FREDFAN4EVER

I believe that the poem “Landscape with the Fall of Icarus” by William Carlos Williams was the best of the imagism poems we read. The author, who happens to have the same first and last name, did a great job portraying the theme of the poem in just a few short lines. The theme of the work was that no matter how tragic one might perceive an event, at the end 0f the day, life goes on. The Greek legend of Icarus and his death would seem to be a pretty tragic event. However, Williams shows the surrounding community not taking notice to his death and going on with their everyday life. Williams showed this by saying “a farmer was ploughing/ his field” and describing the pageantry of the year as being “awake”. I also liked this poem because it was based off of an actual painting. This served as  a concrete example of the image Williams was trying to get into our head when writing this poem. After reading the poem and seeing the painting, the emotion that I got form them was indifference. That might not seem like a powerful emotion to get from a poem, but I think that is sort of the point. Williams was making the point that life goes on. Even though I read that Icarus died at the end of the poem, I didn’t really respond with too much emotion because of the calm and nonchalant scene Williams set up in the beginning. I can relate to the poem because over my 16 years on this earth, I, too, have come to the sad realization that life goes on. Whether you’re in a good or bad mood, the rest of the world will not feel the same way. You need to be responsible and take care of yourself because there are few other people who will.

T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” and Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl” both express a similar theme in two completely different ways. The theme they both portray is that there is an inevitable demise coming to society due to simple flaws dealing with conformity. Eliot’s view is that the demise is coming because a lack of morals and principles have turned society into a “waste land.” Essentially, the lack of conformity is destroying society. On the other hand, Ginsberg is saying that an extensive push for conformity is leading to the demise. He claims that all the conformity is suppressing new and creative ideas, which will ultimately destroy his society. Both authors use similar topics to develop their themes. However, due to the differences in the overall themes of the works, these topics are shown in two different ways from two different perspectives. An example of a shared topic in the works is sex. Eliot primarily uses sex in section two, “A Game of Chess”, to help illustrate the loss of morals in society. He shows people having sex just for the fun of it, with no feelings or love involved. Ginsberg shows a different side of sex. He shows the side of gay men ,who are truly in love, having sex. However, these men are still being ostracized, even though they are in love, because they don’t conform with traditional societal views. Another topic both authors elaborated on was religion. Eliot saw religion as a solution to society’s problems. Religion could help restore the morals that society lost. Ginsberg saw religion as yet another way society tries to force conformity. He thinks religion stops free-thinking and creativity. It really shocked me how similar these works were thematically, while they appeared to be opposites of each other while reading them.

I believe that “The Waste Land” is more pertinent to today’s society. Our society is still lacking morals, and seems to have no sense of right and wrong. The idea of sex without feelings is just as easily seen in today’s society, if not more, as it was back in Eliot’s time. Sex is everyone we look these days. The whole idea of it has really been glorified through Hollywood and the media. However, our society is also lacking many more morals. We see numerous different crimes being committed by everyone from inner-city kids to white collar workers. We have lost a grasp on our basic morals. Also, religion seems to also have taken a backseat. Fewer and fewer are practicing traditional religious views. This is one reason why I think “Howl” has lost some validity in modern society. Ginsberg argues religion suppresses new thinking. However, in today’s society, people are being creative and forming their own, new religions. Also, our society has become much more accepting of the gay community. For these reasons, I think it is clear that “The Waste Land” is more pertinent to our modern society.

On a personal level, I also believe “The Waste Land” spoke to me more. This is mostly because his ideas lined up better with my own. It may sound weird, but I think everyone must conform to a certain point in order to be happy. I’m not saying that everyone should strive to be exactly the same, but if everyone took little strides to becoming better people, then these morals that Eliot said we lost would be restored. I know that for me, taking the leap from a small, Catholic elementary school to our public middle and high schools caused my morals instilled in me from a young age to be tested. I might have conformed in certain aspects try to make more friends in the new school environment. However, I still believe that many of these lessons have stuck with me and I have a good grasp on what is right and what is wrong. I consider myself a happy person right now. I have definitely changed in many aspects from my younger self, but I believe my morals have stuck with me for the most part. Like Eliot explained in “The Waste Land”, a little conformity and strong morals can lead to a strong and happy society.

