"kiss me kate..."

Taming of the Shrew was the more enjoyable comedy of the two for me because of the humor in it. Overall comedy hasn't changed all that much. In A Midsummer Night's Dream there are still the fools, the idiots, that are placed there for quick comic relief; the three stooges are a more modern version of Bottom and his band of "actors". Although this sort of comedy works for a majority of people, I'm more a fan of subdued intelligent humor. To me, Taming of the Shrew is the more witty and funny play of the two we read, but that's solely personal opinion. I like the dialogue between Kate and Petruccio, and the latter just astounds me in how far he's willing to go to subdue Kate.

I also like Kate's character and the way Shakespeare makes her see her own personal flaws. People are initially intimidated of her; she is quicker than most of Padua. However it takes Petruccio, a man that isn't afraid to stand up to her, to make her see herself from a different perspective. The fact that he beats her at her own game is comedic.

I didn't like the conclusion of the play in that Kate basically concedes to Petruccio and is "tamed". Her character, an independent woman, was out of the norm in Shakespeare's day. I think that she did just become part of the crowd at the end, and although that was the point of the play, I was a little disappointed in her.

Oh Maccers....

Macbeth is a tragedy is the most defined form, and for this I have to enjoy it because it's to the book. Macbeth is the poor tragic character and for that I pity him a little. However, having a crazy wife whisper crazy things about killing people in your ear can't hide your own ambition. Although Lady Macbeth is the reason Macbeth is able disregard his morals and lose his integrity, it is his own ambition that brings his end. Macbeth is a character that can define hubris. I liked Macbeth because it is very human. Although the supernatural is a recurring theme in the play, Macbeth's progression to someone who has lost all morals is all human. Ambition is a human response and with Macbeth it becomes evident that we all must watch how much ambition dominates our existence.

What can I say about dear old Richard...

...well for starters he's not very nice.



As far as the play goes, I liked it. I like the way Shakespeare developed Richard's character in that he two-faced everyone and then killed them all. I hated Richard, and I think Shakespeare was banking on most of the audience hating him. This aspect allows what we witness on stage to seem all the more horrifying. We know what he's doing; we hear the evil plans, and the fact that he delights in deceiving everyone. We know it, but we can't do anything about it.

Another thing that I liked about Richard was his attitude regarding his own dispicable evil. He thinks so highly of himself and he delights in the fact that he can so easily deceive and ruin other people. I don't agree with Richard in any way shape or form. He is the epitome of evil in a sense, however I think that Shakespeare developed his character well enough to make him so hateable.

She's a Lady.....?

So even though Macbeth, is titled so because of the main and tragic character, Macbeth, I think the title leaves out a pretty significant part of the entire play; a significant part of the entire tragedy for that matter. She's the mastermind, the spark, the one who's really doing all the backstabbing... the one, the only... Lady Macbeth. Here's a character that defied convention not only during Shakespeare's age but does so in present day society as well. Lady Macbeth is one evil woman. Despite having ambition that supersedes her morals Lady Macbeth is poor Macbeth's undoing. Arguably the most prominent theme in the play is the switching of gender roles. Macbeth is more feminine throughout the play, whereas Lady Macbeth is more domineering and masculine. This transformation, the switching of gender roles is spelled out for the audience at parts throughout the play. Act I, Scene 5 begins with Lady Macbeth reading her husband's letter regarding what the witches said. After this she has a brief soliloquy that is worth looking at. In it she makes the gender switch very apparent by basically calling her husband a woman... or at least a guy with a feminine side. "Yet do I fear thy nature; it is too full o' th' milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way". Another thing she says essentially asserts her power into the situation:

Lady Macbeth: I may pour my spirits in thine ear;
And chastise with the valour of my tongue
All that impedes thee from the golden round,
Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem
To have thee crown'd withal.

Here she is saying I'm going to be Macbeth's ambition, I'm going to be his motivation. Let my words convince him this is the right thing to do, and let what I say cause him to stop at nothing until he wears the crown. Clearly by stop at nothing she means kill Duncan. This isn't the only passage where Lady Macbeth asserts her power. After Macbeth returns from murdering Duncan he carries the knife he used to kill him with. Lady Macbeth is clearly surprised because that wasn't the plan, but she flat out says I'll take care of it, while Macbeth shakes and mumbles "What have I done." She's the stronger one throughout the play and the one with all kinds of evil schemes... is she a lady? That's questionable...

