Sentence Summary: Following the death of her brother, a woman feels compelled to create an epitaph for him, although she is aware that this work can in no way convey who her brother really was.
Paragraph Summary: This work is referred to as "an epitaph" by the author. It is for her dead brother. The work starts with a Latin elegy, and a translation for each word is provided throughout the work. It is revealed that this elegy was written for the author's brother, who died away from home. Alongside the translations, the author discusses the limitations and strangeness of human history, as well as memories of her brother. Family pictures, and other pictures relating to her brother are also included throughout the work. Also, a letter from her brother discussing the death of Anna, a woman he loved, is included. All these aspects combine to create an emotional, yet incomplete picture of the author's brother, and their relationship.
Close Reading: "What if you made a collection of lexical entries, as someone who is asked to come up with a number for the population of the Skythians might point to the bowl at Exampaios."
In this sentence "a collection of lexical entries" simply means a collection of written descriptions. The second part of the sentence is referencing an account made by Herodotos, which is included earlier in this work. In this account, the famous historian describes how the Skythian people point to a bowl of melted arrowheads when asked what their population is. Clearly, this is a very vague answer. The bowl at Exampaios cannot fully or accurately convey the population of the Skythian people. This response by the Skythians is compared to "a collection of lexical entries" in this sentence. This appears to be a conterintuitive comparison. How could a collection of written descriptions possibly relate to the bowl at Exampaios? Written description are certainly more specific and detailed than a bowl full of arrowheads. However, after examining the various entries discussing history in this work, this comparion begins to make sense. At one point, the author discusses the idea of "overtakelessness". This is the notion that certain ideas can never be fully understood, no matter how much information one learns about it. At various points in the novel, the author expresses the inability of her words to properly describe aspects of her brother, specifically his voice. No matter how many words she uses to describe his voice, the audience will never be able to fully understand this idea. This suggests that language, at its core, is fundamentally limited. It is not capable of conveying any idea in a fully comprehensive manner. I believe that this is why the author is comparing "a collection of lexical entries" to the Skythians pointing at a bowl. Both methods of description are incapable of comprehensibly conveying an idea. They can only offer the reader a limited facade of what is trying to be conveyed. By making this comparison, the author is qualifying her own work. She knows that because she only has words, the picture of her brother which she is attempting to construct will be incomplete. This suggest that the act of attempting to construct this picture is what is important to the author. This changes the way that I read this work. I know see the emotions conveyed by the author to be the most important aspect of this work.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Sentence Summary: The experiences of suffering, griefing, and reconciliation are shown through the perspectives of Oskar Schell, the 9-year old son of a 9/11 victim, and his grandparents, survivors of the Dresden fire-bombings.
Paragraph Summary: Oskar Schell, a 9-year old whose father was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is having a very difficult time dealing with his grief. He is a very intelligent boy who is constantly coming up with imaginative inventions, some of which add to his depression. One day, he finds a key in his fathers closet with the word 'Black' written on the envelope. He discerns that this must be someones last name, and decides to contact every person in New York City with the last name Black. On his quest, he encounters many interesting people, several of whom tell him their life story. One of the Blacks who lives in the same building as him befriends Oskar and begins accompanying him on his visits. They grow close. During the time of his quest, Oskar's mom also deals with her grief, but in a much more reserved manner which angers Oskar. Also, letters from Oskars grandparents are revealed at varying intervals. These letters outline their unusual relationship and their personal struggles with grief and suffering. Oskar unknowingly meets his grandfather near the end of the novel, and his grandfather is very happy to be in his life, although he does not know how to express this. Oskar finally finds out that the key opens the lock box of one of the Blacks dead fathers. He is disappointed, but appears to be coping with his grief in a much more positive manner at the end of the novel.
Close Reading: Pg. 239: "I couldn't tell what he was feeling, because I couldn't speak the language of his feelings."
In this sentence, Oskar is expressing his inability to understand what emotion Fo Black, a Chinese-speaking man, is feeling during their encounter. Prior to this sentence, Oskar comments on how the language barrier between himself and Fo makes their exchange difficult. Because of this, I was initially inclined to understand this sentence as Oskar simply commenting on the language barrier between Fo and himself. However, after examining the nature of Oskar's narrative, I feel that this statement has deeper meaning than this. Throughout the novel, there are several hints which indicate that Oskar has written his narrative after experiencing all of the events which he writes about. For example, on page three, he says, "I've only been in a limousine twice ever" despite the fact that he does not discuss his second time until very late in the novel. This establishes the retrospective nature of Oskar's narrative. He is writing about these events well after they occurred, which means he has had the opportunity to gain new insight into or to develop new perspectives on these events. On several occasions early in the novel, Oskar expresses an inability to understand how his mother is feeling about the death of his father. He does not understand why she does not appear to be as upset as he thinks she should be. This makes him very upset. At the very end of the novel, Oskar has an emotional conversation with his mother and begins to understand that she has been dealing with and expressing her emotions in a much different manner than himself. He has begun to understand that people have their own way of feeling, or their own 'language'. He expresses this new perspective on people's feelings through his story about Fo. This raises some questions. How many of Oskar's perspectives were formed after reflecting on the events of this novel? How many of his opinions were altered after all the events of this novel had occurred?
Paragraph Summary: Oskar Schell, a 9-year old whose father was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is having a very difficult time dealing with his grief. He is a very intelligent boy who is constantly coming up with imaginative inventions, some of which add to his depression. One day, he finds a key in his fathers closet with the word 'Black' written on the envelope. He discerns that this must be someones last name, and decides to contact every person in New York City with the last name Black. On his quest, he encounters many interesting people, several of whom tell him their life story. One of the Blacks who lives in the same building as him befriends Oskar and begins accompanying him on his visits. They grow close. During the time of his quest, Oskar's mom also deals with her grief, but in a much more reserved manner which angers Oskar. Also, letters from Oskars grandparents are revealed at varying intervals. These letters outline their unusual relationship and their personal struggles with grief and suffering. Oskar unknowingly meets his grandfather near the end of the novel, and his grandfather is very happy to be in his life, although he does not know how to express this. Oskar finally finds out that the key opens the lock box of one of the Blacks dead fathers. He is disappointed, but appears to be coping with his grief in a much more positive manner at the end of the novel.
Close Reading: Pg. 239: "I couldn't tell what he was feeling, because I couldn't speak the language of his feelings."
In this sentence, Oskar is expressing his inability to understand what emotion Fo Black, a Chinese-speaking man, is feeling during their encounter. Prior to this sentence, Oskar comments on how the language barrier between himself and Fo makes their exchange difficult. Because of this, I was initially inclined to understand this sentence as Oskar simply commenting on the language barrier between Fo and himself. However, after examining the nature of Oskar's narrative, I feel that this statement has deeper meaning than this. Throughout the novel, there are several hints which indicate that Oskar has written his narrative after experiencing all of the events which he writes about. For example, on page three, he says, "I've only been in a limousine twice ever" despite the fact that he does not discuss his second time until very late in the novel. This establishes the retrospective nature of Oskar's narrative. He is writing about these events well after they occurred, which means he has had the opportunity to gain new insight into or to develop new perspectives on these events. On several occasions early in the novel, Oskar expresses an inability to understand how his mother is feeling about the death of his father. He does not understand why she does not appear to be as upset as he thinks she should be. This makes him very upset. At the very end of the novel, Oskar has an emotional conversation with his mother and begins to understand that she has been dealing with and expressing her emotions in a much different manner than himself. He has begun to understand that people have their own way of feeling, or their own 'language'. He expresses this new perspective on people's feelings through his story about Fo. This raises some questions. How many of Oskar's perspectives were formed after reflecting on the events of this novel? How many of his opinions were altered after all the events of this novel had occurred?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Mrs. Dalloway
Sentence Summary: On the day of Clarissa Dalloway's party, Clarissa, along with her friends and neighbors, go about their lives, constantly thinking about their pasts, and contemplating human existence.
Paragraph Summary: Clarissa Dalloway sets out to buy flowers for her party that evening. On the way to the shop, she reflects on her past, and how she loves life. She runs into Hugh Whitbread, prompting her to think of Peter Walsh; an old friend who disliked Hugh and had asked Clarissa to marry him. Once in the shop, a loud car is heard. It is a luxurious car, and everyone around ponders who is inside. Septimus Smith, a mentally ill war veteran, also hears the car. His wife Rezia reflects on how her husband's strangeness concerns her, although she still loves him deeply. Once at home, Clarissa reflects on her zeal for life. This leads her to think of Sally Seton, a woman whom Clarissa admires. Clarissa begins to mend a dress for her party that night. Peter Walsh arrives unexpectedly. Peter critisizes Clarissa in his mind for wasting her life with social activities. Clarissa wonders if she would have been happier marrying Peter. On his walk from Clarissa's, Peter's thoughts repeatedly return to Clarissa, although he claims he no longer has feelings for her. He reaches a park where he falls asleep and has a dream of himself as a solitary traveler. This dream makes him think of a time when Clarissa was heartless to another woman. During this same memory, Clarissa tells Peter she will not marry him. Peter crosses paths with the Smiths in the park. He views them as an ordinary young couple having a fight. Peter tells himself he is not in love with Clarissa anymore. An old woman is heard singing a love song, and Peter pities her, but Rezia is comforted by the song. Details of Septimus's past are revealed. Prior to the war, he fell in love with an older woman and wrote poetry. After the war, Septimus could seldom feel emotion. Septimus is taken by Rezia to see Sir William Bradshaw, a psychiatrist. Sir William is not sympathetic to Septimus's case, and feels he can be easily cured. Hugh Whitbread and Richard Dalloway have lunch at Lady Bruton's. Lady Bruton has Hugh write a letter to the newspaper about emigration to Canada for her. On his way home, Richard picks up flowers for Clarissa. Miss Kilman, a religious yet hateful woman, takes Elizabeth shoping. Miss Kilman talks to her about the freedom women have in her generation. Elizabeth leaves after Miss Kilman's manner begins to irritate her. At the Smith's, Septimus begins to act like himself again. He helps Rezia design a hat, and she is overcome with joy. Minutes later, Dr. Holmes arrives at their home. Septimus kills himself before the docter can speak to him, his final act of defiance. On his way to his hotel, Peter recalls more memories of Clarissa. He then thinks about the woman he is to marry, Daisy, and expresses mixed feelings. Clarissa's party starts, and she worries whether or not it will be a success. Clarissa is reunited with Sally, but it doesn't feel like it used to. Clarissa learns of Septimus's death, and feels a certain connection with him. The novel ends with Peter realizing that Clarissa still affects him greatly.
