Those Questions!

a) I believe plot is necessary, although I believe it would be possible to write a work of fiction without". Including your own defintion of plot, consider the relative importance and impact of plot on works in your study in the light of the above quotation.
This question is asking you to define the term plot in your own words and discuss how the plot's existance is significant, or insignificant, in writing a work of literature.
Obviously, plot would have to be the element talked about the most in this essay.

I would choose to use Darkness at Noon and As I Lay Dying.

b) Symbols and motifs are an essential element of many novels or short stories. How have either or both of these devices been used and, in your opinion, how successfully, in two or three works you have studied?
This question is asking you to examine the importance and the role of these literary devices within literature and wants to know how this can be applied to the works in which we have studied.
The primary literary techniques I would use would be the motifs and symbols.
I would use The Bluest Eye and Metamorphosis.

Commentary Outline

I. Intro

a) Thesis: The depressed tone and melancholy diction and the predictable rhyme scheme in the poem "The Voice" by Thomas Hardy cpntributes to the theme that you can never get back what you've lost.

II. Body

a) The author uses melancholy diction such as "listlessness", "wistfullness", and "faltering" to show that without this woman, he has been reduced to misery.

b) The rhetorical questions in this poem are examples of the false hope this man feels everytime something reminds him of his lost lover.

i] ex. "Can it be you I hear?"

c) The use of a perfect rhyme for every other line shows that the speaker's life has been reduced to complete predictability with no surprises or excitement now that his lover is gone.

III. Conclusion

a) In conclusion, the depressed tone and melancholy diction along with the predictable rhyme scheme contribute to the theme that you can never get back what you've lost in Thomas Hardy's poem, "The Voice".

The Family Jewel

In the novel "As I Lay Dying" by William Faulker, one of the most misinterpreted characters is Jewel Bundren. Part of the reason he is so misunderstood may be the fact that he only has one narration in the entire novel, so we only really get to see what other characters see and think of him, without hearing Jewel's side of the story. A prime example of this is on page 24, where Cora says that Jewel "was after that three extra dollars" when Addie was dying. Cora seemed to think that Jewel cared nothing for his mother, which is clearly not true, because within Jewel's own narration he says,"And now them others sitting there, like buzzards. . . It should just be me and [Addie] on a high hill" (15). Jewel doesn't like how all Addie's other children are hovering over her death bed, and how Cash is building the coffin in plain sight of his dying mother. Jewel sees them all as being insensitive, and his quote shows that he is a bit selfish in wanting his mother all to himself, most likely because he wants to let her die in peace.

We know from the beginning that Jewel is different, and seperate from the rest of the family, but we don't know why until it is revealed later in the book. Jewel's obvious love for animals may be a symbol for his alienation from the rest of his siblings, since he is, in a way, a different "species" from them, since we learn later that he is from a different father. We also know that Jewel was Addie's favorite child from Cora's narrations, where she says, "Jewel, the one [Addie] had always cherished" (24). The knowledge the other children have of this fact often causes tensions among them, because of the jealousy that came with it. It is possible even that Darl may have tried to get Jewel to leave with him for the three dollars as Addie was dying in order to prevent Jewel from being with her when she died.

We also see Jewel's alienation from the rest of his family when he chooses to ride on his horse instead of the wagon when the family is making the journey to Jefferson to bury Addie. This clearly upsets Anse, since he says "I told him not to bring that horse. . . because it wouldn't look right" (105). Perhaps Anse is acknowledging the fact that Jewel is not his son and doesn't want anyone else to see Jewel riding seperately and notice this. However, Jewel insists on riding his horse, perhaps because he does not feel a part of the rest of the family's "flesh and blood" (105).