The Art of Wooing... Take 2.

This scene from Taming of the Shrew is not the same sort of wooing that occurs in Richard III. However there are some similarities. One of the reasons I like Richard III and Taming of the Shrew so much is because of the quick dialogue throughout the play. This is evident more so in the comedy, because it is... a comedy, but it is in Richard and other plays as well. The dialogue is funny and witty and quick, and I expect no less from Shakespeare, but for the play itself it fits perfectly. Dialogue to highlight in this play comes between Kate and Petruccio. Shakespeare is known for his coy sexual innuendos, and in a play that is basically a battle of the sexes there is a whole lot of them. This makes the play entertaining to read for a more mature audience.

Petruccio: Come, come, you wasp; i' faith, you are too angry.
Kate: If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
Petruccio: My remedy is then, to pluck it out.
Kate: Ay, if the fool could find it where it lies.
Petruccio: Who knows not where a wasp does
wear his sting? In his tail.
Kate: In his tongue.
Petruccio: Whose tongue?
Kate: Yours, if you talk of tails: and so farewell.
Petruccio: What, with my tongue in your tail? nay, come again,
Good Kate; I am a gentleman.

Here the dialogue between the two of them is humorous, especially because Petruccio's plan to win over Kate is to beat her at her own game. Throughout the play there is no one who can compete with Kate verbally... except Petruccio. This makes the dialogue between them more heated and much better for the relationship of their characters. The fact that Petruccio is the only one who can match her quickness, and the fact that he can even beat her with it makes their love/hate relationship throughout the play more appealing and entertaining for the audience.

The Art of Wooing

One of my favorite scenes in Richard III is Act I, Scene II. This scene isn’t a scene where the audience sees Richard’s complete evil. Sure at this point we know he’s nuts, and the fact that he plans to kill her after they’ve married is basically a dead giveaway (no pun intended). This isn’t the scene where he orders the death of his own brother or the two young princes. The thing that makes this one of the better scenes in the play is that it shows Richard’s evil not from the abrupt murders he commits, but more so from the devious scheming deception that he uses to gain everyone’s sympathy and in turn their trust in a sense. In this particular scene Richard succeeds in his attempt to woo Lady Anne to marry him. Although throughout the scene she is constantly saying how much she hates him; she calls him a "villain" and a "devil." But the beauty of this scene isn’t that Richard merely succeeds., it lies in the fact that he first has the gall to woo a woman (his future wife no less!) over the body of her dead father in-law; a man Richard killed along with her husband.

The thing I love most about this scene isn’t the irony of the setting, it by far is the dialogue. To me, this is Shakespeare at his finest. The dialogue is quick and witty and sharp and sadly enough the scene is a little humorous because of the absolute bull crap Richard uses in his favor. With every negative Lady Anne throws at Richard, he responds with an over-affectionate response.

Anne: O wonderful, when devils tell the truth!
Richard: More wonderful, when angels are so angry.Vouchsafe, divine perfection of a woman,Of these supposed-evils, to give me leave,By circumstance, but to acquit myself.

Richard: Why dost thou spit at me?
Anne: Would it were mortal poison, for thy sake!
Richard: Never came poison from so sweet a place.

The entire scene is just great so it’s hard to pick lines... those were just a few that defended my point. The culmination of this scene ends with Lady Anne unable to kill Richard herself and in doing this she essentially concedes to him. Richard even brags "Was ever woman in this humor woo'd? Was ever woman in this humor won?" I think he finds it amazing he succeeded (as if he needed more a boost to his ego). The last image of the scene is another one of Richard’s soliloquies that, like the rest, is bad news. After witnessing Richard woo this poor woman the audience learns he’s going to kill her, to state it bluntly. This just reemphasizes what the audience has known all along... Richard is one evil evil man.

the tragedies

As far as tragedies go I've read Macbeth, Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet (but honestly... who hasn't read that?). Macbeth and Hamlet being the designated hitters of the tragedies I can make a fair comment on the genre. As far as my liking Shakespeare goes I think that I like his tragedies the most. One of the things Shakespeare does best in his plays is develop characters relatively quickly. Although done fast, it is done very well, and this is why Shakespeare's plays can be very entertaining when put on well. Character development is particularly important when it comes to the tragedies. The characters in Shakespeare's tragedies generally start out likable. Macbeth seems like a decent guy; he's worshipped on the battlefield; his friends love him; the king loves him; the only one who seems to dislike him is his own wife. Hamlet too. He's not a guy that people loathe (like Richard) and he's even those who sort of betray him do so not completely intentionally. The fact that these characters are attractive to the audience. The fact that they are likable, not only allows characters in the play to form bonds with them but also members of the audience.

