Hunters in the Snow, Motion Picture Style

I liked this story, and I feel that it would make a fairly decent movie. My only fear is that people will think that I'm trying to make a live-action version of South Park. Between the wintery setting and the "Oh my God, they killed Kenny!" I'm sure that at least some people might try to draw the connection. On second thought, I think I'll work that line in there somewhere.

Plot!
Well, the thing about plot for a short story is that there just might not be enough of it. The average movie is around two hours long, which honestly is about half the time it took me to read this story once. We can't have people throwing down $9.50 for a movie that is going to last twenty minutes, now. Naturally, we'll need to beef up the story. All the major events should definitely stay in there, but I think it might help to have some back story. Start the story back a ways, show Tub during his daily life alone, and also focus on Kenny and Frank before they all actually meet together for the hunting trip. I think it would be helpful to reveal to the audience to reveal the vices of Frank and Tub early on so that we can see the effect that it really plays on their character. It will add some situational irony in there if we are aware of both of their vices before they ever actually reveal them to his friend. And hey, irony just makes any movie more entertaining.

Setting?
No, you have to keep this the same. This is called "Hunters in the Snow." It is not going to work in downtown Los Angeles, or the quiet suburbs of New Hampshire. Although here's an interesting idea: start the movie off in the city, or at least a somewhat modernized area. It'll show how everyone started off perfectly civilized in their own lives. But then, as the story progresses, I think it would be cool to have them moving off, farther away from this sense of civilization, moving out into the wild, until the final scene when they're driving down a deserted road lined by nothing but snow-covered trees. I feel that this would really reinforce and illustrate the theme of a fall from humanity to animality. Actually, I'm not entirely sure that's a word. I'm pretty sure it's a Mortal Kombat thing....

PointofView#
Well, the point of view may need to be tweaked. In order to make my changes to plot, the camera is simply going to have to leave Tub for a little while. In order to develop the characters of Kenny and Frank, particularly before they ever even meet up with Tub, it is going to be mandatory to split the point of view between the three of them. However, there are some things that just shouldn't be revealed. Most notable of all, I think, is probably Kenny's conversation with the elderly fellow in the house, concerning the shooting of his dog. I think that should probably remain a secret to the audience until it is revealed at the same point in the plot as it was in the story. That suddenly revelation of Kenny's true intentions is dramatic, intriguing, and central to the story as a whole, and thus should definitely not be altered.

@Characterization
Adding the many scenes at the beginning of the film, long before the main characters ever meet, should definitely help bring about the characterization of not only Frank, Tub, and Kenny, but of the many other minor characters mentioned in the story but not explicitly introduced. The interactions between Tub, Frank, and their respective wives and families, will certainly help to paint a better picture of who their characters are. In the story itself, not much is revealed about the characters, but through back story, it should be possible to round out the characters and make them seem more real. The characterization itself should serve to show how the characters begin as civilized and compassionate human beings, thus making the descent into animalistic behavior all the more dramatic and prominent.


Naturally, because I am such a fantastic movie maker, all of the changes I have added thus far should make the theme much more prevalent in the story. The theme in question, naturally is the descent from being like humans to being like animals. Frankly, I feel that it will be much easier to understand how the characters interact with each other through a deeper understanding of who they are before they ever enter the wild. Thus, this will help depict three men who are perfectly sane and functional members of society. The movie can make it much more blatant that the people are gradually losing their humanity as the story progresses. It's far easier to visualize two men leaving their friend to bleed to death in the cold when it's right up there on the silver screen than it is to do so when reading a short story. The theme will be much more prominent simply due to the fact that it is a movie. Sometimes, it is just easier to portray something like a loss of humanity through visual, non-verbal body language than it is through the written word.

Behold the Horror

Minority Report - Video Style

I shall start with a list of things that the movie Minority Report has in common with its short story counterpart: the names John Anderton and Danny Witwer, the general premise of Precrime, and...no wait, actually that's it. Everything else was different. No, really, everything.

Plot
Well, the plot starts out almost the same. John Anderton, the dashing protagonist (though in the story he was actually a fat bald man), gives a quick introduction to the innerworkings of the Precrime process, which is mostly the same. The only real difference is that the precogs have visions, and the police interpret these visions which are captured on video, whereas in the story, the precogs merely mumbled incoherent nonsense, and computers interpreted the audio. The whole Army failsafe concept was scrapped for the alternative of having a chief justice of the supreme court and a doctor overlook the investigation process. However, John Anderton naturally realizes that he has been pegged for futuremurder and takes off running. He is not kidnapped by the army. However, he is attacked by police officers on jetpacks, which was certainly an intriguing chase scene. Another notable difference is that Anderton is not actually the creator of Precrime, but is rather just an officer, so he hunts down the real creator, and is...attacked by plants....Yeah. The lovely lady tells him that he must kidnap the precog Agatha in order to find his Minority Report. However, other than serving as the impetus for the kidnapping, the minority report serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever in the story. Yes, that is correct. John Anderton, after undergoing ocular surgery and being attacked by robotic spiders (yeah) then kidnaps Agatha only to discover that he does not even have a minority report. The title of the movie is then not mentioned at all for the rest of the film. That's the biggest difference, really, the minority report doesn't even do anything or mean anything at all. Oh, there is also a complete and utter difference in the intention of the main character. After accidentally killing the man he was supposed to kill, Anderton realizes that he has been set up (there's another difference, by the way, movie-Anderton only tried to arrest his victim but the man forced him to shoot him, whereas story-Anderton shot his victim intentionally). By the end of the story, however movie-Anderton and story-Anderton are completely different. Movie-Anderton sets out to discredit and destroy Precrime by proving that the Director, the one who set him up, murdered in order to get the precogs. Story-Anderton, however, murders a man in order to keep Precrime functioning. One attempts to destroy it, while the other tries to save it.

Point of View
The Point of View is slightly different in the movie. In the story, Anderton was the sole focus; we were only able to see the story and the other characters through his eyes. However, in the movie, the focus is primarily on Anderton, but we also get to see some other people. There are several scenes in which Anderton is not even present, such as with the director Lamar Burgess and the investigator Witwer. Spoiler Alert, Witwer gets shot. This scene is particularly important because now we can see that the true villain is not Witwer, who was the original object of our suspicion, but is actually Burgess. Wowza kapowza! But we didn't get Anderton's take on this scene, because he wasn't even aware it happened. The focus is less on Anderton and how his realizations drive the plot and more on how the audience is directly shown what's happening. Also, by the end of the movie, Anderton disappears completely for almost 15 minutes, and the audience is not able to see how he pieces together all of his evidence to get a clear understanding of what's happening. Suddenly he just appears, and the audience is like "what the heck's going on?" and Anderton's like "don't worry, everyone, I'm fixin' to explain it to y'all in this very convenient monologue." His rap-up speech at the end sort of reminded me of the end of a Scooby-Doo episode where The Gang, after apprehending the criminal, explains how they arrived at their realization to the audience, because children are not very good at unraveling mysteries, apparently. So basically, the difference is that rather than getting Anderton's realizations in real-time as the plot advances, we get a quick summary all at the very end.

Setting
The setting is virtually the same between the two. Naturally, because the movie is...y'know...visual, we are able to get a pretty vivid idea of what the setting looks like. Apparently all cars run on autopilot and can drive up walls, which is kind of cool. However, the setting isn't really all that important, other than just looking nice and acting as a decent excuse to throw together some ridiculous special effects. Just like how it was in the story, the setting only matters in that it allows the concept of Precrime to exist. The story is in the future, hey, that's a perfect place for something as futuristic-looking as Precrime to exist. Other than that, nothing really mattered. Oh, the movie took place in Washington D.C., while the short story took place in Chicago. That's...pertinent somehow, I'm sure.

