Anions

Anions suck. Chemistry, too.
Why, and who, who, who, who?
would make a busy teenage person
memorize a list of 42?

They cannot stick, nor stay,
And if I could have my own way,
I'd tear that horrific page right of the book,
and skip class on the upcoming, fatal day.

Alas, no. This option is not,
an ideal plan which I have thought.
It seems I am stuck, no choice may I have,
I must memorize and study the boring lot.

But my mind travels elsewhere, never here to stay,
it seems I will fail, on that upcoming, test day.

Shadow

I stopped
I stared
There was something there

I glanced
I thought
I decided on naught

He saw
He left
He paid a debt

She closed
Her eyes
and tried to smile

They passed
right by
and without a sigh

It sank
back into
the un-
lived
life

flarf from songs

and I was like

hey soul sister

i'm still awake

i'm finding out loves unreliable

think of me

in the light of the sun

chasing the years of my life

do you believe it?

Music

The music filled the room like water poured into a glass. Slowly and smoothly, fitting together without creases or overlaps. Moving as one body. The notes meshed like particles, so tightly, smoothly, and serenely, that the awed crowd drank in the life of the sound. But it was more than a sound. It was a feeling. A being. It came alive, and danced around the heavily decorated room, dim and romantic. It brightened each corner. It lifted the hair off of the backs of necks, and crept along, creating Goosebumps, along arms. Not only passing by the group as one, but to and into each individual. Becoming a meaning, importance, an idea for each one. Becoming so different as it seeped into the very souls of the listeners, yet developing into a whole, a one, a universal meaning.

Mother's Day Poem :)

"For My Mother"

There is something sweet in the way she goes,

smelling always as a crisp, sweet rose.

Her perfume seeps into my very soul

keeping me always safe and whole.

Her soft carres, soft, light glance,

the way she frowns and keeps her stance.

The loving way she says "its best,"

and the knowing and firm "the rest."

There is something in the way she goes,

and how she always, always knows.

Her food the best and words the most,

always and forever, my first host.

Indebted and in awe I say

There is something sweet in her way.

Timed Writing 2010, Form B: Open Ended

2010, Form B.

"You can leave home all you want, but home will never leave you." --Sonsyrea Tate
Sonsyrea Tate's statement suggests that "home" may be conceived of as a dwelling, a place, or astate of mind. It may have positive or negative associations, but in either case, it may have a considerable influence on an individual. Choose a novel or play in which a central character leaves home yet finds that home remains significant. Write a well-developed essy in which you analyze the importance of "home" to this character and the reasons for its continuing influence. Explain how the character's idea of home illuminates the larger meaning of the work. Do not merely summarize the plot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home is where morals, character, and attitude are developed and created. Life begins in the home, and participation in a community begins, as well. Therefore, the home is not just a house, but also a state-of-mind which will affect someone's actions and thoughts. In Jane Austen's novel Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet is depicted as wanting to leave her home, and is disgraced by the other members. However, it turns out that even through her embarassment and social upheaval, caused by those in her home, she still returns, and holds it in regard. Through Elizabeth Bennet, Austen is able to express the idea that home will always have an affect on actions and identity.

First of all, the need to be rid of her home for a while leads her to take a trip away. Yet while touring the country with her aunt and uncle she still is connected with those people close to her, living at home. Therefore she is still involved in the goingons and important actions of her community. This shows that even while away from home, one still feels a connection to the people there, enough to communicate and care about what takes place.

While away from home, Elizabeth is able to grow and experience different situations, evolving her character and attitude. However, she still keeps certain morals and thoughts the same, inherited from her home. For example, her father taught her to be amused with things which seemed unpleasant, or were annoying to others, therefore she was able to "laugh" at almost anything, even herself and her own shortcomings.

The importance of leaving her home is that she returns to it: the same, yet different person. Same, because her identity has not changed. These are her people, this is were she is from, this is where she belongs. Yet at the same time, she has gained experience from her travels, using lessons taught from home to guide her. For example, the way in which she deals civily with people, and the importance of appearance maintains its status as a priority in her actions.

Therefore, Austen supports Sonsyrea Tate's statement that although one leaves their home, it maintain's its presence in your being and essence. However, at the same time, Austen also shows that time away from home can develop the foundational substance provided, creating a better rounded and more complete and experienced being.

Studying: Literary Terms

-FROM THE PACKET-
Aesthetic: appealing to the senses
Allusion: reference to another work or famous figure
Analogy: a comparison
Antihero: protagonist with markedly unheroic characteristics
Assonance: the repeated use of vowel sounds
Bombast: pretentious exaggeratedly learned language
Cacophoney: deliberately harsh, awkward sounds
Cadence: beat of poetry in general sense
Coinage: invention of a new word
Catharsis: "cleansing" emotion audience experiences
Canto: name for a section division in a long work of poetry
Dirge: a song for the dead
Epitaph: lines that commemorate the deat at their burial place
Euphony: when sounds blend harmoniously
Foil: secondary character who is there to highlight the characteristics of the main character (usually by contrast)
In medias res: beginning in the middle (The Odyssey)
Inversion: switching around words' places in a sentence on purpose
Lampoon: a satire
Metonym: word which stands for something else (50 cows 50 HEAD of cattle)
Oxymoron: phrase composed of opposites, contradictions (moron-sentence confused, ox)
Paradox: situation which contradicts itself (P-place ox )
Pastoral: poem with tranquil nature
Plaint: a poem or speech expressing sorrow
Pun: usually humorous use of a word in such a way to suggest two or more meanings
Rquiem: song for the dead
Satire: consists of hyperbole, target, irony, absurdity
Travesty: grotesque parody
Zeugma: The use of a word to modify two or more words, but used for different meanings (he closed the door and his heart on his lost love)

Timed Writing Practice 2001

Timed Writing Practice AP Literature Exam 2001

Compare and Contrast "London" by William Wordsworth and "Douglass" by Paul Laurence Dunbar

In the poems "London" by William Wordsworth and "Douglass" by Paul Laurence Dunbar, the two poets both encorporate allusions into their poems. The reason for which they write is to lament about the current conditions of their home country and to praise the identified poet. Therefore, they both take on a laudatory tone. Both Wordsworth and Dunbar express their chosen poet as a hero, guide, and comforter. Yet, the two poets depict their country in similar disaray. Wordsworth portrays a "selfish" and "unhappy" community while, of a similar nature, Dunbar expresses "battle" and "dissension." They both distinguish the creator of the havoc as "we" as opposed to "they;" therefore, they include themselves in the unpleasant circumstances.

First of all, Wordsworth and Dunbar idolize a certain poet, or writer. For Wordsworth, he praises "Milton" as a "Star" which "dwelt apart" alluding to the fact that he was a higher ranking being than his counterparts. "Milton's" "voice" is connected to the "sea," portraying it as powerful, majestic, and of a different nature than simple humans. Wordsworth describes "Milton" with the help of images of nature such as the "sea" and "star" in order to show a somewhat "godliness" and separate being from the "selfish men."

On the other hand, Dunbar encorporates nature into his description of "Douglass" in a way which expresses his ability to tame it in a way. The "voice" "o'er the storm" implies it is more powerful. "Thy strong arm to guide the shivering bark" alludes that he is more steadfast than trees. This different take on nature creates an awe, since nature is generally described as something more spiritual than humans.

Furthermore, the way in which the two writer's depict the state of their countries is also significant. Wordsworth identifies "this hour" as in "need of" "Milton" because of the swamp like state it is found in. The land is possesed by "selfish men" who need to be "raise[d] up" and retaught. This description takes on the necessity of a savior, to build up the swamp like land: reinforce morals.