However, we see Jewel's loving and compassionate qualities during the travel to Jefferson as well. When the wagon tips over and Cash breaks his leg, Jewel is the most determined one in retrieving Cash's precious tools, despite the turmultuous waters. It says "Jewel dives again. . . he is swimming now, toward the bank, the current sweeping him downstream. . . When Jewel comes up he has the saw" (160-162). This shows Jewel's love for his half-brother, because even though earlier in the novel he was angry with Cash for sawing Addie's coffin right where she could see it, he still has the devotion to him to risk his life to save the things that were important to Cash.

We also can see Jewel's caring and self-sacrificial nature when he decides to sell his precious horse in order to buy mules to help get Addie to Jefferson. Eustace says on page 193, "I just found the horse in the barn this morning when I went to feed, and I told Mr. Snopes and he said to bring the team [of mules] on over here". This shows that Jewel was willing to sacrifice his most prized possession in order to help get his mother to Jefferson and fufill her wish to be buried there. This clearly shows Jewel's compassion for his mother and his family, which is often over-looked by other characters and by readers in general.

Plog #5

In the poem "Red Fox" by Margaret Atwood, the harsh diction, disoriented structure, and the important extended metaphor as seen in the title all lead to the theme that people will do anything to save themselves.

Throughout this poem , there are many words which connote corruption, such as "trickster", "thief", and "steals". This shows that people will do anything and turn into anything to save themselves. There was also an allusion to the story of Hansel and Gretel in order to show that even someone who you'd assume to be selfless, such as a mother or a father, will often become corrupt in order to look after their own interests.

The extended metaphor of the red fox can be seen as what people will turn into when they are trying to save themselves. Since foxes are seen as thieves and being sneaky, by comparing them to suffering people, this shows that people will turn to criminal behavior or doing things that they normally would not consider doing in order to end their own suffering.

The structure of this poem also has no pattern of ryhme scheme or within the stanzas. None of the stanzas show a pattern of the number of lines in them or a pattern of syllables within the lines. This lack of structure or rhyme scheme shows that life has no pattern, and you never know what's going to happen next. It also shows that we don't know what we would do if we were put in a situation like the red fox in this poem. This disorganized structure shows that we can't predict how we would act if we were put in a situation where we had to save ourselves.

In conclusion, the diction, the extended metaphor, and the stucture of the poem "Red Fox" by Margaret Atwood all contribute to the theme that people will do anything to save themselves, and that no one can predict what they would do if they were put in such a position.

Plog #4

From The Frontier Of Writing

The tightness and the nilness round that space

when the car stops in the road, the troops inspect

its make and number and, as one bends his face

towards your window, you catch sight of more

on a hill beyond, eyeing with intent

down cradled guns that hold you under cover

and everything is pure interrogation

until a rifle motions and you move

with guarded unconcerned acceleration—

a little emptier, a little spent

as always by that quiver in the self,

subjugated, yes, and obedient.

So you drive on to the frontier of writing

where it happens again. The guns on tripods;

the sergeant with his on-off mike repeating

data about you, waiting for the squawk

of clearance; the marksman training down

out of the sun upon you like a hawk.

And suddenly you're through, arraigned yet freed,

as if you'd passed from behind a waterfall

on the black current of a tarmac road

past armor-plated vehicles, out between

the posted soldiers flowing and receding

like tree shadows into the polished windscreen.

In the poem "The Fronttier of Writing" by Seamus Heaney, the author uses intimidating diction and an extended metaphor in order to show the struggles of a writer to please others without compromising his/her own beliefs.

Within the poem, Heaney uses the overarching metaphor of writing being a checkpoint that a writer must pass through in order to be published. He uses intimidating diction such as "guns", "quiver" and "interrogation" to show that the fear or rejection or disapproval in one's writing is real, and that the speaker feels forced almost with violence to do as he is told, or write as he is expected to.

We can tell that this speaker has conformed to what he was told to write by where he says "subjugated, yes, and obediant". We can also tell that he is not happy about this fact because he says he feels "a little emptier, a little spent" - almost as if he is wasting away by not being able to write what he wants.