Characterization
The main character is still John Anderton, and he is still characterized fairly indirectly. Other than the fact that the two characters are completely different, they are essentially characterized in the same way. We are only able to discern who Anderton is through his interactions with others and how we observe his actions. However, the other characters are characterized in a completely different fashion from how they were in the story. In the story, John Anderton told us exactly what to think about everyone. Woah, I don't trust that guy, and you shouldn't either! Hey, don't worry, this guy will take care of me. Hey you, you're strangling my wife, and I don't approve! We don't get this in the movie, really. We aren't able to hear Anderton's thoughts, so we can't really tell exactly how Anderton feels about anyone, other than through actions with them. All of the people are essentially characterized indirectly, and we no longer have Anderton's opinions and views telling us who to trust and who to suspect.

Theme
However, through all of the many differences betwixt the story and the film, the theme essentially holds the same. In my last post, dear reader, I spoke of a theme of the dangers of having an army in times of peace. Forget that, the army is not even mentioned in the movie. However, there is still the question of free will. In the film, the question of free will is even more blatantly shouted out at the audience. When John Anderton is hunting down Leo Crow, the man who he is supposed to kill, Agatha directly urges him not to continue searching for him, stating that he still has a choice to just walk away from the hotel and not murder Crow. However, he ends up heading into the hotel anyway, which starts to make us wonder "hey, maybe he didn't have a choice after all." And then John pulls the gun on Crow, and we start to say "Oh hey, I guess he really couldn't choose not to kill him." And then he starts reading him his Miranda Rights, and we say "Hey wait, I was promised bloodshed!" So in the end, it appears that Mr. Anderton wound up having the ability to choose after all, which makes us feel happy! But then Crow forces Anderton to shoot him, and we start to ask "Wait...so Anderton had free will, but it didn't actually matter...so does free will matter at all?" Well that's a whole new can of worms, m'friend. All's I know is that Tom Cruise is insane.

No, you're getting a Porsche, Oprah! Surprise!

You're Ugly, Too

Now see, this story was funny. Zoë reminds me a bit of that one kid in every class who is always extremely quiet, but if one listens hard enough, one might find that they happen to utter hilariously witty comments under their breath.

The fun thing about this story is that it essentially has no plot at all. There is not really much of a conflict or a progression of events. Rather, it's just a story about a really really really interesting character. So rather than discuss events, let's talk about Zoë. Zoë is an extremely sarcastic and cynical lady. She communicates primarily through jokes and biting sarcastic statements that are generally a little awkward to those in the immediate area. However, Zoë also seems to have a bit of a problem with turning off her humor or realizing when the joke has gone too far. When talking with her students, she often ends up making comments that are unprofessional, inappropriate, and borderline offensive to them. Likewise, at the end of the story, after thoroughly confusing Earl with her many jokes, lies, and random anecdotes, she takes the joke just a wee bit too far and pretends to shove him off the balcony, giving him quite a start indeed.

A big question that I had whilst reading was simply is Zoë just eccentric, or is she nuts? I could go either way really. The baggie deal could have simply been an anal-retentive organization method, or it could be a sign at obsessive compulsive disorder. The same goes for the Bruce Springsteen rug, and how she ultimately convinced herself beyond a shadow of a doubt and got rid of the rug. Also, when both Evan and Earl bring up the topic of love, rather than giving a serious opinion, she breaks off into a story where the main character ends up putting a bullet in the brain. This could be either a sign of being jaded by the idea of love, or maybe she's severely depressed. Furthermore, she also has a tendency of misjudging the environment around her and telling jokes that are not at all appropriate for the situation, like when she tells the story comparing the wife to a fairly intelligent labrador. Her inability to handle social situations well could just be her own awkward personality, or even a sign of autism. So who knows, really? There's not enough evidence to definitively say one way or the other.

Personally, though, I just think she's weird. And lonely.

Who needs men, anyway? Zoë would make a fantastic Crazy Cat Lady.

The Drunkard

I did not find this story to be humorous. I could recognize the irony of the situation, the reversal of expectation, the image of the cute little boy staggering home and swearing loudly at the neighbors, but personally I was just utterly unable to derive any amusement from any of those things. It might possibly have a bit to do with the subject matter, who knows. Tom Hanks stuck in a dry cleaning bag is funny, but this was not.

He gets out eventually.

I'll go ahead and analyze those things anyway, despite their unfunny nature. There's a bit of irony here. The son refers to himself as a "brake," or as something that is supposed to stop the father from drinking. So the audience expects little Larry to pull off some guilt trip, maybe cry a little, in order to get Daddy home sober. What actually ends up happening, however, is that Larry ends up drinking off Daddy's lager and bashes his skull into the wall. Hohoho, doesn't that just tickle the funny bone? However, through his severely intoxicated actions, he actually manages to keep his father from drinking. Kudos, Larry. It is particularly noteworthy to state that his previous efforts of attempting to divert Daddy away from the pub ultimately failed, so it makes it even more ironic that getting drunk would actually end up being the solution to his problems. There is of course, the reversal of expectation in that the reader expects Daddy to get plastered, but in fact, it is Larry who ends up a'stumbling home. Hohoho, I just taste the hilarity. The best, most hilariousest part of all, however, happens to be in that last little paragraph when Mother calls Larry his Father's guardian angel and implying that it was God's will that he get so severely intoxicated. One would expect Mother to be outraged that her precious little boy is drunk and bleeding profusely from the head, but rather she views it as divine intervention and pretty much the grandest thing since sliced bread. Hohoho, I must struggle to fight back the tears of laughter.

Serious dog and I have a lot in common.

The Lottery

I shall now use math to settle the debate on probability that arose in class today. The issue was brought up that the people who drew first obviously would have a better chance of surviving, as they are drawing from a larger pool. This idea of course comes from the classic draw-a-card-and-don't-replace-it-in-the-deck probability problem that we have all enjoyed in our high school math classes. You draw a card, and it's a heart. If you do not replace the card, what is the probability of drawing another heart? This problem does not apply to the situation at all. The case of the Lottery is more applicable to this scenario. I draw a card. I do not look at the card. I draw a second card. I do not look at the card. What is the probability that either card is the three of diamonds? Both cards have an even chance, one out of fifty-two, of being the three of diamonds. Because the people in the story do not look at their slips of paper until the very end, the probability is constant throughout the drawing. If they had replaced the black dot system with a deck of cards, and there were 52 families, even though everyone draws and does not replace, every family would have an equal probability of drawing the three of diamonds. This is completely irrelevant, but it was bugging me.

My logic is sound.

Ahem. Enough math. Question 4: what is the significance of the fact that the original box has been lost and many parts of the ritual have been forgotten? Can I find a statement in the story that most likely explains the original purpose of the ritual? Darn Tootin' I can.

The town has pretty much forgotten what this tradition is about. All of the traditional aspects of the process have been forgotten. The original box is long gone and replaced, the villagers write on slips of paper rather than woodchips, but most importantly of all, the original purpose of the lottery has been forgotten. Only Old Man Warner (Warnah) makes reference to the beginnings of the ritual on page 268: "Used to be a saying about 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.' " It appears that the lottery first began as a process of selecting a victim for what appears to be a human tribal sacrifice in order to ensure a bountiful harvest. But it appears that many many years have passed on, and the focus on the funeral is not to make the corn heavy, but rather to simply follow through with the old tradition. The loss of the original box and rituals shows the degeneration from purposeful, while barbaric, to merely following tradition for the sake of tradition.

Christmas trees were originally dedicated to Odin and were decorated with the carcasses of nine animals. Merry Christmas.

Popular Mechanics

The title of this short story is "Popular Mechanics," which is easily the worst title I've ever heard. The original title, apparently, was "Mine." That is a much better title. Popular Mechanics is already a thing Mr. Carver.

"How to Build a Flying Car." What could go wrong?

I suppose I'd best put on my serious hat and start some hardcore analysis on this lovely tale. I will be tackling question 4 with this here blog post, Why is this couple splitting up? Do we know? Does it matter? Explain in my response. Okay, I will.