Similarly, Dunbar describes the "evil days" his country finds itself. An "awful tide" now "battles to and fro," a "tempest" and "waves of swift dissension swarm." Dunbar calls on "Douglass" as a "guide" and leader, a strong captain to lead the ship in an "awful tide" and "tempest of dispraise."

These two poems objectively discuss their situation, and discuss the needed person. While they both praise their writer-idol, the way in which they encorporate nature is slightly different. The importance of nature takes on a different purpose. While Wordsworth depicts nature as something inhuman, and above humanity, Dunbar portrays nature as something needing to be tamed.

Timed Writing #7 "De Fiel' Pretty? It Couldn't Less 'An Dat"

In Claude McKay's peom "De Fiel' Pretty? It Couldn't Less 'An Dat," the encorporation of love for work and the beauty of the product creates an innocent and honest way of life. Because of the simple way of writing, and the way McKay writes as if the speaker were actually speaking, it adds to the idea that the speaker is a poor and uneducated farmer, passionate about his work. Through the two stanzas, the reader can infer that McKay criticizes the "you" and idolizes the "we."

The first stanza opens with a question, which speaks directly to the reader, as if they had asked a question to begin the dialogue. "De fiel' pretty?" the speaker asks. The slightly offended and shocked tone at this creates a feeling of honest pride in the work the speaker has done. Yet, by not taking all of the credit for the "fat" land, and by saying "we wuk" and "we dig," the speaker shows with what sincere care his community takes care of the land, in order to produce the "petater." It "mus' look fine" because of their hard work, because they work to "dig de row dem eben in a line, An' keep it clean."

The second stanza makes the reader feel petty, by only "tas'e petater" and merely saying it is "sweet." Obviously "you no know how hard we wuk fe it." Just because the "you" or the reader might be educated, and skilled, with world experience and an occupation which provides money, doesn't mean that they know the first thing about taking care of a "fiel'." The speaker avoids complaining by stating that the "hardships always melt away" whenever it "come roun' to reapin' day." This depicts their joy and happiness, finding that it was worth the hard work in order to produce a "lan'" which is "fat." The enjambent of the last line adds to its importance, creating an even more meaninful line, alluding to the farmers' excitement for "reapin' day."

This poem expresses the enjoyment of hard, and honest work. It may not produce much profit or allow the workers to become rich, but McKay portrays them as happy and thankeful for their "fiel'." By doing this, McKay creates an idolization of the workers with their happy and wholesome attitude of working together in order to produce something out of the eath.

Timed Writing #6 Spunk

It is quite common for the human race to discuss anything and everything going on around them, or merely in their world. The act of sharing information, and analyzing thoughts of others is often seen as gossiping, especially when it occurs behind somone's back, or about a particular action looked down upon by society. In Hurston's short story Spunk, the story is related in such a way, which makes the readers "mirror her gossiping crowd." The absurdity which weaves its way into the story, along with an over exxageration of the "gossiping crowd" allows the reader to accept Spunk as satirical.

First of all, the way in which the gossiping crowd is exagerated creates a hyperbole similar to many other satires. When Hurston writes "all the loungers in the store tried to walk to the door," this creates a humorous depiction of a simultaneous action made by everyone. Also, because the group merely stands by, adding commentary, but not taking part in any of the action, it adds to the overall ridiculousness of the events. Especially so, because they are men, who are usually less gossipers than women. Their curiousity concerning the "affairs" of Joe, Spunk, and Joe's wife allows the reader to understand what is occurring, and at the same time brings the reader into their conversation and group, almost to a point where the reader is participating in the gossip.

Also, the way in which the group idolizes Joe after he is dead, even though they basically labeled him as cowardly beforehand, adds to the absurdity of the ongoings. Then, the account that Spunk was seeing Joe's ghost, that the saw was "wobblin'" and that someone "pushed" him, foreshadows the death of Spunk: either by superstitious thoughts and paranoia, or by the actual ghost of Joe. Because the gossiping crowd seems so scared of going to see Spunk, it implies that they believe he did die from Joe's ghost.

The irony weaved through the story adds to the overall satirical piece. The way in which the gossipers allude to Joe dying by Spunk's gun, and then denying he would shoot an unarmed man, is ironic because their prediction eventually came true. It is also ironic that almost directly after becoming married, Spunk died.

The obvious target in this story includes the gossipers, and the participants of their focus. However, although the reader may criticize the adulterer and murderer, it can be concluded that Hurston really wanted to criticize the gossipers and the reader, because of their quick judgement and free reign of thoughts about the story taking place.

Therefore, because of the presence of absurdity, hyperbole, target, and irony, it becomes clear that Spunk was written satirically.

Timed Writing #5 "A Very Short Story"

Many young men traveled to the United States of America in order to seek new opportunities, with a hope of someday establishing a family and prestige in their new home. In Ernest Hemingway's short story "A Very Short Story," a sarchastic tone is used in order to express the absurdity of a romanticized idea, and its eventual outcome. The two characters, Luz and the unidentified "he" experience a "boy and girl love" as identified by Luz. The exxageration of their love and the ironic way in which their "love" ends, after declaring they felt "married" leads to the identification of this piece as satirical.

First of all, the way in which the two are first described takes on a naive and childish depiction. Their want for "everyone to know about" their marriage questions their actual commitment to oneanother. It is absurd for two people to want to be married for the sole purpose of general knowledge. Also, Hemingway wrote that they wanted to marry "to make it so they could not lose it." Ironicly enough, they do end up losing "it" in the end.

Although they felt "as though they were married," Luz "expected, absolutely unexpectedly, to be married in the spring" to a "major." The way Luz disregards her former lover is an exxageration of her naiive self. She thinks that someone will propose in such a short time. It is also ironic that the major ended up "not" marrying "her in the spring." The use of acount of such happenings targets those who have love, and throw it away for someone else, who does not love them in return. Also, Hemingway targets persons who sleep with mulitple people, and fancy themselves in love.

The situation of the "he" is also absurd. When Luz writes to him, knowing "he would probably not be able to understand," it turns out he is also engaging in sexual pleasures. The absurdity of his contraction of "gonorrhea" adds to the over all theme, and slightly tragic ending. The telling of their sluty behaviour is exaggerated with certain details such as "while riding in a taxicab."

In conclusion, Hemingway's piece contains details which form a satire. The way in which he encorporates absurdity, hyperbole, irony, and a target allows the audience to discern his sarcastic tone, and the two characters as representatives of frequent stories.

Timed writing #4 "Dis Poem"

Mutabaruka creates an outlet, "revolt," "story" and mantra through his work, "Dis Poem". Through the objective writing, and uneducated sounding way of speaking, the speaker is automatically classified. The slightly rambling African words (or at least assumed African words) become a sort of jumble of sounds, meaning nothing inparticular, yet at the same time expressing the identity of the speaker and a sort of hidden intelligence. The speaker knows what he is writing about, even if the audience does not.

First of all, the speaker classifies the poem over and over again. It "shall say nothin new," it "shall speak of time," it is "vex/about apartheid/racism/fascism..." and it goes on and on. The identification of the poem's being not only creates a mantra which sticks, but also depicts an idea that it is everything: anything surpressed victims have faced. The encorporation of "knives...bombs...guns..." also adds to the distinct human feature of turning to violence, especially when uneducated, deprived, surpressed, and abused.

Also, the clarification that the poem will "not be quoted by politicians" creates a feeling that they don't care about what is going on concerning the speaker's situation and topic. Yet, the idea that the poem needs to be changed relates directly with the situation of the victims alluded to. However, the speaker states outright that the "poem will not change things." Mutabaruka expresses that words will not change anything, as much as things need changing. That the "poem is the rebirth of a people arising...awaking...overstanding." This portrays the feelings of rally speech, in order to keep people's hopes up for an actual change, a possibility for better conditions, away from "the klu klux klan/ riots in brixton/ jim jones" etc.