This is why Shakespeare's tragedies are so sad. The audience likes the person/people that are eventually going to fall. Macbeth has morals to begin with, Hamlet is pretty charismatic, and Romeo and Juliet are lovers. The audience can't like better characters. And sort of shadowing the Greek tragic hero they are all destined to fall. Shakespeare's tragedies are good and can be hail as possibly his best because of how they suck you in, and leave you empty when they're done. It is the sad side of life, they aren't the happy endings. But are they an eye opener and an entertainer as well? You bet.

the histories

Having read Richard III and Julius Caesar I like the histories but I haven't really had the chance to read enough of them. I couldn't really enjoy Caesar a lot, but I found Richard to be very interesting... if not disturbing in the least. I think the histories, like all of Shakespeare's other works have more to them than meets the first read. I mean Richard isn't just about one really really evil guy (*cough* Mr. Klimas) it's about evil as a whole, and Richard III wanting so desperately to be recognized. He feels cheated by nature and this gives him motive enough to want to seek retribution to all those who had wronged him. I think that this history in particular is sad... I don't empathize with Richard at all, and I certainly don't agree with what he did, but the man was nuts! The fact that this is a "history" in that it really happened, and Richard killed A LOT of people, and people so close to him no less, is sad; and to be honest vaguely horrifying. I think however that Shakespeare does portray the characters really well. The purpose of his works is to entertain a crowd more so than tell a factual, historical story. Therefore one thing about the histories in particular is building a character that people love to hate; Richard is certainly one of those characters. With his soliloquies and asides the audience learns more about Richard than we probably want to. We know of his evil plans, and the fact that he so easily deceives Clarence, Lady Anne, as well as everyone else is frightening. The fact that Shakespeare is able to create that intimacy with a character builds up the history as a play. As a whole it is difficult for me to comment on the genre because I've only really read one history. However, Richard was a good one to start with, in that it captures the history of the English strafe for power at the conclusion of the war of the roses, but also builds up a character that the audience can react to, in some way or another.

the comedies

I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare and I like many of his plays ranging from comedies to tragedies. My favorite comedy is probably "Much Ado About Nothing" because it's witty and romantic and I found it entertaining. Shakespeare is such a fantastic author that it's hard for me to decide whether I like the comedies or the tragedies more. I like the wit that comes with Shakespeare's humor. Of the works we read in class I think I liked "Taming of the Shrew" more than "A Midsummer Night's Dream" but to be honest I enjoyed both of them. I think that Shakespeare's dialogue in his comedies makes them all the more humorous. A lot of things that are written are between the lines, and I think that's why some hail Shakespeare to be the greatest author to have ever lived, and why some hate him. His humor is blatant in some regards, like the fools' play in "A Midsummer Night's Dream", however there is more humor in the things we pull out of his plays that aren't necessarily obvious. A bit of dialogue between Kate and Petruccio in "Taming of the Shrew" contains wit, humor, and with that some sexual innuendos that once you see are quite obvious. Being able to see this sort of humor, the kind that really isn't intended to be so obvious makes the comedies enjoyable to me in one way or another.

281. The Death of a Soldier

Life contracts and death is expected,

As in a season of autumn.

The soldier falls.



He does not become a three-days personage,

Imposing his separation,

Calling for pomp.



Death is absolute and without memorial,

As in a season of autumn,

When the wind stops,



When the wind stops and, over the heavens,

The clouds go, nevertheless,

In their direction.



Wallace Stevens

-This poem has no rhyme, but that does not mean there isn't a certain rhythm to it. I think that the poem's structure has a lot to do with the significance of its meaning. The poem is about the expectance of the death of a soldier and how it affects few people. The poem does not have rhyme and the stanzas are short and simple, however this reflects the death of a soldier. Their burials are not littered with ornate pomp, and they are very cut and dry, however this should not take away from the very personal side of their death, in that they were human too. I think that the speaker of the poem is Stevens however and he is trying to make a personal statement of the value we place on the lives of soldiers.