We have no idea why the couple is splitting up. We know nothing of their relationship except that they have decided to end it, and they also happen to have a wee little baby together. There is no possible way that we can know what has caused them to sever their ties, and frankly, we are not supposed to know. Usually when things are kept vague in literature, there's a pretty good reason. In this case, the ambiguity is used to make the situation more universal and applicable to more situations. Y'see kids, this short story is a commentary on divorce itself. If the couple has a specific reason for splitting up, then it becomes less universal. If the couple breaks up because one of them cheated, then the story becomes less about divorce and more about infidelity, and that's a whole new can of worms. By keeping the reason vague, it is able to serve as a commentary on every divorce and the impact that it has on the children.

I find this to be in bad taste. Deliciously bad taste.

Minority Report - The Super Post

I like to think that all of my posts are pretty super, actually.

Plot
The important thing about the plot of "Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick is the pace. The action of this story literally never stops. Ever. It's like if you just cut out all the dialogue of a Dragon Ball Z episode. You just get two shirtless men beating the crap out of each other for about 30 minutes. I'm going somewhere with this, I promise. John Allison Anderton has quite the day indeed. He gets accused of pre-murder, is kidnapped, gets caught in a car accident, breaks into Precrime headquarters, escapes via airship, rescues his wife from a mysterious assailant, assassinates an Army general, and jets off the planet. The plot never seems to slow down for more than a paragraph or two before it picks back up again, which ultimately sets the story's pace at roughly three times ten to the eighth meters per second. This pace has several effects. Most of all, it makes the story fun. Personally, I think stories with no action are just hard to read. I can breeze through an action-packed story easily, but stories full of dialogue and inner conflict just seem to draaaaag on. The story is also suspenseful. Because so much action keeps happening, the situation constantly changes. People Anderton (and therefore the reader) once suspected eventually become allies, and people he believed were friends ultimately become his enemies. Anderton initially suspects Witwer, declaring that "the set-up is fairly obvious....This will give Witwer a legal pretext to remove me right now," (p. 125) but then quickly shifts view Kaplan as the enemy, stating that "He can break the Precrime system" (p. 143). The conflict of the story shifts and bends throughout the story as the fast-occurring events change the situation. The conflict and antagonists are not always clearly defined, which makes the ending unpredictable and the story very entertaining.
Picture Pending.

Point of View
In this particular story, the point of view is called Third Person Limited, meaning that the story specifically follows one character, John Anderton, and the reader is able to discern his thoughts and feelings, but the thoughts and actions of other characters remain hidden. This is important because it gives the reader exactly as much information as Anderton is given, so we as readers suspect all the characters that he does, and we are equally surprised as he begins to uncover the truth. We are unable to see the intentions of any of the other characters, so when Anderton is convinced that he is being "framed--deliberately and maliciously" (p. 125) by Witwer, the reader trusts in his intuition and begins to suspect Witwer. However, once he discovers that "Fleming and his men were operation under Kaplan's orders," and that Kaplan had been "making sure they got him before the police," (page 141), the reader immediately begins to trust Witwer and suspect Kaplan. The point of view keeps the reader from seeing all the pieces of the puzzle until the very end and keeps the conclusion completely unexpected.
Picture Pending.

Characterization
There are exactly two ways in which people are characterized in this story. The first method applies only to Anderton. We see his actions and indirectly characterize him and get a feel for who he is. He is a man determined to survive, which is apparent by his response of "My safety" to the question of "which means more to you--your own personal safety or the existence of the system?" (p. 139). One would initially consider this to be selfish, as he has sentences countless people to detention camps for crimes they haven't committed yet, but when it comes down to it, he will not accept the fate for himself. However, this actually uncovers a strong sense of justice, based on his reasoning "If the system can survive only by imprisoning innocent people, then it deserves to be destroyed." (p. 139).Though he created Precrime, he would rather see it destroyed than have it imprison innocent people. He views himself as innocent, and therefore feels that if Precrime imprisons him, then the system is broken. It doesn't matter that he is the criminal in question; it only matters that an innocent man is being threatened with imprisonment. It just happens to be a coincidence that the only time he has considered a man's innocence is when he himself is in danger.

The second method of characterization is used to paint the picture of virtually every character who is not named John A. Anderton. Anderton literally tells the reader what to think about every person he meets. His opinions are the only things that we can use to understand the characters he interacts with. We immediately begin to distrust Witwer as Anderton blames him for the apparent conspiracy to kick him out and describes him to be as "Nice as a water moccasin" (p. 124). We also begin to distrust his wife as Anderton becomes completely convinced that she will betray him and "would describe [the card] in detail to Witwer" (p. 126). We also begin to trust Fleming, who rescues him from the car crash and from being arrested by the police. Anderton also begins to trust Kaplan, which is evident from Lisa's thought that "Probably Kaplan will protect you," (p. 138), so the reader starts to trust Kaplan as well. However all of these opinions of other people completely flip around as Anderton begins to uncover more of the story. He starts to trust Lisa, and eventually Witwer, and realizes that the true enemies here are Fleming and Kaplan. Ultimately, our view of the other characters depends totally on how Anderton feels about them.
Picture Pending.

Setting
Not much is really said about the setting. The main action takes place within some sort of city, and it is alluded that the rural parts outside of the city are locked in constant warfare. However, the important part of setting is not really the where but the when. This story, presumably, takes place sometime in the future, as apparent by such things as "precog mutants" and "airships," which as far as I know do not exist currently. The time period of this story is extremely important, as it would be impossible to create a story about Precrime in a time period where peering into the future is impossible. So the author creates his own slot in time and creates seemingly feasible technology which makes the story more realistic, rather than complete fantasy through fortunetelling and divination. Ultimately though, the setting just allows the plot to take place in a mildly realistic fashion and does not really add much to work as a whole. It could have taken place in Texas, and not a whole lot would have changed.

Theme
Oh boy, here it is, Le Pièce de résistance. I am fancy.

I have hereby discovered two distinct things, one more minor, and the other more major.

Let's start this show with the minor theme: the dangers of a strong, active military in times of peace. The army and the police force appear to be opposed to each other. Initially, the two act like they're working together to protect the public, as each keeps the other one in check, as noted by Anderton on page 122: "A duplicate file of cards pops out at Army GHQ. It's check and balance. They can keep their eye on us as continuously as they wish." The two look like they're working together, but eventually, the Army attempts to undercut the police force in a sneaky power grab, as the Army tries to discredit the concept of Precrime and dissolve the police force. The story shows just how quickly and subtly a standing Army can take over a state under the pretext of protecting the public.

The more major theme is actually a very common one, particularly amongst stories concerning things like precognition or time travel. This, of course, is the existence of free will. The concept of Precrime is based on the fact that once a person is deemed guilty of future-murder, then that person has ultimately already made the decision. Thus, the police force interferes, and actively prevents the would-be criminal from making this decision before they ever actually make it. But if that concept holds true, then does anyone really have free will? Apparently, the precogs are able to see into the future and see the decisions that somebody is going to make, implying that the future is set in stone. However, this concept is superseded by the idea that once a person becomes aware of future events, they are capable of changing the future before it happens. This also ties into the theory of Precrime in that once the police force becomes aware of the future, they are able to prevent these future events. But then this would imply that the only way that a person can have free will and the ability to control their own destiny is to be able to become aware of the future and actively prevent the events that have been predicted. This is evident from the fact that Anderton became aware of the future and thus was able to actively choose not to kill Kaplan, and then became aware of the minority report and actively chose to kill him anyway, but under different circumstances. Anderton apparently believes this as in the last few lines he notes that "My case was unique, since I had access to the data." He asserts that the only way a person can change the future is by becoming aware of the future. Otherwise, free will does not exist.

But outside of the context of the story, in this normal world where the future is completely and utterly unknown, does free will exist? Who cares? Batman is riding Superman.

Miss Brill

People watching is fun. Perhaps I'm just creepy, but sometimes it's nice to just sit there and watch other people go about their business, imagining their lives. Okay, I never really actually do that, but it soooounds like it would be fun.

