“There was such speed in her little body,   

And such lightness in her footfall,   

It is no wonder her brown study

Astonishes us all.

Her wars were bruited in our high window.   

We looked among orchard trees and beyond   

Where she took arms against her shadow,   

Or harried unto the pond

The lazy geese, like a snow cloud

Dripping their snow on the green grass,   

Tricking and stopping, sleepy and proud,   

Who cried in goose, Alas,

For the tireless heart within the little   

Lady with rod that made them rise

From their noon apple-dreams and scuttle   

Goose-fashion under the skies!

But now go the bells, and we are ready,   

In one house we are sternly stopped

To say we are vexed at her brown study,   

Lying so primly propped.”

“Bells for John Whiteside’s Daughter” by John Crow Ransom, is actually one of the better poems I’ve read in a while. In the beginning it starts with AN ABAB rhyme, which really sounds wonderful in my ears. It holds that same beat with CDCD, EFEF, etc.  In the first stanza, it also introduces the main character very quickly and jumps into the piece. The second stanza,  the speaker puts her against a more naturalistic feel to show her flaws/horrors. In the second stanza the speaker even takes a moment to add in “orchard trees” which can easily be connected to the Garden of Eden, and how she “took her arms against her shadow”, as if she was fighting the devil inside of herself and that she was the human who denied the “snake”. It’s really interesting how in the third stanza the speaker decides to describe poop as snow in “the green grass”, creating an ironic device within it. It conflicts the seasonal differences, and shows how the beauty is starting to be hidden. The fourth stanza gives the character a sense of leadership and power, by saying she can “make them rise”. And than from their “noon apple-dreams”, whereas if apple is sin, than that means she can make them pure. She can be interpreted as a savior. In the last stanza, bells are commonly known as “time” in older times because of the bells on clocks. They stop at one house, separating her as someone difference. It is realized in the last line though when the speaker says “to say we are vexed at her brown study/lying so primly propped” that she is actually dead. If she is interpreted as innocent, this can also be an ironic factor because she is dead. Though she is dead, she still holds an imprint on life and is obviously still remembered.

Snow Falling On Cedars is probably one of my favorite books read in AP Lit, even though I did have some issues with it. When I tried understanding why I liked it so much I realized it was because it still, in some way, resonated with our generation. Despite the fact nobody has any prejudice (at least in this country) over the Japanese, we all have constantly heard about it since freshman year and instead of just facts from history class, I can now see a realistic situation and how people would react with these prejudices. One of the few things though that I wish we talked about in our lit circles but sadly did not have much research about, was names. Miyamoto, for instance, is a really popular name in Japan and means “one who lives at the shrine” and has a lot to do with Samurais. Shrines are interesting because they are linked between life and death. Obviously, shrines are connected to death and the spiritual world, but it physically rests in the normal world. The author could have chosen this name because I can see how it be the name of someone who was connected to a murder case, but also the lively hood of that character.  Hatsue’s first name means “beginning”. Obviously, if the reader counts Ishmael as the protagonist, it would make sense since Hatsue was introduced in the beginning and was significant in his life simply because she has always been there. Ishmael means “God will hear” and is known to be the first son of Abraham. Ishmael is one of the jurors that is able to step back and see the whole picture because he is less connected to the case as a whole (excluding his relationship with Hatsue). In a way, he does see it all and he does find crucial evidence that claims Kabou innocent. Ironically, Kabou’s name means “hope”. Many names, like the ones above, have connections to the story at least a little bit, and hold a powerful string to them. Other than names, the only thing I wish we were able to talk about was the lighthouses. In literature lighthouses commonly symbolize hazard, danger, and warning. Especially if rocks are settled around the lighthouse, as the one in the book, it is supposed to be symbolize a dangerous caution. And saying that nobody noticed this dangerous caution that night, and the lighthouse was the place Kabou’s innocence was discovered, it is easy to say that the lighthouse in the book holds the same symbolism. Also, I had really come to find attachment to Alexander Van Ness. Despite the fact that he only had one part, he probably carried one of my significant shifts in the novel. He is, in a way, the one who truly saved Kabou because he held off the finale decision.

Snow Falling for Cedars Impression

               I decided to sign up for the lit circle for Snow Falling For Cedars, and so far I am terribly wound up on too many characters at once. I thought the main character would be the guy on trial: Kabuo Miyamoto. Kabuo Miyamoto, clearly someone with Japanese origin,  supposedly is on trial, and is connected to Carl Heine's death. He supposedly fell off a boat, but even though I'm only into the first four chapters, it's obvious that Kabuo Miyamoto is being accused of killing him. The first thing I really noticed about these two names is that the origin is drastically different. One name is fully Japanese, the other is fully white/European/etc-descent. There has to be (despite the fact that I haven't read anything based upon the Japanese/White discrimination) some sort of reason the author made the names so different. I'm guessing theres going to be some sort've racial theme in the book, and it's interesting that the Japanese character is being on trial for killing the guy. It would be interesting to read a book about a minority (Japanese minority) being unfairly held on trial for a white guy's death, and showing the discrimination against the group of people.

