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.