-One literary devices Stevens uses is repetition. The lines "as in a season of autumn" and "when the wind stops" are both used twice. I think that one reason Steven's may use repetition in the poem and especially these two lines is that a soldier's death is commonly expected. Soldiers risk their lives for that which they fight for, however because of their choice and the dangers that are included with it, we have come to regard their deaths as just another one of the many. Just as the season of autumn will repeat from year to year so will the death of soldiers. The repetition of "when the wind stops" may have been used for dramatic effect. Using the line back to back emphasizes the stillness of the world as "the clouds go... in their direction."

The diction Stevens uses is also very interesting. In the first line the use of "contracts" I interpreted to mean that, as a soldier, with each passing day your life expectancy decreases; their life is slowly contracting and seceding from their grasp. The use of the season autumn is also significant and symbolic. Autumn is the season where life in nature begins to die, as winter moves in. In autumn the leaves fall from the trees and this leads me to the next interesting word the poet uses... falls in "the soldier falls". This compares a soldier to a leaf, and just as leaves fall every autumn, so do soldiers fall on a daily basis. By comparing soldiers to leaves it really does emphasize the author's opinion on the value we place on life in society.

-I liked this poem despite how troubled I was about its message. I think that in today's society we do not hold life with such high value, not only for soldiers but for anyone. Although I am sick to think that human life has become so devalued I cannot deny its apparent truth. Steven's life spanned both WWI and WWII and from the opinion presented in the poem, it seems as if he was deeply connected with fallen soldiers, and angered by their treatment at one point. The poem paints a depressing picture of taking soldier's lives for granted even though they are the ones risking their lives for the protection of our country.
As a side note this poem's perspective of a soldier's death as just another daily happening reminded me of 117. Apparently with no surprise by Emily Dickinson, a poem we read earlier.

Just an Idea...

So Mr. Klimas... how about after the AP test we compare poem 212. Money, with There Will Be Blood? Yes, no? Think about it :)

232. Snow White and the Seven Deadly Sins

Too long to type but an interesting poem...

-The rhyme scheme in this poem is simple; your common A B A B. Although simple I think it fits the poem very well because I think it's supposed to sound like a nursery rhyme or a children's story... even the title "Snow White and the Seven Deadly Sins" is a play off "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". The poem is about a loss of innocence and although the rhyme of it sounds somewhat... childish, the poem has a much deeper meaning. The speaker may be the poet or it may be anyone who has witnessed the loss of innocence in a girl and the overall corruption of innocence in people. Although the poem focuses on a female, the loss of innocence is not solely limited to women.

-One literary technique that Gwynn uses effectively is the personification of the seven deadly sins. Although they are comparable to the seven dwarfs from the title the personification is more meaningful than simply connecting them with an innocent childhood story. The seven deadly sins are able to exist because they can live through her; she personifies them in a sense. This makes the poem's meaning much deeper because as she cries after seeing who she's become, it is really because she has been able to be manipulated by Gluttony, Avarice, Envy... etc. Capitalizing each one, along with Male and Handsome Prince represents the fact that this woman's husband has also been some of the reason for her corruption. She associates the destruction she sees within herself, the seven deadly sins, with the male sex.

Another device the author uses very well is allusion. Not only is there the one in the title, that being "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," but also a few biblical references as well. As I mentioned before the title of the poem being so similar to the child's tale of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs reflects the message of the poem and that is the loss of a young girl's innocence by the corruption of society. The biblical references are also important to the poem. As the poem progresses we see that the woman stays at home and takes care of the house, while she awaits for the arrival of her husband, a daily process not uncommon for when the poem was written. In the beginning of the poem when the young woman questioned her faith she was referred to "Peter's First Epistle, chapter III". In this section of scripture it relegated women to a lower level than men, and basically set the guidelines for a patriarchal society. Because her youth as well as adulthood was set by following men, it may have led her to her leaving at the end of the poem. St. Anne, another religious reference was the mother of Mary. Anne promised to dedicate Mary to God's service. Like St. Anne doing such with her daughter, she is the one who calls back the woman in the poem, returning her to religious service.