The referred "time" "continue[s]" the poem not letting it "stop." The identification of "time" brings to mind past, present, and future events. Mutabaruka seems to know that conditions were bad, are bad, but there is always the future to look forward to, the future to affect, and change for the good. Once again, rallying a crowd to look forward, and strive for the best.

Yet, because the poem is "still not written" and does not have a "poet," the speaker alludes to the fact that the poem is "still not written" because they, the audience, has not chosen the right words, and needs to create it out of their own heads, they need to take the initiative, and act. The listed sources of information directs thoughts toward education, intelligence, and worldly knowledge.

The way in which Mutabaruka puts the poem down by calling it "boring/stupid/senseless" prepares the future writers for the setbacks to come. And finally, ends in a mantra, "in your mind..." in order for it to stick there, and to keep thinking about all that it said. To play with the order of words, thoughts and ideas. It makes you want to know more about what would be said, and the reader then realizes that the 'they' and the 'audience' was really themselves, that they are supposed to write the poem, and act.

Not sure how I did. I really tried to analyze it well, and encorporate different literary ideas...
(favorite poem. Ever).

Timed Writing #3 "Sky Love Earth"

In Patricia Grace's poem "Sky Love Earth," the speaker creates a connection between a mother's love for her child and nature. The poem is written in a sing-song, childish manner, bringing to mind a lullaby. However, the concluding stanza questions the created analogy, and turns the nonchalant tone into a disdainful cry.

First, the way in which the lines are written, grammatically incorrect and with few words, brings to mind the way a mother sings to her child. "Sky love earth/ shine light/ fall rai-ai-ain:" these sound like versus of a lullaby. Therefore, the image of a mother is first created, and then clarified with the line "turn breast". Yet, the depiction of nature with words such as "sky," "earth," and "rai-ai-ain" becomes juxtaposed with the portrayal of a mother feeding her baby. Therefore, it can be conclude that an analogy is being made between the caring nature of a mother and her baby and nature itself. While "rain" can be interpreted as tears, or sadness, it could also be interpreted as the pain which comes with bearing a child. The pain which every mother feels, a way of sacrificing, for her coming child.

The "light" which "shine[s]" in the first stanza could be the hopes, dreams, and wishes of the new mother. She has made plans for her child and for herself. Yet in the second stanza, the "child/ steal[s the] light" and "turn[s] away rai-ai-ain." While the occupational thoughts which posses each mother take away her initial dreams and hopes for the future, the sole presence of her child "turn[s] away" sadness. Therefore, Grace supports the idea of a sacrificial yet benefitting mother, in the way which they throw themselves into the care of their baby.
Yet, a "sword" is "thrust" "into" the "ea-ea-earth." The placement of this line directly in the middle of the poem not only signifies the middle of a woman, where she carries her child, but also the process in which a child becomes cut off from his mother, and must go out into the world alone. Also, the extent of a mother's love is so great, that she would gladly kill herself in order to save her child. Therefore the allusion to death with the help of the "sword" supports the pain which love can afflict.

The final stanza concludes the poem, with a disdainful image: a mother bleeding, trying to save her child, to no avail. The word "bleed" not necessarily is used literally. "Bleed" could signify sorrow, or unimaginable and intangible pain. The fact that the "child" at the end of the poem is "already dead" not only shocks the reader, who began the poem thinking nonchallantly, but also creates an anticlimax, slightyl ironic since the mother possesed so many dreams for the future of her child.

The encorporation of nature into the poem juxtaposes a mother's love and the role of nature. The line "sky love earth" could mean that whoever lives in the heavens loves those beings on earth. The "rai-ai-ain" which "fall[s]" nurtures and hydrates all those who live on earth, likewise, a mother's milk is the sole nurishment which a child receives, and depends on. The beings on earth "steal" from nature: the production of harmful gases, the possesion of land, the destroying of forests, animals... and likewise, a child takes time from his mother, hopes, dreams...
This poem asks indirectly why a mother loves her child so much to "bleed" for him, if he will just be "dead" anyway.

not well enough developed. try to get a more tangible idea before writing. organize a bit better. use more literary elements, and terms.

Spring Break Timed Writing #2

The Juxtaposition between a Poet and an Acrobat: Uncertainty in "Constantly Risking Absurdity"

The poem "Constantly Risking Absurdity," by Lawrence Ferlinghetti, juxtaposes a poet and an acrobat. While the poem portrays the acrobat's daring performance through the lines which jump back and forth on the page, his slight fear is also depicted with the lack of punctuation, creating a slightly rushed and rambling dialogue. However, the actions of the acrobat clearly relate to the life of a poet.

Because the acrobat is "above the heads/of his audience," the poet is figuratively above their heads: in intelligence, or his speciality. Once again the audience is refered to, but in line ten, as only a "sea of faces." This lessens their significance, while still acknowledging their presence. The "audience" takes the place of critics for the poet. They make him slightly uneasy, but what makes him "pace" is the fact that he is so "high," or in other words, the poet is experimenting with difficult and slightly "absurd" ideas.

Time is referred to, when the acrobat "paces his way/to the other side of day." Concering the poet, "the other side of day" refers to aging. With age comes knowledge, and respect, therefore he does "tricks" and "theatrics" "all without mistaking." As a poet becomes older, the works he creates become acknolwedged and are held with higher esteem.

However, like an acrobat still high in the air, he must still be mindfull that the "charley chaplin man" below him "may or may not catch" him. In other words, a poet, no matter how well known or respected he is, must still be aware that the recepient of his knowledge is still below him, not exactly in the same mindset.

Therefore, Ferlinghetti allows the acrobat and poet to be very similar. Through their acceptance of their "audiences" and the "hight" of their being, they share similar fears. They both have practices and specialities which their critics could never do, but they are still at their mercy, no matter how well they perform.

I think that I would have received a 3 or 4 on this essay. For some reason Poetry and I just don't mix. Although I have an idea about what this poem is trying to portray, I probably took it too literally, and, putting that aside, this was just a terribly written essay. I was repetitive, and it is obvious that it was not planned very well. Next time, I need to create an actual plan before I just start writing.

Spring Break Timed Writing #1

Comparison of "Fog" by Carl Sandburg and "In a Station of the Metro" by Ezra Pound: Concerning the Use of Nature

bold='error'

Nature has often inspired many writers to incorporate aspects of its presence in their works. "Fog" by Carl Sandburg and "In a Station of the Metro" do just that. However, the way in which they incorporate nautre distinguishes their poem from the other. Sandburg personifiest hte fog which "comes" and "sits looking," whereas Pound simply uses nature as an analogy, in order to express the "faces in the crowd."

First of all, Sandburg personifies the "fog" in order to make it seem more real, and less like an inanimate form of nature. By using present tense, the "fog" seems alive and intelligent as it "sits looking/over harbor and city." The incorporation of the metaphor of "fog" coming "on little cat feet" expresses how quietly it comes, yet also sneakily, without anyone noticing. Then, line five depicts "fog" "looking" "on silent haunches." "Haunches" refers to the metaphor of a "cat" once again, maintaining the same meaning from before. Finally, the "fog" "moves on." With this final line, Sandburg alluddes to an idea that nature will keep on doing whatever it does, despite the construction of "harbor" or "city." Therefore, through the personification of "fog"nad the metaphorical use of the "cat," the "fog" is portrayed as a being above tha tof humans, not really caring enough about them to interact. But like a cat, watches with a critical eye of the happenings, and then carries on with whatever it wants to do.