Miss Brill is an English teacher. BUT WAIT! She's an English teacher in France. So naturally, she probably feels out of place, as though she doesn't belong. Now, she probably can speak French, as she says she likes listening to what the people are saying. However, she still probably feels cut off, not by the language barrier, but by the cultural one. Everyone around her is French, and she is definitely English. However, she goes to this park and watches the people, eventually arriving at the conclusion that she is a part of some great play. She is included. She states that she is an important part of the production, and that people would surely notice if she was absent. This makes her feel connected to the other people. Before, she was alone, just a lonely English lady sitting in a French park. And so when she finally gets this connection, she is just simply delighted. But then that makes it sting oh so much more when the boy and girl appear and talk about poor Miss Brill. They just straight rip on her, saying that she is unwanted and questioning why she is even at the park if she's all alone. So she immediately goes from a feeling of connection and importance to one of complete and utter rejection and unappreciation. Naturally, it kills her inside, and she locks up her adorable little mink.

This is a mink.

Once Upon a Time

I liked this story. It reminded me of the stories my daddy used to tell me and my siblings before we all fell asleep. They were always vulgar, violent, and inappropriate for the audience, but oh so hilarious. I think it explains a lot about who I am today.

But anyway, here's question 2: "What stylistic devices create the atmosphere of children's stories? How is this atmosphere related to the story's theme?"

First and foremost, there is the title: "Once Upon a Time." This is the classic opening line to a children's story. Every time I hear that line, I just want to cozy up on the floor for storytime and insist that they show me alllll the pictures. It's just inherently child-story-oriented. Second, the characters involved are not really people. They are a man, a woman, a child, a gardener, etc...they are as flat as flat can be. And usually that's how a children's story character is. There is the dashing knight and the beautiful princess and the evil witch, all with about as much depth as a kiddie pool. So it makes sense that all of the characters in this story go without name, physical description, or any characterization whatsoever. Furthermore, the entire story is comprised of extremely simple language and syntax. All of the sentences are simple and easy to understand, and the diction is not very advanced at all. This of course, makes sense; when one writes a story for children, it had better be simple enough for a child to understand. Also, the phrases "Dragon Teeth" and "the wise old witch" are very indicative of a fairy tale feel which creates that children's story atmosphere.

So then what's the point? Well, the author is trying to create a fairly tale in order to convey the horrors of Apartheid. History Lesson?? Apartheid was the system of racial segregation in South Africa, where the white minority oppressed the non-white majority. The author herself is from South Africa, and the story is rampant with racial tension. The children story format is simply an interesting and unexpected way of conveying the current state of South Africa at the time and the criticize the oppressive system.

This is ridiculous. There are no tigers in Africa.

A Worn Path

Okay...no...wait...what? Awesome story, totally awesome. Phoenix Jackson sounds like the long lost member of The Jackson 5.

Among the many questions a-rumbling through my noggin about this story, the most prominent is of course: is the grandson dead? Does it even matter? It matters to me!

First let's simply agree that our dear friend Phoenix is just not quite all together mentally. The vast majority of the dialogue in the story is either her talking to herself or addressing bushes, trees, animals, and at one time, a scarecrow. I would hardly call it a stretch to say that Phoenix is suffering from dementia, or at the very least is extremely confused. So really, it could be very likely that the grandson is very much dead. This is evident by the behavior of the nurses. They repeatedly ask "is he dead," and act as though they already know the answer. One of them even says "Just tell us and get it over with. Is he dead?" This seems to indicate that all the nurses secretly know that the kid is dead, but are just waiting for Phoenix to accept it. The head nurse, however, steps in and gives her the medicine, apparently calling it charity, indicating that she feels it's better to have her go on living her illusion than to force the truth on her and destroy her emotionally. So what does it mean if he's dead? Well it indicates that Phoenix is clinging to the boy. His existence fuels her entire journey and gives her purpose. So even after he dies, she goes on believing that he's alive in order to keep this sense of purpose. Why, one could even argue that her delusion that her grandson is alive is in fact all that's keeping her alive. But I'm sleepy, and don't like arguing.

I remember this was relevant somehow....

Eveline

I distrust all people named Eveline. Perhaps it is because thanks to last Spring's musical, I now pronounce it "Evil-een." I mean, it has evil right smack in the middle of it!

I'll go ahead and tackle question number 2: "What in Eveline's present circumstances makes it desirable for her to escape her home? Characterize her father and Miss Gavan, her supervisor. What does the memory of her mother contribute to her decision to leave?". Eveline's life kind of sucks. First off, there is nothing really good about her situation. The second paragraph essentially says that all of her friends and all of the people she once cared for have all moved on and gone away, leaving her alone at home. The only real redeeming quality that her home has is its familiarity, which is outlined in paragraph 3. Furthermore, her father is a bully and a scoundrel. He is prone to violence, as is evident in Eveline's description. While he never got physically abusive, apparently, he appears to have had an extremely emotionally abusive impact on his daughter to the point that she began having heart palpitations. Miss Gavan, one of the other minor characters, also has a bit of a mean streak, as she always seems to be criticizing Eveline, but most especially so when in front of other people, apparently deriving pleasure from her embarrassment. Eveline herself says that she would not shed a tear over leaving the Stores. So she works hard all day, both at home and at work, for an abusive father who, though not without an occasional nice moment, is gradually crushing her spirit. So why the heck would she stick around? Well, there's that pesky promise to her mother: "her promise to keep the home together as long as she could." That promise ultimately keeps her anchored in Dublin.

So that all makes sense...but what is the point of the organ-grinder in the middle of the touching deathbed scene?

*Stereotypical Italian Music*

Characterization

This post will analyze the various methods of characterization and types of characters depicted in all three stories.

"Everyday Use" employs a combination of Indirect and Direct Characterization. The narrator implies through their opinions that Dee is fairly uppity. This character image is developed indirectly later on when Dee is actually introduced in the story. The reader then gets the feeling that she is fairly bossy and condescending, not very accustomed to getting her own way. Ultimately, Dee is just a flat, static character. She starts off hurtful and condescending and ends that way as well.

"Hunters in the Snow" relies completely on Indirect Characterization. The story is all told focusing on Tub, but we do not hear his thoughts or feelings towards the other characters. Everything that we know about the characters comes through indirectly reading them. All three of the characters seem to be fairly round. Kenny appears to be rude, angry, and mentally unstable, but he also shows various signs of compassion and understanding. Tub appears to be a stereotypical fat guy who takes the brunt of his friends jokes, but he breaks the stereotype in that he does not grow to resent them but actually deepens his friendship with Frank, showing his trust in him and his deep care for his friends (as long as their name isn't Kenny). Frank appears to be a bit of a crappy friend and mildly unintelligent, but he also shows a tendency to prattle off sagely wisdom about love and friendship. Ultimately, though, all of the characters are static. They do not undergo some great change that suddenly makes them compassionate or understanding or wise. They simply always were. The only one who undergoes a dramatic change is Kenny. Because he's dead.

"Bartleby the Scrivener," on the exact opposite end, relies almost entirely on Direct Characterization. The narrator goes on for pages describing the exact nature of each character. Very little requires actual inference on the part of the reader. All of the characters are fairly flat. Nippers has indigestion; Ginger Nut is a messengerboy; Turkey is a drunk. The most intriguing character is Bartleby, but ultimately he is not actually developed much at all. He is only interesting because he is so simple, yet this simplicity makes him seem strange. A real person does not act as one-dimensionally as Bartleby does. He appears to undergo a change throughout the story, but really this change is just a progression from mild depression to severe depression. He avoids human interaction, then he quits work, then he quits eating. So he undergoes a change...but not really.

These are ginger nuts, apparently

Bartleby the Scrivener

Any parent who names their child Bartleby is simply setting them up for a life of awkward.

I think I shall now attempt to delve into question 8: "what motivates bartleby's behavior? Why do you think Melville withholds the information about the Dead Letter Office until the end of the story? Does this background adequately explain Bartleby?"