-I liked this poem because of how the seven deadly sins were used to show the loss of innocence. I think that the poem is strong in it's message, and I think that the loss of innocence is a completely real and somewhat tragic level of human behavior. Corruption can be seen in today's society in those that are most innocent... children. Images of children holding automatic weapons not only make me question where our ethics have gone, but it also makes me fear of what the world is becoming. Even though Gwynn wrote the poem 60 years ago, innocence lost is still prevalent, and quite possibly worse in today's society.

253. Offspring

               I tried to tell her:
                              This way the twig is bent.
                              Born of my trunk and strengthened by my roots,
                              you must stretch newgrown branches
                              closer to the sun
                              that I can reach.

               I wanted to say:
                              Extend my self to that far atmosphere
                              only my dream allow.

               But the twig broke,
               and yesterday I saw her
               walking down an unfamiliar street,
                              feet confident
                              face slanted upward toward a threatening sky,
               and
                              she was smiling
                              and she was
                              her very free,
                              her very individual,
                              unpliable
                              own.

-The speaker of the poem could be the poet, however, in any case, I believe it to be a mother. It could really be either parent, a mother or a father, but I assumed it to be a mother. Due to the poem's title I reached my conclusion. There is no rhyme to the poem however I think it works in its favor. The poem is, in essence, about parents letting go of their children. By not including any rhyme scheme, as well as breaking up the stanzas into unregulated sections the poem is wholly unpredictable; this may reflect the mother's confusion and anxiety as she chooses to let her daughter go and become her own person.

-The symbol of the tree is used as a representation of the mother's life, and well as the life she has built up for her daughter. Trees are a sign of life in general, part of a symbiotic circle that keeps us alive, therefore it is only fitting that the speaker compares life to a tree. She relates herself to this tree, the foundation of her daughter's life. "Her roots" are like her own morals and beliefs that she has instilled in her daughter.

There is also a break in the poem and this shows us, as readers, a shift in the piece. In line 10, the third stanza, the speaker is no longer recollecting what she said to her daughter and what she wanted to say; stanzas three and four rather become the change she sees in her daughter. In the first two stanzas the speaker is telling her daughter she is a branch, only bending in another direction; a branch that is still attached to the giant tree. However, in line 10 "the twig broke". This is the daughter's transition into maturity. The diction used after this break is interesting. Walking down an "unfamiliar street" is representative of the daughter walking down a path that is different from her mother's, her own display of individualism. Also "her face slanted upward toward a threatening sky" Threatening is a way to say that the daughter is no longer under her mother's protection and is now out on the world on her own and must face its troubles on her own as well.

-I enjoyed the poem because not only was it about the coming of age for a young woman, but also the transition in a mother. However I liked how the poem concluded with the statement that, even though the daughter is "walking down an unfamiliar street" with her "face slanted upward toward a threatening sky... she was smiling and she was her very free, her very individual, unpliable own." I think that this really showed both the daughter and the mother's transformation. The daughter has left her mother's nest to become an individual; and the mother in return can look at her daughter and see her for the individual she has become, however still maintain her motherly instincts.

212. Money

At first it will seem tame,
willing to be domesticated.

It will nest
in your pocket
or curl up in a corner
reciting softly to itself
the names of the presidents.

It will delight your friends,
shake hands with men
like a dog and lick
the legs of women.

But like an amoeba
it makes love
in secret
only to itself.

Fold it frequently;
it needs exercise.

Water it every three days
and it will repay you
with displays of affection.

Then one day when you think
you are its master
it will turn its head
as if for a kiss
and bite you gently
on the hand.

There will be no pain
but in thirty seconds
the poison will reach your heart.

Victor Contoski

I thought I'd put the poem up too, it's not that long.

-The speaker of this poem one can assume is the poet, being that no one else is mentioned. One may also believe that Contoski is speaking from the mouth of experience. There is no rhyme to the poem but that can lead to it's meaning. The role money plays in a person's life and the relationship one may build with wealth may have little rhyme or reason, however this is what makes its poison so painful. A person's lust with money can grow and grow the more they make, however, in a stock market crash, where people can lose all their money, sometimes that comes with little warning, with little rhyme or reason. Therefore I think Contoski was trying to create a poem that didn't have a rhythm par say because life also does not have a rhythm; things happen at random.