However, Pound applies nature in a somewhat different way. The juxtaposition between "faces" and "petals" unites the two, instead of separating as Sandburg previously did. Because of this union, and the lack of personification of nature, the result is somewhat obscure. Instead of having an intelligent depiction, the "faces" and "petals" seem unresponsive: masses in a trivial location.

This difference portrays the poetic idea and relation to peoples' existence. By personifiying nature, Sandburg creates an intelligent, and somewhat godlike figure. In contrast, Pound does not elaborate on the "petals," and seems to draw the conclusion that nature and humans are similar.

I would give myself a 4 or 5 out of 9. I think I took the poems too literally, and was not very clear through my writing what I wanted to express. Also, I use the words "portray" and "depict" way too much. Some of my sentences don't really make sense, such as "This difference portrays the poetic idea nad relation to peoples' existence." What poetic idea? What relation to Peoples' existence? I meant to say nature in relation to people, but it came out wrong.

Assignment: Timed Writings

"Fishing on the Susquehanna in July": Similarities Between Two Professions

In the poem "Fishing on the Susquehanna in July," the author, Billy Collins, dictates through a nonchallant tone the thoughts of a would-be fisher. The personification of the river suggests a larger meaning of the speaker's analyzation of the "painting." As a reader, the poem can be related to the "road not taken" in one of Robert Frost's poems. One never knows what could be behind a "bend." Yet, in Collins' poem, the speaker relates his own proffession as to that of a fisherman.

First of all, the nonchallant tone creates a feeling of ease, relaxation and of slight boredom. The familiar phrases such as "to be...honest" and "the pleasure" create a calm and positive feeling, similar to what a fisherman feels.

Secondly, the personification of the river "curled around a bend" depicts a curiosity as to what is behind the turn. Yet, the speaker does not know, nor doe he seem to care. Simply enough, he appears only interested in the "fellow" sitting in his fishingboat. The description of this fisherman's poise and patience comes parallel to the speaker's similar sitting "in a quite room." The obvious juxtaposition seems to draw the attention to the unanimous calm and lull of their occupation.

In the final stanza, the poem takes a slight turn. The brown hare's "springing" relates back to the fisher-man. Likewise do fish jump out of nets. Fishermen catch them hurriedly, before they can escape back to the lake.

Now, as readers, we can distinguish the importance of the fisherman. Both the speaker and the fisherman experience a some what meditative time period, before a substance jumps a them which they then must hurriedly catch. For the fisherman, the fish are that substance; whereas for the speaker, that substance is a hidden meaning or idea of the essence of a painting.

Figurative Language in the "Mending Wall" by Robert Frost

When two people do not get along well together, or are of different mindsets, one says there is a "wall" between them. This keeps them from sharing information so as not to offend. Likewise, in Robert Frost's poem, "Mending Wall," the construction of a "wall" between two "neighbors" keeps the neighbors' "apple trees" and "pine" separate. The tone is slightly disdainful, yet didactic, in order to portray the essence and result of the wall. It "wear[s] their fingers rough with handling" it, and the speaker wonders if it would not be better to have no wall at all.

First of all, the speaker begins with the "something" that "doesn't love a wall." He depicts a cold, and freindless creation, which results from teh erection of such a barrier. He knows not how they were "made," since "no one has seen them...or heard them." The figurative use of an actual wall allows a clear understanding of what the speaker discusses: barriers, which do not allow you to enjoy hte company of someone else. The "wall" which peopel "keep" "between them as " they "go." The "spell" which the speaker refers to is that untouchable substance which keeps the "wall" in palce. The psychological way the two bodies interact, or refrain from interacting.

Likewise, "apple trees" and "pine" trees cannot interact. "Apple trees" cannot "eat the cones under his pines," but they are still kept separate. The use of these two trees are significant, becasue "apple trees" and "pines," although both similar, are very different. One produces fruit, while the other merely does not turn brown in winter. Therefore, although they can be categorized similarly, their essence nad nature are very different. Pointedly, the speaker refers to them in order to show that even though they are different from each other, they won't harm one another, because they are somewhat similar. However, the speaker's "neighbor" insists that "good fences make good neighbors."

Continuously, the speaker tries toe express that "something there is that doesn't love a wall." Yet the phrase is not accepted by his unwilling neighbor. He "will not go behind his father's saying," meaning that because his father said that "walls" were important, he won't try to discover it is false.

The figurative way in which Frost uses the image of a "wall" adds to the overall affect of the poem by making the barrier between the two people more dramatic. It can be concluded that Frost does not believe that such barriers should be in place, and that it is the fault of the stubborn people who stay with the tradition of not mixing with people formerly not associated with. It seems sad that just because of a few differences, two people cannot tear down the "wall." It has not been accepted, then, that "something there is that doesn't love a wall."

Enlightenment

We discussed in class how Marlow from Heart of Darkness seemed to experience three stages of self throughout the novel. The first was while he was experiencing everything - before the book, and before his recollection. The second, was while he was talking about what happened to him. The final and third stage was when he became quite, and stopped talking. He reached "enlightenment" of a sort. Things made sense to him. In other words, he was like Buddha.

Buddha experienced the same thing. He didn't like the way his life was going, so he set out to learn new stuff. Later on, after that all didn't exactly work for him, he meditated underneath a tree, - voila! - he became enlightened.

I believe this pattern can also be seen in Milkman's novel, Song of Solomon. First of all, he is not really enjoying his "life" at all, if you can even call it that. So, he goes out to seek his fortune, but gets rapped up in finding out about his past. In other words, he wanted to know more about himself, because by learning your past, in a way, you can then identify who you are as an individual. Therefore, he tries to learn more: Why is this happening? Why did this happen? What does this mean?

The final stage is when he actually becomes one with the earth - enlightened. Right after Pilate is shot, on page 337.

"Milkman stopped waving and narrowed his eyes. he could just make out Guitar's head and shoulders in the dark. 'You want my life?' Milkman was not shouting now. 'You need it? Here.' Without wiping away the tears, taking a deep breath, or even bending his knees - he leaped. As fleet and bright as a lodestar he wheeled toward Guitar and it did not matter which one of them would give up his ghost in the killing arms of his brother. For now he knew what Shalimar knew: If you surrenedered to the air, you could ride it."

After that. All I could think of was "wow." The first part was when he "stopped waving and narrowed his eyes." That shows that he stopped trying so hard, and stopped acting with movements, but started working on the inside. "You want my life? You need it? Here." He asks two questions, and then responds. It seems that he found out that no matter how many questions you ask, no one will answer, so you have to figure out what should come next by yourself. By simply saying "here", he "surrenders" himself. Gives himself to whatever force there is. Because Morrison took the time to say "without wiping away the tears," I think that this has a huge significance. First of all, it means he didn't stop to contemplate what would be the result of whatever he was about to do. He just did. Seconly, the fact that he was crying shows that he was really living, not just going through motions, as before. Honestly, this is the first time Milkman has really showed that much emotion. So this proves that he reached a point where he became a feeling something. Whether he became something else in that moment, an enlightened Buddha, can be debated, but one thing is for sure, a change occured. Also, we don't know if he died. He did not just leap. The air lifted him, and so he soared over to where Guitar stood. This represents his courage to face the opposition. His final choice to surrender, yet act at the same time.

Toni Morrison

While listening to the conversation with Toni Morrison, I got very excited when she said "she needs love." My last blog was all about how the characters in Song of Solomon need love, and are missing it. I love the way Toni Morrison describes her character in A Mercy. Although I haven't read it, the way she says "she just melts" and "she is needy" and finally, "and then she falls in love" just creates an image of something similar to that of Hagar. Hagar is also "needy", she "melts" when she is with Milkman, and she tries to keep him to herself, or find him, just as Morrison describes her other character by "she goes out all alone in the woods, in the forest, to find him."