Bartleby sounds like a classic case of depression. He is not angry, nor is he sad. He simply goes about his work of scrivening, mindlessly copying legal documents. His greatest indication towards depression is his severe lack of motivation. He performs the task required of him, but refuses to do anything else, from walking to the post office, to walking to the next room to summon Nippers. He does not divulge any information about his past, implying that he feels cut off from other people. Eventually he loses the motivation to work, and even to live. He gives up on life, and stops eating, and eventually just starves.

So what caused his depression? It probably has something to do with that Dead Letter Office then, I bet. The Dead Letter Office was the office of the United States Postal Service that took all letters that were deemed undeliverable and disposed of them in order to respect the sender's privacy. One could certainly view that as a depressing job. One takes in letters, conversations between loved ones that will never be, professions of love and might never be read, information meant to brighten a day or save a life that instead ends up in a furnace. Such a depressing atmosphere would surely weigh down on poor Bartleby until it eventually just crushed his spirit, and he became the man of few words that we know and love.

You now understand the meaning of "Going Postal."

Hunters in the Snow

While reading this story, all I could think about was "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!" Naturally Tub was Cartman, and I got a very Stan-ish vibe from Frank.

I shall now address question 3: "How do plot and characterization work together in this story?" The first fun plot twist is Kenny's little shooting spree. He shoots a post, a tree, a dog, and appears to be considering shooting Tub as well. This gives the character the sense that Kenny is a bit of a jerk, one who makes rash decisions, and is not quite entirely mentally stable. Tub is also developed in that he decides it is a much safer decision to shoot his friend than to use words or step out of the line of fire. Tub apparently lacks trust and thinks very little of his friends, at this point apparently.

Next up in the plotline, it is revealed that the farmer fellow asked Kenny to shoot the dog, apparently, which actually changes Kenny's image from crazy gun nut to quasi-compassionate gun nut. Tub now appears to be the slightly crazy one. Obviously Kenny wasn't really going to shoot him, I mean obviously. At least that's how it appears to the reader.

Also, Frank and Tub have some Man Talk male bonding time in the bar and the roadhouse. Frank declares that he is in love with a 15 year old girl. I'll just go ahead and say that this little plot twist alone just makes Frank seem awkward. Maybe the author is just trying to say something adorable like "love is blind," blah blah blah, love can still tell age. Tub also has a little spill-the-guts session, and declares that his obesity problem is not actually glandular, but that he actually just eats too much. Shocker. This development leads to a knew side of Tub, not that he doesn't like being fat, but that he just doesn't care for being dishonest.

However, all of these little character development moments in the plot pale in comparison to the overall plot as a whole: Frank and Tub go to a bar and eat pancakes while their friend is dying in the backseat of the truck. And also cold.

According to Kenny, these cure gunshot wounds.

Everyday Use

This story is ridiculous. If I decided I would change my name to Patrick Conor McO'Brien, become a potato farmer, develop an affinity for Guinness, and call anyone I don't care for a Knobjockey so that I can reconnect with the heritage of my ancestors, most people would think I was being quite silly. I am not Irish. I am American. I did not ask to be American; it is simply the culture that has been placed upon me, just the same as any other American, regardless of their fleshy hue. Our heritage and culture is American. Dee should embrace the heritage of her real, true family, not that of her ancestors from centuries ago.

Rant over.

Wants the point of this story? I haven't the foggiest. Here's something I picked up on. Dee/Wangero feels the need to define herself and her heritage with tangible objects: the quilts, the butter churn, and the dasher. She places a great emphasis on material possessions, she can't remember her family without something real, something actual. Maggie is of course the direct foil to this; she states simply "I can 'member Grandma Dee without the quilts." Maggie doesn't need anything actual, she just needs memories. So, since Dee/Wangero is portrayed as a generally obnoxious, bossy, and unlikeable character, this certainly seems to imply that the author is condemning a culture that places emphasis on material objects as opposed to human interaction.

This blog post is Brilliant!

All Three stories

I suppose here I'll try to find an underlying thread between the three stories. It's likely that I'll simply end up trying way too hard and going far beyond the cone of meaning, but hey, that's what blogs are for, amiright?

I think the three stories are all really about seeking to improve ones life. In How I met my Husband, at the end of the story, we see that Edie decides that she cannot simply go through life waiting for Chris Watters to come back. She decides to simply quit passively breezing through life and takes and active stance in her happiness. She picks a new fella, and she improves her position in life. Mr. Kapasi also tries to fix his fairly unfulfilling life. His wife is indifferent towards him and he feels unappreciated at his job as an interpreter. Therefore, he takes an active choice to improve his life by seeking a relationship with the lovely Mrs. Das. Now he seems to sway between a relationship as pen pals and one of potential lovers, but either way, he hopes that this connection with another person will make him happier and improve his life. And the lovely Miss Emily also seeks to fix her issues in life, although in my humble opinion, her methods of improving her life are just bizarre. Her father constantly drove various male suitors away, so naturally she seeks to remedy this situation by finding a man and never ever letting him leave. ever. She killed him, is basically what I'm saying. But hey, it made her feel better, which I would certainly classify as seeking to improve one's life. I don't exactly agree with it, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

These are limes. They float in water, and thus serve as my particular boat's flotation and buoyancy system. I am trying way too hard.

A Rose for Emily

This story is a bit odd. I shall answer question 5: What are the advantages of first-person plural point of view in this story? What would be lost if it were told in first-person singular, by one of the townspeople or in third-person limited point of view. First-person plural (or "we") is certainly an odd point of view that one does not see often. The effect here is to show Emily as a bit of a legend. The entire town is talking about her, not just a single person. If only one person told the story, then it would lose this effect of seeming like her very presence effected the entire town. Similarly, if the point of view was from Emily's perspective, either third or first person, then the focus of the story would be primarily on what she does, the actual acts she commits, rather than how it is here where the focus is mostly on her reasoning for her actions. We would lose this sense with any other point of view, but because we see this through the eyes of the townspeople, we are able to get that "legendary" sense while also seeing her reasons.

This rose is for Emily. She received no other roses in the story.

Interpreter of Maladies

I'll take this opportunity to just say that Mr. Kapasi's life just kind of blows. He works a job where he feels unappreciated, he has virtually no feelings for his wife, and he just seems generally unhappy with his position. However, he does seem to take an active effort in making his life better, as is evident from his working tours, which he thoroughly enjoys, to chasing a potential relationship with Mrs. Das. However, that last part didn't really work out well, which brings me to my question from the book: How does Mr. Kapasi's job as an interpreter of maladies relate to the action in this story? Does he have the occasion to use his diagnostic ability in his interactions with the Das family?

Mr. Kapasi may be good at interpreting language, but he is definitely not good at interpreting nonverbal communication. I would have likely categorized Mrs. Das's questions toward him as polite banter which was most likely said in order to avoid boredom on a very long car trip. Mr. Kapasi interpreted this as flirting and naturally assumed that she wanted hook up. However, this is not really the case, after all. She ends up spilling the beans on a huge secret she's kept, and he attempts to interpret what it means, but she doesn't particularly like his answer and runs off all upset. So to answer the question, yes he does interpret various situations, but not very well at all.

The monkeys have apparently transitioned from tools to weaponry.

How I met My Husband

I shall now write my own story to represent my feelings towards this particular tale. It is called "Jeffrey's Trip to the Zoo."

Little Jeffrey woke up one day and decided he was going to go to the zoo. So he set aside a date when he would skip school and go to the zoo. Then he got a map of the zoo and planned out his exact route so that he could make it through the zoo in one day and get to see all the animals. Then he did all sorts of chores around the house so that he could earn the money to go there. His excitement just kept building until finally the day came!

But then he got sick and decided not to go.

Fourteen years later, he got a job at the zoo as a poop-shoveler. He shoveled poop for the rest of his life until he died and was eaten by one of the elephants he cared for.

The End.