Close Reading: Pg. 86 "He went to France to save an England which consisted almost entirely of Shakespeare's plays and Miss Isabel Pole in a green dress walking in a square."
When I first read this sentence, I was confused as to whether this was Septimus's perspective, or that of the omniscient narrator. Of course, the whole story is told by the omniscient narrator, but nearly exclusively through the perspectives of various characters. Only during a few paragraphs of this novel does the narrator tell the story without adopting the perspective of one of the characters. One instance of this occurs right before this sentence, when Septimus's past is described. Because of the fact that the narrator descibes Septimus's past without adopting the perspective of a character only a few paragraphs before this sentence, I am inclined to think that this sentence is also from the perspective of the narrator. Reading the line this way makes Septimus's feelings before the war much more objective. If these feelings had been expressed from Septimus's perspective, I would be skeptical to accept them. In his state of despair, I would not trust him to recount what aspects of England made him feel strongly enough to go to war. By having the narrator tell us these things instead, a greater sense of authenticity is felt. This authenticity is important in constructing Septimus's past character. Without the neutral perspective of the narrator in this instance, we would not have been given a clear indication that prior to the war, Septimus was capable of feeling passionate emotion. And without knowing this about Septimus's past, the reader would not fully understand the tragedy of his present.
Paragraph Summary: Clarissa Dalloway sets out to buy flowers for her party that evening. On the way to the shop, she reflects on her past, and how she loves life. She runs into Hugh Whitbread, prompting her to think of Peter Walsh; an old friend who disliked Hugh and had asked Clarissa to marry him. Once in the shop, a loud car is heard. It is a luxurious car, and everyone around ponders who is inside. Septimus Smith, a mentally ill war veteran, also hears the car. His wife Rezia reflects on how her husband's strangeness concerns her, although she still loves him deeply. Once at home, Clarissa reflects on her zeal for life. This leads her to think of Sally Seton, a woman whom Clarissa admires. Clarissa begins to mend a dress for her party that night. Peter Walsh arrives unexpectedly. Peter critisizes Clarissa in his mind for wasting her life with social activities. Clarissa wonders if she would have been happier marrying Peter. On his walk from Clarissa's, Peter's thoughts repeatedly return to Clarissa, although he claims he no longer has feelings for her. He reaches a park where he falls asleep and has a dream of himself as a solitary traveler. This dream makes him think of a time when Clarissa was heartless to another woman. During this same memory, Clarissa tells Peter she will not marry him. Peter crosses paths with the Smiths in the park. He views them as an ordinary young couple having a fight. Peter tells himself he is not in love with Clarissa anymore. An old woman is heard singing a love song, and Peter pities her, but Rezia is comforted by the song. Details of Septimus's past are revealed. Prior to the war, he fell in love with an older woman and wrote poetry. After the war, Septimus could seldom feel emotion. Septimus is taken by Rezia to see Sir William Bradshaw, a psychiatrist. Sir William is not sympathetic to Septimus's case, and feels he can be easily cured. Hugh Whitbread and Richard Dalloway have lunch at Lady Bruton's. Lady Bruton has Hugh write a letter to the newspaper about emigration to Canada for her. On his way home, Richard picks up flowers for Clarissa. Miss Kilman, a religious yet hateful woman, takes Elizabeth shoping. Miss Kilman talks to her about the freedom women have in her generation. Elizabeth leaves after Miss Kilman's manner begins to irritate her. At the Smith's, Septimus begins to act like himself again. He helps Rezia design a hat, and she is overcome with joy. Minutes later, Dr. Holmes arrives at their home. Septimus kills himself before the docter can speak to him, his final act of defiance. On his way to his hotel, Peter recalls more memories of Clarissa. He then thinks about the woman he is to marry, Daisy, and expresses mixed feelings. Clarissa's party starts, and she worries whether or not it will be a success. Clarissa is reunited with Sally, but it doesn't feel like it used to. Clarissa learns of Septimus's death, and feels a certain connection with him. The novel ends with Peter realizing that Clarissa still affects him greatly.
Close Reading: Pg. 86 "He went to France to save an England which consisted almost entirely of Shakespeare's plays and Miss Isabel Pole in a green dress walking in a square."
When I first read this sentence, I was confused as to whether this was Septimus's perspective, or that of the omniscient narrator. Of course, the whole story is told by the omniscient narrator, but nearly exclusively through the perspectives of various characters. Only during a few paragraphs of this novel does the narrator tell the story without adopting the perspective of one of the characters. One instance of this occurs right before this sentence, when Septimus's past is described. Because of the fact that the narrator descibes Septimus's past without adopting the perspective of a character only a few paragraphs before this sentence, I am inclined to think that this sentence is also from the perspective of the narrator. Reading the line this way makes Septimus's feelings before the war much more objective. If these feelings had been expressed from Septimus's perspective, I would be skeptical to accept them. In his state of despair, I would not trust him to recount what aspects of England made him feel strongly enough to go to war. By having the narrator tell us these things instead, a greater sense of authenticity is felt. This authenticity is important in constructing Septimus's past character. Without the neutral perspective of the narrator in this instance, we would not have been given a clear indication that prior to the war, Septimus was capable of feeling passionate emotion. And without knowing this about Septimus's past, the reader would not fully understand the tragedy of his present.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Sentimental Education, Pt. 3
Sentence Summary: With the political turmoil of France reaching new heights, Frederic fails on two occasions to run for election, discusses politics with members of high society, leaves Rosanette and Madame Dambreuse because of Madame Arnoux, reunites with Madame Arnoux, and reflects on his life.
Paragraph Summary: After spending his first night with Rosanette, Frederic hears fighting in the streets and goes to investigate. He sees people storming and destroying the former king's palace. He meets up with Hussonnet, and they spot Dussardier, who is fighting for the Republic. Frederic sees Rosanette and she pledges her support for the Republic. After meeting with Dambreuse, Frederic is conviced to run for election. He attempts to give a speech at a meeting, but Senecal turns the crowd against him, and he leaves. One day, Frederic sees Arnoux coming to Rosanette's and realizes that he is still one of Rosanette's lovers. Frederic fills in for Arnoux at his guard post, and realizes that Arnoux asked him to do this so he could be alone with Rosanette. Rosanette tells Frederic she doesn't love Arnoux, and they go on a vacation together. Frederic returns to Paris after hearing that Dussardier had been wounded. Frederic then attends a party at the Dambreuses where a question by Roque reveals that Rosanette is his mistress. Louise and Madame Arnoux talk about Frederic, and the Madame says Frederic can be deceptive. Louise goes to see Frederic that night, but learns he hasn't slept at home in a long time, and she becomes very sad. Later, Arnoux visits Frederic and asks him to come by again. He does, but only the Madame is there. They tell each other they still love each other, but Rosanette interupts them. Frederic is upset, and Rosanette reveals she is pregnant. Frederic starts to fall out of love with her, and begins trying to woo Madame Dambreuse. He eventually does, and begins living a doubel life. His affair with Madame Dambreuse becomes mostly about social status as he realizes he doesn't love her. Monsieur Dambreuse dies, and the Madame asks Frederic to marry her. He agrees. After the funeral, Madame Dambreuse can't find the will that would give her her husband's fortune. Rosanette gives birth, and Frederic has to lie to Madame Dambreuse about where he was. Rosanette hints that she wants to marry Frederic, and this irritates him. Rosanette has unsettled debts, and eventually sues Arnoux for the money. After she wins the case, their baby dies. Pellerin paints a portrait for them, and informs Frederic that Arnoux is leaving paris. He needs money to help them, and gets it from Madame Dambreuse after lying to her. He can't save Arnoux, and one day he sees that their possessions are going to be sold. He blames Rosanette, they argue, and he leaves her. Then, when he is with Madame Dambreuse, she buys an item from the Arnoux's. Frederic is upset, and leaves her. He goes to Nogent, with the hope of marrying Louise, but sees that she is marrying Deslauries. He returns to Paris where he sees Dussardier killed by Senecal. After many years, Madame Arnoux visits Frederic, and they declare their love for each other, but they realize they can't be together. Frederic and Deslauries talk together about their lives and how they are essentially failures. They end by talking about a memory that they argee is the happiest of their lives.
