Blog Portfolio #4
Coverage:
Baraka!
Chimpanzee Attack Poem
Harlem Dancer First Attempt
If this was my poetry exam I would…
Exactly 500 Words. Great Success!
Power
Depth:
If this was my poetry exam I would…
I chose this piece for my depth blog because I had to do two things. First I had to write a commentary on a poem I did not really understand and then I had to add on to the post about my response to Paglia’s commentary on the same poem. Reading this was integral to understanding how to write a proper commentary because just after writing my poor commentary I read a really good one, and thus, I was able to discern the differences and it made me realize what I didn’t do and how I can do it. Especially important was understanding her structure because at this stage in my commentary progression, I did not really have such a strong structure I was comfortable with. However, it turns out that the structure I prefer was not the same one that Paglia used in her commentary of “Old Pond.”
Interaction:
Baraka!
In this piece I used a section of Akash’s piece of the same topic in my blog to further the idea of the importance of context to a definition of a word. There are many different interpretations to all words and Akash uses the idea of dictionary definitions to further this. I did not realize this, but it makes a lot of sense. He says it clearly “he word money probably has a similar definition in each dictionary, yet based on the fashion in which one uses the word we associate different meanings to it.” His interpretation of the piece was complementary to mine and it helped establish the idea that there are no absolute definitions to words.
Discussion:
Exactly 500 Words. Great Success!
This was the blog post that was the informal commentary to Wanda Coleman’s “Why Aren’t You Dead.” Giving further proof to Baraka’s ideas, poetry has different interpretations and this is evident as classmates of mine had different ideas about the same poetry and shared their ideas on my blog. Although the intent on some of the comments was a criticism of the format etc., interesting points were made that lead to discussion.
Xenoblogging:
Akash’s Post
This is my response to Akash’s attempt of a commentary on “Wanda Why Aren’t You Dead?” I bring up ideas about repetition and ask him why he chose repetition as one of his techniques. I also suggested that he make sure he knows one hundred percent of what he is going to talk about and then write, because this will help his overall writing because he will understand what he is writing and it will show in his work.
Wildcard:
Power
This is just a rant that was long in the coming and I wanted to have it concrete before I forgot it over summer.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Power
If I had to go mad, I would prefer to go mad with power. In my history class, the teacher had a lecture in which he explained the amount of power three men had during WWII. These men divided up Europe into different zones. What power. The biggest thing about this power isn’t the fact that they are changing the maps of the world, but it is that they are effected so many people directly into their households and changing things up drastically for them, and they probably do not realize. The power they have comes from their ability to change the world on both the macro and the micro.
I feel this yearning of power is a very primal feeling that has to do a lot with the psychology of a person. One can speculate about the social and neural disorders that Adolf Hitler had that made him so successful and the paranoia that Stalin had that secured his presence in Russia. Why does this want for power arise? Having power gives one a feeling of importance, and whether or not one shows it, that feeling is integral to happiness. One might be content behind the scenes, but it is impossible that a person does not have thoughts of what it would be like to have extreme power.
It would be interesting to be a dictator. I want to be a dictator, obviously one with good intentions, and only for like a week to see how it went. I wonder how quickly I would become corrupt with power. How quickly would I change a law to suit me because I could? I assume the most frivolous of rules would be made because I had a whim. This is why you have to show some respect for people like Hitler, even though he was one of the most despicable people ever. He had good intentions, although extremely skewed. The horrid things he did seem to overshadow his intelligence. In classrooms in Nazi Germany, the cross was replaced by a photo of Hitler. Instead of any national anthem, praise to Hitler was chanted. Wow. Millions of people cheered when he walked to the pedestal and this is what gets to me. How does one become such a national hero? His power came from this. What he said, people followed. In all honesty, he was a mortal form of God for the people of Germany.
Lenin has an even more psychologically interesting story. At a young age, both his father and brother were executed. His family was ostracized from society and he was even expelled from Kazan University after attending a peaceful protest. This created such extreme hatred that one cannot possible fathom for the state that he eventually tore it down. This relates to existentialism and is really the characteristics of a brilliant man. Instead of pulling a protagonist of Hunger, this man was able to change his hate into success. He did not waste time being bitter about his situation, but rather, he used his anger to become one of the most powerful men in Russia. Is a rocky childhood a mandate for coming to power? I guess I can say it is so that I don’t feel bad once I don’t become a dictator of my small country of the coast of Europe. It would be a nice country to visit for a while, but I know myself well enough to know that it would not stay nice for very long.
This begs a question. The president of the United States is always considered to be one of the most powerful men in the world. He is not a dictator. He is a beacon of democracy and all the great things that America stands for like freedom and love and all those other things that are a part of their façade. The reason that the president is a dictator is because of democracy. If a yearning for power is a primal feeling, isn’t democracy a step towards dystopia because it takes away such a feeling? You cannot say that Barack Obama has never had the urge to declare Martial Law or do some other thing “unconstitutional.” If I may go off on a tangent, I want to point out the hypocrisy that is the United States. They base their foundations of the protection of democracy and freedom. Although the writers of the constitution had ideals, if the constitution was rewritten for some reason, I have a feeling that “democracy and freedom” would change into “personal interests.” America was, for the most part, “clean” before its entangling in the Middle East, although their meddling in Latin America and their tinkering with Panama to create the Panama Canal cannot be considered righteous. However, when they entered the Middle East, oil became the main reason to fight. Rather than raising the good old “red white and blue,” they might as well raise a “QT” logo or something like that.
Now, back to my point about power. I believe everyone wants power, but no one can get enough power to quench their thirst. It is like an impossible game. When you get to the next level, ten more levels are presented for you and you not what prize you will get when you complete these levels, so you keep heading down a dangerous road full of twist and turns and very large robots and monsters until you die. All because you wanted power. So would it be better if we never had to have a possibility of power? Couldn’t one argue that power is the reason for all conflicts in the world? Don’t worry, if I come into power I will make sure that only I hold onto it and no one else can have any of it so that no one else will have to face the trials and tribulations of gaining it. Some could call me the most generous man ever.
I feel this yearning of power is a very primal feeling that has to do a lot with the psychology of a person. One can speculate about the social and neural disorders that Adolf Hitler had that made him so successful and the paranoia that Stalin had that secured his presence in Russia. Why does this want for power arise? Having power gives one a feeling of importance, and whether or not one shows it, that feeling is integral to happiness. One might be content behind the scenes, but it is impossible that a person does not have thoughts of what it would be like to have extreme power.
It would be interesting to be a dictator. I want to be a dictator, obviously one with good intentions, and only for like a week to see how it went. I wonder how quickly I would become corrupt with power. How quickly would I change a law to suit me because I could? I assume the most frivolous of rules would be made because I had a whim. This is why you have to show some respect for people like Hitler, even though he was one of the most despicable people ever. He had good intentions, although extremely skewed. The horrid things he did seem to overshadow his intelligence. In classrooms in Nazi Germany, the cross was replaced by a photo of Hitler. Instead of any national anthem, praise to Hitler was chanted. Wow. Millions of people cheered when he walked to the pedestal and this is what gets to me. How does one become such a national hero? His power came from this. What he said, people followed. In all honesty, he was a mortal form of God for the people of Germany.
Lenin has an even more psychologically interesting story. At a young age, both his father and brother were executed. His family was ostracized from society and he was even expelled from Kazan University after attending a peaceful protest. This created such extreme hatred that one cannot possible fathom for the state that he eventually tore it down. This relates to existentialism and is really the characteristics of a brilliant man. Instead of pulling a protagonist of Hunger, this man was able to change his hate into success. He did not waste time being bitter about his situation, but rather, he used his anger to become one of the most powerful men in Russia. Is a rocky childhood a mandate for coming to power? I guess I can say it is so that I don’t feel bad once I don’t become a dictator of my small country of the coast of Europe. It would be a nice country to visit for a while, but I know myself well enough to know that it would not stay nice for very long.
This begs a question. The president of the United States is always considered to be one of the most powerful men in the world. He is not a dictator. He is a beacon of democracy and all the great things that America stands for like freedom and love and all those other things that are a part of their façade. The reason that the president is a dictator is because of democracy. If a yearning for power is a primal feeling, isn’t democracy a step towards dystopia because it takes away such a feeling? You cannot say that Barack Obama has never had the urge to declare Martial Law or do some other thing “unconstitutional.” If I may go off on a tangent, I want to point out the hypocrisy that is the United States. They base their foundations of the protection of democracy and freedom. Although the writers of the constitution had ideals, if the constitution was rewritten for some reason, I have a feeling that “democracy and freedom” would change into “personal interests.” America was, for the most part, “clean” before its entangling in the Middle East, although their meddling in Latin America and their tinkering with Panama to create the Panama Canal cannot be considered righteous. However, when they entered the Middle East, oil became the main reason to fight. Rather than raising the good old “red white and blue,” they might as well raise a “QT” logo or something like that.