To say that How I met my Husband is misleading is practically and understatement. The vast majority of the story seems to build up Chris Watters. Oh yeah, the protagonist is going to meet her husband in this story! I bet it's Christ Watters, the mysterious and terribly dashing pilot fellow. Oh yeah, things are heating up now, they're totally gonna get hitched. Wait, no, mailman, what? yeah, misleading. However, there's two points to this, I suppose. Firstly, nobody should just wait around for something to happen. Edie was waiting around for Chris to contact her but eventually gave up because she can't, and shouldn't have to, wait around forever. If there's something you want, go get it; don't wait around for it to happen. Secondly, it would be boring if they ended up together. Anybody could have called that. It's a story about meeting her husband, I bet she's going to meet her husband at some point, and Chris Watters is the only prominent male character, really. It's more interesting this way, and also sort of implies that the author is saying that generally things don't go as planned. The reader just cruises along the story, anticipating the obvious ending, and the author just smacks them down "HA! this is the real world, fool!" At least that's how I imagine things happen. It's probably not very accurate.

You ate Jeffrey!

That Time of Year

I do declare, this is a Shakespearean Sonnet, which is a fancy term for a poem consisting of the quatrains which present an example with a final couplet as a conclusion, following the rhyme scheme ABAB CDCD EFEF GG. In this poem, each quatrain presents a different metaphorical way of saying essentially the same thing. The first refers to the trees during autumn. They once were green and full of life, but now they are fading, and have only yellow leaves, or none at all. In the second quatrain, twilight is mentioned, the time when day finally gives way to night, light finally giving in to darkness. Lastly, there is the image of a dying fire, which has burned up all it fuel and is just smoldering, about to die. All three of these images pertain to the end of something, whether it's the end of a season as summer gives way to fall, or the end of a day as light gives way to darkness, or the end of a fire, as it begins to finally burn out. The speaker is ultimately saying that all things come to an end. This is taken deeper in that last couplet, of course. The speaker states that like all things, love too must end. However, he also states that this end does not detract from the love itself, but rather makes it stronger. He states that it is far more powerful to love something that one must soon lose. The very fleeting nature of life and love is what makes it so precious.

I always do really irresponsible things whenever I am around bonfires.
Taking unnecessary risks also makes life precious.

Elegy for my Father who is not Dead

The central purpose (question 6) of this poem is to contrast two possible concepts of death and the possibility of a life after. First, there is the father, who takes an optimistic approach to this entire concept. He is fully prepared to die. This stems from his belief that there is an afterlife where he will see his son and all of his loved ones. Therefore, he has the mentality that this current life is not all that there is, and he has no trouble letting go of it. He is sure that he will see his son again after he, too, passes away, which is evident from the boat analogy. The father will be there to welcome his son, just as the son was there to send off the father. However, the son takes a different approach. He is not at all ready to lose his father. This stems from his own belief that there is not anything after life, or at least not an afterlife that involves a reunion of friends and family. Rather, he views death as the end all be all, the final curtain, end of the line, [insert cliché here]. He is not ready for his father's life to end, because he believes that life is all there is to existence, and once it's over, one ceases to exist. This is evident in his belief of the ship analogy, in that the ship does not reach some nice pleasant shore, but simply sinks, and is no more. This contrast between the father's views and the son's views ultimately serves to contrast the afterlife concept of most major religions with the world-based view of atheism.

But more importantly, "End of the Line" is totally a Metallica song, and I'd say it's about time we put them up on that playlist.

Metallica ruuules

Lonely Hearts

I refuse, yes refuse, to mention a certain spicy military official or his band. Instead, here's an Awesome Face:
Okay, let's move on. I shall address question 17 with this poem as well, which is probably not allowed, but it seems far too perfect to pass up. The pattern of this poem is a Villanelle, which is a very intriguing style of poem, in that it relies heavily on repetition. Two lines, the first and the third, are repeated frequently throughout. Rhyme is also an important part of this form. The rhyme scheme is ABA ABA ABA ABA ABA ABAA. Now, why is this so important? Usually I dismiss things like rhyme, meter, and structure as silly frills that subconsciously cause people to end their thoughts at the end of every line. However, that repetition I mentioned earlier plays a crucial role in the poem. Each stanza ends in one of two lines "Can someone make my simple wish come true?" or "Do you live in North London? Is it you?" However, each stanza is spoken by a different person, from a gay vegetarian to a biker dude, to a pretty Jewish single mom. However, they all share the same two lines. This has two effects. First, it shows the universality of loneliness. Whether they're an artsy bi-curious young lady or an inexperienced Libran, everyone understands loneliness, which is evident from the lines they have in common. Second, it displays the universality of a desire to conquer this loneliness by seeking out a like-minded individual with which to hang out and maybe have dinner once in a while. However, there's also a bit of a satirical tone lying underneath. All of the people want to find this person to take away their loneliness, but none of them ask for anything concerning the personality. They don't wish to connect on a personal level, but rather, most of them are predominantly concerned with sex. This is taking a stab at society and relationships in which people value sex over a real personal connection. Either way, personal ads are weird, and lonely people are awkward.

Intelligent and sensitive AP Literature student seeking a companion with an interest in Heavy Metal and Stephen King novels. And yes, I really am that glisteny.

Death Be Not Proud

Oh hey, I didn't leave any slightly-related pictures on any of those last four posts. I'll have to remedy that.

Also, the first two lines of this poem were totally stolen from the song "Follow the Reaper" by Children of Bodom. Someone should alert the Plagiarism Police before this John Donne fellow strikes again. If that is his real name.

The rhyme scheme of this poem is ABBAABBACDDCAE. That last line is wrong, just wrong. However, this allows me to discuss the pattern and/or structure of the poem, thus answering question 17. This poem is a sonnet; the 14 line-ness is a bit of a tip-off. And thus, the first eight lines go together, which makes sense, because they all rhyme with each other and make reference to a Swedish pop music group (abba, get it?). These first eight lines address Death, and tell him to hop right off his pedestal. Many people say that Death is frightening or powerful, but the speaker asserts that this is quite untrue. He states that Death lacks the power to ever truly kill anyone, implying that there may just be something beyond it. Furthermore, he declares that Death is in fact a pleasant experience, as rest and sleep are just brief glimpses of Death, and thus Death must be just as relaxing and enjoyable as sleep.

The last six lines, therefore, offer a new idea: the ultimate destruction of Death. The speaker reinforces that Death has no real power by saying that it is subject to the will of fate, chance, kings, and desperate men. He essentially says "Death doesn't kill people, people kill people!" Then he says that we don't even need Death to bring peace. We've got poppy and charms, which I'm about 93% sure is a reference to opium. Nice. And then the speaker closes with the last two lines, stating that after the short sleep, a.k.a. Death, has passed, we are free from Death, able to live eternally, and then Death itself shall be vanquished.

Dang Plagiarism Police...always trying to keep a brother down

To his Coy Mistress

Is this poem about time or love? Well I suppose it's about both. The first stanza proposes a hypothetical ideal situation. The speaker essentially says that if the had all the world and all the time, her coyness would not bother him. And he would still love her, even for hundreds of thousands of years. However, the next stanza shifts to realism. They do not have all the time in the world. In fact, they have a very small glimpse of time before they die. And so he asks his lady friend not to be so coy. They don't have all the time in the world, so really there isn't time to be coy. So...what is "coy" exactly...? Bluntly, it means that his ladyfriend doesn't want to Have Relations. This sort of kills that romantic element of the poem. He starts off all lovely, "Oh baby, I'd love you forever if I had forever to spend." and then shifts to "But I can't, so let's bump uglies instead, and love each other that way." Writing prettily does not change the fact that he ultimately has the relationship maturity of a seventeen year old guy.

Dover Beach

Now at some point I'll have to put Cliffs of Dover on my playlist. Awesome.

This poem is all about faith, or essentially a lack thereof. This is brought about through a depiction of the ocean ebbing and flowing onto the beach like waves. The speaker relates this surging back and forth motion to a sense of longing for something. The sense of faith is then brought out through the line "The Sea of Faith was once, too, at the full. The speaker is basically saying that the world was once full of faith, this sea had no sense of longing, because it was full and had no room to ebb or flow. The ocean had no longing because the world was run by faith. Now, however, the speaker notes that the sea has emptied a bit, and now there is only a longing to fill it once again with the faith the world once had. In this poem, the pebbles represent the people of the world. Because of the lack of faith, there is no stability or foundation: the pebbles simply sway back and forth due to their lack of faith. However, when the Sea of Faith was full, there was no ebb, and the pebbles were stable and strong. The speaker ultimately wants the world to return to how it once was.