Close Reading: Pg. 454 "Frederic, drunk with his own eloquence, began to believe what he was saying"
This sentence comes after Frederic tells Madame Arnoux how profoundly the thought of her used to fill him with passion. Although Frederic's speech is romanticized and exaggerated, it certaintly parallels feelings he expresses earlier in the novel. For this reason, I find it strange that this sentence hints at a level of insincertiy on Frederic's part. By saying that Frederic "began to believe what he was saying", the narrator is suggesting that prior to uttering these endearments, Frederic did not believe them to be true. It is only because he is "drunk with his own eloquence" that he begins to believe he is being sincere. This suggests that Frederic can convince himself that an insincere comment is sincere simply by speaking it in an eloquent fashion. This fact alters the way I read Frederic's character. If his feelings, specifically his feelings for Madame Arnoux, can be affected by his eloquence, how trustworthy are his declarations of love throughout the novel? What if Frederic convinced himself that he loved Madame Arnoux early in the novel simply by eloquently romanticizing about her? This skepticism can be applied to all of Frederic's declarations throughout the novel. How much of his speech during high society gatherings was actually insincere? How often was Frederic convinced of an idea because of his eloquence? This level on uncertainty regarding Frederic's sincerity forces the reader to be more skeptical of his claims, and to consider whether or not they are affected by his speech.
Paragraph Summary: After spending his first night with Rosanette, Frederic hears fighting in the streets and goes to investigate. He sees people storming and destroying the former king's palace. He meets up with Hussonnet, and they spot Dussardier, who is fighting for the Republic. Frederic sees Rosanette and she pledges her support for the Republic. After meeting with Dambreuse, Frederic is conviced to run for election. He attempts to give a speech at a meeting, but Senecal turns the crowd against him, and he leaves. One day, Frederic sees Arnoux coming to Rosanette's and realizes that he is still one of Rosanette's lovers. Frederic fills in for Arnoux at his guard post, and realizes that Arnoux asked him to do this so he could be alone with Rosanette. Rosanette tells Frederic she doesn't love Arnoux, and they go on a vacation together. Frederic returns to Paris after hearing that Dussardier had been wounded. Frederic then attends a party at the Dambreuses where a question by Roque reveals that Rosanette is his mistress. Louise and Madame Arnoux talk about Frederic, and the Madame says Frederic can be deceptive. Louise goes to see Frederic that night, but learns he hasn't slept at home in a long time, and she becomes very sad. Later, Arnoux visits Frederic and asks him to come by again. He does, but only the Madame is there. They tell each other they still love each other, but Rosanette interupts them. Frederic is upset, and Rosanette reveals she is pregnant. Frederic starts to fall out of love with her, and begins trying to woo Madame Dambreuse. He eventually does, and begins living a doubel life. His affair with Madame Dambreuse becomes mostly about social status as he realizes he doesn't love her. Monsieur Dambreuse dies, and the Madame asks Frederic to marry her. He agrees. After the funeral, Madame Dambreuse can't find the will that would give her her husband's fortune. Rosanette gives birth, and Frederic has to lie to Madame Dambreuse about where he was. Rosanette hints that she wants to marry Frederic, and this irritates him. Rosanette has unsettled debts, and eventually sues Arnoux for the money. After she wins the case, their baby dies. Pellerin paints a portrait for them, and informs Frederic that Arnoux is leaving paris. He needs money to help them, and gets it from Madame Dambreuse after lying to her. He can't save Arnoux, and one day he sees that their possessions are going to be sold. He blames Rosanette, they argue, and he leaves her. Then, when he is with Madame Dambreuse, she buys an item from the Arnoux's. Frederic is upset, and leaves her. He goes to Nogent, with the hope of marrying Louise, but sees that she is marrying Deslauries. He returns to Paris where he sees Dussardier killed by Senecal. After many years, Madame Arnoux visits Frederic, and they declare their love for each other, but they realize they can't be together. Frederic and Deslauries talk together about their lives and how they are essentially failures. They end by talking about a memory that they argee is the happiest of their lives.
Close Reading: Pg. 454 "Frederic, drunk with his own eloquence, began to believe what he was saying"
This sentence comes after Frederic tells Madame Arnoux how profoundly the thought of her used to fill him with passion. Although Frederic's speech is romanticized and exaggerated, it certaintly parallels feelings he expresses earlier in the novel. For this reason, I find it strange that this sentence hints at a level of insincertiy on Frederic's part. By saying that Frederic "began to believe what he was saying", the narrator is suggesting that prior to uttering these endearments, Frederic did not believe them to be true. It is only because he is "drunk with his own eloquence" that he begins to believe he is being sincere. This suggests that Frederic can convince himself that an insincere comment is sincere simply by speaking it in an eloquent fashion. This fact alters the way I read Frederic's character. If his feelings, specifically his feelings for Madame Arnoux, can be affected by his eloquence, how trustworthy are his declarations of love throughout the novel? What if Frederic convinced himself that he loved Madame Arnoux early in the novel simply by eloquently romanticizing about her? This skepticism can be applied to all of Frederic's declarations throughout the novel. How much of his speech during high society gatherings was actually insincere? How often was Frederic convinced of an idea because of his eloquence? This level on uncertainty regarding Frederic's sincerity forces the reader to be more skeptical of his claims, and to consider whether or not they are affected by his speech.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Sentimental Education, Pt. 2
Sentence Summary: Frederic, with his uncle's large inheritance in hand, returns to Paris where he once again spends time with the Arnoux's, becoming closer to the Madame during the couples marital struggles, begins pursuing another mistress, whom he finally seduces at the end of this section, spends his money frivolously, and dismisses his love for Madame Arnoux after he fails to make her his lover.
Paragraph Summary: Once back in Paris, Frederic discovers that the Arnoux's have moved after he tracks down and speaks with Regimbart. He visits them at their new house, and after seeing Madame Arnoux, he is suprised at his lack of emotion. He states that he will not think of her anymore, but spontaneously decides to call on her instead of visiting the Dambreuses. She is ill, and Frederic attends a party with Arnoux where he meets Rosanette, a loose woman who Frederic trys to make his mistress. Frederic buys himself a house, over-spending in the process. He calls on Madame Dambreuses and later Rosanette, establishing himself as a welcome guest in both houses. He then visits Madame Arnoux and discusses her husband's financial problems with her, gaining her trust in the process. Frederic then begins going with Arnoux to Rosanette's house on a regular basis. He learns that Rosanette is growing tired of having Arnoux as her lover, and he trys to maker her his mistress, but fails. The Arnoux's begin having marital troubles, and Frederic finds himself in the middle of their affairs. He urges both sides to seperate, but to no avail. Frederic lends money to Arnoux, despite having promised it to Deslauriers. Their friendship ends. Later, Frederic decides to neglect visiting Dambreuses for a job in favor of visiting Madame Arnoux. He finally tells her how he feels, but she rejects him, and Frederic decides to go after Rosanette in revenge. He takes her to the races, but is embarassed when Cisy is the one who takes her home. The two men meet for dinner the next day, and Frederic becomes enraged after Cisy makes a negative comment about Madame Arnoux, throwing a plate at Cisy. Frederic refuses to apologize and demands a duel. At the duel, Cisy faints and Arnoux arrives to break up the duel. Frederic then recieves a letter from his mother urging him to return home and marry Louise. In Paris, Deslauriers visits Madame Arnoux, declares that he loves her, and reveals that Frederic is soon to marry. After he leaves, Madame Arnoux realizes she loves Frederic. In Nogent, Frederic hesitantly agrees to marry Louise, but decides to go back to Paris and think first. He visits Rosanette, who seems interested in him, and talks to Madame Arnoux, who is upset at Frederic's proposed marriage. At Arnoux's factory, Frederic sees Madame Arnoux, tells her he still loves her, and begins seeing her again. Frederic becomes uneasy that they have not become lovers yet, so he rents an apartment with the plan of taking her there. However, she is forced to stay with her son that night, and decides to stop seeing Frederic. Frederic dismisses his love for her, and instead takes Rosanette to the apartment.
Close Reading, Pg. 181: "After that there was a profound silence; and everything in the apartment seemed more motionless than before."
This sentence calls to attention the subtle subjectivity of the narrator. This sentence is an example of free indirect discourse. It is obvious from the description of the silence as being "profound", and from the assertion that "the apartment seemed more motionless than before" that this sentence contains a level of subjectivity which seperates it from indirect discourse. In order to experience the profound nature of this silence or to percieve the relative stasis of the apartment, one must be present in this specific apartment. However, the subjectivity extends beyond this meer presence. In order to fully feel what this sentence states, one must have been engaged in the uncomfortable exchange preceding this statment. This narrows the subjectivity down to two perspectives: Frederic's and Madame Arnoux's. Looking at this sentence, there is nothing which would convince me that either perspective should be favored over the other. Both experienced the uncomfortable argument, and therefore both would be expected to experience a jarring effect after its sudden conclusion. Because of the lack of a distinction between whose perspective is being expressed, I read this sentence as expressing the shared perspective of everyone in the room: in this case, just Frederic and Madame Arnoux. Reading the sentence in this way establishes a connection between Frederic and Madame Arnoux. These two characters, after sharing an emotionally jarring experience, are left together in a mutually felt "profound silence". This shared experience sets the table for their emotional conversation, and the furthering of their personal connection. This connection between the two characters is hinted at throught this use of free indirect discourse.