Now, back to my point about power. I believe everyone wants power, but no one can get enough power to quench their thirst. It is like an impossible game. When you get to the next level, ten more levels are presented for you and you not what prize you will get when you complete these levels, so you keep heading down a dangerous road full of twist and turns and very large robots and monsters until you die. All because you wanted power. So would it be better if we never had to have a possibility of power? Couldn’t one argue that power is the reason for all conflicts in the world? Don’t worry, if I come into power I will make sure that only I hold onto it and no one else can have any of it so that no one else will have to face the trials and tribulations of gaining it. Some could call me the most generous man ever.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Exactly 500 Words. Great Success!
Wanda Coleman’s “Wanda Why Aren’t You Dead” documents the mental battle forced upon African American women because of society’s mandates. The poem is about a woman with children who is introspecting and yelling at herself, most likely in her head. She is reproving herself because she is unable to keep up what every aspect of the world wants. Through repetition, speaker, and structure, Coleman is able to place us in the mental battle that Wanda is undergoing.
In the poem, most lines start with the name “Wanda” and it is repeated in the poem sixteen times. The repetition of this name makes it seem like Wanda is at fault for everything. The statements are direct shots to her as she is the main culprit for all her problems. Also there is a precarious line which reads “if I were you were you were you.” This repetition of “were you” makes it seem that there is so much another person could do if he or she was in Wanda’s position, making her unfortunate situation all the more fault. There is another similar repetition when the line reads “I didn’t remember that that that that that that was so important to you.” The “that’s” are things which Wanda cares for, and with the repetition of the word, it seems like the reader takes Wanda for granted in many ways. This makes Wanda seem like a weaker character because no one seems to care for what she wants or sees important.
The speaker in this poem is never specified, but because of the lack of capitalization of proper nouns and responses, I believe the speaker is Wanda herself. She is speaking to herself, representing an emotional and mental fight. The lack of responses makes it seems like whatever Wanda has to say is insignificant, further degrading her. Her hatred of herself overpowers her love of herself and this distress was nourished by society’s mandates. “why don’t you lose weight” signifies how social acceptance is Wanda’s primary weapon to injure herself.
The structure of this poem further shows Wanda’s self disrespect. The whole poem is lowercase, including the name “Wanda.” Because she does not choose to give proper punctuation to her own name, we can assume she has very little self respect. Moreover, the lack of proper punctuation shows that Wanda is from a lower class, further demonstrated as she “can’t […] afford to move out of this hell hole.” The use of contraction furthers this idea.
Through the use of repetition, speaker, and structure, Coleman portrays Wanda’s poor quality of life. More importantly, it is used to show Wanda’s inability to be happy with her situation. Because she is not as perfect as she feels she could be, or as perfect as society mandates, she beats herself up in a mental battle in which her pessimistic side will always win. This poem represents a problem that we all face. We need to stop getting angry if we do not meet expectations. Be happy.
In the poem, most lines start with the name “Wanda” and it is repeated in the poem sixteen times. The repetition of this name makes it seem like Wanda is at fault for everything. The statements are direct shots to her as she is the main culprit for all her problems. Also there is a precarious line which reads “if I were you were you were you.” This repetition of “were you” makes it seem that there is so much another person could do if he or she was in Wanda’s position, making her unfortunate situation all the more fault. There is another similar repetition when the line reads “I didn’t remember that that that that that that was so important to you.” The “that’s” are things which Wanda cares for, and with the repetition of the word, it seems like the reader takes Wanda for granted in many ways. This makes Wanda seem like a weaker character because no one seems to care for what she wants or sees important.
The speaker in this poem is never specified, but because of the lack of capitalization of proper nouns and responses, I believe the speaker is Wanda herself. She is speaking to herself, representing an emotional and mental fight. The lack of responses makes it seems like whatever Wanda has to say is insignificant, further degrading her. Her hatred of herself overpowers her love of herself and this distress was nourished by society’s mandates. “why don’t you lose weight” signifies how social acceptance is Wanda’s primary weapon to injure herself.
The structure of this poem further shows Wanda’s self disrespect. The whole poem is lowercase, including the name “Wanda.” Because she does not choose to give proper punctuation to her own name, we can assume she has very little self respect. Moreover, the lack of proper punctuation shows that Wanda is from a lower class, further demonstrated as she “can’t […] afford to move out of this hell hole.” The use of contraction furthers this idea.
Through the use of repetition, speaker, and structure, Coleman portrays Wanda’s poor quality of life. More importantly, it is used to show Wanda’s inability to be happy with her situation. Because she is not as perfect as she feels she could be, or as perfect as society mandates, she beats herself up in a mental battle in which her pessimistic side will always win. This poem represents a problem that we all face. We need to stop getting angry if we do not meet expectations. Be happy.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
If this was my poetry exam, I would...
If I was in my poetry exam with this poem, I would read the poem many times to get as much out of it as I could. First I would look for literary devices, hopefully with the help of my commentary wheel, and once I had them all I would put them together and try to formulate the theme of the poem. Once I had that, I would go back to my literary elements and chose the ones that I feel best convey the theme. I would hopefully be able to select three and once there, I would begin writing a commentary. I would format my paper so that the three body paragraphs each had a literary element being discussed. The following is an attempt at a very informal commentary to Gary Snyder’s “Old Pond.”
In Gary Snyder’s “Old Pond” a scenic pond is described. Through the use of syntax and speaker, the author is able to convey that nature is a peaceful place where humans and animals can coexist.
In this poem, adjectives are almost always followed by nouns, as exemplified in the first sentence: “Blue mountain white snow gleam…” This syntax is very simple; however it is useful in describing nature. The first stanza of the poem follows this style as it describes nature. However, in the second stanza, the syntax is switched to a more passive style with the noun coming before the description. “a naked bug with a white body and brown hair.” When describing the subject of the upcoming action, the syntax changes to a more passive tone, contrasting the active syntax used when the author described the nature which had no action. This paradoxical writing style shows the emphasis that the description of nature has. Rather than the action in the poem being the focus of it, it is the environment that the poem is taking place in that demands more attention.
The speaker of this poem is a narrator observing all the actions of this pond. Interestingly, he or she says “after all day scrambling on the peaks, a naked bug with a white body and brown hair dives into the water…” Rather than saying a human dove into the water, he or she describes the human as much as he or she described the rest of nature. There reason the author does this is to show the connection that human’s can have with the environment. The narrator is unable to identify the species of “human” and so he or she describes him with respect to a bug. Moreover, man is commonly perceived as being the dominant animal, however here, he is not. When in real nature, man is not special, and rather, he is not known to everyone. The portrayal of animals and humans being equal pertains to the theme of the poem which glorifies nature and shows that animals and humans coexist.
After reading Paglia’s commentary of “Old Pond” things have changed. However, it seems that I got a few things right, and by right I mean I just skimmed the surface of Paglia’s ideas. I talked about the odd syntax of the first part of the poem however, I did not realize that it is used to describe the poets overwhelmed expression of nature. “Nature’s elements are reduced to primary color and essential form, hitting the eye before the mind can organize them logically” This is interesting because it really works. The way the words are used make it so that the reader does not stop to think about what is happening, but rather, he absorbs this information without analyzing of doing anything with them. Another subject I got right was the way that the human was perceived. I noticed that he is seen as a naked bug in nature however, I did not notice that he is described as perfect pray for a nuthatch. Moreover, like almost every poem I have ever analyzed, there was a biblical allusion. I did not realize that the naked man is used to represent a primal innocence like Adam in the Garden of Eden.
There were a lot of other things that Paglia got that I did not, and some of it seems a bit farfetched. “The spindly needle sprays, all fine lines and sharp points are also metaphorical: over time, the pines are spraying or scattering their needles in the endless cycle of birth and death, where wast and fertility are often indistinguishable” How is one to get that out of such a simple line. This is my biggest issue with poetry commentary. It seems that some people can pull things out of nowhere and I really wonder if Snyder ever thought of this once. If he did, kudos to Paglia. Other things that I did not realize were that the bird is the “unembellished voice of nature himself.” This makes sense, but I did not get it from the poem. I suppose if I were to fully understand the theme of the poem, I would be able to pick out these cute things.
I think that this paper is well organized; however, it does not really need to be. All the examples argued could be rearranged and I do not feel that it would hinder the paper at all. Because she is portraying so many different arguments, the exact order of them is not necessary. Moreover, with such a compelling argument, one can risk not having the best structure in the world. But, overall there is a nice introduction, body, and conclusion with a lot of allusions to other poets that make her sound much more intelligent. I like to read these types of things because they make you realize something’s that you missed in your commentary, however, I feel like some if it is a bit farfetched, but I guess that’s what poetry is all about.
