“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.

               In Hamlet, a play that I'm severely angry at because of the end, there is a lot of motifs to destruction and corruption. I said,  on the sticky notes, that Hamlet is the poisonous snake destined to kill the garden, but then I asked: Is this a good garden, or a bad garden? Earlier today, coincidentally, I heard Mr. Fortunato talking about his opinion about Hamlet, and he agreed -- It's all about corruption. But he began to speak about the "false king" (interesting way to phrase it, don't you think?), and sadly I didn't hear the total conversation, but it really made me question whether or not Hamlet is necessarily a bad person for poisoning the garden. I mean, surely it isn't good and it leads to everybody dying, but didn't Claudius start it all (as Mr. Fortunato pointed out)? Can a antagonist poisonous snake be corruptive if the garden is already corrupted? Was it destined for that kingdom to fall as soon as he became king because Claudius didn't become a king in honor, but yet in murder? Hamlet says in the first act, "'tis an unweeded garden." Unweeded, uncleansed, sprouting evil. The moment Claudius stepped onto that platform, it was obvious to Hamlet that it would fall sooner or later because the "weeds" in the garden would ruin it.  He adds to this in one of the later acts to his mother, trying to point out how the kingdom is falling in corruption and says, "And do not spread the compost into the weeds" in caution. So, generally, I believe Hamlet is the poisonous snake, yes, but I don't believe it's a bad thing. There is no say what would have happened if Claudius didn't die in the end. Something had to end that era after Claudius took over in a sinful way, and his death was the best option. If Fortinbras, for instance, came to the doors with everybody alive and well, it would create an unneeded war with countless deaths, which would also create a cycle of hatred and murder, spoiling the new "garden". The garden, in all, is an everlasting cycle that symbolizes a successful kingdom. It gets planted, it grows, it manifests, it dies, it sooner or later transitions into a new garden.  There is no way to fight it. But when it comes to the point it is spoiled and uncontrollable, someone has to kill it so that it can have rebirth and have a chance in being pure again. So Hamlet creates a baptism, in some sense, since the garden will regrow sooner or later. Hamlet is a hero, even if he isn't the perfect archetype for one.

Ah Sunflower

Ah Sunflower, weary of time,
Who countest the steps of the sun;
Seeking after that sweet golden clime
Where the traveller's journey is done;

Where the Youth pined away with desire,
And the pale virgin shrouded in snow,
Arise from their graves, and aspire
Where my Sunflower wishes to go!

William Blake

 

Firstly, William Blake uses "Sunflower" capitalized, so the readers know that it is not just an object, but a string of life. It is a being, in some ways, and possesses the same amount of meaning and importance as a person. The Sunflower is "weary of time" or is in knowledge that it is going to die soon (as flowers to die after a short matter of time) and is not ready to because it has not fulfilled its purpose. The Sunflower, in the next line, is said to "countest" the steps of the sun. This probably suggests that Sunflower is counting the steps to the sun,  waiting for a specific response from the sun. It is revealed in the next line that Sunflower is waiting for the sweet golden clime to end, in order to see the result of the ending journey. In other words, the ending journey will take place in the night, when the golden clime is gone, which is interesting because night is generally seen as something evil and negative, while being done with a journey seems like an accomplishment.

In the second stanza, "Youth" is capitalized, like Sunflower. The speaker says Youth is pined away with desire. Pined means to suffer in because of a broken heart, suggesting that Youth's desire only causes pain and misery, creating an oxymoron. The speaker clashes two opposite forces in order to convey that misery can be found in the best of things. The speaker goes on to say "And the pale virgin shrouded in snow". "Pale" is close to white, which means pure, along with virgin which a symbol of purity as well. But snow means cold and misery, meaning that the virgins are in pain and are not rewarded for their goodness. It is also important to take notice of "shrouded" because a shroud is something that is wrapped around somebody in burial. The virgins, though pure, are slowly dying because of the corruptness. In the next line, it is revealed that these groups of people are dead, either spiritually or literally. They arise from their graves, which is negative and dark, and "aspire" (the need to achieve something) the same place the sunflower, a symbol of purity and happiness, wishes to go. This place could many things, including Hell because it has to do with the dead, the dark, and the end of time.