Then, when asked about the end of her new novel, she says "whatever the outcome...its really happy...well, not exactly, but she evolves, she is not the same...everybody changes, all the time." First of all, this applys to life. Sure, the end may not be jumping-up-and-down happy, but we do evolve, we never are the same, we change and adapt, and learn from our mistakes. As Morrison says we "will never do that again". Also, this applys to the characters in Song of Solomon. Milkman goes off by himself without anyone, which is new, seeing as he is still living in his house in his thirties, and usually did everything with Guitar. His sisters change, one falls in love, takes a chance, and the other stands up to her brother. His mother, after Hagar's death, actually goes to Macon Dead's office to stand and wait for money. Hagar dies - did she change?

Toni Morrison's conversation takes a little turn when they talk about the country: "everybody was clambering for space, and resources". She gets down to a certain point after Bacon's Rebellion, which consisted of blacks and whites. Afterwards, "the [new] law [created] racial division, and made poor whites feel better than poor blacks." So this is where it all started, and it has lasted for "300, 400" years. She implys that it has lasted because when a group can dislike another group, it brings them closer together against a common enemy.

When asked: "are we in a post-racial time?" She replied: "I'm not sure." Personally, I think we aren't there yet. I think that we are in an afterstage, where it is too sensitive to consider it post-racial yet. We can't call eachother "blacks" and "whites" without being politically correct, and there are still violent racial outbursts now and then.

She also says that "racial hierarchy ... is just a fantasy." This is not the first time I have heard this before. In class, Mr. Tangen insists that race is non existent. A made up idea. But the term "race" was kind of defined in Song of Solomon. Guitar, by keeping the ratio between blacks and whites even, characterized "race" for me. The human race, racism, racist, it is just a competition between different looking people.

"I always believed people who were like that were defficient, morally, intellectually..." Morrison says, and I have to agree with her. Someone who thinks of themselves as better than anyone else, is usually just the opposite.

The conversation continues on in the direction of Obama's Inauguration.

In conclusion, I like Toni Morrison, alot. Not only did the conversation put Song of Solomon into a good context, but it allowed me to see into the writer's ideas, and thoughts. She is consumed with the ideas and questions of "why." And plus, she just seems like a sweet, and intellectual grandma. Someone you could just sit down and listen to for hours, while just absorbing all of her knowledge.

Love

I have noticed a pattern.

It started with Mr. Smith. He wanted to fly, he wanted a passion, in other words, he wanted to be able to love something enough to be able to do it. The only problem is, he died to soon for him to tell us his story.

Macon Dead wanted success, control, intelligence and prestige. He wanted to make something of his life. Appearance became everything. When something appeard wrong, he hated it and dispised it. "Money is freedom" (p.163), he says to his son, but it isn't at all. Once you have a little bit, you want more and more and more. He tried so hard to have everything, that he forgot to love what he did have, and therefore lost it.

Ruth, she wants a constant companion, she wants to be cared for, she wants to be loved and to be allowed to love in return. she is "small" (p. 124), she claims, but in making herself a victim, and by not living life, and loving life, and loving those in her life, she is not capable of being loved.

Guitar then comes along. He says he loves. "It's about loving us" (p.159), he defends his position. But really, he is competeing in the human race, trying to keep things even between the "white" team and the "black" team. But, he is missing the whole point of love. A murder for a murder. It sounds so familar, like that of "an eye for an eye", but it just doesn't sound right. Real love is turning the other cheek. Instead of trying to keep things fair by doing wrong, why not trying to improve things by doing good? He could help his people instead of trying to make their ratios equal. By murdering, he is doing nothing but becoming a killing machine, and has lost all love.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruth, Macon Dead, Guitar and Pilate have all sung their own Songs of Solomon in a way, by lamenting and telling of what hass happened to them, and their lovers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible, Sin, and Dreams

We went as a class to check out the novel written by Toni Morrison called Song of Solomon. I was looking forward to this. It was written by a black woman, and I was sure it would be much different than anything previously placed in my hands. Of course, before I read it, I was thinking about the title. Song of Solomon. Solomon, a figure from the bible, was a king known initially for his devoutness toward God, who granted him the gift of supreme knowledge, and wealth. Yet later, his idoltrous sin tears him away from God, ruining not only himself, but his entire kingdom as well. Therefore, I thought that this book would be similar to a story of Solomon.

The first captor of my attention was Mr. Smith's attempt at flying, and the lack of anyone trying to stop him. I had a feeling that they all wished that they could take the same steps he was taking, but lacked courage to try to "fly." Then, on page 9, "when the little boy discovered, at four, the same thing Mr. Smith had learned earlier - thta only birds adn airplanes could fly - he lost all interest in himself." This discussion about flying led me to believe that they were not only talking about flapping your wings, but to be able to rise above other people, to let your feet off of the ground, and to rise above the world and the people of the world. I think that they wanted to soar, to be able to experience life like an inanimate object, with no worries, or like a simple creature, not having to participate with everyone around themselves, or to be unconscious of what others were doing, and expecting them to do.

The first biblical reference which really stood out to me, was the account of the naming of Macon Dead's sister: Pilate. Pilate was the authorizor of Jesus' crucifixion. Yet, the way in which this name was chosen also holds significant meaning. Her father simply ran his finger through the Holy Book, and saw an arrangement of lines and loops which was attractive. He didn't know what they meant, or the background behind them. He simply chose it. This reminds me of the belief of predestination. Where someone - whether it be God, or fate - choses your life, actions, birth, death and everything inbetween for you. You don't get a choice, you don't have decisions, everything is laid out before you even before you can start to talk. The "mistakes" you make, the "good luck" you have...those words become meaningless, since everything was planned from the start anyway. This pertains to what is going on in the novel, too, concerning their skin color: black. They didn't get to choose, or to choose which family they were born into. No, someone decided it for them. And they just have to deal with it.

On page 22, Mrs. Bains says "A nigger in business is a terrible thing to see. A terrible, terrible thing to see." First of all, the n-word obviously stood out. Yet, used among their own kind, it does not hold an offensive meaning, more of an identifaction of who you were. Secondly, she repeats what she says - and she is old. When an old person repeats something, it must be important. But, I couldn't identify the importance, just the fact that it was heart wrenching to read that.

"But if the future did not arrive, the present did extend itself" p.35.

"Got his name mesed up cause he couldn't read" p.53.

As Milkman is describing his dream to Guitar on page 106, I get the faint impression that they are living in a dream themselves. Not a dream as in wow this is all wonderful, but a dream where you can't run fast away from a monster, or a dream where you simply watch yourself walk through an entire day, only to wake up and have to go through the same thing you dreamed. Except they aren't waking up. They're only going through the motions. They aren't doing anything with their lives. They are going to let "flowers" "smuther" them. But, no one will help them, because it looked like they were "having fun," and they won't try to help themselves, because they will "like" how they are living. Yet, the fact that they were discussing someone else's dream also brings into mind the fact that they don't have a dream. They don't have a burning desire, something to strive for. Their ancestors dreamed of freedom. Freedom to be their own selves, to do what they wanted to do. To live. But are their offspring living? From my point of view, no. They are not living. Who is going to remember them when they leave? What will they leave behind? So far, nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. Sure, they go by every day doing what all humans do, but is that enough? Will they finish the novel with something worthy of notice? We can only keep reading to find out...

More Thoughts About The End

If Kurtz really is the idea to conquor the earth, then his words must also be part of that idea. "Exterminate all the brutes" p.123 he wrote. "Everything belonged to him" p. 121. But, he "was little more than a voice" p. 120, and voice can do nothing but speak. They can promise falsely, make plans, discuss various topics, but they cannot do anything. It is the body which carries out the voice's commands. And who is then the body in this story?