In Gary Snyder’s “Old Pond” a scenic pond is described. Through the use of syntax and speaker, the author is able to convey that nature is a peaceful place where humans and animals can coexist.
In this poem, adjectives are almost always followed by nouns, as exemplified in the first sentence: “Blue mountain white snow gleam…” This syntax is very simple; however it is useful in describing nature. The first stanza of the poem follows this style as it describes nature. However, in the second stanza, the syntax is switched to a more passive style with the noun coming before the description. “a naked bug with a white body and brown hair.” When describing the subject of the upcoming action, the syntax changes to a more passive tone, contrasting the active syntax used when the author described the nature which had no action. This paradoxical writing style shows the emphasis that the description of nature has. Rather than the action in the poem being the focus of it, it is the environment that the poem is taking place in that demands more attention.
The speaker of this poem is a narrator observing all the actions of this pond. Interestingly, he or she says “after all day scrambling on the peaks, a naked bug with a white body and brown hair dives into the water…” Rather than saying a human dove into the water, he or she describes the human as much as he or she described the rest of nature. There reason the author does this is to show the connection that human’s can have with the environment. The narrator is unable to identify the species of “human” and so he or she describes him with respect to a bug. Moreover, man is commonly perceived as being the dominant animal, however here, he is not. When in real nature, man is not special, and rather, he is not known to everyone. The portrayal of animals and humans being equal pertains to the theme of the poem which glorifies nature and shows that animals and humans coexist.
After reading Paglia’s commentary of “Old Pond” things have changed. However, it seems that I got a few things right, and by right I mean I just skimmed the surface of Paglia’s ideas. I talked about the odd syntax of the first part of the poem however, I did not realize that it is used to describe the poets overwhelmed expression of nature. “Nature’s elements are reduced to primary color and essential form, hitting the eye before the mind can organize them logically” This is interesting because it really works. The way the words are used make it so that the reader does not stop to think about what is happening, but rather, he absorbs this information without analyzing of doing anything with them. Another subject I got right was the way that the human was perceived. I noticed that he is seen as a naked bug in nature however, I did not notice that he is described as perfect pray for a nuthatch. Moreover, like almost every poem I have ever analyzed, there was a biblical allusion. I did not realize that the naked man is used to represent a primal innocence like Adam in the Garden of Eden.
There were a lot of other things that Paglia got that I did not, and some of it seems a bit farfetched. “The spindly needle sprays, all fine lines and sharp points are also metaphorical: over time, the pines are spraying or scattering their needles in the endless cycle of birth and death, where wast and fertility are often indistinguishable” How is one to get that out of such a simple line. This is my biggest issue with poetry commentary. It seems that some people can pull things out of nowhere and I really wonder if Snyder ever thought of this once. If he did, kudos to Paglia. Other things that I did not realize were that the bird is the “unembellished voice of nature himself.” This makes sense, but I did not get it from the poem. I suppose if I were to fully understand the theme of the poem, I would be able to pick out these cute things.
I think that this paper is well organized; however, it does not really need to be. All the examples argued could be rearranged and I do not feel that it would hinder the paper at all. Because she is portraying so many different arguments, the exact order of them is not necessary. Moreover, with such a compelling argument, one can risk not having the best structure in the world. But, overall there is a nice introduction, body, and conclusion with a lot of allusions to other poets that make her sound much more intelligent. I like to read these types of things because they make you realize something’s that you missed in your commentary, however, I feel like some if it is a bit farfetched, but I guess that’s what poetry is all about.
Harlem Dancer First Attempt
The Harlem Dancer by Claude McKay is a sonnet describing a young women performing before a group of fans. This piece of work was published during the Harlem Renaissance and thus has a lot of references to the African American culture. McKay uses similes and alliteration to describe the beauty of the dancer, but also uses diction to describe the greediness of the audience.
McKay uses alliteration in the lines “blown by black players upon a picnic day” and “to me she seemed a proudly swaying palm.” Both these lines are used to describe the grace and beauty of the dancer. McKay said she sang like “blended flutes” and danced as good as a palm tree being moved by the wind. These alliterations are also integral to the setting in which this poem would take place. It would be in a club and the music in the background would be jazz. The repetition of consonance helps add to the sound of jazz and reminds me of the blowing off a trumpet. The use of alliteration gives the flow a poem that is similar to the music that the dancer would be dancing to.
To further demonstrate the beauty of the dancer, similes are used as well. McKay compares the dancer’s voice to that of “blended flutes.” Although this comparison helps demonstrate the beauty of the dancer, it also alludes to African American culture. The next line reads “Blown by black players upon a picnic day…” The author compares her voice to a joyous occasion. The dancer is also compared to a “proudly swaying palm.” This simile helps show the dancer’s gracefulness as well as beauty as the world proudly is used.
Unlike the way the dancer is described, McKay uses diction to show the greediness of the audience. The words “devoured” and “eager, passionate gaze” demonstrate the hunger of the audience. Devoured is a word that is generally used with food, however here, the audience is “devouring” the girl with their eyes. This makes it apparent that the audience cares solely for the dancing rather than for the girl. They want what she offers, not what she is. Contrasting to those words, the dancer has a “falsely-smiling face.” The difference between the audience and the dancer demonstrates their difference in happiness. Although on the exterior the dancer is beautiful, on the outside she “is not in that strange place” which is happiness.
McKay uses alliteration in the lines “blown by black players upon a picnic day” and “to me she seemed a proudly swaying palm.” Both these lines are used to describe the grace and beauty of the dancer. McKay said she sang like “blended flutes” and danced as good as a palm tree being moved by the wind. These alliterations are also integral to the setting in which this poem would take place. It would be in a club and the music in the background would be jazz. The repetition of consonance helps add to the sound of jazz and reminds me of the blowing off a trumpet. The use of alliteration gives the flow a poem that is similar to the music that the dancer would be dancing to.
To further demonstrate the beauty of the dancer, similes are used as well. McKay compares the dancer’s voice to that of “blended flutes.” Although this comparison helps demonstrate the beauty of the dancer, it also alludes to African American culture. The next line reads “Blown by black players upon a picnic day…” The author compares her voice to a joyous occasion. The dancer is also compared to a “proudly swaying palm.” This simile helps show the dancer’s gracefulness as well as beauty as the world proudly is used.
Unlike the way the dancer is described, McKay uses diction to show the greediness of the audience. The words “devoured” and “eager, passionate gaze” demonstrate the hunger of the audience. Devoured is a word that is generally used with food, however here, the audience is “devouring” the girl with their eyes. This makes it apparent that the audience cares solely for the dancing rather than for the girl. They want what she offers, not what she is. Contrasting to those words, the dancer has a “falsely-smiling face.” The difference between the audience and the dancer demonstrates their difference in happiness. Although on the exterior the dancer is beautiful, on the outside she “is not in that strange place” which is happiness.
Chimpanzee Attack Poem
Sitting quietly upon a tree
The soft breeze
No sound but that of a faint bee
And the ushering of leaves
The timid blue sky above lets light to flow
Oh look, there’s a crow
Screams from the right and from the left and the shaking of the trees the dark figures attacking all the drumming on the trees underneath the footsteps the leaves crack and limbs fall to their death they do not stop until we lose our breath and they continue their ferocious moves unable to be shaken from their paths they overpower us with sticks they confuse us what is happening
The soft breeze
No sound but that of a faint bee
And the ushering of leaves
The timid blue sky above lets light to flow
Oh look, there’s a crow
Screams from the right and from the left and the shaking of the trees the dark figures attacking all the drumming on the trees underneath the footsteps the leaves crack and limbs fall to their death they do not stop until we lose our breath and they continue their ferocious moves unable to be shaken from their paths they overpower us with sticks they confuse us what is happening
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Baraka!
In Amiria Baraka’s “Expressive Language” an interesting stance on the importance of language is taken. I believe that the author argues that poetry derives from personal experiences that belong to a certain type of people. This culture and these experiences are then demonstrated in the poem through language. However, the mere language is not the important thing; rather, it is the person saying the language that is integral. An example he used which I liked had to do with money. He says that for a poor man, money might mean 70 cents, however for a hotshot like David Rockefeller, money means much more than that. When you say “Where is the money?” to someone like him, you would be talking about a lot of it. I believe that from this, Baraka is trying to show that poetry is different to everyone. A classmate of mine, Akash had an interesting take on the same idea:
"It’s incredible how accurate that statement really is, the word money probably has a similar definition in each dictionary, yet based on the fashion in which one uses the word we associate different meanings to it. For example, if we see a man get out of a Ferrari and say, “I made so much money today,” we would associate the word money in a very different way then if a waitress said to another, “I made so much money today.” The sentences used are identical, but based on the manner in which these people conduct themselves we make the two sentences strangers to each other"
The dictionary definitions of words are all the same, however it the context and the speaker of the writing, in this case poetry, that really defines the words. This was exemplified by the poetry activity we did in class. My poem was a pretty light one about a kid being rowdy in an airplane. From my point of view, it’s a harmless poem, however, from a mother’s point of view it could be something else entirely. She would be able to relate to it and thus, the problems the son is creating would be more realistic for her, and shut they would possibly strike more emotion. Moreover, which has to do about the mother raising her voice was put in there because I needed a word that rhymed, but a mother who had trouble disciplining her children could probably see this as an analogy to her everyday struggle. The problem with my poem is that I don’t have any emotion attached to it, and I feel if I did, there would be so many different interpretations to it. That must be one of the joys of being a poet. It would be interesting to see how others viewed your work of art.