 

So, today, as I was considering writing a new story, I was looking up the purposes of illegitimate children. Illegitimate children in literature ( found in Victorian fiction mostly) are really interesting because they tend to be "outsiders" in a royal world (or rich world). They aren't just shunned from the family, but from society as well, even though their birth is really not their fault. If they weren't illegitimate in the family, they would've probably been just as royal and rich as the rest of the family members. So, of course, this bitterness typically makes them an antagonist or a character in need of resilience and honor, such as Mordred from some Arthurian legends. And though Hamlet is not illegitimate at all (or at least from what I know so far),  he still holds that weird gray area of not truly being in the place he deserves as the late King's son. And, pondering this, I started to think of other weird happenings in Hamlet, such as Hamlet not being king though he was next in line. Gertrude marries his uncle awfully quickly, and I immediately assumed that it wasn't because she loved him, but because she thought it was the greater good. In other words, I always thought she was protecting him. But then why not let him have power? Because of the fear he'll die like his father? Because she believes he is not ready? But then I noticed that Hamlet would be in central eye. People will look at him deeper and maybe even suspicious of if he deserves it, and maybe it's because he could be illegitimate. Gertrude could have possibly had him with another man, and claimed it to be her husband's baby, and made sure he wasn't on the throne because an illegitimate child on the throne is bad luck and can be omen for chaos. If anybody in that era had an illegitimate child and put them on the throne without permission from the Pope would be slaughtered in some way or another. So what if she was protecting Hamlet because of his birth, and believes that if he was on the throne then it would be revealed? It's a stretch of course, saying there is no good evidence in the play, but Gertrude is strict about keeping Hamlet out of the spotlight, despite his snarky attitude. She is constantly shushing him and pulling the court away from Hamlet's comments, including distracting her late husband's brother by marrying him.           Also, almost like Shakespeare is hinting at it, Hamlet always seemed to be anyways in the shadow's. Hamlet puts himself there because he knows he does not belong and believes he is better than the rest. Hamlet can't be a part of the family his mother made, and maybe that's because he biologically isn't linked to any of them but the mother.  Whether people see it this way or not, Hamlet is treated like the illegitimate child because he is pushed aside and is forced to stay away from the royal power that he is capable of possessing. He even in a way seems himself that way because he can't handle being a part of it, he feels like he doesn't belong, giving him the  trope of an illegitimate child.  So maybe he is.

So for my poetry essay I wrote two different versions. One was the one I turned in, and the second one was the one I actually kinda liked more, but everybody who read it said not to turn it in because it was a political analysis instead of a literary analysis. But I wrote it at a two a.m. on a Saturday, so I was a tad proud of it. I did the Introduction to Poetry by Billy Collins.
Billy Collins Poem:
I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide
or press an ear against its hive.
I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,
or walk inside the poem's room
and feel the walls for a light switch.
I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author's name on the shore.
But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.
They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.

Essay:

               Born in the 1940's, Billy Collins was immersed into the horrid treat of the aftermath of War World Two through the privileged white supremacy point of view. These events include everlasting hatred towards the Japanese and Europe's inability to acknowledge their actions towards the Jews. Though Collins is greatly dismissed as only a woeful poet, Collins uses his writing in order to release his political views upon the world and revealing the world's inhumane actions. In his poem "Introduction Of Poetry" Collins integrates his opinions and knowledge of War World Two in which most Americans, at that time, ignored, through his gift in writing.  Collins reveals the unethical actions of War World Two by paralleling the senile events against the misunderstood feelings projected towards poetry through symbolism and allusions.

            In the first stanza, the speaker addresses the ignorance taken upon in American society. The speaker says, "I ask them to take a poem/ and hold it up to the light/ like a color slide". A poem, which the speaker uses as the large analogy in the poem, is created by words that is only fathomed by past experiences and ideas. During the era the speaker is illustrating about, majority of the experiences and ideas were still reflecting upon the war, including racism, prejudices, and abuse towards ethnic groups such as the Japanese and Jews. The speaker then commands to hold their actions towards the light, so that the hatred they hide in the dark will be revealed and the audience will be forced to confront the unfair prejudices that made up society at that time. Afterwards, the speaker suggests that they hold it up "like a color shade", or in a view that isn't seen as black and white, in order to universally understand the common emotions and similarities within the ethnic groups. For example, a color shade could be used as a  view of children, revealing the innocence and purity that rests in all ethnic groups.  In simpler terms, the first stanza creates an anchor for the speaker's view of the aftermaths of War World Two, and announces that the speaker will refuse to sit in silence while the nation refuses to work on the social issues in America.

            The second stanza consists of only one line:  or press and ear to against its hive. Not only does the second stanza hold importance because of its one-lined shift, but also uses symbolism through body parts and a hive. An ear is commonly used to symbolize the act of hearing, but it can also symbolize an individual's level of ignorance. A hive, on the other hand, is technically a closed off area where bees, which live in communities, raise their young. The speaker, in all, addresses that the level of ignorance that will be passed on for generations if individuals refuse to acknowledge their words said in society. If their prejudices against minorities continue, the speaker says through symbolism, it will destroy the future generation's morality, if people continue to ignore the importance of words spoken in society.