T.S. Eliot’s poem “The Waste Land” was easily one of the most confusing poems I have ever read. At first, it seemed like the five sections of the poem had nothing to do with each other and were just kind of stuck together. However, after analyzing the poem in class, the five sections all came together and formed one central theme.

The central theme I got out of the poem was that Eliot’s society was losing sight of its values and morals, which was causing the society to turn into a “waste land”. In the first section of the poem, The Burial of the Dead, Eliot starts to set up a setting of a waste land by talking about “A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,/ And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,/ And the dry stone no sound of water.” Eliot then goes on to talk about an “Unreal City.” This city is London, and by including this part, Eliot shows that this demise in society is affecting a very large amount of people. In this section, Eliot also says that “April is the cruelest month.”  This introduces a minor theme present throughout the work of water. Here, Eliot is saying that instead of the traditional idea of water bringing life, that water is not necessarily a good thing, and can actually bring death. Therefore, since there is a lot of rain in April, April is “cruel.”

Eliot’s second section is entitled “A Game of Chess.” This section primarily deals with the fact that people in Eliot’s society are having sex just for the sake of having sex, with no intentions of having kids. This can be seen when Eliot talks about the “rats’ alley” and the pills that the woman took from the chemist to have an abortion. This reinforces the loss of morals in Eliot’s society at the time.

Section 3 elaborates on more lost morals in society. Whether it’s the sex change, the woman leaving her underwear out to dry, or the man not caring after having sex, it is clear what message Eliot is trying to get across. In section 4, Eliot again brings up the destructive power of water. Instead of the healing powers usually associated with water, it brought death. I believe this is a metaphor for the society that Eliot lived in. He thought it was about to collapse.

Eliot mainly uses section 5 as a warning to his readers about society falling apart. He uses the examples of Jerusalem, Athens, and London as metaphors for his society falling apart. He uses the words Datta, Dayadhvam, and Damyata in this section. These mean give, sympathize, and control. He is using these words as lessons that can save society. He ends the poem by saying “Shantih, shantih, shanith.” This means go in peace. He is hoping readers learn a lesson from this poem and apply them to their lives.

I absolutely think Eliot’s lessons from this poem can be applied in today’s society. The crime rates are as high as ever and teen pregnancies are very high as well. This comes down to people losing their morals and taking actions without considering the consequences. If people took the time to consider these consequences, then they would see the loss of their morals and probably try to improve themselves.

After reading the story “Bartleby the Scrivener” and the poem “Richard Cory,” a clear common theme became evident. This theme is that one can not live a happy life while being detached and isolated from the rest of society. Both Bartleby and Richard Cory were outcasts in their society. Neither was capable of communicating effectively with the people around them. This caused them to become isolated from society. Eventually, both Bartleby and Richard Cory ended up dying at the end of the stories due to this isolation.

To me, the most interesting part of these two works is how they managed to get the same theme across, even though Bartleby and Richard Cory were almost completely opposite of each other. Bartleby was quiet man that used to work at the dead letter’s office, one of the most depressing jobs imaginable. He was in need of a job and the boss took pity on him and allowed him to keep his job, even though he would almost always “prefer not”  to do his work. No one, however, would take pity on Richard Cory. He was basically the top dog in society. The poem describes Richard as saying “He was rich — yes, richer than a king, –/ And admirably schooled in every grace.” He seemed to have a great life, but, to him, something was missing.