-One technique that the poet uses cleverly is personifying money. In the third stanza he refers to money having the quality to "shake hands with men and lick the legs of women". I think this is a very powerful line. By giving money human qualities, Contoski gives money power. By giving money power, Contoski gives money the ability to overtake a human... its "master". I drew that money, personified, may also be referencing the greed living and breathing within all of us. We are the reasons we become so attached to money. Money is not, in reality, a living thing. Therefore, by personifying it Contoski may be saying that the evil money can cause is only able to do such by living through us.

Another literary device Contoski uses is simile. Money is ... "like a dog" and "like an amoeba it makes love in secret only to itself". I think that smile is used well in the poem. By using the dog reference, money appears to be "domesticated" like an animal, under the control of the human who has the power. However comparing money to an amoeba in the next stanza makes the reader very aware that this isn't some domesticated creature that is subject to the control of others. More so money or greed is an organism that functions on its own, replicating and growing stronger until it consumes you.

-I really liked this poem. One could probably assume that because I chose it for my blogs, however it really made me consider the question of "can money buy happiness?" To me, this answer is no. I don't think that superficial things can bring happiness... but this is solely my opinion. I liked the poem though because I believe Contoski agreed with me. Money, while you may seem to have it under control can amount to greed, and this greed can consume a person. I think that money if not used wisely is a root to all evil. The ending of this poem I thought was very good. "There will be no pain... [but] the poison will reach your heart". I liked this so much because I feel that this is how greed corrupts a person. They can't feel it but it consumes them, and the poison that comes with it will reach your heart, symbolic for the soul of a person.

Flight Motif in Portrait

One of the recurring motifs throughout the novel is that of flight, representing Steven's possible flight from Ireland, but also his flight from a young boy into a mature young adult. From the beginning of the novel Joyce gives us reference to the flight motif. Steven's last name is Dedalus. This comes from the Greek mythology and the story of Dedalus and his son Icarus, who attempt to escape from their prison after constructing two pairs of wings. Because made of wax the wings are vulnerable to the sun and Icarus, in a moment of overconfidence, flies too close and plummets to his death. Dedalus, however, survives. Although Steven's last name is Dedalus we cannot assume that he is the representation of the triumphant Dedalus from the myth wholly. Steven is also the son of his father, whose last name is also Dedalus. Therefore Steven comes to represent both Icarus and Dedalus in a sense. Icarus, because Steven must not become too overconfident in his own abilities, and Dedalus because he eventually survives the journey into manhood. Although birds and the idea of flight is mentioned throughout the work it especially comes into full light in Section V of the novel. Steven's most mature state. In section five Steven sits on the steps of the library looking up at the birds signifying his own willingness and readiness to leave Ireland. Steven finds comfort in the "inhuman clamor" of the birds cries, however he does have a moment of hesitation when realizing his own desire to fly away. "A sense of fear of the unknown moved into the heart of his weariness, a fear of symbols and portents, or the hawk like man whose name he bore..."(244). Although Steven goes through a moment of doubt and consideration he once again becomes transfixed on the birds flying over him. This signifies that Steven is mature enough to consider the possibilities of flight and is ready to embark on his journey.

Aside from flight representing Steven's possible leaving Ireland as well as his journey from a boy to a man, flight can also come to represent Steven's transition from a boy who was fascinated with words into a artist who embraced them. The events in Section five prove that Steven is now fully formed artist ready to take flight.

Quote. Portrait

This is one of my favorite quotes from the novel:

"So he had passed beyond the challenge of the sentries who had stood as guardians of his boyhood and had sought to keep him among them that he might be subject to them and serve their ends" (178)

This is Steven's moment of revelation; the moment where he embraces who he is. His true coming of age, if you will. The reflection of his past and his realization of how those in his past have sheltered him is one of truthful sincerity. I liked this quote for much of the same reason I enjoyed the book as a whole. As the book progresses Steven becomes a man, and this quote is a defining moment for him.