Paragraph Summary: Once back in Paris, Frederic discovers that the Arnoux's have moved after he tracks down and speaks with Regimbart. He visits them at their new house, and after seeing Madame Arnoux, he is suprised at his lack of emotion. He states that he will not think of her anymore, but spontaneously decides to call on her instead of visiting the Dambreuses. She is ill, and Frederic attends a party with Arnoux where he meets Rosanette, a loose woman who Frederic trys to make his mistress. Frederic buys himself a house, over-spending in the process. He calls on Madame Dambreuses and later Rosanette, establishing himself as a welcome guest in both houses. He then visits Madame Arnoux and discusses her husband's financial problems with her, gaining her trust in the process. Frederic then begins going with Arnoux to Rosanette's house on a regular basis. He learns that Rosanette is growing tired of having Arnoux as her lover, and he trys to maker her his mistress, but fails. The Arnoux's begin having marital troubles, and Frederic finds himself in the middle of their affairs. He urges both sides to seperate, but to no avail. Frederic lends money to Arnoux, despite having promised it to Deslauriers. Their friendship ends. Later, Frederic decides to neglect visiting Dambreuses for a job in favor of visiting Madame Arnoux. He finally tells her how he feels, but she rejects him, and Frederic decides to go after Rosanette in revenge. He takes her to the races, but is embarassed when Cisy is the one who takes her home. The two men meet for dinner the next day, and Frederic becomes enraged after Cisy makes a negative comment about Madame Arnoux, throwing a plate at Cisy. Frederic refuses to apologize and demands a duel. At the duel, Cisy faints and Arnoux arrives to break up the duel. Frederic then recieves a letter from his mother urging him to return home and marry Louise. In Paris, Deslauriers visits Madame Arnoux, declares that he loves her, and reveals that Frederic is soon to marry. After he leaves, Madame Arnoux realizes she loves Frederic. In Nogent, Frederic hesitantly agrees to marry Louise, but decides to go back to Paris and think first. He visits Rosanette, who seems interested in him, and talks to Madame Arnoux, who is upset at Frederic's proposed marriage. At Arnoux's factory, Frederic sees Madame Arnoux, tells her he still loves her, and begins seeing her again. Frederic becomes uneasy that they have not become lovers yet, so he rents an apartment with the plan of taking her there. However, she is forced to stay with her son that night, and decides to stop seeing Frederic. Frederic dismisses his love for her, and instead takes Rosanette to the apartment.
Close Reading, Pg. 181: "After that there was a profound silence; and everything in the apartment seemed more motionless than before."
This sentence calls to attention the subtle subjectivity of the narrator. This sentence is an example of free indirect discourse. It is obvious from the description of the silence as being "profound", and from the assertion that "the apartment seemed more motionless than before" that this sentence contains a level of subjectivity which seperates it from indirect discourse. In order to experience the profound nature of this silence or to percieve the relative stasis of the apartment, one must be present in this specific apartment. However, the subjectivity extends beyond this meer presence. In order to fully feel what this sentence states, one must have been engaged in the uncomfortable exchange preceding this statment. This narrows the subjectivity down to two perspectives: Frederic's and Madame Arnoux's. Looking at this sentence, there is nothing which would convince me that either perspective should be favored over the other. Both experienced the uncomfortable argument, and therefore both would be expected to experience a jarring effect after its sudden conclusion. Because of the lack of a distinction between whose perspective is being expressed, I read this sentence as expressing the shared perspective of everyone in the room: in this case, just Frederic and Madame Arnoux. Reading the sentence in this way establishes a connection between Frederic and Madame Arnoux. These two characters, after sharing an emotionally jarring experience, are left together in a mutually felt "profound silence". This shared experience sets the table for their emotional conversation, and the furthering of their personal connection. This connection between the two characters is hinted at throught this use of free indirect discourse.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Sentimental Education, Pt. one
Sentence Summary: Frederic Moreau, a young man from a wealthy, bourgeois family, attempts to make a life for himself in Paris by associating with members of high society, going to law school, and pursuing the arts, but his hopeless love for Madame Arnoux, the wife of a rich mogel, and his constantly changing goals thrust him into a cycle of frustration and depression.
Paragraph Summary: On his journey home from Paris, Frederic Moreau, a young, wealthy bourgeois, meets Arnoux, a rich, successful, yet unscrupulous art dealer. Frederic is drawn to Arnoux because of his success and obvious charm with women, traits which Frederic hopes to one day cultivate in himself. While on this boat headed to Paris, Frederic sees Arnoux's wife and finds her perfect in every way, and immediatly falls in love with her. Frederic stays with her husband on their journey with the hope of becoming friends of their family, and in order to be close to Madame Arnoux. Once home, Frederic meets up with Deslauriers, his best friend. They discuss their planned life together and Deslauriers encourages Frederic in his pursuit of Madame Arnoux and also suggests he pursue relations with other high-class women. Once back in Paris for law school, Frederic meets the Dambreuse's, a wealthy and influential family, but his attempts to see them again fail. He also visits Arnoux's shop with the hope of encountering the Madame, but does not succeed. He falls into a state of depression, neglects his studies, and his love for Madame Arnoux wanes. One morning, he comes across an aimless political riot, and meets a man named Hussonnet. Hussonnet works for Arnoux, and he eventually takes Frederic to see him. There are many artists at Arnoux's and Frederic talks with them about several topics, mostly about art. Frederic spends time with some of these men with the hope of getting closer to the Madame. Deslauriers arrives in Paris on the same night that Frederic attends a dinner at the Arnoux's and sees Madame Arnoux for the first time since his journey home. His love for her is renewed, and he decides he will become a painter to win her love. After living with Deslauriers and studying painting for a while, Frederic fails his law exams and unsuccessfully attempts to call on Madame Arnoux. He falls into depression for three months. Eventually, he sees her again, but he is convinced that she will never be his. This attitude changes, however, after she shows some affection for him at her birthday party. Frederic becomes convinced that she will be his. Then, his mother visits him and informs him that his inheritance is dwindling. Distraught by this news, Frederic returns home and begins to pursue alternative plans. However, after resigning to this fate, Frederic's uncle suddenly dies, leaving him a very large inheritance. Frederic decides to return to Paris and make a life there.
Close Reading: pg. 91 "She would think that he mixed with the common people."
Throughout this novel, Frederic repeatedly expresses his love for "high society" as well as his love for Madame Arnoux. Frederic's desire to become a part of high society, and his desire to win Madame Arnoux's love are the two factors that shape most of his actions. These two factors often intersect. For example, Frederic pursues painting, a respected vocation in high society, to win Madame Arnoux's love. Also, Frederic decides to return to Paris after receiving his uncle's inheritance in hopes of working his way into high society. He also mentions Madame Arnoux as a reason for returning. Both of these instances suggest that there is a connection between Frederic's pursuit of entering high society and his pursuit of Madame Arnoux. This connection is made explicit in this sentence from page 91. Frederic is worried that because of his friendship with Dussardier, Madame Arnoux will think less of him. This is not because of Dussardier's character, but rather because of his social class. Dussardier is one of "the common people" that Frederic is referring to. In order to prevent the Madame from associating Frederic with these "common people", Frederic curses his friend in front of her. Frederic would rather speak against one of his friends than risk having Madame Arnoux think that he "mixed" with lower-class individuals. This reveals Frederic's belief that in order to win the Madame's love, he must present himself as being as high-class as possible. As he has demonstrated in this instance, he is willing to compromise his integrity in order to maintain this impression. This establishes Frederic as a person willing to ignore his morals in order to further his interests. It will be interesting to see how this aspect of his character will affect him in the remainder of the novel.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Endgame
Summary: In a meaningless and desolate world, Hamm, a blind man who can't stand, Clov, Hamm's servant who can't sit, and Hamm's legless parents participate in ritual dialogues and activities while awaiting their death.
Paraphrase:
Hamm: I used to know a crazy man who believed the end of the world had arrived. He painted and engraved. I really liked him. I would visit him in the mental hospital. I would take him over to the window. I implored him to see all the life outside in the world. The lovely life. But he would retreat to his corner with disgust. All he saw was desolation. He thought he was the only one left. Forlorn. In retrospect, this instances is...was not so...so strange.
Close Reading: Pg. 44: "It appears the case is...was not so...so unusual."
Throughout this play, a certain level of uncertainty regarding the perception of time is expressed. On several occasions, Hamm comments on the constant nature of his existence. For example, on page 13, he asks Clov, "It's the end of the day like any other day, isn't it, Clov?" and on page 45 he states "Then it's a day like any other day." Because Hamm's days revolve around a series of rituals, they are all essentially the same. This makes any attempt to distinguish between days very difficult. This difficulty is expressed by Hamm on page 43. After Clov mentions yesterday, Hamm yells back at him, "Yesterday! What does that mean? Yesterday!" Because of the ambiguous nature of Hamm and Clov's previous days, any mention of the past in this play cannot be viewed as temporally precise. This makes the story preceding the line I have chosen inherently unreliable. In this story, Hamm describes a madman who believed the world had ended, and he was the only person left alive. In the final line of his speech, the line I have chosen to close read, Hamm once again expresses a level of uncertainty regarding time. He first uses the word "is" to describe" the case", but then hesitates and switches to the word "was". By switching to the word "was", the meaning of the sentence is greatly altered. This would suggest that during the time that "the case" occurred, it was not "so unusual". On the contrary, if Hamm had stuck with the word "is", it would have meant that "the case" is not "so unusual" in their present time. This second reading seems to make more sense, as the story of the madman closely parallels Hamm and Clov's current situation. But, because of Hamm's inability to accurately distinguish between his past days, he is not certain of the applicability of his story. This adds to the ambiguity of this play.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The Tempest: Act 4
Summary: After the marriage of Miranda and Ferdinand, which is blessed by the spirits Juno, Iris, and Ceres, Prospero suddenly remembers Caliban's plot against him and summons Ariel to aid him in ruining Caliban's plot.