Crossing the Bar

This poem, yet another in the long line of poems about dying, evokes a particularly strong tone (Question 8). First, the speaker makes clear his metaphor between crossing a sandbar and dying with the line "may there be no moaning of the bar when I put out to sea." The speaker here is requesting that nobody cry or mourn his passing, thus giving the general impression that the speaker is not upset about his death, but rather views it as a happy occasion, and doesn't want anyone else to mourn his death. This point is reinforced by the line "May there be no sadness of farewell when I embark." However, the poem takes on a deeper tone with the line "When that which drew from out the boundless deep turns again home." The speaker adds a bit of a religious element to his attitued by essentially stating that the afterlife is his true home, and that he is only returning to where he belongs. Yet another line to reinforce this religious attitude is "I hope to see my Pilot face to face when I have crossed the bar." The term "hope" in this line could have a potentially ambiguous meaning, but because of the strongly established tone of religiously-based optimism, the word takes on the very clear meaning of strong desire. The speaker does not just view death in a positive light, but it is his ultimate desire. He wants, above all else, to return home and see God.

I like sailing....

My Mistress' Eyes

This little sonnet is intriguing in that it rages against the common structure of a typical sonnet of its day. The central purpose of the poem (Question 6), in fact, is to satirize these other sonnetsthat write so prettily, but are honestly just dishonest. Therefore, Shakespeare counters with a completely and fully honest poem. Where others would have said "My love, your eyes rage like the Aegean," or "My beloved, a thousand suns could not outshine the light in your eyes," Shakespeare simply notes "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun." This general premise continues throughout the course of the poem, essentially creating a general tone or feeling of simple honesty. The last line then delivers the crushing blow to the other sonnet writers with his last thought "I think my love as beautiful as any she belied with false compare." Shakespeare finally closes, and pretty much saves his own neck, by saying that even though he refuses to lie, his lady friend is still just as beautiful as any who is lied to.

Actually, you know what, this eye kind of does look like the sun...

APO 96225

A particularly important morsel of information is that APO 96225 is the mailing address of the 25th Infantry Division in Vietnam. Reading the questions is handy. So this poem portrays several common aspects of the human psyche. The first of course is that the son breezes over the true nature of his time in Vietnam in order to keep his mother from worrying. Naturally, he wants to protect his loved ones from fear and worry, so he simply omits part of the truth. However, the second aspect is the mother's desire to know the real honest truth about what's happening. She will worry either way, so she at least wants to know the truth. And then there is that third aspect, in addition to protecting loved ones from worry and the desire to know the truth. The father gets angry when he learns the truth, and it wasn't as good as he had hoped. He is disappointed by the truth and would rather go back to believing the son's understatements. This represents a common human reaction to bad news: outright dismissal and a request for some better news. It's kind of sad that this is how so many of the veterans were treated. So to make it up for them, here is their parade:

I feel a little better.

Sorting Laundry

I laughed obnoxiously when I read the title "Sorting Laundry." The poem itself wasn't as bad as I thought, at least. There was at least some higher meaning to it. I was really worried I was going to waste several minutes of my life reading about a poem literally just about sorting ones laundry. In reality, the laundry sorting process represents the thinking process of a person contemplating their relationship with a significant other. The pillowcases remind the speaker of the dreams she and her lover share together. The gaudy towels represent the knick-knacks they pick up over the years that serve no real purpose but remind them of a fond memory involving the two. The regular shirts and skirts and pants remind the speaker of the simple daily life that they share that ordinarily would be monotonous, but are made fantastic due to the involvement of the aforementioned significant other, who I will henceforth refer to as "husband," because the previous name is too long. The wrinkles in the clothes represent the flaws that the two lovebirds see in the other that they have grown to love, and thus ignore and don't "iron out." The socks represent the various mysteries of love, as nobody can every solve the mystery of where the socks all go. The random items found in the laundry represent the many random fond memories that the two share. The dollar bills that are intact, despite agitation, represent their relationship, which has stayed strong, despite potentially rough patches. And thus the poem concludes with the statement finally saying that should the husband leave the speaker, a mountain of unsorted wash could not fill the empty side of the bed, essentially meaning that all the fun things mentioned previously would mean nothing without the husband to complete everything. D'awww....

The Lost Socks have clearly been stolen by these Underpants Gnomes, who have apparently expanded their business model to include hosiery.

Ozymandias

My sister totally told me about this poem back a million years ago when she was in high school. Freaky, yo. Who knew we'd still be studying the same old poetry a million years later?

This poem features a little snippet of synechdoche, which gives me just the perfect opportunity to answer question 11. The example that I'm referring to is the head of Ozymandias. In this case, it's a statue, but for my purposes, the head stands for the whole Ozymandias. The important part of this comparison is that the facial expression on Ozymandias's face is that of a "sneer of cold command." This very facial expression stands for Ozymandias's entire personality: he was a cruel and authoritative king who sought glory through the oppression of his people. And therefore, Ozymandias stands as a symbol for all tyrants and oppressors. The speaker is stating that though they may accrue temporary glory, their accomplishments will result in nothing if the people hate them, because all people will die, and when the tyrant has died, then there is no fear left to keep the people under control. However, a benevolent king will stay within the hearts and minds of his subjects long after his death, held up by love and respect. Thus, the poem is not simply ripping on Ozymandias, but is demonstrating the proper way to rule a nation.

This is not even Ozymandias. This is just a head.

Much Madness is divinest Sense

Back-to-back Dickinson blogposts, whaaaat?!?!

This lovely poem includes paradoxes, and thus I shall be addressing question 13 with this post. The first line itself is, in fact, a paradox. Madness is equated with Sense, literally lacking sense is compared to having sense. The rest of the poem then sets forth to explain this stark contrast that the speaker sets forth. The speaker goes on to explain that anyone that blindly follows the majority would be considered sane by society, but insane for lacking the ability to think and form opinions independently. Conversely, anyone who goes against the viewpoint of the crowd is deemed insane by society, but is perfectly sane in the sense that they have this ability to form coherent thoughts and opinions on their own without having to borrow ideas others. However, that is not the end of the speaker's rant. The last line adds an entirely new dimension to the argument. The speaker notes that those who go against the majority are not just deemed insane, but actually dangerous, and are "handled with a chain." This last line criticizes one particularly aspect of society that the speaker finds particularly upsetting. It is not enough that society deems free thinkers as insane, but they are actually considered dangerous, and their ideas are held back--chained, if you will--and their potentially beneficial insights are opposed simply because they are different. Reminds me a bit of this guy:

Or this guy:
Or heck, why not this guy:
Thumbs-Up Jesus, almost as cool as Jam-Skating Jesus.

I taste a liquor never brewed

Emily Dickinson had a thing for dashes and arbitrary capitalization. It is obnoxious. Anyway, this'll be a bit of a combo between question 10 and question 14. First off, it is extremely helpful to know what "the Rhine" refers to. It is a river that passes through most of Europe, including Germany. Now, this particular river is famous for its various vineyards and wineries built right alongside it. And I hardly think it's a stretch to say that the Germans are pretty good at making alcohol. So when the speaker says that not all the vats upon the Rhine yield such an alcohol, she is literally saying that this particular "alcohol" (which is probably not actually alcohol) is better than any brew of human design. I declare it to be an effective allusion. Nextly, there is some pretty intriguing imagery, and I think it all seems to flow along a similar thread. Most of the images have to do with nature: Inebriate of Air, Debauchee of Dew, summer days, Molten Blue, drunken bee, butterflies, and the sun. This ultimately implies that the speaker can get "drunk" off of nature. Literally, she finds nature, either dew or air or sky, to be the most intoxicating experience imaginable. She has such love for nature that she says she will never stop, even when bees and butterflies have had their fill, she will keep going (third stanza) until she need not drink anymore (fourth stanza).