The blacks, of course. Their bodies are constantly being described. Their "black" skin, their strong muscles, their breaking, weak, and emaciated bodies. Their labour is directed by the voice - the voices of their masters.

But then, two more descriptions come into play.

That of the "Buddha" - Marlow - the enlightened one. He knows what happened. He knows what was going on. He talks, and talks - and his listeners are so silent, we don't know they are there. Why did he not talk to others? Enlighten them? Now, no one takes him seriously, "it was just like Marlow...No one took the trouble to grunt even" p.68.

And that of those who sat with him. We are unsure if they even payed much attention. One must have, for he - every so often, interrupted Marlow's story with a slight account of what was happening, or what he thought. But the others - who knows. And at the end of the novel, and story, they just moved on as if they had never heard Marlow's words.

We are the others, by we, I mean readers. We read the book, but we didn't comment, or break Marlow's train of thought, we did not ask him. We had questions, we skipped over words he said, we sometimes even dosed off amidst his rambling. But every so often, we were the attentive listener. Yet, at the end, they picked up with their lives, and moved on. Just like we will. After turning the last page, we will go on with our lives, and only every so often visit what knowledge Marlow informed us of.

Dark Justice

Marlow, at the end of the Heart of Darkness, concludes how he started: the "idea" "is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much" p.69. That is why he didn't tell Kurtz's love what his last words were, and instead, lied, creating a more romantic and beautiful image of his last moment. He didn't want her to know how awful and terrible the end was. He "could not tell her. It would have been too dark- too dark altogether" p. 157. Even though all Kurtz wanted was for "justice" p. 157, Marlow could not even grant him that.

So, what does this all mean? Kurtz is the "idea" Marlow had been speaking of. The idea to conquor the earth. His love is the rest of the world, "the commonplace individulas going about their business in the assurance of perfect safety" p.150. They know nothing of the outside world, and therefore look to the survivors of such excursions as Marlow's, to bring back the information of what is happening. But, it is not their fault they don't know the truth. It is the liar's fault - Marlow's - or the adventurers in general. He could have reported the truth, "dark" as it was. But, instead, he kept it to himself, and spared the world's feelings. And his return marked no step closer to justice, dark as it was.

Thoughts About Marlow and Me

Because of the extensive and colorful story Marlow has been telling to his silent companions, I did some research, in order to contextualize the information being presented.

According to BBC, Europeans mainly stuck to the outskirts of the Continent during the 19th century. In 1807, the abolition of the slave trade by the British resulted in their frequent patrolling around the coasts to stop other slave ships.

Because Marlow is speaking English, and is wearing "European clothes" p. 69, I can only assume that he is from Britain. So, he must have visited Africa before 1807, seeing as one of his major descriptions was that of three black slaves hauling cargo up a mountain, guarded by a white man with a gun.

However, Europeans did not frequently go anywhere but to the coasts during this time period, therefore I can now understand how shocked his companions were when they found out that he would be going to the "blank spot" on the map.

The reactions no longer seem very far fetched, and I can sympathize with them.

It wasn't long ago when my friends and family reacted in similar ways when told I would be moving to South America. Questions and comments arose that would make many people gasp in offense as to the mere suggestion of such ideas of their beloved home.

But why did both of our friends and family say things like this? Because of the information they gathered from the media: the biased, one sided, and tunnel-like-view of the outside world.

People have a hard time trying to figure out how anyone could live lives different from their own. It is human nature to assume that your life is the normal, and average lifestyle everyone else is living.

The unknown can be scarry, different can be scarry.

But somehow, Marlow was able to put everyone else's worries aside, and persist with his dream of visiting the blank spot on the map. And that shows courage.

Four Quotes Characterizing Marlow

Marlow, the storyteller, talks on and on, describing each detail of his travels. It is clear that he still lives in the past even though, it appears, to have been quite a long time ago. Yet as he relates what happened to the drifting, and possibly sleeping, men, some statements reveal much about his character, and who he is as a person.

His loneliness shines through when he says: "we live, as we dream - alone..." (p. 95). Did he never settle down, and stop traveling? Does he not have family? Right now, he is speaking mainly to himself, with no interuptions from his companions, was this a silent cry for compassion? Is he looking for more to life than just his past?

Later on, he says: "I don't like work - no man does - but I like what is in the work - the chance to find yourself." p. 97. Considering that this man has already traveled to different places, and returned, it is most likely true that he is in his later years. Therefore, why would he still be trying to find himself? Or maybe, he is reflecting on the way he found himself so many years ago, with his hard work.

When he accounts: "To tear treasure out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe" p. 99, we see how the environment affected him. No longer did he simply pass by, absorbing what was going on, now he starts to judge and make his own remarks to what others are doing. Before hand, he merely took note of what was going on. Now, he is reacting. This shows growth as a character.

Not only is he reacting to people, he is also becoming more sensitive to the feelings within the community, shown with this quote from page 103: "And this stillness of life did not in the least resemble a peace."

What is Marlow trying to show his companions with these stories of his passed experiences? Is he warning them? Or is he just trying to relive his youthful days?

I went back to the beginning of the book, to see what led Marlow to this recollection, and realized that his first sentence did not seem to stand alone very well: "And this also has been one of the dark places of the earth" (p.67). Then, confused, and not remembering this part very well, I read on to see how his companions responded: "His remark did not seem at all surprising. It was just like Marlow. It was accepted in silence. No one took the trouble to grunt even; and presently he said, very slowly -- " (p. 68).

Now having this fresh in my head, I am receiving a slightly different picture of Marlow. He is probably like an old grandfather, his mental health slightly declining, but his respectable status amongst his companions ever remaining the same, for his great span of knowledge and past experiences.

Hesitation

I wasn't far into the novel Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, when a single phrase spoken by a monologuing character caught my attention. He said: "[I] had a moment -- I won't say of hesitation, but of startled pause, before this commonplace affair" (p.77).

What caught my notice, was the denial of hesitation. Why would he not feel hesitation at the beginning of a dangerous and scorned journey? His peers obviously do not agree with his decision to leave to the unknown, and many even make the impression they do not believe he will return. Therefore, what normal human being would deny any hint at hesitation at all?

Hesitation is a normal human behaviour. Most people hesitate before acting in a way not accepted by society. In fact, most people hesitate - or think - before doing anything. In fact, hesitate may as well be considered simply thinking before acting.

So, why is this monologuing man not accounting for the thinking which went into his planned travels?

I believe that he either did think, but did not want to own up and admit to his slight hesitation, or is just plain dumb, and did not think at all before leaving.

As a child, most people are told by their parents to think before acting, and things will go well for you. Perhaps he grew up without parents, or he considers himself to high and mighty to need that little bit of second guessing.

Anyhow, the fact that he states he did not hesitate draws the attention, whether or not it is a true statement.

"My Second Self"

We all have a secret part of us which we keep hidden from the rest of the world. It might be that you enjoy singing in the shower, or maybe, you spend an hour getting ready in the morning for perfection. Personally, I enjoy putting on the most obnoxious music and dancing like Shakira. But the point of all of this is, that these little things we do, we do in the secret of our own rooms, or homes. These little moments of free behaviour help us to identify ourselves. The things you do when you are by yourself show what kind of a person you really are.

Therefore, in The Secret Sharer, by Joseph Conrad, when the captain of the ship comes into contact with his other "self," we can feel a huge amount of surprise. Is he figuratively saying his "other self," or is he really mentally challenged, and creating another person whom he identifies as his "double?" Could this be the self which he hides from the rest of the world? As we read on, it is most likely that there is, in fact, another person, because with which the detailed history of this person is acounted for. However, the significance of the repeated fact that the captain believes this person to be his double keeps increasing, especially with the extraordinary way he tries to put his crew at ease, and hide his new companion. Companion this man seems to be, for he asses the way this murderer reacts when told of a ship's sighting, and seems to hold some kind of affection for the castaway.