The main problem that Bartleby and Richard Cory had was that they were unable to effectively communicate with the people around them. Bartleby’s problems stemmed from his former job at the dead letter’s office. Because of his isolation, he lost his ability and desire to communicate with the world around him. Whenever someone tries talking to Bartleby, he would either not answer or reply with his famous “I would prefer not to.” These responses destroy any chance to form relationships with those around him, and ultimately prevent him from living a happy life. Once again, Richard Cory was the opposite from this. Richard Cory would try to establish relationships with those around him. He would say “Good Morning” to people on the street as he passed by and tried his best to converse with them. However, these people on the street were unable to get over his riches and mystique, and could not hold a conversation with Richard Coy. It was completely out of his control, but, like Bartleby, Richard Coy could not communicate with the rest of society. This lack of ability to communicate was also what lead to both characters’ deaths. Bartleby’s death was, in essence, his own fault, due to him not communicating when he wanted to be fed in jail. Richard Coy’s death was a little more complicated. The lack of communication was not as directly tied to his death as Bartleby’s was, but it still was a major reason for it. Richard Coy’s inability to communicate like a normal person in society forced him into a deep depression. This depression became severe enough that one night, he “went home and put a bullet through his head.”

The literary works of “Bartleby the Scrivener” and “Richard Cory” do a great job of expressing the same theme in different ways. “Bartleby the Scrivener” shows the theme through a character at the bottom of the barrel in society, with opportunities to change his disposition, but has no desire to do so. Meanwhile, “Richard Cory” shows the theme through a character very high up in society, so high up that people are afraid to communicate with him no matter how hard Richard Coy tried to seem like one of them. Overall, the message that readers need to take from this is that if you don’t need to conform with society, but you must be comfortable with whatever position you choose to take.

Emily Dickinson’s 405th poem and The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock seemed to share a common theme dealing with society. Dickinson starts her poem by saying “It might be lonelier/ Without the Loneliness.” This means that she thinks it would be better to try than do nothing at all. Prufrock also had the internal struggle as to whether he should try to talk to the higher class woman. He really wanted to talk to this woman, but never gained the courage to do so. Dickinson’s next line says “I’m so accustomed to my Fate.” Dickinson has been forced into the stereotypical bounds of society for so long, that she has accepted them, just as Prufrock did by not thinking highly enough of himself to approach the woman. Dickinson said “I am not used to Hope,” meaning that she has been outcast for so long that she lost hope of finding a man. However, she went on to say that “It might be easier/ To fail-with Land in Sight.” By this, she means that it would be much easier to give up now, before she gets in too deep with her love for this man. This is extremely similar to Prufrock’s situation. He thought that he would have no chance with the higher class woman. Instead of giving it a try, he didn’t do anything, to avoid the embarrassment of failure.

I feel that the poem “anyone lived in a pretty how town” by E.E. Cummings spoke to me the most out of the poems we read. In the poem, “anyone” acted as a character. He was somewhat of an outcast in society, but not really because of anything he did. He was just doing what he wanted that made him happy. For example, Cummings said that anyone “sang his didn’t he danced his did.” The only person who really understood anyone was “noone.” This can be looked at two different ways. “Noone” could be viewed as a female character that anyone falls in love with. However, when it’s read in a literal sense, it helps to show that anyone was an outcast. Cummings said “one day anyone died i guess/ (and noone stooped to kiss his face)”. This shows that society rejected anyone and no members really cared about him. Society went on just living. They weren’t necessarily happy, but they were just going through the motions. This poem spoke to me the most because I feel like anyone at some points in my life. I’m always trying to have fun and amuse myself. Sadly, not everyone necessarily appreciates this. They may call it annoying, but I don’t really care. As long as I’m having fun and noone (my friends) is with me, then I could care less what the someones and everyones think.

The characters of Rappaccini’s Daughter were directly tied to those in the story of The Fall. Rappaccini was the story’s equivalent to God because he created and cared over the garden and Beatrice. Beatrice was similar to Adam because she was convinced to drink the poison (this story’s apple) by Giovanni. As you might have guessed, Giovanni represented Eve, as he was convinced by Baglioni to give the antidote to Beatrice, which ended up killing her. Finally, Baglioni was similar to the serpant in The Fall. Baglioni got Giovanni (Eve) to destroy Rappaccini’s (God’s) creation, Beatrice.