"I think you've had quite enough of that nature, Ms. Dickinson."
"I think YOU'VE had enough! *falls off tree stump*

February

I'll take on question 7 right here. I do declare, this is the theme, the central fact of life that the author is attempting to make: Oftentimes, it is easy to fall into depression and self-pity, but the only way that one can pull through to optimism is through self-determination. Allow me to explain. The speaker is bummed out. It is February, it's cold, and depressing. The speaker is at home alone with her cat during the month of hearts and happy couples, craving fries and hockey. The speaker then falls into a bit of loathing for the human race itself. She compares people to cats, stating that many humans ought to be neutered and spare the world some of the awkward depression that the month of February may bring to cat-owning singles. But then on line 29, we see a sudden turn around. The speaker doesn't hate the world, or happy couples, or the human race, or even February. Suddenly she starts ripping on her beloved cat! At this point, the cat has already been equated to people, I hardly think it's a big stretch to connect the cat to the speaker herself. So when she yells at the cat, she's really yelling at herself to get up, get going, and be optimistic, to celebrate increase and make it be spring. I think that last part is what really encapsulates the theme. It gives a sense that nobody is going to make her happy, or optimistic, or content, particularly while she's sitting at home. No, in order to be happy, she has to actively get up and make it happen. This then leads to the theme the author is trying to convey: that one must make the decision to be optimistic; it does not simply fall into one's lap like a... ... ...cat.

This is the Five Hole. It is the space between the goalie's legs. *fun fact!*

A Dream Deferred

This chapter in the book is about figurative language, so I would consider it silly if I didn't even attempt to tackle question 11, even though I truly struggle with figurative language. But don't worry, I got this. The main focus of this poem is on five similes and a metaphor. Each simile means something particular, as well as that last metaphor, which carries the most meaning of them all. First, a dream might dry up like a raisin in the sun, eventually losing volume and importance until the dreamer forgets all about their earlier aspirations. Or it might fester like a sore, eating away at a person until it tears them down and makes them bitter towards the world because they could not fulfill their dream. Or perhaps it will stink like rotten meat, causing the person to be disgusted by what they once thought would be a truly grand dream. Or perhaps it crusts over like some sort of deliciously sticky sweet, becoming sugar-coated to the point that the person justifies their own failure to realize their dreams. Maybe even it just weighs down on the person, beating them down until they can no longer stand it. These are all perfectly valid possibilities. However, they are set apart from the metaphor, both physically by a single blank line in the poem, and analytically, as the previous five are similes but this one is an almighty metaphor (specifically an implied one, between the dream and something that explodes). The metaphor itself indicates that a dream could suddenly turn to violence in an attempt for the dreamer to make it reality, and it can spill out to affect many other things, like an explosion. The separation of the metaphor from the other similes indicates two things: either the speaker thinks it is the most likely to happen, or he is indicating that it is the worst possible outcome for a deferred dream to have.

This is an explosion. I estimate zero people will understand this one.

Toads

I'll tackle question 6 right here. I think I've got a pretty good handle on what the point of this one is. There are two toads in this poem. These two toads are both have a negative connotation and seem to hold the speaker back, drag him down, and crush him mentally. Now, the first toad is described explicitly as work. So in this case, the speaker is expressing his distaste for the fact that he has to work so hard just to make a living. He wishes he could be like other people who use their wits to stay financially secure, like the lecturers, lispers, losels, loblolly-men, and louts. Interestingly enough, the speaker describes these people as living on their wits, when really, most of them are generally accepted to be fairly unintelligent; a "lout" is literally a stupid person. So really the speaker is saying that these people have the right idea; they do little work, but they're happy with their lives, even though their children have bare feet, meaning that they don't have enough money to pay for nice things, but they never actually starve. Rather they have enough to survive and are happy enough with just that. So the speaker says that he'd like to say "stuff your pension," but he ultimately accepts that he'll never actually fulfill that desire. So why not? That other toad. It essentially keeps him from "blarneying" his way through life, literally just sweet-talking to get what he needs. So what is that Other Toad? It's pride. The speaker is proud, and therefore wants to earn everything that he has through hard work, as opposed to smart talking and cajolery. It's his own pride that keeps him from giving up his life of labor and pursuing a luxurious life of loblolly. And he says he can't lose one when he has both because his pride keeps him from getting rid of his work, but his hard work is ultimately the source of the pride.

About 2 people will get this, I bet.

Bright Star

I'll be addressing question 17 with this particular blog. The particular form and structure of this poem is referred to as a "sonnet." It is a fourteen line poem divided into two chunks: a six-line piece and an eight-line piece. The rhyme scheme goes A-B-A-B-C-D-C-D-E-F-E-F-G-G, the typical rhyming pattern of a sonnet, and it helps to reinforce the structure. Essentially, the structure is set up so that the first six lines set forth a general idea. The speaker starts by stating that he wishes to be as steadfast as the star, but for the rest of the section, he describes the various qualities of a star that he doesn't want to have, such as distance and loneliness. The next eight lines reinforce this concept by applying the qualities he wants to his own life, referring to how he wishes to be with his love forever. The structure of this poem is essential to conveying the message. The very nature of the sonnet easily allows the reader to divide the poem into the two separate pieces. Therefore the reader is able to see the clear shift in the poem from the first six lines of apostrophe to the last eight lines of his own application of the star's qualities to his own life. The structure of the poem provides this division, making the ultimate meaning very clear to discern.

This is a structure.

Those Winter Sundays

I looked up the meaning of the word "Office" on Wiktionary. I think the one that is being used in this case happens to be the only obsolete meaning: a task that one feels obliged to do. Using obsolete definitions of words is against the rules, Mr. Robert Hayden, even if you were born almost 100 years ago. Anyway, this poem made me a little sad....The dad seems like quite the lovely chap, warming up the house for the whole family and polishing shoes and whatnot. However, the son/speaker of the poem doesn't really care for him all too much. He speaks to him indifferently and doesn't really like him. There are pretty much two explanations for this. On the one hand, maybe the father did all these things because they were offices, a task he feels obliged to do, but that was the only reason why he did it, not out of love, but obligation, and therefore the son feels as though the father doesn't love him. The other (and I personally think more likely) is that the father was unable to show him direct love, like spending time with him and cutting the crust off his PB&J sandwiches, simply because he was off "driving out the cold," which I think represents the hard manual labor that the father had to do every day to make a living for his family. The son wasn't able to recognize this as love because it took place far away from him. However, looking back on it later in life (because the poem is in past tense, see?), as an adult, he's able to recognize it for love.

This is how people kept from losing digits to frostbite before central heating was invented

The Convergence of the Twain

First off, I'd like to say that if I had missed that tiny blurb "Lines on the loss of the Titanic" right under the title, I would have had no understanding of this poem. I'll say a little bit about structure, although I hardly think it's enough to fully answer question 17. Each little stanza consists of two short lines followed by a third longer line. I personally think it looks a bit like a boat sitting on the water =D Pretty nifty. Whether that's intentional or not, I think it's pretty intriguing to go to that much trouble. The overall theme of this one seems to be the destruction of human vanity, which is a very pretty little chunk of words. Ultimately, the Titanic represents the pinnacle of human vanity. It is a huge, monstrous piece of pure human engineering. It acts as a measuring stick, saying "We are humanity, we are exactly this awesome, look at our boat." It is even rumored that on the boat, t'was written "Not even God could sink it." And then it sank. Which ultimately leads to the intriguing twist. One would assume that a poem about the loss of the Titanic would be one mourning the deaths of those poor victims. On the other hand, it focuses more on stating "Ha, God showed you he could after all." The author is trying to say that the Spinner of the Years (God)...jars two hemispheres. He is literally saying that through the sinking of the Titanic, God is putting humanity back in it's place.

This is God. He puts you in your place, all while striking a disco pose.