“Words have users, but as well, users have words.” This line demonstrates the ability that word choice has to represent the author’s culture and what he is hoping to achieve with his work. The culture around a word or sentence says a lot and Baraka uses the phrase “God don’t never change!” to signify this. There is a huge difference in meaning if a successful business man was saying this or if a hopeless African American one was. Reverend Pearly Brown purposefully says “don’t never” because this explains the purpose of the statement. On the other hand, if a well off person says it he would be singing it to reconfirm his good fortune.
Attempts to unify language, as seen in “1984” would be the death to art forms like poetry because the different slang of different cultures says a lot about both the poem and the author. The different dialogues used lend to different analysis by the reader. Poetry is a very raw art form and the emotions expressed through it often contained many feelings that come from a person’s upbringing, thus, it makes sense that lingo plays such a crucial role in the art.
"It’s incredible how accurate that statement really is, the word money probably has a similar definition in each dictionary, yet based on the fashion in which one uses the word we associate different meanings to it. For example, if we see a man get out of a Ferrari and say, “I made so much money today,” we would associate the word money in a very different way then if a waitress said to another, “I made so much money today.” The sentences used are identical, but based on the manner in which these people conduct themselves we make the two sentences strangers to each other"
The dictionary definitions of words are all the same, however it the context and the speaker of the writing, in this case poetry, that really defines the words. This was exemplified by the poetry activity we did in class. My poem was a pretty light one about a kid being rowdy in an airplane. From my point of view, it’s a harmless poem, however, from a mother’s point of view it could be something else entirely. She would be able to relate to it and thus, the problems the son is creating would be more realistic for her, and shut they would possibly strike more emotion. Moreover, which has to do about the mother raising her voice was put in there because I needed a word that rhymed, but a mother who had trouble disciplining her children could probably see this as an analogy to her everyday struggle. The problem with my poem is that I don’t have any emotion attached to it, and I feel if I did, there would be so many different interpretations to it. That must be one of the joys of being a poet. It would be interesting to see how others viewed your work of art.
“Words have users, but as well, users have words.” This line demonstrates the ability that word choice has to represent the author’s culture and what he is hoping to achieve with his work. The culture around a word or sentence says a lot and Baraka uses the phrase “God don’t never change!” to signify this. There is a huge difference in meaning if a successful business man was saying this or if a hopeless African American one was. Reverend Pearly Brown purposefully says “don’t never” because this explains the purpose of the statement. On the other hand, if a well off person says it he would be singing it to reconfirm his good fortune.
Attempts to unify language, as seen in “1984” would be the death to art forms like poetry because the different slang of different cultures says a lot about both the poem and the author. The different dialogues used lend to different analysis by the reader. Poetry is a very raw art form and the emotions expressed through it often contained many feelings that come from a person’s upbringing, thus, it makes sense that lingo plays such a crucial role in the art.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Blog Portfolio 3
Hey!
Coverage:
My Wildcard!
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-wildcard.html
Plan
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/02/plan.html
Kafkaesque
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/02/kafkaesque.html
Interpretation of Metamorphosis Excerpt
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/02/interpretation-of-metamorphosis-excerpt.html
I Would Be a Bit Shocked to Wake up and Be a Bug
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-would-be-bit-shocked-to-wake-up-and.html
Great Success!
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/01/great-success.html
I Finally Know What to Name the Protagonist of Hunger!
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-finally-know-what-to-name-protagonist.html
Hunger Pastiche
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/01/hunger-pastiche.html
Futility
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/01/futility.html
Comparison Between Distraction Society and Hunger
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/01/comparisons-between-distraction-society.html
Ironic and Immoral
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/01/ironic-and-immoral.html
Depth:
I Would be a Bit Shocked to Wake Up and be a Bug
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-would-be-bit-shocked-to-wake-up-and.html
In this piece, I discuss something that I found integral to the book “The Metamorphosis”, the nonchalance of the protagonist towards his transformation. In the novel itself, I found that things that were not said described the characters more than what they did, and this is a perfect example of that.
Interaction:
Kafkaesque
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/02/kafkaesque.html
In this piece, I discuss what it means for something to be Kafkaesque. A classmate, Nina, had an idea which I did not completely agree with and thus, I included it in the passage.
Discussion:
Plan
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/02/plan.html
Everyone be hating on my plan so I had to defend my honor.
Xenoblogging:
Rachel’s Post
http://rahdigga27.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/kafquata/#comments
This piece is on my friend Rahul’s blog and it is the same piece that I wrote about for my Depth selection: Kafkaesque things. I introduced the idea of ironic absurdism and the “circle” of events in both the book and movie.
Wildcard:
My Wildcard!
http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-wildcard.html
In this, I talk about my qualms of existentialism.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
My Wildcard!
One of my biggest problems in understanding existentialism comes from the fact that I have never witnessed one and don’t understand what it would take to be one. It seems the society doesn’t really have much room for such a type of person. If someone wanted to be truly existentialist he or she would have to fully digest the repercussions and still want to do it, and that takes balls. I don’t think I have the guts. The reason I am at school or writing this blog post is because it was assigned to me. Moreover, it seems that my whole future has been decided for me, in the sense that I am going to go to a college and then some profession. But what if my existentialistic feelings said otherwise? If this was the case is it not safe to say that society would just say no and alter my “dreams” and “desires”? I wonder what I would be doing right now if there was no school and society was like, go out and explore and find what you like, and in a few years, I am going to ask you what you want to do. If you do not answer in 1 minute, okay, spend another five years searching and answer. The question is asked again later and the response would be as quick as a bullet and then I would go and do that and live in utter happiness. I wonder what that answer would be. I wonder why when asked what I want to do with my life I respond within 1 minute: doctor. I don’t really though. Not so much at least. I look forward to trying some other things in college. I bet you billions of dollars that in my English class in college I will be writing “Oh well, I will have time to try some things after I have completed my few years…” And thus, the trend is born and immutable. Its also important to note that the fact that I am talking about how I am not existentialist doesn’t make me more intelligent or anything. It makes me even more “trapped.” My “problem” is right before my eyes, but it’s all good. It probably isn’t. I don’t know if I have ever seen someone who is actually existentialist. And I wonder if I did what would I think about them. I would probably ostracize them and call them weird and be happy I’m not like them. I should feel envy though I reckon. There was an interesting character in my life recently, and I will name him Buddy. So Buddy was a pretty nice guy, but in reality he was messed up. He skipped school often and was into some weird things. In short, he was different from all of us, and this went all the way up to the way he thought. As cliché as it sounded, he didn’t fall society’s rules, and I somewhat looked down on him for it. Is it natural that we look down on those that we should strive to become? In “The Stranger” the initial reaction to the protagonist is that he is a pretty bad person. After understanding why he does what he does, I realize that I want to be like him. I wish I could and I wonder how much work it is to become that. The pity is that, in reality, no matter the size or amount of work necessary, no matter how small, I probably would have the gall to do it when the time comes. That’s all good though I guess. I think I am a pretty nice guy. We will find out if society begins to hate me and I begin to live life the way it should be a bit latter.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Plan
As for now I am thinking about writing my World Lit on a theme, symbol, or motif, this plan will be based around that.