It is also interesting to note that the speaker doesn't actually sound happy or proud of his work at the end of the poem. He simply says he is "arraigned yet freed", which makes him seem relieved, but not necissarily pleased with the outcome. He may feel as though he has compromised what he wanted to say in order to be published, and is therefore not feeling proud of his work, merely happy that is it done. The use of second person narrative also makes the speaker sound disconnected from it, almost as if he is looking at what has happened to him from an outside view to try and understand what really happened.

Therefore, in Seamus Heaney's "The Frontier of Writing" the use of intimidating diction and the extended metaphor of almost a battlefield contributes to the theme of the struggles of writing and being recognized for your own work and ideas, rather than for what everyone else wanted you to write.

Plog #3

Mid-term Break

I sat all morning in the college sick bay

Counting bells knelling classes to a close,

At two o'clock our neighbors drove me home.

In the porch I met my father crying--

He had always taken funerals in his stride--

And Big Jim Evans saying it was a hard blow.

The baby cooed and laughed and rocked the pram

When I came in, and I was embarrassed

By old men standing up to shake my hand

And tell me they were "sorry for my trouble,"

Whispers informed strangers I was the eldest,

Away at school, as my mother held my hand

In hers and coughed out angry tearless sighs.

At ten o'clock the ambulance arrived

With the corpse, stanched and bandaged by the nurses.

Next morning I went up into the room. Snowdrops

And candles soothed the bedside; I saw him

For the first time in six weeks.

Paler now,Wearing a poppy bruise on the left temple,

He lay in the four foot box as in a cot.

No gaudy scars, the bumper knocked him clear.

A four foot box, a foot for every year.

In the poem "Mid-Term Break" by Seamus Heaney, the use of visual images, sound diction, and sporatic structure all helped to create the overall depressed tone of the poem.

Within the poem, I found a lot of sound diction which contributed to the depressed tone of the poem, for example, the "counting bells" which reminded me of funeral bells as opposed to just school bells, which could be considered foreshadowing the death at the end of the poem. However, there was also a contradictory sound diction where "the baby cooed and laughed. . . when I came in" which I think shows that perhaps the speaker does not really understand what is happening as well as he thinks he does. Perhaps he is just as confused of what is going on as the baby is.

There were also many striking images, such as the "corpse, stanched and bandaged" which is a sad and depressing picture. However, I also felt that the image of the "snowdrops and candles soothed the bedside" when he first sees his little brother as possibly being a symbol that he is in a better place, and at least they could take comfort in that.

I also noticed that the poem as a whole had no rhyme scheme or meter, which I took as a symbol for the unpredictability of life. Nothing in life is promised except for death, which I think was demonstrated by the lack of rhyming except in the very last two lines, which were prefect rhymes. I think that shows that you don't know what's going to happen in life, even four year-olds can die, but the only thing you can rely on is that everyone will die, which definately contributed to the depressing mood of the poem.

Plog #2

A VALEDICTION FORBIDDING MOURNING. by John Donne
AS virtuous men pass mildly away,

And whisper to their souls to go,

Whilst some of their sad friends do say,

"Now his breath goes," and some say, "No."
So let us melt, and make no noise,

No tear-floods, nor sigh-tempests move ;

'Twere profanation of our joys

To tell the laity our love.
Moving of th' earth brings harms and fears ;

Men reckon what it did, and meant ;

But trepidation of the spheres,

Though greater far, is innocent.
Dull sublunary lovers' love

(Whose soul is sense) cannot admit

Absence, 'cause it doth remove

The thing which elemented it.
But we by a love so much refined,

That ourselves know not what it is,

Inter-assurèd of the mind,

Care less, eyes, lips and hands to miss.

Our two souls therefore, which are one,

Though I must go, endure not yet

A breach, but an expansion,

Like gold to airy thinness beat.
If they be two, they are two so

As stiff twin compasses are two ;

Thy soul, the fix'd foot, makes no show

To move, but doth, if th' other do.
And though it in the centre sit,

Yet, when the other far doth roam,

It leans, and hearkens after it,

And grows erect, as that comes home.
Such wilt thou be to me, who must,

Like th' other foot, obliquely run ;

Thy firmness makes my circle just,

And makes me end where I begun.