Paraphrase: Lines 146-156
You seem to be a little disturbed sir. Don't worry, this festive performance is now over. The performer's, as was said earlier, were all deities who have now left our presence. Just like the fantastical nature of this performance, every physical thing in existence shall also disappear over time, and leave no trace of its presence behind. Our existence is not much unlike a dream.
Close Reading: Lines 148-150 "These our actors, / As I foretold you, were all spirits and / Are melted into air, into thin air;"
In this line, Prospero is addressing Ferdinand after the nymphs and reapers were finished with their dance. The first interesting thing I see in this line, is the use of the word "actors". This is an interesting word to use in this situation. Within the world of the play, the spirits that Prospero summons in this scene are real figures. It seems strange that he would refer to them as "actors". For this reason, I feel that this line is referring to the actual people acting out the play. During Shakespeare's time, this play would have been acted out without any props or special effects. This would have made it difficult for the audience to follow particularly intricate scenes, such as the one acted out by the nymphs and reapers. There would have been no way for the audience to know that the actors performing this dance were meant to be seen as spirits. This is why Prospero has to tell them that this is so. And, because Prospero is addressing another player with this line, Ferdinand, it still flows with the play. Another indication that this line addresses the audience is the last five words: "into air, into thin air,". This repetition suggests that the speaker is attempting to be very clear about what he is saying. He does not want there to be any confusion about where the spirits / actors went. Without this clarification, the audience would have been very confused as to what happened to the actors.
Paraphrase: Lines 146-156
You seem to be a little disturbed sir. Don't worry, this festive performance is now over. The performer's, as was said earlier, were all deities who have now left our presence. Just like the fantastical nature of this performance, every physical thing in existence shall also disappear over time, and leave no trace of its presence behind. Our existence is not much unlike a dream.
Close Reading: Lines 148-150 "These our actors, / As I foretold you, were all spirits and / Are melted into air, into thin air;"
In this line, Prospero is addressing Ferdinand after the nymphs and reapers were finished with their dance. The first interesting thing I see in this line, is the use of the word "actors". This is an interesting word to use in this situation. Within the world of the play, the spirits that Prospero summons in this scene are real figures. It seems strange that he would refer to them as "actors". For this reason, I feel that this line is referring to the actual people acting out the play. During Shakespeare's time, this play would have been acted out without any props or special effects. This would have made it difficult for the audience to follow particularly intricate scenes, such as the one acted out by the nymphs and reapers. There would have been no way for the audience to know that the actors performing this dance were meant to be seen as spirits. This is why Prospero has to tell them that this is so. And, because Prospero is addressing another player with this line, Ferdinand, it still flows with the play. Another indication that this line addresses the audience is the last five words: "into air, into thin air,". This repetition suggests that the speaker is attempting to be very clear about what he is saying. He does not want there to be any confusion about where the spirits / actors went. Without this clarification, the audience would have been very confused as to what happened to the actors.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Tempest
Summary: Prospero, with the help of Ariel, creates a storm which causes his former enemies along with Gonzalo, Alanso, Ferdinand, Trinculo, and Stephano to come to his island. Antonio and Sebastion plot to kill the king, while Caliban teams up with Trinculo and Stephano and plot to kill Prospero. Both are unnsuccessful, and the play ends after Miranda and Ferdiand marry and all leave the island except Ariel, who is set free by Prospero, Prospero, and Caliban.
Paraphrase: Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 132-141
Don't be afraid. This land is full of joyous and innocuous sounds. Occasionally I hear instumentals. Other times I hear voices that put me back to sleep even after I have just woke. Sometimes in my dreams, I believe that the heavens are poised to shower me with riches. However, after I wake, I see that they haven't, and I long to dream again.
Close Reading: Line 141 "I cried to dream again."
The first thing I noticed about this line, was that it does not follow the pentameter present in the rest of the work. This line only has six syllables, as opposed to ten. This fact drew my attention to this line. The second thing I looked at was what tense this sentence was in. The word "cried" establishes that this sentence is in past tense. This means that the act of crying has already occurred. The next two words in this line, "to dream", describe the reason why Caliban cried. He "cried to dream". Taken alone, this statement doesn't seem to make much sense. Dreaming is something that is easily done. We all have the ability to dream at any time, so why would Caliban desperatly cry out for dreaming? If we look at the context in which Caliban is making this statement, we can make some more sense out of it. In the two preceding lines, Caliban describes a dream he had. In this dream, Caliban saw riches about to be bestowed upon him. After waking from this particular dream, Caliban "cried to dream again." Because of the content of this specific dream, I would say that Caliban is crying not for the act of dreaming itself, but for the riches he was about to recieve in this dream. This is very important in understanding the character of Caliban. Although he is a slave in a very poor situation, he still has hopes of becoming rich and prosperous. He does not simply hope for his freedom, as Ariel does, but rather he hopes to become the rich and prosperous ruler of his island. These lofty goals explain why Caliban wants so desperatly to take down Prospero. If he simply wanted to be free and live a humble existence, he would not have attempted to usurp Prospero so hastily.
Paraphrase: Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 132-141
Don't be afraid. This land is full of joyous and innocuous sounds. Occasionally I hear instumentals. Other times I hear voices that put me back to sleep even after I have just woke. Sometimes in my dreams, I believe that the heavens are poised to shower me with riches. However, after I wake, I see that they haven't, and I long to dream again.
Close Reading: Line 141 "I cried to dream again."
The first thing I noticed about this line, was that it does not follow the pentameter present in the rest of the work. This line only has six syllables, as opposed to ten. This fact drew my attention to this line. The second thing I looked at was what tense this sentence was in. The word "cried" establishes that this sentence is in past tense. This means that the act of crying has already occurred. The next two words in this line, "to dream", describe the reason why Caliban cried. He "cried to dream". Taken alone, this statement doesn't seem to make much sense. Dreaming is something that is easily done. We all have the ability to dream at any time, so why would Caliban desperatly cry out for dreaming? If we look at the context in which Caliban is making this statement, we can make some more sense out of it. In the two preceding lines, Caliban describes a dream he had. In this dream, Caliban saw riches about to be bestowed upon him. After waking from this particular dream, Caliban "cried to dream again." Because of the content of this specific dream, I would say that Caliban is crying not for the act of dreaming itself, but for the riches he was about to recieve in this dream. This is very important in understanding the character of Caliban. Although he is a slave in a very poor situation, he still has hopes of becoming rich and prosperous. He does not simply hope for his freedom, as Ariel does, but rather he hopes to become the rich and prosperous ruler of his island. These lofty goals explain why Caliban wants so desperatly to take down Prospero. If he simply wanted to be free and live a humble existence, he would not have attempted to usurp Prospero so hastily.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
A Tempest
Summary: With the help of Ariel, Prospero conjures up a storm that brings Gonzalo, Alonso, Antonio, Trinculo, Stephano, and Ferdinand to his island. Prospero holds a ceremony with all present to celebrate the marriage of his daughter, Miranda, to Ferdinand. All the characters, except for Ariel, Caliban, and Prospero, then sail back to Europe.
Paraphrase: Act II, Scene i, Page 27
Caliban: Do you believe in being a coward? In surrender? In submission? If someone hits you once, you would allow them to hit you again. That is not the way I operate.
Ariel: That is not what I meant, and you know it. I don't believe in physical retaliation, or surrender. We need to change the person in charge. Unsettle his peace of mind, so he is forced to reevaluate his actions towards us.
Close Reading: "No violence, no submission either. Listen to me: Prospero is the one we've got to change."
In these lines, Ariel is clarifying to Caliban his position regarding their servitude. One thing I find interesting about the first sentence, is the way that violence and submission are juxtaposed. The structure of this sentence sets up this juxtaposition. By having both these words follow the word "no", it demonstrates that neither are desirable. The word "either" at the end suggests that the two words are antonymous. Looking at the denotations of these words, this is not necessarily true. However, the context in which these words appear makes this true. When Ariel refers to violence, he is referring to a violent opposition of authority. His reference to submission is referring to giving up to authority, or not opposing in any way. These are the two extreme options that Ariel and Caliban have for dealing with Prospero's authority. By stating that he does not want to pursue either of these options, Ariel is declaring that he wants to oppose the authority by non-violent means. This view starkly contradicts Caliban's plan for opposing Prospero. Caliban, as he states earlier in this act, wants to violently oppose Prospero. Caliban also states earlier in the play that he wants to be referred to as X from that point forward. Caliban's violent opposition, and his insistence upon being called X, makes me think that his character is meant to represent Malcom X. Ariel, on the other hand, is meant to represent Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I say this because of his non-violent views as well as the second sentence in the passage I have chosen. Ariel states that "Prospero is the one we've got to change." Throughout his life, Dr. King Jr. repeatedly stated that in order for blacks to gain equal rights, they had to change the way white people thought about them. I believe that Prospero, the force that is controlling Ariel and Caliban, is meant to be an embodiement of white oppression against blacks in this play. Therefore, when Ariel makes this statement about Prospero, he is really saying that the whole mindset of white people needs changing.