1. Go back through my annotations and look for points in which I noticed a specific theme or symbol. Do a close reading on all of these
2. If there are not many of these around, I will probably have to go and reread the novel
3. Once I see what the symbol symbolizes or find what the theme is, I will research a bit about Camus and see if there is any relevance to his life
a. For example, Kafka’s relationship to his father is portrayed heavily in “The Metamorphosis”
4. Once I find all my examples from the text, I will type them up into a word document and print out the document
5. With a pen and highlighter I will dissect them and establish which literary techniques are used and what they show
6. Write my thesis
a. This will probably take a while, and I will end up having many different wordings of the same thing but it’s all good
7. By now I will have a clear idea about the overall message of the theme or symbol and am now ready to write
8. First write a rough draft in which aesthetics is not the issue
9. It is important that I get out all of my ideas here and work on cutting down later
a. The most important part here is the body paragraphs in which I explain the passages I chose completely
b. I know my introduction will be unsmooth but it is important I spell out obviously what I will argue right her and embellish it later
10. After my first draft I will edit for both grammatical errors and more overall ideas
a. I do this because I find it easier to do, however I might want to do two different edits, one for grammar, the other for content
i. I believe with this though that I will end up having issues in which I just combine the two different edits into one
11. After this edit, I will leave the paper alone for a few days (if possible)
12. Now I will edit with a very censorious eye and make sure that there are no holes in paper and that it is ready to be turned in
13. I will try and give it for someone else to edit now, preferably someone who knows what I am supposed to be doing
14. After this I will quickly reread my paper and make any last minute mistakes and then will print it and hand it in and relax
1. Go back through my annotations and look for points in which I noticed a specific theme or symbol. Do a close reading on all of these
2. If there are not many of these around, I will probably have to go and reread the novel
3. Once I see what the symbol symbolizes or find what the theme is, I will research a bit about Camus and see if there is any relevance to his life
a. For example, Kafka’s relationship to his father is portrayed heavily in “The Metamorphosis”
4. Once I find all my examples from the text, I will type them up into a word document and print out the document
5. With a pen and highlighter I will dissect them and establish which literary techniques are used and what they show
6. Write my thesis
a. This will probably take a while, and I will end up having many different wordings of the same thing but it’s all good
7. By now I will have a clear idea about the overall message of the theme or symbol and am now ready to write
8. First write a rough draft in which aesthetics is not the issue
9. It is important that I get out all of my ideas here and work on cutting down later
a. The most important part here is the body paragraphs in which I explain the passages I chose completely
b. I know my introduction will be unsmooth but it is important I spell out obviously what I will argue right her and embellish it later
10. After my first draft I will edit for both grammatical errors and more overall ideas
a. I do this because I find it easier to do, however I might want to do two different edits, one for grammar, the other for content
i. I believe with this though that I will end up having issues in which I just combine the two different edits into one
11. After this edit, I will leave the paper alone for a few days (if possible)
12. Now I will edit with a very censorious eye and make sure that there are no holes in paper and that it is ready to be turned in
13. I will try and give it for someone else to edit now, preferably someone who knows what I am supposed to be doing
14. After this I will quickly reread my paper and make any last minute mistakes and then will print it and hand it in and relax
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Kafkaesque
When I first think of Kafka, I think of a giant bug. But under this initial thought lies many of the ideas that makes Kafka himself. I believe something that is Kafkaesque must be as absurd and ironic. In this blog post I will try and argue my post and make reference to both the novel “Metamorphosis” and the movie “Kafka.”
Firstly, something that is Kafkaesque must be absurd. But not so explicitly, rather a kind of subtle absurdity that only those who are keen enough will spot. For example, in the novel, the more flagrant absurdity is that of Gregor turning into a giant bug. However, what is really absurd about the situation is his family’s blatant neglect for him. Their attitude is what is absurd about the book. Moreover, in the film, at first a giant conspiracy against the acting government which kills all those who go against it may seem like a very absurd series of events, the real absurdity is the protagonist’s nonchalance towards the whole thing. The fact that the protagonist of the film can go back to work the day after witnessing something as profane as the government doing experiments on human and act like nothing has happened mirrors Kafka’s writing. The most absurd thing one can do is pretend like something didn’t happen. One would think it is hard to ignore the giant bug in the room, but something that is Kafkaesque says no!
Secondly, something that is Kafkaesque is very ironic. The best example I can think of this comes from the film “Kafka.” Near the very end, Kafka begins to reconcile his differences with his father via a note; however, while writing this, he coughs up blood, a sign of tuberculosis. It seems very Kafkaesque that as soon as the protagonist changes or accepts a certain thing, he dies. It is a very upsetting type of irony. The same applies in the novel “Metamorphosis.” After showing very human emotions by coming out to appreciate his sister’s music, Gregor is expelled into his room by his family who now realize that his death is necessary. That night, he dies. The ironic thing about that is that as soon as bug-like Gregor gets in touch with his human emotions does he die. However, a classmate of mine, Nina, had a different opinion on this. “While at first it may seem ironic that once the characters become enlightened they die, their death is not ironic; it is a signifies their release. In The Metamorphosis, Gregor dies only after realizing that it is the best thing he can do for his family. He lived to serve his family, and now he becomes conscious of the fact that he must die for them, and finally, after realizing this, he attains peace…” (3nina.wordpress.com). While I do not know if I agree with this, it does make sense. I believe that throughout the novel, Gregor begins to become more human and thus less a slave of his family. However, if one believes that even when in bug form Gregor wants what is best for his family, Nina’s argument makes tremendous sense. Gregor’s death is the best thing he can do for his family and he would view it as a pretty good way to pass. Yet, I do not see this element in the film Kafka. In the movie, Kafka was pretty clear about what he felt about his father, and I did not see some underlying nuance love that could only come out after his death. Rather, I find the irony to be more of a personal struggle in which one will always lose.
Something that is Kafkaesque is something that is very gloomy and depressing. I believe that the most abundant place that Kafkaesque things take place in is in the brain of the protagonist. It is generally his view on the world and events happening that make it so dreary. To a certain extent, one begins to feel bad for the protagonist as something about his making makes him oblivious to a very apparent absurdity. This Kafkaesque person has some sort of defect that makes it impossible for him or her to improve their situation, however, as the reader, the ease that we would fix the situation makes us feel for the protagonist. It is difficult because the ease that we would deal with the situation shows how deadly the person’s defect is. Something that is Kafkaesque is very ironic and absurd, but not in an explicit way. Rather, the irony comes from both the supporting characters or from the actions of the protagonist. See you!
Firstly, something that is Kafkaesque must be absurd. But not so explicitly, rather a kind of subtle absurdity that only those who are keen enough will spot. For example, in the novel, the more flagrant absurdity is that of Gregor turning into a giant bug. However, what is really absurd about the situation is his family’s blatant neglect for him. Their attitude is what is absurd about the book. Moreover, in the film, at first a giant conspiracy against the acting government which kills all those who go against it may seem like a very absurd series of events, the real absurdity is the protagonist’s nonchalance towards the whole thing. The fact that the protagonist of the film can go back to work the day after witnessing something as profane as the government doing experiments on human and act like nothing has happened mirrors Kafka’s writing. The most absurd thing one can do is pretend like something didn’t happen. One would think it is hard to ignore the giant bug in the room, but something that is Kafkaesque says no!
Secondly, something that is Kafkaesque is very ironic. The best example I can think of this comes from the film “Kafka.” Near the very end, Kafka begins to reconcile his differences with his father via a note; however, while writing this, he coughs up blood, a sign of tuberculosis. It seems very Kafkaesque that as soon as the protagonist changes or accepts a certain thing, he dies. It is a very upsetting type of irony. The same applies in the novel “Metamorphosis.” After showing very human emotions by coming out to appreciate his sister’s music, Gregor is expelled into his room by his family who now realize that his death is necessary. That night, he dies. The ironic thing about that is that as soon as bug-like Gregor gets in touch with his human emotions does he die. However, a classmate of mine, Nina, had a different opinion on this. “While at first it may seem ironic that once the characters become enlightened they die, their death is not ironic; it is a signifies their release. In The Metamorphosis, Gregor dies only after realizing that it is the best thing he can do for his family. He lived to serve his family, and now he becomes conscious of the fact that he must die for them, and finally, after realizing this, he attains peace…” (3nina.wordpress.com). While I do not know if I agree with this, it does make sense. I believe that throughout the novel, Gregor begins to become more human and thus less a slave of his family. However, if one believes that even when in bug form Gregor wants what is best for his family, Nina’s argument makes tremendous sense. Gregor’s death is the best thing he can do for his family and he would view it as a pretty good way to pass. Yet, I do not see this element in the film Kafka. In the movie, Kafka was pretty clear about what he felt about his father, and I did not see some underlying nuance love that could only come out after his death. Rather, I find the irony to be more of a personal struggle in which one will always lose.
Something that is Kafkaesque is something that is very gloomy and depressing. I believe that the most abundant place that Kafkaesque things take place in is in the brain of the protagonist. It is generally his view on the world and events happening that make it so dreary. To a certain extent, one begins to feel bad for the protagonist as something about his making makes him oblivious to a very apparent absurdity. This Kafkaesque person has some sort of defect that makes it impossible for him or her to improve their situation, however, as the reader, the ease that we would fix the situation makes us feel for the protagonist. It is difficult because the ease that we would deal with the situation shows how deadly the person’s defect is. Something that is Kafkaesque is very ironic and absurd, but not in an explicit way. Rather, the irony comes from both the supporting characters or from the actions of the protagonist. See you!