            The third and fourth stanza creates a question given to society and its leaders. How will the nation continue being "great", if individuals and leaders in the country refuse to see the impact prejudices affect on nations? The speaker says in the poem, "I say drop a mouse into a poem/ and watch him probe his way out/ or walk inside the poem's room/ and feel the walls for a light switch". Spiritually, a mouse represents scrutiny. The speaker suggests that an individual who holds power in the speaker's nation, to truly be immersed into a minority's  situation, and dare them to be the same person and hold to the same prejudice views when they find their way back. The speaker desires for somebody who is prejudice to see the true horrors minorities have to go through, and still hold to the same prejudice views when they get "out". Not only that, but the speaker also wishes for the powerful individual to "feel the walls for a light switch" or to solve this crucial issue that society refuses to realize.  The third and fourth stanza is more than just a dare, but it is also a way to question power and how effectively a leader using his/her power in the world if a leader does not understand what every individual in the country is going through.

            The fifth stanza begins with the economical difference between the majority ethnic groups and the minorities. In the 1940's, the cliché of a "wealthy suburban family" was starting to become real. After the war, families were starting to live in neighborhoods, fathers were coming home from dinner every night, and the women were supposed to adapt to their gender roles. But towards this typical family, the idea of family vacations were starting to become a "thing" and other activities that made a family bond together. A common family activity, if a family had a decent amount of money, would be going to the beach and waterskiing. Like the speaker says, "I want them to waterski/across the surface of a poem/waving at the authors name on the shore". The speaker uses the typical family activity in order to explain that the cliche idea was an illusion to people with wealth. Beneath the "surface" there was poverty and abuse that destroyed families of minorities, contrasting to the perfect majority ethnic family. The economical stand point that the speaker is stating is that families with money were the ones who were blind to those who did not have it. Instead of seeing beyond their wealth and what it meant towards the country, they only saw the opportunities they were given as families in order to dismiss the evils in America. At the end of the stanza the speaker reintroduces the parallel between the country and a poem and says, "waving at the author's name on the shore" or acknowledging the politicians who have let this economical difference occur. 

            In the last two stanzas, the speaker reminds the audience what had happened to the ethnic groups during the war, in order to highlight the majority's brutality.  In the sixth stanza, the speaker addresses the actions inflicted on the Japanese during the war, "But all they want to do/ is tie the poem to a chair with a rope/and torture a confession out of it". The speaker exclaims that America had unfairly accused the Japanese of being spies, and then, in fear and cowardice, shoved them into camps in order to be starved and abused. The speaker also implies that though the Allies won the war, America was so emotionally humiliated they would rather blame it on the Japanese-Americans who had done nothing, rather than take responsibility for their faults. Now that the war is over, the speaker claims that the majorities who had done this in the first place would gladly do it again because their ability to show sympathy is extinct.

            The speaker's last line inhabits not just America's prejudice, but Europe's as well. The speaker says, talking about all of the murdered Jews in the Holocaust, who had fallen to ultimate torture during the war, "They begin beating it with a hose/to find out what it really means". A hose is a tool that exerts water towards the ground. In other words, the speaker mocks them by saying that Europe is finally seeing, as they wash away the blood they had spilled on the ground, all the innocent  corpses that had been hidden in concentration camps. Unlike Americans, Europe is too late to recover what they had lost, so the only thing they can do is learn about the sins they had committed. The further they uncover, the more the nations start to see how horrifying they really are.   

               So I understand it's sort've early to bring this up, but I just realized that in two weeks it's Valentine's Day, and to be honest...I never really understood it. Though I know there's going to be a thousand girls who are going to be pulling around their obnoxious door-sized teddy bears and dying tulips, I feel like people miss the point in Valentine's Day. Shouldn't people declare their love every day, anyways? Why is the feeling of getting dying weeds and a box of calories the best thing about Valentines Day? But then, as I ranted to myself, I realized it isn't about the people who are getting the gifts, but about the people who don't. I don't think anybody truly wants an object, they just want to be remembered. They love the possibility that a person who they have never noticed may just be awake until three in the morning, debating on whether to get them a valentine's day gift, but chickening out last minute because their love is invisible. It's the ability to love that everybody is in love with it for. It's the reminder that we are important. It's  the idea that despite the fact we never truly know if people like us, that maybe people do.