Although the author elludes to the possibility of the captain being insane, he puts that idea to rest iwth the thought from the captain himself: "It was very much like bing mad, only it was worse because one was aware of it" (p.37). Therefore we know for a fact that the man is not mad, or else he would deny it.

This book can also be related to The Cherry Orchard, because the captain and his rescuee answer eachother with certain monologues or facts about themselves.

As chapter 1 came to a close, I felt a sudden impulse to keep reading. This book, filled with mystery as to what will happen to this second man, and who the first man - the captain - actually is, leaves me with a feeling of wonder, and excitement. Hopefully, the chapters will hold my attention and interest until the end of the work.

Comedy Vs. Tragedy + Anagnorisis

Firs, hands down my favorite character in The Cherry Orchard by Chekhov, experiences anagnorisis in the fourth act of the play. In fact, he is the last person to speak in the play. As he lay dieing, he mutters that "life has slipped by as though I hadn't lived" and finally his last words are: "I'm good, for nothing."

As Firs realizes that his life didn't really amount to much and slips away, the audience is stunned with his death. Isn't this a comedy? Chekhov, mocking this society, apparently throughout the play was making fun of a distressed little family. But, a comedy is supposed to end with a marriage, not death... so maybe we misinterrpreted his play. Maybe it isn't a comedy.

Since Chekhov is mocking society, and in life we generally think everything has a happy ending, then this could very well be a tragedy. Not only does Firs die, but his anagnorisis proves that that life has now meaning - no worth - "good for nothing".

Yet I don't think Chekhov would be that depressing with his writing. Personally, I think that he encorporated comedy and tragedy in order to create a completely real life scenario. Therefore everyone could interpret the play as either positive or negative whether they are optimistic or pessisimistic - just as they would interpret real life.

The Cherry Orchard Trailer by R.J.

Follow this link to watch my trailer for The Cherry Orchard.

Poems

When asked to read a poem from a literary magazine, I kept putting it off. Poetry has always intimidated me. I feel as if I cannot relate to it, and I do not understand what the complex, and muddled words of the poet are trying to say. I went to the library at the last possible moment, and started flipping frantically through the suggested magazines. Poem after poem, I read and read, I could not find anything that I liked. That I could relate to. That would bring some smigen of happiness to my day.

And then it hit me.

The poems aren't about me. It is someone else sharing their uttermost feelings with the world. Trying to find an outlet to their creativity, their gift. Even if I don't like it, this is what someone created. A human being's form of beauty-and pleasure. So, I opened a magazine again, and let the pages fall randomly. It was from the magazine Poetry.

My fingers paused at page 395. "In every life" by Aliciia Ostriker.

In every life there's a moment or two
when the self disappears, the cruel wound
takes over, and then again
at times we are filled with sky
or with birds or
simply with the sugary tea on the table
said the old woman

I know what you mean said the tulip
about epiphanies
for instance a cloudless April sky
the approach of a butterfly
but as to the disappearing self
no
I have not yet experienced that

You are creating distinctions
that do not exist in reality
where "self" and "not-self" are like salt
in ocean, cloud in sky
oxygen in fire
said the philosphical dog
under the table scratching his balls

Before hand, I would have not liked this poem, the last line is to vulgar (which is nothing compared to other things). Now, I can appreciate it. This Ostriker thought it had meaning. So now, I will try to find that hidden meaning, like a puzzle, which she hid throughout her words.

A woman, a tulip, and a dog. Three different life filled things. All speaking as if they knew eachother, yet, really, they don't. The woman discovers something, and the tulip thinks something, and then the dog states something. What I understood from this poem, is that this Alicia person is trying to say that everyone thinks in their own ways. No one is the same, and everyone has different experiences. The woman might have wounds from her long past, and she is handing herself over to soon to be death. The tulip is concentrating on beauty such as a "butterfly" or "cloudless sky" - while shying away from the thought of a "disappearing self". The dog, viewed as dirty and common place, simply states matter of factly that "distinctions" do not "exist in reality." In other words, everyone and everything is the same.

Yet how do these three characters relate? The fact that Ostriker used the figure three is significant, because it brings to mind the Roman Catholic Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Therefore, religion, or after life come to mind.

A woman could signify fertility, yet since she is old, infertility is signified.

The tulip, a perennial flower, could represent rebirth after apparent death - reincarnation.

The dog brings to mind class, or in his case, low class. He is underneath the table, below the woman and the flower.

Infertility (the woman): Her wounds could be the lack of children, or the fact that her children are all grown up. She says that sometimes "the self disappears" and she can think of only her "wounds" or sometimes "sky", "birds", and "sugar". From this, I understood that in life, you can think of the sad things you cannot change, and you can think of those little pleasures in life which you love, and which seem as if they were placed there exactly for you. In other words, the opposites of life, the good and the bad, create a feeling of yourself "disappear"ing.

(to be continued)

Love

The characters in The Cherry Orchard have some issues with love. Anya and Trofimov, Varya and Lopahin, Dunyasha and Yasha, and even Lyubov and her mysterious telegraph sender all have a fate which does not seem to include an end in marriage.

First of all, Trofimov and Anya do not seem at the same level of intelligence. Yes, very much in love, but is it a love which will last? Trofimov, a student in his twenties, is in love with a seventeen year old, not a good sign to begin with. But to top it off, after a long speech of romanticism from Trofimov, Anya replies with a mere "How well you speak! It is divine here to-day" (Act II). How funny! He has just professed how dearly he loves her, and that they will ignore the others, and continue with their love, and she talks about the weather! They don't exactly seem to be on the same page, which will most likely end with a goodbye, and they will never see eachother again.

Secondly, Varya, in love with Lopahin, wants to become a nun? What? I don't really understand what is going on there, but apparently, she wants to use the nunnery as an escape from her love for Lopahin. Lopahin seems slightly indifferent, when speaking with Lyubov, he says "She's a good girl" (Act II). And he isn't "against" marrying her. But that is the end of that. I guess that won't go anywhere.

Thirdly, Dunyasha and Yasha have an interesting little affair going on. Yasha started the whole thing by "hugging" her in the first act, but from thence on, Dunyasha has thrown her self at him. Most likely, nothing will occur there either. Simply heart break for poor, simple, Dunyasha.

And lastly, Lyubov has some sort of man begging for forgiveness...through telegrams...which she doesn't even read before tearing them up. Now, I am no expert on this kind of thing, but when someone doesn't even read the letter sent to them, I don't think they will ever make up.

Therefore, I don't think that any marriages are going to take place, meaning that this is not a comedy? I am not sure, but it is funny.

Thoughts About The Cherry Orchard

Act I of The Cherry Orchard was slightly confusing at first. With all of the funny names, it was difficult to understand what was going on. Watching the film production while trying to follow along in the book definitely helped with understanding. The difference between the servants and the people who owned the house was extreme, at least in the way they carried themselves. "Mama" or Lyubov, although in debt and broke, acted as if she hadn't a care in the world. Anya, disgusted by her mother's actions, told Varya how her mother behaved: "she always ordered the most expensive things and gave the waiters a whole rouble." The essence and apearance idea came to mind with the way they carried themselves.

When Yasha "embraces" Dunyasha, she screams, and he exits the room hastily. Yet when asked what is the matter, she simply says through her tears "I have broken a saucer." This gives us a realistic, and disturbing, idea of what goes on between servants and masters.