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Interpretation of The Metamorphosis Excerpt
In this excerpt Grete comes into Gregor’s room to notice that he has not drank the milk that she had set out for him. In response to this, she brings him an array of food, but in this whole process, a lot of light is shed on the story. Firstly, Gregor thinks, “not with her bare hands, true.” This says a lot about the character as it shows that he has resigned to his faith of being ostracized. He, only after two days of being a bug, finds it normal that his sister is afraid to touch anything that he has. The single word “true” says a lot as it shows where Gregor thinks he stands in the world. Furthermore, the bowl which is used to give Gregor milk is the same that is used to give him water. “[The bowl] was apparently to be reserved for his exclusive use.” Once again, there are things that separate Gregor from his family.
Secondly, this passage shows Gregor’s overall transformation from human to bug. When describing the array of food that Grete brings, he states that the cheese she brings would have been “inedible two days ago.” When Grete leaves the room, the first thing he goes for is the cheese. His preference in food shows how he is changing. As a bug, he finds the fresh food unbearable as he would not have before. Also, when describing how quickly he healed as compared to his injuries before, he does not dwell on the past of how he used to be human. Moreover, he says “only the day before yesterday” and does not recognize it as the day in which he transformed. However, the change into bug is paradoxical.
The verbs used to describe Gregor’s actions are not that of a bug, rather, they are of a human. He “sucked greedily” and had “tears of satisfaction.” As a human, Gregor’s life was mundane. As described in part one, the only joy he got came out of a jigsaw puzzle. Moreover, Gregor seldom took money for his own purpose. He always gave his money to his family as his whole life revolved around them. Not until this scene in the novel has Gregor doing something greedily for himself been shown. Before in the novel, Gregor tried to ease in his family members and make them comfortable with him, but now he is showing his insect like instincts and he seems to be happy with them. It might be possible that Gregor’s shift was one of that of a switch. As a human he had a human exterior but an interior of a bug. He was constantly stepped on and abused, and was for the most part oblivious of it. Now as a bug, he has an exoskeleton but more importantly, he is living as a human! He is doing things for himself without thinking about the implementations on others. However, this change in attitude may only be ephermal as later in the book there are many instances in which Gregor has characteristics of his human self. There are many times when he tries to help the other members of the family such as when he tries to help Grete fetch medicine for their mother. Yet, it is possible that this scene marks a shift in Gregor’s attitude. After this point, he begins to do things more for himself and less for his family. Although it is detrimental and ugly to them (as he is in the form of a cockroach now), it is the beginning of a positive change. There is always a first time for everything as for the first in the novel, the only thing on Gregor’s mind is his own satisfaction.
Number 2!
In Franz Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” the protagonist Gregor goes through a paradoxical change. The personality, cravings, and exterior of Gregor change into those of a beetle, but his emotions develop into those that are more human than they were before:
“… sucked greedily at the cheese, which more than any of the other delicacies attracted him at once, and strongly. One after another, and with tears of satisfaction in his eyes, he quickly devoured the cheese, the vegetables, and the sauce; the fresh food, on the other hand, had no charm for him, he could not even stand the smell of it and actually dragged away to some little distance the things he wanted to eat.” (Kafka, 75)
There is a clear contrast between the food Gregor is eating and the emotions portrayed while he is eating. While the food he is consuming belongs to a bug’s palate, the words used to describe his feelings while eating are entirely human. Gregor feels happy, greedy, and disgusted all because of this food, something that his normal apathetic self did not feel in full human form. Before his metamorphosis, Gregor has notorious for his complacency to the extent that he lived his life in order to provide support for his under appreciative family. In short, he did not live for himself as even his job was prescribed onto him. However, now he is being selfish and doing things for himself. When he finds some food unappetizing, he moves the food he wants away from it. This is a very selfish act, but one could argue that it is also very human. On the other hand, the food that Gregor finds such satisfaction from is not one that a normal human would find happiness in. It might be possible that Gregor’s shift was one of that of a switch. As a human he had a human exterior but an interior of a bug. He was constantly stepped on and abused, and was for the most part oblivious of it. Now as a bug, he has an exoskeleton but more importantly, he is living as a human. He is doing things for himself without thinking about the implementations on others. The metamorphosis of Gregor is paradoxical as on the exterior he becomes more bug like while on the inside he becomes more human. The food that pleases him the most a piece of cheese that “Gregor would have pronounced inedible two days ago…” (Kafka, 74). Now Gregor “no longer feels incapacitated…” (Kafka, 75). Although this is used to describe how easily the new Gregor can overcome physical ailments, it is all encompassing. Before the metamorphosis, he was “still suffering from the wound only the day before yesterday.” (Kafka, 75). The “day before yesterday” was the day before his metamorphosis, therefore, Gregor felt hindered by life before he transformed. Furthermore, it is evident that Gregor knows that he has changed as he understands that Grete is uncomfortable in his presence. “… not with her bare hands, true…” (Kafka, 74). He understands that he is a bug and that on the outside he is ugly. With this said, it is plausible that Gregor is not aware of the other half of his transformation. He is not consciously aware of the selfish things that he is doing but once again, this just proves the point that he is acting human. While eating his food, he does not stop once to think about others or about how he is only doing things for himself, rather it has started to become his own nature. Gregor’s transformation into a bug is a very good thing as although his exterior turns into that of a beetle, his emotions and personality becomes one of a human, something that he lacked when he was in human form.
Secondly, this passage shows Gregor’s overall transformation from human to bug. When describing the array of food that Grete brings, he states that the cheese she brings would have been “inedible two days ago.” When Grete leaves the room, the first thing he goes for is the cheese. His preference in food shows how he is changing. As a bug, he finds the fresh food unbearable as he would not have before. Also, when describing how quickly he healed as compared to his injuries before, he does not dwell on the past of how he used to be human. Moreover, he says “only the day before yesterday” and does not recognize it as the day in which he transformed. However, the change into bug is paradoxical.
The verbs used to describe Gregor’s actions are not that of a bug, rather, they are of a human. He “sucked greedily” and had “tears of satisfaction.” As a human, Gregor’s life was mundane. As described in part one, the only joy he got came out of a jigsaw puzzle. Moreover, Gregor seldom took money for his own purpose. He always gave his money to his family as his whole life revolved around them. Not until this scene in the novel has Gregor doing something greedily for himself been shown. Before in the novel, Gregor tried to ease in his family members and make them comfortable with him, but now he is showing his insect like instincts and he seems to be happy with them. It might be possible that Gregor’s shift was one of that of a switch. As a human he had a human exterior but an interior of a bug. He was constantly stepped on and abused, and was for the most part oblivious of it. Now as a bug, he has an exoskeleton but more importantly, he is living as a human! He is doing things for himself without thinking about the implementations on others. However, this change in attitude may only be ephermal as later in the book there are many instances in which Gregor has characteristics of his human self. There are many times when he tries to help the other members of the family such as when he tries to help Grete fetch medicine for their mother. Yet, it is possible that this scene marks a shift in Gregor’s attitude. After this point, he begins to do things more for himself and less for his family. Although it is detrimental and ugly to them (as he is in the form of a cockroach now), it is the beginning of a positive change. There is always a first time for everything as for the first in the novel, the only thing on Gregor’s mind is his own satisfaction.
Number 2!