In "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne, the reassuring and loving diction and tone create the theme that love will last forever, even after one partner may die.

At first, the reader gets the feeling that one of the lovers in the poem is dying (the speaker), and that this is going to be a depressing poem about love being lost. This feeling is created by the pessimistic diction such as "sad", "harm", and "fears". However, soon you realize that the speaker is instead telling his lover that they will be together even after he dies, by saying "Though I must go, endure not a breach, but an expansion", where he is telling her than their love will grow rather than die when he is no longer with her. This gives the poem a much more uplifting mood, which in turns helps create a theme of eternal love.

The speaker also uses numeral diction like "one" and "two" specifically, which he uses to stress the fact that their souls are combined as one, which death cannot break. I also noticed the use of the analogy of one foot following the other, which I interpreted as his way of telling his lover that like that, she would one day follow him into the afterlife where they would once again be reunited. This would be a typical theme of John Donne, since he was well known for being a religious man, and this would show that he believes that he and his love will meet again in heaven.

Therefore, through John Donne's use of soothing and reassuring diction and tone, the theme of lovers being reunited after death is created in the poem "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning".

Plog 1

In the poem, "The Good-Morrow" by John Donne, the use of rhetorical questions and the diction creates the theme of unending love. The use of open-ended questions about the mysteries of love and the repitition of diction associated with love all help create this overall theme of unending love.

The open-ended questions which seem to require no answer give the reader a feeling that this poet's love will just go on forever. Besides the rhetorical questions, Donne only ends a sentence at the very end of each stanza, giving it a feeling as you read it that it is continuously flowing and there are no abrupt stops. This feature also contributes to the idea of unending or uninterrupted love, which is the major theme in this poem.

The repeated diction of such words as "love", "beauty", "pleasures", "hearts", and "souls" also gives the reader a feeling of happiness and love. By the constant repitition of words like these, the poet is stressing that these words represent the feelings that he has always. It shows that in this poet's life, these are the only feelings and emotions he encounters because he is surrounded by love and happiness. Therefore, since the diction is consistently positive and never turns bitter or pessimistic, the feeling that this happiness and love will continue forever is created.

Protest Thingy

I've always been against the use of real animal fur for coats, hats, etc, but I've never actually had an opportunity to do anything about it. I used this assignment as an opportunity to voice my opinion on this subject and hopefully change some people's minds on the idea of using real animal fur for clothing. So I decided to hand out fliers that I made dealing with animal fur clothing outside of A.J. Ugent Fur.
However, I felt like people wouldn't be very interested in another flier about fur since I'm sure everyone has seen fliers or pamplets about it before. So I decided to make it more specific so it would hopefully catch some people's attention. My fliers were about Karakul lamb fur. The truly sad thing about this is that since lambs are born with glossy, tightly curled fur that begins to unravel after a few days, those who are in the business of making Karakul lamb coats have to slaughter lambs right after they are born. Also, since they're so small, it takes several lambs to be killed in order to make one coat.
I think that by using a specific kind of fur, I sparked more people's interest, because more people than I thought asked me about my fliers. Most people, I think, didn't know what Karakul lamb fur was, which was why it got their attention, which I might not have gotten if I had just handed out more fliers just about fur in general. However, there were still a lot of people who I know just took a flier to be polite and probably threw it away as soon as they got home. But I definitely expected that. I also expected it when people just walked past me or declined taking a flier, and I was a little disappointed in them. However, I felt really encouraged and almost empowered when I met a lot of people who were actually interested in my fliers or what I had to say.
So I think that I may have actually changed some people's opinions on buying fur clothing, or confirmed their beliefs against it. At least, I hope that I caused people to think about the consequences of buying fur clothing and hopefully will encourage them never to do it.