Paraphrase: Act II, Scene i, Page 27
Caliban: Do you believe in being a coward? In surrender? In submission? If someone hits you once, you would allow them to hit you again. That is not the way I operate.
Ariel: That is not what I meant, and you know it. I don't believe in physical retaliation, or surrender. We need to change the person in charge. Unsettle his peace of mind, so he is forced to reevaluate his actions towards us.
Close Reading: "No violence, no submission either. Listen to me: Prospero is the one we've got to change."
In these lines, Ariel is clarifying to Caliban his position regarding their servitude. One thing I find interesting about the first sentence, is the way that violence and submission are juxtaposed. The structure of this sentence sets up this juxtaposition. By having both these words follow the word "no", it demonstrates that neither are desirable. The word "either" at the end suggests that the two words are antonymous. Looking at the denotations of these words, this is not necessarily true. However, the context in which these words appear makes this true. When Ariel refers to violence, he is referring to a violent opposition of authority. His reference to submission is referring to giving up to authority, or not opposing in any way. These are the two extreme options that Ariel and Caliban have for dealing with Prospero's authority. By stating that he does not want to pursue either of these options, Ariel is declaring that he wants to oppose the authority by non-violent means. This view starkly contradicts Caliban's plan for opposing Prospero. Caliban, as he states earlier in this act, wants to violently oppose Prospero. Caliban also states earlier in the play that he wants to be referred to as X from that point forward. Caliban's violent opposition, and his insistence upon being called X, makes me think that his character is meant to represent Malcom X. Ariel, on the other hand, is meant to represent Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I say this because of his non-violent views as well as the second sentence in the passage I have chosen. Ariel states that "Prospero is the one we've got to change." Throughout his life, Dr. King Jr. repeatedly stated that in order for blacks to gain equal rights, they had to change the way white people thought about them. I believe that Prospero, the force that is controlling Ariel and Caliban, is meant to be an embodiement of white oppression against blacks in this play. Therefore, when Ariel makes this statement about Prospero, he is really saying that the whole mindset of white people needs changing.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The Odyssey: Book 10
Summary: Near home, one of Odysseus' men opens Ailos' bag of winds, causing a storm to blow them back to the Ailoian island, where Ailos refuses to help them again. After sailing to the land of the Laistygones, where many of Odysseus' companions are killed by the powerful inhabitants, the men come to the island of Aiaia, where Odysseus earns the trust of the goddess Circe, through the help of Hermes, and she informs them that they must make a journey to Hades in order to be able to return home.
Paraphrase: Book 10, Lines 270-280
The man said something to me, and I responded to him: 'I will let you stay here with food and drink, or you may go back to the ship if you'd like. I will go alone. I feel within me a powerful urge to go.' This is what I said, and I went on my way. Once I had walked through the beautiful valleys and the massive house of the medicinally skilled goddes was in sight, the god Hermes, disguised as a young, bearded man, approached me.
Close Reading: Line 273: 'I shall go. For there is strong compulsion upon me.'
I chose this line for a few reasons. First of all, I found the use of the word 'compulsion' to be interesting. Compulsion is defined by dictionary.com as 'a strong, usually irresitible impulse to perform an act, especially one that is irrational or contrary to one's will.' Throughout this work, Odysseus is very diligent and thoughful when deciding when and how to act. The thought of Odysseus performing an act based upon impulse seems very contradictory. This lead me to examine the surrounding text more closely. The word 'upon' seemed interesting to me. This word places Odysseus' compulsion outside of himself. He does not say that he feels a compulsion, or that one is within him, but rather says that there is one 'upon' him. Therefore, this compulsion must have been placed on him by an outside force. Eight lines later, after heading out on his way, Odysseus encounters the god Hermes, who aids him. Because of this encounter with a god so shortly after Odysseus' 'compulsion' is placed 'upon' him, I believe that the gods influenced Odysseus to act. This makes sense within the context of the story, as characters are often influenced by the gods.
Paraphrase: Book 10, Lines 270-280
The man said something to me, and I responded to him: 'I will let you stay here with food and drink, or you may go back to the ship if you'd like. I will go alone. I feel within me a powerful urge to go.' This is what I said, and I went on my way. Once I had walked through the beautiful valleys and the massive house of the medicinally skilled goddes was in sight, the god Hermes, disguised as a young, bearded man, approached me.
Close Reading: Line 273: 'I shall go. For there is strong compulsion upon me.'
I chose this line for a few reasons. First of all, I found the use of the word 'compulsion' to be interesting. Compulsion is defined by dictionary.com as 'a strong, usually irresitible impulse to perform an act, especially one that is irrational or contrary to one's will.' Throughout this work, Odysseus is very diligent and thoughful when deciding when and how to act. The thought of Odysseus performing an act based upon impulse seems very contradictory. This lead me to examine the surrounding text more closely. The word 'upon' seemed interesting to me. This word places Odysseus' compulsion outside of himself. He does not say that he feels a compulsion, or that one is within him, but rather says that there is one 'upon' him. Therefore, this compulsion must have been placed on him by an outside force. Eight lines later, after heading out on his way, Odysseus encounters the god Hermes, who aids him. Because of this encounter with a god so shortly after Odysseus' 'compulsion' is placed 'upon' him, I believe that the gods influenced Odysseus to act. This makes sense within the context of the story, as characters are often influenced by the gods.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The Odyssey: Book Three
Summary: Telemachos, accompanied by Athene, travels to Pylos where Nestor welcomes them into their ceremony honoring Poseidon, and Telemachos asks him about his father and Nestor tells him the story of Agamemnon and informs him that he does not know the fate of Odysseus.
Paraphrase: Book 3, lines 25-34
Pallas Athene responed to Telemachos: 'You will think of some of the things you should say by yourself. The rest will be provided by the gods. You would not be alive now without the help of the gods.' After saying this, the goddess Athene led Telemachos to the Pylos gathering. The king of Pylos, Nester, was at the gathering with his sons near him, and his servants arranged a meal.
Close reading: Line 30 'and the man followed behind her walking in the gods' footsteps'
I chose this line because it exemplifies the relationship between mortals and the gods in this work. It is repeatedly stated throughout this work that anything that happens is a result of the will of one or more of the gods. For this reason, much importance is placed upon honoring the gods through ceremony, prayer, and sacrifice as well as upon living your life based on the example of the gods. This constant influence from the gods shapes the actions of all the people present in this story. Most notably, Athene's influence is what pushes Telemachos on his journey. In this line, 'the man' is referring to Telemachos, and 'the god's footsteps' are those of Athene. Without Athene on his and Odysseus side, Telemachos would not have began his journey. At the very beginning of this story, Athene talks with Zeus and the other gods about Odysseus' fate. They decide that he has endured enough hardship and that he deserves to finally come home. This establishes the importance of the gods in this work. Without the will of the gods, this story would never have come to be. This makes me wonder about the level of importance placed upon the individual in this society. With the constant mention of the gods, and with the insistence of characters to give full credit to the gods for all successes, I wonder how genuine the actions of Telemachos and Odysseus can be. If they are always 'walking in the gods' footsteps', how genuine are the actions that they carry out? Without the presence of the gods, how would Telemachos and Odysseus be different?
Paraphrase: Book 3, lines 25-34
Pallas Athene responed to Telemachos: 'You will think of some of the things you should say by yourself. The rest will be provided by the gods. You would not be alive now without the help of the gods.' After saying this, the goddess Athene led Telemachos to the Pylos gathering. The king of Pylos, Nester, was at the gathering with his sons near him, and his servants arranged a meal.
Close reading: Line 30 'and the man followed behind her walking in the gods' footsteps'
I chose this line because it exemplifies the relationship between mortals and the gods in this work. It is repeatedly stated throughout this work that anything that happens is a result of the will of one or more of the gods. For this reason, much importance is placed upon honoring the gods through ceremony, prayer, and sacrifice as well as upon living your life based on the example of the gods. This constant influence from the gods shapes the actions of all the people present in this story. Most notably, Athene's influence is what pushes Telemachos on his journey. In this line, 'the man' is referring to Telemachos, and 'the god's footsteps' are those of Athene. Without Athene on his and Odysseus side, Telemachos would not have began his journey. At the very beginning of this story, Athene talks with Zeus and the other gods about Odysseus' fate. They decide that he has endured enough hardship and that he deserves to finally come home. This establishes the importance of the gods in this work. Without the will of the gods, this story would never have come to be. This makes me wonder about the level of importance placed upon the individual in this society. With the constant mention of the gods, and with the insistence of characters to give full credit to the gods for all successes, I wonder how genuine the actions of Telemachos and Odysseus can be. If they are always 'walking in the gods' footsteps', how genuine are the actions that they carry out? Without the presence of the gods, how would Telemachos and Odysseus be different?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
"To His Coy Mistress" by Andrew Marvell
Summary: If we had all the time in the world, we could develop our love however slow we wanted to, but, time is unrelenting, and we must make the most of our love during the short time that we are alive.