Another interesting piece of information we receive in Act I is the relationship between Anya and Trofimov. Anya expresses joy upon hearing his name, and Trofimov states "tenderly" that she is his "sunshine...[his] spring." Apparently, something is going on between them, or is about to start.

Chekhov has an amazing way of presenting information and introducing us to the story. Events are already occuring, and we know their situation. It is as if we were thrusted into the middle of the play - in a good way.

"Nobody Kin Tell"

Okay. When a person says something, generally they are telling the truth. Except, of course, liars. Personally, I don't think that Mark Twain was a liar, therefore, when he said "that the model for Huck Finn was a poor white boy[...] who once helped a run away slave" (p.4 of this essay), why didn't they just leave it at that?

Now, a certain "scholar" thinks that Huck might be a black boy based on a certain "Jimmy". Okay, sure, maybe this Jimmy boy influenced Huck's speech. But personally, I don't exactly think that Huck was black, because, well, let me think, he wasn't a slave? Hm...good point, right?

This just proves that people generally don't know what they are talking about, and like to make stuff up out of nothing, when really the author of a novel meant something to be one way, and they twist and change it, so that it is something else. Huck Finn wasn't black. Sure, he talked funny, because he wasn't educated! And also, he spent time with Jim, who was black.

And why did somebody write about this? It is not a big deal. So what if Huck's speech was taken from a source that was African American? To me, it wouldn't change the story at all. I would still interpret it as Mark Twain writing in a critique-ish way about his society.

And personally, I don't think that it has anything to do with the way Huck constantly uses the "n-word". Although the writer is correct in that when the "n-word" is used within a certain group, it does not hold offense, I don't think that very enlightened statement has much to do with Huck not being black at all. Because, as you know, in the story, Huck wasn't black.

Mark Twain used a white boy to show how society can teach us something completely wrong, which we will think is right. He used a white boy specifically to show the change from when he was in that society, to when he was out of the society, because blacks were being enslaved, and whites were being taught that that was okay. If Huck actually was black, that would make his story confusing and take away what Twain had wanted people to get out of it.

And that is the end of that.

PuhTayToe PoTeighTow

In this article about Black-Face Minstrelsy, the writer takes a decided stance that Mark Twain was depicting the African Americans as uninteligent, and subservient to the white folk. Did Mark Twain "cast [Jim] in the role of the 'minstrel darky'?", he asks.

Although this could be the case, I think he used Jim to show how African Americans were during that time period. They were uneducated: never taught how to read or write. Therefore, people viewed them as 'stupid'. My theory is that their speech also sounded 'dumb', because first of all, they were uneducated, but also, because English was not their language. Many "Blacks" were brought from Africa, so they had a heavy accent once they learned English. Their children then learned English from them, accent and all. Therefore their speech was not 'dumb' or 'wrong' at all, merely just different. Just like American-English and British-English sound different, "Slave"- English and "Slave-driver" - English also sound different.

I would also like to take this time to show my disgust of how anybody could think that they were better than anyone else. How on earth did anybody ever justify the thought that because of the color of someone's skin, they were less of a human-being as someone

else?

Because Mark Twain was against the racism going on during his time, I like him, and therefore can make allowances for his wield of the "n-word", simply because he was using it in a way to critique the revolting way his society treated human beings with darker skin.

Yet, I still don't really like Huckleberry Finn. Okay, let me rephrase that. I do not like the novel's main body, the ending being the exception. I love that Mark Twain made it a happy ending, and I love his Jim. And I love how his Jim talked. But I don't like reading about slavery. It just is a depressing topic.

"Dah, now, Huck, what I tell you? -what I tell oou up dah on Jackson islan'? I tole you I got a hairy breas', en what's de sign un it; en I tole you I ben rich wunst, en gwineter to be righ agin; en it's come true; eh heah she is! Dah now! Doan' talk to me--signs is signs, mine I tell you; en I knowed jis' 'swell 'at I 'uz gwineter be rich agin as I's a-stannin' heah dis minute!"

Vocabulary From the Practice AP Exam

Supercilious - adj. Behaving or looking as if one thinks he is superior to others

Mr. Collin's supercilious attitude annoyed the people around him.

Duplicitous - adj. Deceitful

The duplicitous politician lost the people's trust immediately

Capricious - adj. Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior

Girls are often criticized for their capriciousness.

Fickle - adj. Changing frequently, esp. regarding one's loyalties, interests, or affections.

The fickle boy was soon found out for what he was - a player.

Transience - adj. Lasting only for a short time

The transience sun was followed by the rain.

Parsing - verb. To analyze

I parsed the poem for a clue as to what it meant.

Malign-. adj. - evil in nature or effect; verb - speak out about someone in a critical manner

Some Vegetarians dislike meat, because of the malign way in which some animals are killed.

Exhortation - noun. an address or communication, urging someone to do something

The exhortation delivered by the school's president was so severe, that most of the group decided to follow through with his idea.

Eminent - adj. used to emphasize the presence of a positive quality

Mary's way of talking was so eminent, many people stopped whatever they were doing, just to give her their full attention.

Inept - adj. clumsy

John was so inept, he frequently received scoldings for falling down the stairs.

Ardently - (This word was used in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice) - enthusiastic or

passionate

After a period of time, Mr. Darcy loved Elizabeth most ardently.

Brusque - adj. abrupt or off hand in speech or manner

Sometimes I feel quite brusque when I have to tell my little brother to wash his hands before supper, for the millionth time!

Vindictiveness - adj. having or showing a strong desire for revenge

The vindictiveness of Hamlet led to the death of many people, including himself.

Didactic - adj. intended to teach; in the manner of a teacher, esp. in a patronizing way

The lecture was given so didactically, many students felt stressed afterwards.

Ascetic - adj. characterization of severe self-discipline and abstentation

Nuns must have ascetic characters, otherwise they would constantly sin.

Camaraderie - noun. Mutual trust and friendship

My camaraderie and I enjoy each others company so much, we spend almost every weekend together.

Despondency - noun. a state of low spirits caused by loss of hope or courage

Sometimes after falling off the beam, I feel a sense of despondency

Elegy - noun. a poem of serious reflecton

The elegy was so confusing, you could barely understand what the reflection was about.

Annihilation - (annihilate)verb. to destroy utterly

The AP Literature exam will be annihilated by the super smart students of Mr. Tangen.

Plight - a dangerous, difficult, situation

The plight of a student's every day life is very strenuous.

Pastoral - to give spiritual guidance

My mother often finds it necessary for pastoral speeches.

Censoring the 'n'-word

All throughout the novel Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, I was absolutely disgusted by the racism which dripped from each sentence uttered by the characters. Dr. Gribben from the University of Auburn said, "We may applaud Twain's ability as a prominent American literary realist to record the speech of a particular region during a specific historical era, but abusive racial insults that bear distinct connotations of permanent inferiority nonetheless repulse modern-day readers." I absolutely agree. But is there anything we can do about it? History has already been written. George Santayana - a famous philosopher - said,

"those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I am sure that slavery will never come back to the United States, but Santayana's point is that we cannot just forget about things that happened long ago. It wouldn't make sense to disregard a part of history - merely because it is appalling.

Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to remove the 'n' - word, or 'injun', from Mark Twain's work, Huckleberry Finn. First of all, it would distort the past, to hide our feelings from what was and what cannot be changed. Second of all, it would be taking away an important part of the work, which creates a feeling of disgust, yet approval when Huck distances himself from society, and loses the racism which was taught to him.

In conclusion, as much as I am opposed to the 'n'-word, I would have to say that it should be left in Huckleberry Finn. Yes, racism is completely alien, and wrong. But Mark Twain put it in for a reason, "Twain himself was a passionate critic of American racism" (Benedicte Page). He wrote down history in a way which would keep it from being forgotten, and who are we to change a great writer's story?