Lysistrata Post #10

So I was extremely happy that this play did not end with a suicide. When we first started reading this book, I thought it would be another story about women being repressed and not listened to, but I was pleasantly surprised. I was interested to find that the women in this play had an important role in the decisions made concerning the war. At first they didn't, since the men refused to listen to the women, but after the women asserted their power through the protest, they realized that they did have a voice. It was a refreshing change, since in the other two books the women tried to do this and gain control of their life- and in the end they are unable to and end up killing themselves. In Lysistrata, however, the women actually have a power over the men, and in the end everyone ends up getting what they want. Perhaps that shows something about how everything works out better for everyone if people work together instead of dividing different roles for specific people. If everyone's opinion gets heard, then it is easier to make everyone happy rather than just having one group of people be in complete control (the men in the other books).

Lysistrata Post #9

So how is Lysistrata similar to Bernarda and Hedda, if at all? I think that she is similar to Bernarda in that she is in control of the women around her, although Bernarda's daughters were more resentful of her tyranny than the other women were of Lysistrata. I mean, they didn't want to do the protest, but they knew that it was necessary in order to end the war. I don't think that Lysistrata is similar to Hedda in many ways, but they both do understand how to manipulate people. Hedda knew how to manipulate Lovborg just as Lysistrata knew how to get want she wanted out of the men, and also how to convince the other women to go along with protest. However, Hedda wanted to control people for very different reasons- she wanted to do it to get more control over her own life, whereas Lysistrata used her mamipulating skills in order to end a war and create peace. So overall, the character of Lysistrata was a much more honest and likeable character in my opinion.

Lysistrata Post #8

My question is: do the men truly love their wives or is it all just about sex? At first, I thought it was all about sex for them since they refused to end the war for their wives' sakes. . . until they proposed the abstinance strike. THEN suddenly they were willing to end the war. But then I reread the scene with Myrrhine and Kinesias, when Kinesias says, "She left our home, and happiness went with her" (81). That proved to me that he did truly love her, because he didn't just say that he wanted to sleep with her, he said that his home was truly not the same without her, and he also is extremely happy to hear her say that she loves him. Therefore, I think that the men did love their wives, and also agreed to have peace to make them happy, not just to end their abstinance.

Lysistrata Post #7

Okay, is it just me or is it hypocritical that two of the themes of this book are "Make love, not war" and "The WAR of the sexes"? Hmm. I noticed that particularly in the scene where the women and the men are brandishing chamber pots and threatening (and succeeding) to hit each other. Yeah, I understand that the men and women weren't going to truly hurt one another, like they were in the actual war between the Athenians and the Spartans, but still. I thought it was pretty hypocritical that the women decided to help create peace by using violence. (??) I kind of thought that by abstaining they were going to show that wars could be resolved without using any violence, but that kind of went out the window when they start breaking lamps over peoples' heads.

Lysistrata Post #6

In terms of spectacle, I think that it is interesting that most of the play takes place in the Akropolis, which can be seen as a symbol of power for the women. Since the women hold the Akropolis, it indicates that they also hold a position of power over the men. Therefore, I think that the set helps indictate the theme of the power of women, not only because they are able to make their men miserable without them, but because they are able to take control of the Akropolis. Perhaps that's why the men were so upset when they found out that the women were in power of the Akropolis, since they realized what this meant. They might have also seen it as a sign of the women taking control, which was not what they wanted.

Lysistrata Post #5

Dynamic characters? I don't think so. Did ANY character in Lysistrata change or improve? I didn't find any evidence of that. I figured that in the end, the men would realize that there was no point in fighting the war and that they would want peace for the same reason the women did- everyone was safe and happy. But then I actually got to the end and the men seemed to only want to resolve the war to get back with their wives- they seemed to have no sense of WHY they were ending the war other than to sleep with their wives. They obviously didn't care about peace or the well-being of anyone, which makes me wonder- what did they learn? Nothing really. So I just can't say that any of the men changed, or the women for that matter. Lysistrata remains strong the whole book (but doesn't really progress) and all the other women are reluctant to join in, and they still are all the way throughout the play (remember the "pregnant" woman with her copper baby?). I guess the only one I would say improved at all would be Myrrhine, since she was one of the hesitant ones at the beginning, but later was strong enough to deny her husband when she could have broken the oath without anyone knowing.