Paraphrase: If we had an unlimited amount of time on this earth, your patience with our relationship would be forgiven. We could spend as much time figuring out what to do with our love as we wanted. If you were to find riches next to a goddess, I would be upset in my hometown. I would love you till the end of the time, and it would be ok if you waited till then to love me back. My small love would grow very large over a long amount of time. I would spend thousands of years adoring each of your beautiful features. I would spend the most time loving your heart. You deserve this, I would give you nothing less. Unfortunaley, we do not have forever. I am constantly reminded about the reality of time. Everything is destroyed by time, and you, my love, will eventually fall victim to time's relentless destruction. While we are young, and relatively untainted by time, we should fully embrace our love and give all of ourselves to it. Although we cannot slow time, we can make the most of it, and share a lifetime of love together.
Close Reading: 'Time's winged chariot hurrying near;'
This line is the second line of the second stanza. In the first line of this stanza, the speaker begins with the word 'but'. This begins an obvious shift in the poem. In the first stanza, the speaker espouts his love for his mistress by discussing a hypothetical situation in which they would have all of eternity to be together. In the second stanza, the speaker discusses the unrelenting force of time, and how it will eventually claim himself, his mistress, and their love. Although this notion that time will eventually destroy all seems bleak, the second line of the second stanza hints that the speaker does not necessarily view time as a negative thing. I say this because of the words 'winged chariot'. A chariot is a horse carriage used by many ancient civilizations, including Rome and Greece. In Greek mythology, the sun god Helios pulled the sun across the sky each morning using a chariot pulled by four winged horses. Performing this act every morning ensured life for all Greek people. The use of this reference doesn't seem to fit with the tone of the rest of the stanza. Perhaps the speaker is being sarcastic by using this reference. Or maybe he is hinting at the fact that he is not truly bothered by time and its destructive powers.
Paraphrase: If we had an unlimited amount of time on this earth, your patience with our relationship would be forgiven. We could spend as much time figuring out what to do with our love as we wanted. If you were to find riches next to a goddess, I would be upset in my hometown. I would love you till the end of the time, and it would be ok if you waited till then to love me back. My small love would grow very large over a long amount of time. I would spend thousands of years adoring each of your beautiful features. I would spend the most time loving your heart. You deserve this, I would give you nothing less. Unfortunaley, we do not have forever. I am constantly reminded about the reality of time. Everything is destroyed by time, and you, my love, will eventually fall victim to time's relentless destruction. While we are young, and relatively untainted by time, we should fully embrace our love and give all of ourselves to it. Although we cannot slow time, we can make the most of it, and share a lifetime of love together.
Close Reading: 'Time's winged chariot hurrying near;'
This line is the second line of the second stanza. In the first line of this stanza, the speaker begins with the word 'but'. This begins an obvious shift in the poem. In the first stanza, the speaker espouts his love for his mistress by discussing a hypothetical situation in which they would have all of eternity to be together. In the second stanza, the speaker discusses the unrelenting force of time, and how it will eventually claim himself, his mistress, and their love. Although this notion that time will eventually destroy all seems bleak, the second line of the second stanza hints that the speaker does not necessarily view time as a negative thing. I say this because of the words 'winged chariot'. A chariot is a horse carriage used by many ancient civilizations, including Rome and Greece. In Greek mythology, the sun god Helios pulled the sun across the sky each morning using a chariot pulled by four winged horses. Performing this act every morning ensured life for all Greek people. The use of this reference doesn't seem to fit with the tone of the rest of the stanza. Perhaps the speaker is being sarcastic by using this reference. Or maybe he is hinting at the fact that he is not truly bothered by time and its destructive powers.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
"This Is a Photograph of Me" by Margaret Atwood
Summary: The speaker describes what is in an old photograph, and informs the reader that she is dead in the lake in the photograph.
Paraphrase: If you look close enough at this old, worn photograph, you will see a tree, a small home, a lake and some hills in the background. I drowned in this lake. If you look very closely, you might be able to see my corpse just below the surface of the water in the center of the lake.
Close Reading: "the day after I drowned."
This is the first time that the word 'I' is used in this poem. Prior to this, there is no indication that the speaker is personally involved with the action of this poem. Therefore, this is the first line that begins constructing a self within this poem. Another function of this line, is that it defines a timeline. The only other line that discusses time is the first line. The first line describes when the photograph was taken. It says 'It was taken some time ago'. Although this is quite vague, it establishes that the photogragh is at least fairly old. When the speaker reveals that she died the day before the photograph was taken, it means that she died a day before 'some time ago'. The fact that the speaker in this poem has been dead for a while, is quite shocking. The only other poem I know of that has a dead speaker is "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner". I see some similarities between these two poems. Both discuss death in a very matter-of-fact way, as if it is not a very significant detail. In the Atwood poem, the speaker is much more concerned with describing what is in the photograph then discussing her death. Also, the use of parenthesis around the final four stanzas makes these stanzas seem trivial in importance. Perhaps this poem is trying to convey the idea that some things, such as a beautiful picture, or a found memory are more significant than death. That even death cannot destroy these things. Another possible meaning is that people endure after death. I say this because of the last stanza. The speaker says "but if you look long enough/ eventually/ you will see me.)' The fact that the speaker is able to be seen in the photograph could mean that she is still alive in spirit.
Paraphrase: If you look close enough at this old, worn photograph, you will see a tree, a small home, a lake and some hills in the background. I drowned in this lake. If you look very closely, you might be able to see my corpse just below the surface of the water in the center of the lake.
Close Reading: "the day after I drowned."
This is the first time that the word 'I' is used in this poem. Prior to this, there is no indication that the speaker is personally involved with the action of this poem. Therefore, this is the first line that begins constructing a self within this poem. Another function of this line, is that it defines a timeline. The only other line that discusses time is the first line. The first line describes when the photograph was taken. It says 'It was taken some time ago'. Although this is quite vague, it establishes that the photogragh is at least fairly old. When the speaker reveals that she died the day before the photograph was taken, it means that she died a day before 'some time ago'. The fact that the speaker in this poem has been dead for a while, is quite shocking. The only other poem I know of that has a dead speaker is "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner". I see some similarities between these two poems. Both discuss death in a very matter-of-fact way, as if it is not a very significant detail. In the Atwood poem, the speaker is much more concerned with describing what is in the photograph then discussing her death. Also, the use of parenthesis around the final four stanzas makes these stanzas seem trivial in importance. Perhaps this poem is trying to convey the idea that some things, such as a beautiful picture, or a found memory are more significant than death. That even death cannot destroy these things. Another possible meaning is that people endure after death. I say this because of the last stanza. The speaker says "but if you look long enough/ eventually/ you will see me.)' The fact that the speaker is able to be seen in the photograph could mean that she is still alive in spirit.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
"Charon's Cosmology" by Charles Simic
Summary: An unnamed man has the job of disposing of corpses, and he loots their pockets before disposing of them.
Paraphrase: He only has a weak light to find his way, and he has many dead bodies to deal with. Told to take the bodies to one side, he may be confused because of the large amount of bodies on each side. This isn't really important though. The man will loot the dead bodies. He often finds food. Rarely he finds a mirror or a book. These things are not important to him, and he disposes of them in the quick, lifeless river.
Close Reading: "Swift and cold and deep"
This line is a series of adjectives. There is not an object in this line, therefore the object that these adjectives are describing must be in a previous line. In the second line of this stanza, the word 'which' seperates two clauses. Because of this, we can rule out any objects before 'which' as being the object modified by the final line. This leaves two possible objects that these adjectives describe: 'he' and 'the dark river'. Because 'he' is performing an action, 'throws', I believe that 'the dark river' is the object being modified. I don't feel that the adjectives 'swift', 'cold', and 'deep' would be used to describe how the man throws. However, these words seem to fit with 'the dark river'. Because of the fact that there are only two adjectives present prior to line 15, I believe that this description of the dark river bears some major significance. The first three stanzas of this poem describe a man performing his job. His job is to dispose of corpses. The first 14 lines simply describes what he does in plain, declarative phrases. No thorough descriptions of any nouns are made. This is why I feel the description of 'river' with the four words 'dark', 'swift', 'cold', and 'deep' has implicit meaning. Because the main motif of this poem is death, I feel that this description of the river is a metaphor for death. I say this because the adjectives 'dark', 'swift', 'cold' and 'deep' could also be used to describe death. Death is quick, leaves the dead in complete darkness and their body cold, and death has often be compared to deep sleep, which makes the advective 'deep' fit. This could be a stretch, because the final stanza does not discuss death, but instead is about the objects the man finds with the dead. In the first 14 lines, this poem presents death as an everyday thing by showing it through the eyes of the Charon. No abstract meaning of death is presented. In the final two lines, it uses the river as a symbol to describe how profound death is.
Paraphrase: He only has a weak light to find his way, and he has many dead bodies to deal with. Told to take the bodies to one side, he may be confused because of the large amount of bodies on each side. This isn't really important though. The man will loot the dead bodies. He often finds food. Rarely he finds a mirror or a book. These things are not important to him, and he disposes of them in the quick, lifeless river.