In Franz Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” the protagonist Gregor goes through a paradoxical change. The personality, cravings, and exterior of Gregor change into those of a beetle, but his emotions develop into those that are more human than they were before:
“… sucked greedily at the cheese, which more than any of the other delicacies attracted him at once, and strongly. One after another, and with tears of satisfaction in his eyes, he quickly devoured the cheese, the vegetables, and the sauce; the fresh food, on the other hand, had no charm for him, he could not even stand the smell of it and actually dragged away to some little distance the things he wanted to eat.” (Kafka, 75)
There is a clear contrast between the food Gregor is eating and the emotions portrayed while he is eating. While the food he is consuming belongs to a bug’s palate, the words used to describe his feelings while eating are entirely human. Gregor feels happy, greedy, and disgusted all because of this food, something that his normal apathetic self did not feel in full human form. Before his metamorphosis, Gregor has notorious for his complacency to the extent that he lived his life in order to provide support for his under appreciative family. In short, he did not live for himself as even his job was prescribed onto him. However, now he is being selfish and doing things for himself. When he finds some food unappetizing, he moves the food he wants away from it. This is a very selfish act, but one could argue that it is also very human. On the other hand, the food that Gregor finds such satisfaction from is not one that a normal human would find happiness in. It might be possible that Gregor’s shift was one of that of a switch. As a human he had a human exterior but an interior of a bug. He was constantly stepped on and abused, and was for the most part oblivious of it. Now as a bug, he has an exoskeleton but more importantly, he is living as a human. He is doing things for himself without thinking about the implementations on others. The metamorphosis of Gregor is paradoxical as on the exterior he becomes more bug like while on the inside he becomes more human. The food that pleases him the most a piece of cheese that “Gregor would have pronounced inedible two days ago…” (Kafka, 74). Now Gregor “no longer feels incapacitated…” (Kafka, 75). Although this is used to describe how easily the new Gregor can overcome physical ailments, it is all encompassing. Before the metamorphosis, he was “still suffering from the wound only the day before yesterday.” (Kafka, 75). The “day before yesterday” was the day before his metamorphosis, therefore, Gregor felt hindered by life before he transformed. Furthermore, it is evident that Gregor knows that he has changed as he understands that Grete is uncomfortable in his presence. “… not with her bare hands, true…” (Kafka, 74). He understands that he is a bug and that on the outside he is ugly. With this said, it is plausible that Gregor is not aware of the other half of his transformation. He is not consciously aware of the selfish things that he is doing but once again, this just proves the point that he is acting human. While eating his food, he does not stop once to think about others or about how he is only doing things for himself, rather it has started to become his own nature. Gregor’s transformation into a bug is a very good thing as although his exterior turns into that of a beetle, his emotions and personality becomes one of a human, something that he lacked when he was in human form.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
I Would Be a Bit Shocked to Wake up and be a Bug
Gregor’s nonchalance towards him being an insect shows a lot about the character. In the first part of The Metamorphosis, Franz Kafka’s use of indirect characterization is abundant and useful to understanding the protagonist. “What about sleeping a little longer and forgetting all this nonsense…” (54). If I woke up as a bug I would either be nonplused to the extent where I wouldn’t move for days or I would go crazy and end up destroying my house through my antics. I wouldn’t be okay to have a bit longer of a nap. I would be disgusted with myself. How can you not be shocked to wake up as a bug!? It would be crazy. I don’t think I would like it very much either. Anyway, Gregor does not have his priorities right but it is not like he is some lazy guy. Rather, we see what is really on his mind a few pages later. When the chief clerk comes in to see why Gregor has not come into work, he tries to placate him and mentally thinks that he will be able to make the 8 o’clock train to work. Why!! No one in their right mind would be thinking about going to a job as mundane as Gregor’s when they are in the body of an insect. “Gregor realized that the chief clerk must on no account be allowed to go away in this [negative] frame of mind in his position… Gregor had this foresight. The chief clerk must be detained, soothed, persuaded, and finally won over…” (68). Wow. Gregor is more intent on trying to get the chief clerk to like him than he is about getting better. He never even takes into account that he is ill and that he could go to the hospital right across his house to receive some sort of treatment. The thing that makes me feel even worse for Gregor is that the job he has is pretty much BS. He has to work at this company because his parents are indebted to the boss. Maybe if he was some artist introspecting and doing something he loved him wanting to work would have reason, but no. He works at a mundane job which he really has no liking for in order to help his under appreciative parents. In the devastating state the Gregor is in, the fact that he does not take a minute of the day to think “oh no poor me, my life sucks” is unacceptable. I’m not advocating for people to complain but someone in that situation deserves some self pity and it disturbs me that he cannot feel that. He does not live for himself and therefore cannot emotionally connect to himself. “The boy thinks nothing but his work… He just sits there quietly at the table reading a newspaper or looking through railroad timetables. The only amusement he gets is working with his jigsaw…” (60). Gregor has no freedom. Kafka’s indirect characterization of the protagonist shows his disgusting selflessness and his disregard for himself. Through portraying the metamorphosis with such indifference, the author shows how the main concern is Gregor’s life is not him. This is the nightmare of any existentialist. The movement advocates living for oneself and doing things because one feels that that is the right thing to do. Gregor will never experience that and it sucks. Rather, his own problems lie very low on the list of his priorities.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
I Finally Know What to Name the Protagonist of Hunger!
James Wood’s piece “Knut Hamsun’s Christian Perversion” elucidates all the mysterious surrounding the protagonist of Hunger. The character that none can parallel had to have some inspiration, and that inspiration came from the author himself, moreover, the protagonist might as well be named Knut Hamsun! The things that make Knut Hamsun himself are as crazy as those that make the protagonist himself. Hamsun was born into poverty, disparaged religion, was self conscious about his origins, he was hysterical, skittish, and often rudely eccentric. Just like the protagonist, he moved to a poor district called Christiania. It seems like everything he did was out of sincere madness. The reason he liked the Nazis is not because he was an anti-Semite, rather he despised English occupation. Furthermore, he was the “king of man who wanted to be thrown out of parties.” And this most upsetting of all, he drifted into oblivion just as the protagonist did when he boarded the boat at the end of the novel.
Before I begin praises Wood for his ability to psychoanalyze the protagonist, I want to praise Knut Hamsun. No matter how arrogant and incorrigible his personality seems, I think it is necessary to note his abundant humility and humbleness. If his characters are based on him, he might be one of the most down to earth and crazy person in the world. He knows that he is mad. I know I have faults, yet if I were to write a book with a protagonist based on myself; it is safe to say that I would embellish it very much. I think it is necessary to note and honor Knut Hamsun for his ability to be blatantly honest with a unsavory side of himself.
In fact, Hamsun himself, and therefore his characters, are so complex, I was surprised by what Woods was able to deduct about their personalities. I never thought of it, but it makes so much sense that the protagonist wants to be punished. He sins so that he can be punished. When he lies, he wants to be caught. When he thinks he steals, he wants to get in trouble. But what is the force that controls this? “We are able to see that his characters believe that they control their destinies, and that is a delusion.” What I could only establish as capriciousness in the protagonist, Woods makes clearer. He will attack himself for his own self induced poverty, and then a few lines later, will reject money because he is full of false pride.
What I consider to be a major aspect of the novel is the characters lack of certainty. The fact that he goes off tangents is all encompassing, and Woods dissected why he does what he does. The protagonist sins to get in trouble and has a strong sense of false pride which only mirrors the conditions that Hamsun lived in. Moreover, the protagonist’s craziness, however sad it may be, is an exact replica of Hamsun. The most disturbing display of madness in the novel when the protagonist bites his own finger actually happened in Hamsun’s life, yet to a greater extent. Hamsun actually hacked at his own leg with an axe! How does this happen! With a man like this writing a novel, it is inherent that a major idea from it will be the absolute craziness that the protagonist has. “I dream of literature with characters in which their vary lack of consistency is their basic characteristics.” – Knut Hamsun. I reckon he achieved that very well!
Also, I think Knut Hamsun is pretty badass because when he went to meet Hitler, one of the most powerful people in the world at the time, he showed no respect for him. He had the balls to lecture him and complain about one of his representatives. “An aide later recalled that Knut Hamsun was the only man he had ever seen thwart Hitler.” What a guy.
Before I begin praises Wood for his ability to psychoanalyze the protagonist, I want to praise Knut Hamsun. No matter how arrogant and incorrigible his personality seems, I think it is necessary to note his abundant humility and humbleness. If his characters are based on him, he might be one of the most down to earth and crazy person in the world. He knows that he is mad. I know I have faults, yet if I were to write a book with a protagonist based on myself; it is safe to say that I would embellish it very much. I think it is necessary to note and honor Knut Hamsun for his ability to be blatantly honest with a unsavory side of himself.
In fact, Hamsun himself, and therefore his characters, are so complex, I was surprised by what Woods was able to deduct about their personalities. I never thought of it, but it makes so much sense that the protagonist wants to be punished. He sins so that he can be punished. When he lies, he wants to be caught. When he thinks he steals, he wants to get in trouble. But what is the force that controls this? “We are able to see that his characters believe that they control their destinies, and that is a delusion.” What I could only establish as capriciousness in the protagonist, Woods makes clearer. He will attack himself for his own self induced poverty, and then a few lines later, will reject money because he is full of false pride.
What I consider to be a major aspect of the novel is the characters lack of certainty. The fact that he goes off tangents is all encompassing, and Woods dissected why he does what he does. The protagonist sins to get in trouble and has a strong sense of false pride which only mirrors the conditions that Hamsun lived in. Moreover, the protagonist’s craziness, however sad it may be, is an exact replica of Hamsun. The most disturbing display of madness in the novel when the protagonist bites his own finger actually happened in Hamsun’s life, yet to a greater extent. Hamsun actually hacked at his own leg with an axe! How does this happen! With a man like this writing a novel, it is inherent that a major idea from it will be the absolute craziness that the protagonist has. “I dream of literature with characters in which their vary lack of consistency is their basic characteristics.” – Knut Hamsun. I reckon he achieved that very well!
