Gertrude. Both women are defined by their relationships to men. Gertrude, at first married to Hamlet’s father, is now married to Hamlet’s uncle. Whether she married the uncle by choice or was forced to, Gertrude doesn’t seem to have much role in the kingdom except as wife. In a similar way, while Hamlet seems to be a large part of Ophelia’s life, Ophelia is of limited concern to Hamlet. It is no wonder that Hamlet exclaims “frailty, thy name is woman” because the two women in his life are subservient to men and rarely follow their own will.

Besides Ophelia and Gertrude, I also want to comment on Hamlet’s own almost frail state. Hamlet, acting like a madman, seems to be committing the same rash decisions that he accused his mother of doing. I think that, as we read the novel, we are going to realize that Hamlet’s mental state stems from his belief that the world itself is an “unweeded garden/ That grows to seed. Things rank and gross in nature/ Possess it merely.” Hamlet has little faith in the world, and thus, seems to have awakened his own tragic flaw. As he seeks revenge for his father, I think that Hamlet is frail and weak in the sense that he succumbs to his feelings of revenge and hate. Hamlet may not realize it, but just as his mother supposedly “succumbs” to his uncle, Hamlet is falling prey to another evil—an evil that may eventually lead to his downfall.

"The School Children"

“The School Children” by Louise Glück was one of the poems that I found especially interesting because only close analysis reveals a deeper, more significant meaning. Just on the surface, the poem seems to be about a simple life moment—young children going to school. However, the poem is actually more about a struggle between the mothers and teachers. As the children “go forward with the little satchels,” the mothers “have labored.” The images of hard-working mothers suggest that the mothers’ work makes the children go forward. Even the structure of the poem indicates that the mothers dictate the children’s actions. The first stanza and last stanza are the only stanzas that mention the mothers. It is almost as if the mothers enclose the children as they try to protect them from the outside world. Such analysis then begs the question—what is the outside world?

The outside world could be the school, filled with judgmental and powerful teachers. Although the mothers struggle to send their children to the teachers, they continue to work to impress the teachers. Still, the apples gathered are “like words of another language.” There is a certain disconnection between the teachers and mothers as the teachers are “on the other shore.” It seems like the children are caught in the war between the teachers and the mothers. Amidst the overbearing teachers that wait “behind the great desks” and the mothers “scour the orchards,” there is no good for the children. In fact, the line “How orderly they are—the nails/ on which the children hang” makes it seem as if the children are themselves hanging. Perhaps then, Glück has a very negative attitude towards schooling. Although the mothers seek their children’s success, their labor is having the opposite effect. Finally, the last line of the poem reaffirms the fact that there is a subtle war between the teacher and mothers possibly for control over the children. The inclusion of the word “ammunition” suggests that gathering the apples is a way for the mothers to still maintain control over the children and their school lives. However, there is “little ammunition,” implying that the mothers lose the war in the end.

After reading “The School Children,” I started working upon my own poem. However, I realized that capturing a life moment is very difficult. Even more, I must capture that moment in an artistic and beautiful way. Now that I am working on my own poem, I appreciate the work of gifted poets so much more. The fact that Louise Glück could incorporate so much meaning into so few lines astounds me. Even the colors in the poem have their own meaning. The “gray” limbs of the tree could point to the gradual aging of the children as they go from their mothers’ hands to the teacher’s hands. Or the “gray” could be representative of the gray area that is present between the teacher and the mothers. Furthermore, although Glück might not have intentionally added all the meaning that I see, I think such analysis allows me to understand the poem in a much more personal way.