               Another character that I am automatically in love with is Ishmael Chambers. There is something about him: the way he analyzes things before he speaks, the way he likes to stay in the background before having a reason otherwise, how he is (despite the fact it's a little condescending) always has more knowledge than everybody else. He appears detached from the rest of the town, despite the fact that he plays a role in the community. He isn't the typical protagonist (if he is the protagonist). He seems more of a secondary character when he is first introduced. But when he comes up to Miyamoto's wife, he appears less detached and more of a central character. At the end of chapter one, not only does he approach Miyamoto's wife without any caution, but she seems especially cold towards him. Not really blaming him for her husband's trial, but possibly because he is close enough to her to ask personal questions, and she would rather him not. It kinda shows how if it was someone else in town, she may just brush them off, but she clearly tells Ishmael to go away. This could be just me, but when I heard there's a love story in it, I'm kind of thinking the love story is between them (or at least hoping).  Not only that, but he sees details that most people wouldn't notice ("He would remember how rigorously her hair had been woven into a black knot against the nape of her neck") And if there is, what is this guy's role? He states that he was relatively close Miyamoto during high school, and almost seems to be on his side during the ordeal. Is this "love story" a love story of the past, or a love story of the future? And how does it play in to Miyamoto's fate?a

Duckie vs. Invisible Man

Pretty in Pink is a classical 80's movie with the worst ending possible. Basically, it's about a girl who lives in a poor part of town, who mutually falls for a rich kid. There is an implied rivalry at the school that the rich can't mingle with the poor, or something along those lines. But, interesting enough, the producers emphasize her best friend -- Duckie -- more than they do the rich boy. Duckie is invisible to everybody, even himself at times, and if it was the realistic world (or at least a little bit more realistic) the girl would have ended up with Duckie because they were mutually invisible, but in the end she doesn't. This created an outrage in critics for decades because the writers made everybody fall in love with Duckie way more than they did with Blaine (supposed love interest), but the truth is the original end wasn't with Blaine.It was with Duckie.

There are so many reasons why this is so totally wrong that he ended with nobody, but at the same time a LOT like Invisible Man. Duckie was the center man for most of the movie. In a way, indirectly, he could have been perceived as the main character because it was his story that people fell in love with. But, it couldn't be his story because his life had no impact on anybody else. Like Invisible Man, his character was amazing because everybody else's choices was what caused his ending. Stef's arrogance, Blaine's rebellion, Andie's sudden strive to create a different life for herself. In a way, Stef could be seen as Ras. Blaine could be seen as Brother Jack. Andie could be seen as Clifton, because she is the person that pushes him into a lonesome, invisible hole. Duckie not only walks away from his rivalry from Blaine in the end, but in society in general. Andie was the only reason he was a part of it, but when she starts to drift away, he gets in a fight and leaves school. He runs into her during her "show of change", only to lose her. I always believed after that moment, nothing was really the same again. When she chose Blaine, she chose a different life. She decided to not be a part of history and follow her stereotype, but create her own future that has nothing to do with Duckie. Now, whether or not that should be interpreted as a death, that's an entirely different topic, but it does show the last scene where Invisible Man catches Clifton during his puppet show, finally seeing what he didn't see before.

In the end, I have to admit, there would be no way for the movie to end correctly, which is why they changed it. If they did keep the original end with Duckie...then what was the whole point of Blaine? The whole point of the plot?  The original idea was for it to be a weird twist of Cinderella, there was absolutely no way she could have ended with the guy she should be with. It would be feel incorrect, and just like the Invisible Man, the reason Duckie made an impression was because he saw, through those dark glasses, the reason that it's better to just be invisible.

Sundays too my father got up early

and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,

then with cracked hands that ached

from labor in the weekday weather made

banked fires blaze.  No one ever thanked him.

 

I'd wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.

When the rooms were warm, he'd call,

and slowly I would rise and dress,

fearing the chronic angers of that house,

 

Speaking indifferently to him,

who had driven out the cold

and polished my good shoes as well.

What did I know, what did I know

of love's austere and lonely offices?

