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.

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