               I feel like this subject ties into a lot of books we have read this year. I mean, love is always a big theme in novels, but it's the depth and reason for love that makes us read these novels. Did Torvald's flowers really hold significance? Was the feelings that Archer had for Ellen stronger than an object? Was Grendel really unable to love, or was it just that he believed he could not be loved? And, if all of these are true, was it truly worth it in the end? I think in Invisible Man a lot of it is about the inability to see each other. The people in that era were so incapable (mostly for the white people) of attempting to see through a black person's eyes, making it completely impossible to love each other. Even in that story, just a tad of sympathy towards the poor would have changed an entire lifetime. Something that may be, in some ways, the strongest love of all. This also ties into Blake's motives when he write. Of course, I could be totally wrong, but I believe Blake's heaven is really just Hell. I think the world he was in was so incapable of touching him, so incapable of at least responding, that he needed something so obscure and unlovable for him to feel love. He seeked Hell because Heaven wouldn't love him. Though we haven't read much of Hamlet, I believe he'd truly correspond with Valentine's Day because he loves his family (or, at least, his family when his father was alive) more than his kingdom. He'd take the opportunity to appreciate the people he has, and use it to share his love.  I think he understands Valentine's Day (or would have) because he understands the point of love in life.

               It's not about declaring love, its reminding us that we can be loved. And that's why Valentine's Day is so sad to me. Shouldn't we already know that?

               So, I had an amazing compliment (probably the best I've gotten in a long, long time) from my science teacher. Basically, my environmental teacher assigned a paper about the message the movie producers were trying to give out about The Lorax. Knowing that while being in an on-level class is beneficial if you don't exactly do well in science, you witness a lot of incompetent people who refuse to turn in papers and sleep in class so frequently that I doubt they even knew we watched The Lorax, I actually decided to spend some deep thinking on it. Of course, believing that my teacher wouldn't bother reading it because he's not a literature teacher, I sort of wrote more about symbolism embedded into the movie rather than the environmentalism. It only took about ten minutes, and I didn't bother looking it over twice, then I just shoved it into Edmodo without thinking about it a second time. The next morning, at about 7:30 , I got an email saying that it was the best reflexive paper he's ever read and that he had to put it through a plagiarism filter because (and I didn't know if this was a compliment or not) he didn't exactly believe I wrote it.

               I basically started my paper saying that one of the main character's clothing was what foreshadowed the entire plot. In the beginning, the Onceler takes up a good opportunity in using the trees (which are extinct now) to create this weird invention. He comes into the scene wearing a blue and white outfit. The blue - which was on the Onceler's jeans and vest - symbolizes cleanliness and unity. The white, which covers his arms and undershirt, symbolizes purity. Because the legs - a way of transportation - and the vest -which overlays the heart- are covered with blue (cleanliness and unity), it implies that when he enters the forest  he was innocent at heart and was only hoping to create a difference in the world. But later in the story, after he turns greedy and ignorant, he is shown in dark green outfit. Though the common connection between green is money and environment, it can also symbolize fertility, which brought on the climax of Ted (the original main character) having to enable the seed in which the Onceler gave him in order to give life to the trees. Basically, the Onceler let the trees live again. The colors were especially important in this movie because it showed not only foreshadowing, but how the characters can affect the story's plot and meaning so easily.

               Another large thing that effected what the plot implied about the environment was the variation of animals. The large majority of the animals in this movie were bears. Bears are, in a lot of stories like Native American Mythology and Celtic Mythology, seen as spirit walkers. In other words, the bears are seen as guidance between two worlds. The bears are the first to welcome the Onceler into the world he had never seen, full of trees and beauty, but there are also the ones to suffer when he betrays this new, abstract world. It is not until he sees the bears again at the end of the story, do the audience know that he has successfully redeemed himself because he had met the guidance of two worlds once again. His innocence and wisdom reunited him with the bears so he can rest in his original world in peace, without being haunted by the other world. The other animal which shows the importance between the environment and humanity is the fish. A fish in Christianity is often seen as a symbol of savior and faith. The fish, though they may be tricksters, do try to save the young bear, who in which is stuck in the Onceler's dark path of falling down a water fall, and brings back salvation. Though both of these animals are ordinary, they show the need for animals in the world in order to retain balance and humanity. The animals in Dr. Seuss' stories are saviors and are needed in order to truly be connected toward the earth because, mythological speaking, they are the only beings that can connect the populations to the environment. 

            I thought this would be a good thing just to add into my lit blog just because I'm very, very proud of it. And I guess it must connect to AP Lit somehow?