Close Reading: "Swift and cold and deep"
This line is a series of adjectives. There is not an object in this line, therefore the object that these adjectives are describing must be in a previous line. In the second line of this stanza, the word 'which' seperates two clauses. Because of this, we can rule out any objects before 'which' as being the object modified by the final line. This leaves two possible objects that these adjectives describe: 'he' and 'the dark river'. Because 'he' is performing an action, 'throws', I believe that 'the dark river' is the object being modified. I don't feel that the adjectives 'swift', 'cold', and 'deep' would be used to describe how the man throws. However, these words seem to fit with 'the dark river'. Because of the fact that there are only two adjectives present prior to line 15, I believe that this description of the dark river bears some major significance. The first three stanzas of this poem describe a man performing his job. His job is to dispose of corpses. The first 14 lines simply describes what he does in plain, declarative phrases. No thorough descriptions of any nouns are made. This is why I feel the description of 'river' with the four words 'dark', 'swift', 'cold', and 'deep' has implicit meaning. Because the main motif of this poem is death, I feel that this description of the river is a metaphor for death. I say this because the adjectives 'dark', 'swift', 'cold' and 'deep' could also be used to describe death. Death is quick, leaves the dead in complete darkness and their body cold, and death has often be compared to deep sleep, which makes the advective 'deep' fit. This could be a stretch, because the final stanza does not discuss death, but instead is about the objects the man finds with the dead. In the first 14 lines, this poem presents death as an everyday thing by showing it through the eyes of the Charon. No abstract meaning of death is presented. In the final two lines, it uses the river as a symbol to describe how profound death is.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Heritage
Summary: The ideals of modern society clash with the speaker's feelings about his heritage, and result in an internal conflict regarding which side should shape the speaker's life, which goes largely unresolved.
Paraphrase: What does the land of my ancestors' mean to me? Is this land beautiful, or a wasteland?
Something within me yearns for the sights and sounds of this land. Society encourages me to repress these urges and not think about my homeland. I attempt to do this, but my heritage seems poised to pour out of me at any moment.
I am pushed by my society to see my homeland as a insignificant, ancient, wild place. The place I am now contains no elements of my homeland, and places little importance on the idea of heritage. This society is built on individualism and the present. What is my homeland to me?
Despite my attempts to deny my heritage, it continues to influence me. I feel it coursing through my veins at all hours of the day. It is calling me to rejoin the life of my ancestors.
The 'heathen' gods of my ancestors' were made to resemble their ethnicity. I have denied these gods, and my new god is Jesus Christ.
Although I have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I have some lingering doubts. I often wish that the god I served was black. I will craft my own religion to satisfy my wishes. I will worship a god of my own design.
Whenever I feel urges to embrace my heritage, I must repress these thoughts. I am still conflicted as to how my heritage should influence my life in this society.
Close Reading: 'From the unremittent beat'
The object of this line is 'the unremittent beat'. The adjective 'unremittent' means lacking occasional abatement of symptoms. This word is usually used to refer to a fever. This seems to be a strange choice of word when referring to a beat. However, within the context of this stanza, it makes sense. Within the first seven lines of this stanza, the speaker uses an extended metaphor to descibe the influence he feels from his heritage. This metaphor compares this influece to people walking through his body. This metaphor can be seen by the line 'Walking through my body's streets.' This explains why the speaker would choice a word normally reserved for describing symptoms felt by the human body to descibe this 'beat'. The first word of this sentence, 'from', indicates that this line is a prepositional phrase. This means that the object, 'the unremittent beat', is related to part of the previous line. The line prior to this one, ends with 'no slight release'. This means that the speaker constantly feels this metaphoric beat in his body. This reinforces that the speaker always feels the influence of his heritage.
Paraphrase: What does the land of my ancestors' mean to me? Is this land beautiful, or a wasteland?
Something within me yearns for the sights and sounds of this land. Society encourages me to repress these urges and not think about my homeland. I attempt to do this, but my heritage seems poised to pour out of me at any moment.
I am pushed by my society to see my homeland as a insignificant, ancient, wild place. The place I am now contains no elements of my homeland, and places little importance on the idea of heritage. This society is built on individualism and the present. What is my homeland to me?
Despite my attempts to deny my heritage, it continues to influence me. I feel it coursing through my veins at all hours of the day. It is calling me to rejoin the life of my ancestors.
The 'heathen' gods of my ancestors' were made to resemble their ethnicity. I have denied these gods, and my new god is Jesus Christ.
Although I have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I have some lingering doubts. I often wish that the god I served was black. I will craft my own religion to satisfy my wishes. I will worship a god of my own design.
Whenever I feel urges to embrace my heritage, I must repress these thoughts. I am still conflicted as to how my heritage should influence my life in this society.
Close Reading: 'From the unremittent beat'
The object of this line is 'the unremittent beat'. The adjective 'unremittent' means lacking occasional abatement of symptoms. This word is usually used to refer to a fever. This seems to be a strange choice of word when referring to a beat. However, within the context of this stanza, it makes sense. Within the first seven lines of this stanza, the speaker uses an extended metaphor to descibe the influence he feels from his heritage. This metaphor compares this influece to people walking through his body. This metaphor can be seen by the line 'Walking through my body's streets.' This explains why the speaker would choice a word normally reserved for describing symptoms felt by the human body to descibe this 'beat'. The first word of this sentence, 'from', indicates that this line is a prepositional phrase. This means that the object, 'the unremittent beat', is related to part of the previous line. The line prior to this one, ends with 'no slight release'. This means that the speaker constantly feels this metaphoric beat in his body. This reinforces that the speaker always feels the influence of his heritage.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Anecdote of the Jar
One sentence paraphrase: I set a jar in the wilderness, and the wilderness attempted to consume the jar, but the jar defied the wilderness.
Paragraph paraphrase: I set a jar on a hill in Tennessee. The jar's presence caused the wilderness to surround it. The wilderness engulfed the jar as if it had an organized plan. The jar holds steadfast, as if in quiet defiance. The wilderness continues its assault on the jar, and wears it down. Despite this, the jar never fully gives in to nature, and remains a seperate and unique entity.
Close reading: "It did not give of bird or bush"
The first thing that strikes me about this line, is the fact that the subject, 'it', refers to the jar. The jar is carrying out an action in this line. The next three words, 'did not give', is what the jar is doing. The jar is opposing some sort of force, and is refusing to give into it. The last three words, 'bird or bush', is what the jar is opposing. So, in this line, the jar is actively refusing to give into either 'bird or bush'. Taken literally, this doesn't really make sense. A jar, an inatimate object, could not possibly oppose living organisms, birds or bushes. This likely means that this line is metaphoric or symbolic. Looking at the poem as a whole, a possible meaning for this line emerges. Throughout the poem, there is a subtle struggle, or argument, between the jar and the wilderness. The wilderness confronts the jar in line 5: 'The wilderness rose up to it'. Although the jar does not make any indication that it will actively participate in a confrontation with the wilderness in this stanza, it does show that it has a certain level of strength and possibly defiance in line 8: 'And tall and of a port in air.' This line demonstrates that the jar has a certain level of strength. I say this because of the words 'tall' and 'port'. These words represent sturdiness and a cetain level of strength. Because of this suble indication that the jar has strength and could possibly defy the confrontation instigated by the wilderness, I believe that 'bird or bush' symbolizes wilderness in line 11. This brings us to the symbol of the jar. I believe that the jar is meant to symbolize man-made structures that encroach upon nature. Although, I suppose it could also symbolize mankind itself. In either case, it is clear that this force, the one represented by the jar, forces a stalemate with nature in line 11. Throughout the poem, the argument between the jar and the wilderness progresses. The wilderness is the dominant force up until line 11. Because the jar 'did not give of bird or bush', the argument goes unresolved. The jar refuses to be taken over by the wilderness, and, for better or worse, both sides remain seperate and defiant of each other.
Paragraph paraphrase: I set a jar on a hill in Tennessee. The jar's presence caused the wilderness to surround it. The wilderness engulfed the jar as if it had an organized plan. The jar holds steadfast, as if in quiet defiance. The wilderness continues its assault on the jar, and wears it down. Despite this, the jar never fully gives in to nature, and remains a seperate and unique entity.
Close reading: "It did not give of bird or bush"
The first thing that strikes me about this line, is the fact that the subject, 'it', refers to the jar. The jar is carrying out an action in this line. The next three words, 'did not give', is what the jar is doing. The jar is opposing some sort of force, and is refusing to give into it. The last three words, 'bird or bush', is what the jar is opposing. So, in this line, the jar is actively refusing to give into either 'bird or bush'. Taken literally, this doesn't really make sense. A jar, an inatimate object, could not possibly oppose living organisms, birds or bushes. This likely means that this line is metaphoric or symbolic. Looking at the poem as a whole, a possible meaning for this line emerges. Throughout the poem, there is a subtle struggle, or argument, between the jar and the wilderness. The wilderness confronts the jar in line 5: 'The wilderness rose up to it'. Although the jar does not make any indication that it will actively participate in a confrontation with the wilderness in this stanza, it does show that it has a certain level of strength and possibly defiance in line 8: 'And tall and of a port in air.' This line demonstrates that the jar has a certain level of strength. I say this because of the words 'tall' and 'port'. These words represent sturdiness and a cetain level of strength. Because of this suble indication that the jar has strength and could possibly defy the confrontation instigated by the wilderness, I believe that 'bird or bush' symbolizes wilderness in line 11. This brings us to the symbol of the jar. I believe that the jar is meant to symbolize man-made structures that encroach upon nature. Although, I suppose it could also symbolize mankind itself. In either case, it is clear that this force, the one represented by the jar, forces a stalemate with nature in line 11. Throughout the poem, the argument between the jar and the wilderness progresses. The wilderness is the dominant force up until line 11. Because the jar 'did not give of bird or bush', the argument goes unresolved. The jar refuses to be taken over by the wilderness, and, for better or worse, both sides remain seperate and defiant of each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)