 

    In "Those Winter Sundays" by Robert Hayden, Hayden creates a contrasting connection between family relationships and the bitter cold. First he begins by stating "Sundays too", implying that even on Sunday, the day that should be dedicated to family and God, his father tended to hard work rather than celebration. His father insists on waking up earlier than the rest, in order to make a fire. This fire could be symbolism for many different things: anger, love, enlightenment, life, damnation, destruction, and other motifs.  But in this poem, it can be seen as a symbol for life, saying that his father did everything hard, whether he appreciated it or not, for him. He would get up in the cold, or in hard times, in order to create this future for his son. His son, it can be assumed, took him for granted. The odd thing is that, according to the first line in the second stanza, the cold wakes the boy up as well, suggesting that possibly he noticed how his father would do this harsh things, possibly even implying that his father was harsh and unfavoriable, and he did not see the benefits from his father's sacrifices. When the warmth meets him, his father would force him to get up and leave the warmth in order to obey him. The son predicts that he will be scolded or be treated harshly from his father, maybe even "tough love". His son does not appreciate him, "speaking indifferently", forgets that his father had made sacrifices for him by making the "cold" or the things that could hurt their family, and "polished his shoes" or made sure his future is bright. The boy than reminsces about the fact that he always saw his father as strict and curle, when really his father was actually protecting him and cared about him greatly to make sure he had a good life. and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,

Rapunzel

               Tonight I was watching a television show and the main plot was about fighting a face-less ("inivisble") figure in order to save the "princess" (the damsel in distress, the reward, etc). So, following the tale of Rapunzel, the knight goes up her tower in order to save the screaming princess, but when he gets up there he sets off an alarm that brings a cloaked figure. The knight tries to fight the face-less figure off, but he ultimately fails. When the knight starts to fall (physically and figuratively) to the ground, he catches the hem of the cloak and rips it off, only to reveal that under the cloak is the princess as well. The same princess, wearing the same thing, in the same place, at the same time, and then it hits him: the enemy is themselves. In the alternate universe, the prince who is going through a period of vulnerability, encounters the cloaked figure again (this time himself) and realizes to kill the monster he would have to come to terms with his weaknesses.

               It was supposed to symbolize the creation of fear and how, in the end, the only fear that exists is fear itself. In other words, the only thing that stops someone from completing a journey is themselves, making "the self" the antagonist along with the protagonist at the same time.  In IM, the main character has this moment as well when he realizes that his fears let other people manipulate his identity as a person. And though he would like to blame someone -- Bledsoe, Brother Jack, etc -- it was his willingness of giving away who he is to other people, in fear, that he got corrupted.

               Along with Invisible Man, I think that this occurs more in Hamlet. Hamlet's father is seen, in a lot of different perspectives, as himself. There are even interpretations that his father does not even exist at all; It is just his subconscious speaking to him. So when he creates a boiling need for revenge, created by the fear his father's words won't be fulfilled, he never conquers his fears. If the interpretation is correct, he never came to terms with his weaknesses and never conquered his vulnerabilities, and ended up destroying himself.

               This theme is still in modern culture. In Harry Potter, Harry Potter is LITERALLY connected to Voldemort, making their souls apart of each other. Harry Potter, in a more literal sense, had to go through this theme. He had to get rid of his weaknesses such as death, loss of loved ones, etc, in order to destroy the part of himself that was trying to ruin his life journey. The part that stitched him and Voldemort together wasn't a symbol of strength, it was Voldemort's weakness. So of course, he had to conquer a part of himself, which contained his fears, in order to finish his task a hero.

               I am SO close to being done with Invisible Man, but before I was anywhere close to finishing IM I was talking to Lisa Fu (who had finished it) and she told me she wasn't exactly sure if she liked it, but it did come around to a full circle, and now I'm starting to see what she means as I am reflecting on the past pages. But what I really found interesting was the fact the main character never creates his own identity, but only takes the ones people give him. For example, Brother Jack gave him his first identity, and when Jack took that one away then people on the street gave him Rineheart. It was as if he was never born with a name. This could be going on about the slave-mentality and how slaves many times wouldn't even be given names. If a slave was given a name, it would be given by their superiors, not by their mothers and it would be a sense of entitlement, not because it is a right. So basically, the main character is a slave to society and has no true self. There is only society.

               But there are also things I do not like about Invisible Man, such as the chain metaphor. Though I understand it probably means something deep and amazing and genius, the symbol has not yet kicked with me. Does it mean that something is still chaining the main character to the South? Is Ellison trying to say that the chain has a figurative curse on it and you must get rid of that chain in order to be something? It's hard to tell, which is why I am struggling with it. I also kind of wanted someone to rescue the main character. From the beginning, any reader could tell that the brotherhood was corrupted, which was terrible because the main character is abnormally innocent. In a way, Clifton could have been his hero because Clifton showed him the truth, but Clifton's death also brought upon corruption, so it's debatable. In the beginning I thought Mary could have been the hero, because Mary (I've been assuming at least) is based off of Mother Mary from the bible, but the main character leaves her. So what? What could be the main character's hero? And then when it dawned on me that maybe he didn't have one, it bothered me. The main character HAS to have some sort've hero, doesn't he? Of course, a protagonist must be his/her own hero, but doesn't even hero have a safety net? Like Severus Snape being Harry's (secret) hero, or Prim being Katniss' innocent hero? Is this the reason that the main character is evil by the end? because he doesn't have a hero? Jack is corrupted, Clifton is dead, Ras is a destroyer, Mary is gone, Bledsoe is a traitor. Theres nobody that is willing to save him.