Lysistrata Post #4

I thought that it was almost hypocritical for Aristophanes to portray the Spartans the way he did using language. I mean, the whole book is centered around getting peace and ending the fighting and the war, and yet whenever the Spartans are around, they are made to seem inferior and stupid even. The dialect that Aristophanes uses for the Spartans is obviously used to make them seem like dumb hicks, which I thought was completely unnecissary and was in no way contributing to what was happening in the play. Therefore, I thought that the only reason the Aristophanes had the Spartans talking like that was to point out that they were not as intelligent or educated as the Athenians, which completely goes against the whole moral of the story, which is to end wars and create peace. What's the deal?

Lysistrata Post #3

The most interesting metaphor, I thought, was "Peace". I just found it interesting that Lysistrata would decide to use another woman's body in order to negotiate a peace arrangement. I mean, first of all, it kind of dehumanizes women because Lysistrata was encouraging the men to divide the woman up like a piece of meat. And secondly, I got the feeling that Lysistrata used "Peace" as a prop to keep the men in line- the men wouldn't argue with each other with that kind of motivation. That, however, seemed to dehumanize the men as well, making them look like animalistic fools who could barely form a complete sentence with Peace there. I think that Peace was there to represent what the men would be getting if they agreed to have peace among each other, but I think that everyone came out of the negotiations with less respect for each other than they went in with. But I guess all that matters is that the issue was resolved and everyone got what they wanted. For now.

Lysistrata Post #2

Anyone else annoyed with the men in this play? Okay, I got the idea that this war has been going on for a really long time- therefore it must be really important to these men, right? Yeah. It was SO IMPORTANT that they even went a whole day without having sex! Wow! That's impressive. That just showed me that these men weren't even fighting for a real reason. I mean, how important could this war have been if they were willing to resolve it in a day? If it was that easy, why were they even fighting it in the first place? It just seemed to me like if these men didn't have something to fight over or to fight against, then they weren't really happy. That makes me think that this "peace" is going to be shortlived.

Lysistrata Post #1

So I have to say- I was kind of disappointed with this play. It kind of reminded me of that show "Seinfeld" in that a lot of random stuff happened that's supposed to be funny, but in the end you realize that you didn't get anything out of it. I mean, I understand what happened in the book, and there was kind of a moral (???) but I don't think that at any point in the play I said- "Hey, that's a really good point" or "Wow, that's an interesting idea". I was really hoping that there would be a more controversial or political issue, but I didn't really find one. No true revelations were present at the end of the book, and I don't think anything was really resolved. Women held out on their husbands until they did what they wanted. Not a real exciting ending. In fact, I think there was a "Seinfeld" episode on it.

Post #10

Is there ANYTHING good about Hedda? Well, I wouldn't say there was anything in particular that's good about her, but I do want to point out that she's human. And even though she calls herself a "coward", I think that in a lot of ways Hedda is truly brave. I mean, she's mad that Thea and Lovborg have this great manusript, and instead of just sitting there feeling jealous and pathetic, she decides to burn the thing! Hedda also has the bravery to try and take control of the things going on around her, using her pistols as means to power. Even though Hedda fails at taking control of her life (like when Brack takes her pistols from her) she at least tried. Instead of sitting around and letting other people tell her how her life is going to go, she tries to fight for that power. However, I'm not going to say that she was as courageous as Thea, or as courageous as she could have possibly been, because I think that killing herself was her greatest act of cowardice. And laziness. I mean, she caused this huge mess for herself (burning the manuscript, telling Lovborg to kill himself with her pistol) and then she just says, "oops, I can't fix it. I'll just kill myself." Sad.