I believe that the theme of this work is that we, as humans, need to respect that we are mortal and not try to change that. Hawthorne made Rappaccini play the role of God in this story. Through science, Rappaccini made Beatrice, his daughter, into a poisonous creature, protected from the dangers of society. However, he ended up just harming Beatrice in doing this and made her unhappy. This is because Rappaccini didn’t accept the natural order of things in the world, and tried to go against what God had created in Beatrice. In a parallel to The Fall, Beatrice went against her father and drank the antidote, much like Eve ate the apple. Hawthorne is trying to portray the negative consequences that come with disobeying the natural order and God.

Initially, The Minister’s Black Veil seemed to be a pretty simple story with a simple theme, which is that everyone has secret sin and tries to hide it. However, it can never be that easy. The character of Elizabeth didn’t seem to fit in with the theme, but after reading Poe’s review of the story, it all came together. Poe suspected Mr. Hooper was having an affair with the young girl from the funeral and had the facts to support this suspicion. 

In the story, it was said that “As he stooped, the veil hung straight down from his forehead, so that, if her eyelids had not been closed forever, the dead maiden might have seen his face.” The young girl was the only person that could have seen Mr. Hooper’s at any point in the story. This is because the young girl was the only one that knew about the secret sin Mr. Hooper was hiding behind his black veil.

In the end, Poe had this story right the whole time. He said that the “rabble” that read this story won’t understand the true meaning and just go with the easier to interpret theme. Sadly, I was part of the rabble. However, it turned out the easy theme turned out to be a “black veil” to cover up the true meaning. The evidence is there to support Poe’s suspicions of Mr. Hooper and Poe knows more about short stories than I ever will. His interpretation makes sense to me and I would to agree with it.

I agree that Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is the most important novelfor students in high school to read before they attend college for a number of different reasons. First off, the novel is a literary classic and a very enjoyable story to read. More importantly, however, high school students can learn a great deal after reading and carefully analyzing this book. Slavery was a major theme throughout and this storygives an accurate depiction of how slaves were mistreated and looked down upon  back in that time. High school students definitely need to be educated on this topic. Also, this story shows that it is always important to keep an open mind in life. Huck didn’t need to cover up for Jim throughout the book or go save him once he was captured again, but he did because through an open mind, Huck found a great friend in Jim. Finally, the book gives a historically accurate account of the attitudes and hypocrisies of society at the time. High school students truly do learn a lot from this story and I believe they should definitely read the book before college.

After reading the articles, watching the video, and having our class discussion, I have come to the clear conclusion that Mark Twain is definitely not a racist. The two articles we read both supported the idea of Mark Twain not being a racist. They gave some interesting facts about Twain, such as him helping to get a black student through college at Yale. What I found interesting was that some of history’s predominant black leaders, such as Booker T. Washington, were quoted as saying that they didn’t believe that Huckleberry Finn was not a racist book. If these people do not believe that he is a racist, then who could possibly consider this man a racist?

The next day after reading these articles, we watched a video and had a class discussion about them. The video showed a debate about whether the book was racist and if it should be censored. However, it really wasn’t much of a debate. The two men, who were both black, agreed that the book really isn’t racist. The true debate was the argument over if the book should be censored or not. The one man believed that the book was a historic work of literature and should be read in its original form. The other man thought that by censoring it, a broader audience could be reached. After the video, we had a class discussion about the articles and video. My whole class was in agreement that Huckleberry Finn was not a racist book.

From the articles presented to us, the video, and the class discussion, I think it is pretty clear Twain is not a racist. Between his quotes and humanitary work, it would take a pretty ignorant person to think Huckleberry Finn or Mark Twain is racist.