Also, I think Knut Hamsun is pretty badass because when he went to meet Hitler, one of the most powerful people in the world at the time, he showed no respect for him. He had the balls to lecture him and complain about one of his representatives. “An aide later recalled that Knut Hamsun was the only man he had ever seen thwart Hitler.” What a guy.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Hunger Pastiche
My Friend the Protagonist Talks about the SAT
I could see the sun rises from the peripheral of my vision. It seemed as if it was beckoning all the citizens of Christiania onto the streets. How they judge me. Stop! I must not get distracted from my work. This is useless. Futile. How does this test show who I am as a person? What gives this test the right to denote who I am? Aren’t I more than a number! I got up in a fury and began to vehemently rip the paper into pieces. The scraps of paper falling from my fingers brought my joy. I stomped on the scraps of the paper. Oh, that will show College Board, I thought. I can imagine the administrators now. Oh no kind sir, why did you rip our test, what did we do wrong!? Hahaha, I would reply smugly, tests like this do not accurately asses someone of my standard. Yes my position. In fact, if anything, your test is nothing but an insult. How dare you! Who do you think you are! People like you are what is wrong with society! The rough wood floors began to irritate the bare skin on my feet.
I could see the sun rises from the peripheral of my vision. It seemed as if it was beckoning all the citizens of Christiania onto the streets. How they judge me. Stop! I must not get distracted from my work. This is useless. Futile. How does this test show who I am as a person? What gives this test the right to denote who I am? Aren’t I more than a number! I got up in a fury and began to vehemently rip the paper into pieces. The scraps of paper falling from my fingers brought my joy. I stomped on the scraps of the paper. Oh, that will show College Board, I thought. I can imagine the administrators now. Oh no kind sir, why did you rip our test, what did we do wrong!? Hahaha, I would reply smugly, tests like this do not accurately asses someone of my standard. Yes my position. In fact, if anything, your test is nothing but an insult. How dare you! Who do you think you are! People like you are what is wrong with society! The rough wood floors began to irritate the bare skin on my feet.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Futility
Franz Kafka’s “A Hunger Artist” and Knut Hamsun’s “Hunger” have a lot in common, but even more holistic than that, Kafka’s piece truly embodies what I see to be the existentialist movement’s opinion of the world. Firstly, I am going to discuss the similarities to the novel we are reading, and then I am going to give another opinion of the piece that I feel emulates the movement. The thing that will differentiate the paragraphs is whether one believes that the Artist likes what he is doing.
One could argue that the protagonist in “A Hunger Artist” does what he does solely to placate others. Also, just like in Hunger, the Artist tries to save face when spectators make fun of him. He wants the people to believe that he is truly fasting… but why? “He could keep showing them once again that he had nothing to eat in his cage and that he was fasting as none of them could.” From this, it seems that the protagonist strives off others perceptions of him rather than his own doings. I see a lot of similarities between the protagonists of the two pieces of literature. Both of them are extremely concerned with how the outside world perceives them, even if it hinders them. Like in Knut’s book, the protagonist would rather die of starvation than seem indecent because he was unable to return someone five kroner that he owed. The protagonist in Kafka’s piece of literature is just the same.
However, if one believes that the Artist “was fanatically devoted to fasting more than anything else”; there are more references to be made to the whole existentialism unit. Also, I think it is important to say that I do not really think that the protagonist in Hunger loves writing as much as Kafka’s does; therefore, I will refrain from making any of those connections. But, if you believe that Hunger’s protagonist loves to write, then it would make sense for you to connect the two. The Hunger Artist wants to reach new levels of glory in his fasting career. He knows that he can fast more than forty days, but the impresario hinders him from doing that. The impresario might as well be called society because I believe that is what Kafka is saying. Society impedes us from becoming what we truly can. It stops our potential and in turn uses us for what it feels necessary. Later in the piece the text reads, “The hunger artist responded with an outburst of rage and began to shake the cage like an animal, frightening everyone. But the impresario had a way of punishing moments like this, something he was happy to use.” Once again society is at play and is using his powers to mollify us. Society controls us even though we have the ability to strive farther than it permits. Moreover, when the Artist decides to move to the circus, once again “he did not dare to approach the administration about it.” Although the idea of a Hunger Artist seems weird to us, it becomes clear that the protagonist was not living up to his full potential, only because society did not really have much room for it. He was unnecessary.
The thing that got me thinking the most in this passage occurred on the last page. When questioned why he would not do anything else by the supervisor, he responded “Because I couldn’t find a food which tasted good to me.” I think this means that he could not find another path of life that made him happy. So, he went for what he loved, being a Hunger Artist and what did he get… death. Even worse to that, seemingly a characteristic of existentialism, no one remembers the Hunger Artist as his cage is replaced with a panther. The world sucks.
One could argue that the protagonist in “A Hunger Artist” does what he does solely to placate others. Also, just like in Hunger, the Artist tries to save face when spectators make fun of him. He wants the people to believe that he is truly fasting… but why? “He could keep showing them once again that he had nothing to eat in his cage and that he was fasting as none of them could.” From this, it seems that the protagonist strives off others perceptions of him rather than his own doings. I see a lot of similarities between the protagonists of the two pieces of literature. Both of them are extremely concerned with how the outside world perceives them, even if it hinders them. Like in Knut’s book, the protagonist would rather die of starvation than seem indecent because he was unable to return someone five kroner that he owed. The protagonist in Kafka’s piece of literature is just the same.
However, if one believes that the Artist “was fanatically devoted to fasting more than anything else”; there are more references to be made to the whole existentialism unit. Also, I think it is important to say that I do not really think that the protagonist in Hunger loves writing as much as Kafka’s does; therefore, I will refrain from making any of those connections. But, if you believe that Hunger’s protagonist loves to write, then it would make sense for you to connect the two. The Hunger Artist wants to reach new levels of glory in his fasting career. He knows that he can fast more than forty days, but the impresario hinders him from doing that. The impresario might as well be called society because I believe that is what Kafka is saying. Society impedes us from becoming what we truly can. It stops our potential and in turn uses us for what it feels necessary. Later in the piece the text reads, “The hunger artist responded with an outburst of rage and began to shake the cage like an animal, frightening everyone. But the impresario had a way of punishing moments like this, something he was happy to use.” Once again society is at play and is using his powers to mollify us. Society controls us even though we have the ability to strive farther than it permits. Moreover, when the Artist decides to move to the circus, once again “he did not dare to approach the administration about it.” Although the idea of a Hunger Artist seems weird to us, it becomes clear that the protagonist was not living up to his full potential, only because society did not really have much room for it. He was unnecessary.
The thing that got me thinking the most in this passage occurred on the last page. When questioned why he would not do anything else by the supervisor, he responded “Because I couldn’t find a food which tasted good to me.” I think this means that he could not find another path of life that made him happy. So, he went for what he loved, being a Hunger Artist and what did he get… death. Even worse to that, seemingly a characteristic of existentialism, no one remembers the Hunger Artist as his cage is replaced with a panther. The world sucks.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Comparisons Between The Distraction Society and Hunger
In this article, the author explicitly states that things like e-mail and twitter have become too prominent of things in our lives. Philosopher Blaine Pascal stated “The sole cause of man’s unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.” I can relate to this immensely, and things as easily available as e-mail and other web based things just catalyze off-tasking. The author also states that we’re seeking some consolation, asylum or easy pleasure.” The internet is that in a nutshell. The reason people search for distractions is because things like pain and boredom are sometimes too much to bear. Rather, it is easier to find a distraction than confront what we do not want to. There are many examples of these distractions in Hunger by Knut Hamsun.
Throughout the book, the protagonist goes off into seemingly harmless tangents of deranged thought that actually begin to consume him. What started out as an innocent whim turns into a fully fledged fact that he cannot get out of his head. His capriciousness hinders him from staying on task. Examples of this also happen when he is trying to write. Although he knows that his life and getting food depends on him writing a good story and getting them published, he finds himself distracted by the smallest things such as flies on his paper. But why does he fool around so much if he is in such a poor state of living?
Just as we find distractions from the cruelness of the world in the internet, the protagonist of Hunger finds distractions from his horrid life in his crazy tangents. Although the character believes he is a strong willed man, the reason the man does what he does is because he can’t bare the life he has. He cannot stand to face the world he has so he creates little worlds of his own and gets carried away with these stories so that he does not have to live in the real world.
Throughout the book, the protagonist goes off into seemingly harmless tangents of deranged thought that actually begin to consume him. What started out as an innocent whim turns into a fully fledged fact that he cannot get out of his head. His capriciousness hinders him from staying on task. Examples of this also happen when he is trying to write. Although he knows that his life and getting food depends on him writing a good story and getting them published, he finds himself distracted by the smallest things such as flies on his paper. But why does he fool around so much if he is in such a poor state of living?
Just as we find distractions from the cruelness of the world in the internet, the protagonist of Hunger finds distractions from his horrid life in his crazy tangents. Although the character believes he is a strong willed man, the reason the man does what he does is because he can’t bare the life he has. He cannot stand to face the world he has so he creates little worlds of his own and gets carried away with these stories so that he does not have to live in the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)