I think Joyce's diction in this passage is important to look at to determine Steven's feelings about figures in his past, figures he depended on in his youth. Steven refers to them as sentries. A sentry can be defined as a guard at a gate or other point of passage. I believe the sentries Steven refers to are not only his parents, who at this time in the novel he feels himself distanced from, but also professors, priests, and students that Steven has admired up until this point in his life. Steven's childhood was designed around fitting into the mold of convention. Steven's father even says to him at one point, "When you kick out for yourself, Steven.... remember, whatever you do, to mix with gentlemen"(97). Even from a young age Steven's parents have tried to guide him in a socially acceptable path. By mixing with gentlemen, Steven's father hopes him to give up individuality for acceptance. This is something that Steven cannot do and we see this through his relationship with his peers. He is never a part of a group and cannot establish a true closeness with any one of his fellow students. However, as a young boy, he wanted to be accepted and like, as to follow and obey social convention. After Steven's revelation here he comes to see that he does not and cannot fit in. Passing a Jesuit house, he cannot see himself ever wanting to live in that sort of environment. Steven does not want to be a servant to anyone else, only to himself. He doesn’t want to be limited by a social order and by realizing his own intrinsic drive Steven knows that others in his life have only been holding back the artist within him.

My thoughts on Mr. Dedalus

Although the book gets increasingly more difficult as it progresses I enjoyed it for the most part. I liked Joyce's style and the progression of the novel as a whole. I thought that his use of diction while he portrayed Steven as a young boy, and then how he changed that diction as he grew older I found really enjoyable. Steven's maturation through the novel was done in a unique way, and I think that Joyce was unbelievably able to capture the emotion and experience of a boy coming of age. The way he described Steven's childhood and his experience at Clongowes is horrifying but it is also a fairly true depiction of a boy's fear of being away from his family. I know as a child I had to go to summer camp and the thought of leaving my parents to be with people I didn't know for a day was horrifying to me. Steven's experience as a young boy is one of despair, and this is in part due to his own internal instability. Steven's thought that his sexual feelings are wrong and sinful is just another part of that coming of age process. All humans question their own motives and feelings and emotions at one time or another and Joyce accurately portrays the struggle of man coping with himself. Although Steven is only a boy he is trying to find an answer to his 'awful' thoughts. As Steven matures though we, as readers, really see a change in him. Steven finds his own identity after becoming devout to his religion. I think one of the reasons I liked the book so much is because we all go through I period of finding ourselves. There comes a point where we discover who we truly are. Joyce's portrayal of Steven's realization was far from perfect, however as a budding adult Steven came to rationalize his own thoughts and actions.

just another fitting quote...

I found this quote online amongst some searching and thought it was interesting in correlation to Player Piano.

"I see the player piano as the grandfather of the computer, the ancestor of the entire nightmare we live in, the birth of the binary world where there is no option other than yes or no and where there is no refuge."
~William Gaddis

Although Gaddis's image of society now may be a little harsh it is not unbelievable, just as PLAYER PIANO is also an image of what may become of the future.

I thought it was interesting tying into the titile of Vonnegut's book too. Apparently Gaddis thought the player piano was the beginning of the end, perhaps Vonnegut did too...

yes, finally... player piano. quote.

The one quote that stuck out in my mind from Player Piano was on page 68. As Paul sits in the bar with Finnerty and Lasher, Lasher says,

"Things, gentlemen, are ripe for a phony Messiah, and when he comes, it's sure to be a bloody business... Sooner or later someone is going to catch the imagination of these people with some new magic. At the bottom of it will be a promise of regaining the feeling of participation, the feeling of being needed on earth - hell, dignity."

I like this quote because the moment I read it I thought Paul was going to be the Messiah and I truly wanted him to be. Paul seemed skeptical enough of his own thoughts on the machines that he could fill the shoes quite nicely. What I also found interesting was that Lasher thought that when the next "phony Messiah" comes it would be "sure to be a bloody business." However, the rebellion in the end was hardly the violence I believe Lasher to have imagined. Agreeing with my other blog this quote does not predict the ignorance of the human in that society. Instead of continuing to find the rebels choose to rebuild all that they've just destroyed.

However, Lasher is right that the "Reeks and Wrecks" have basically lost all motivation to exist. They are permitted to do very little because they are not "doctors" and not "smart" enough to become them. Therefore the promise of a changed world sounded good so that they would regain their feeling of worth. However, once the town and Illium was destroyed they were no longer useless; now instead of carrying on the destruction so that machines could no longer take their jobs, they began to put back together the things they hated the most. This could have been why Lasher mentioned a phony Messiah. Perhaps he was aware of the ignorance of the masses and therefore knew that no man could succeed in leading these people.

player piano. theme.

Vonnegut addressed a number of themes in Player Piano however one of the most prevalent is the ignorance of the human race. Although Dr. Paul Proteus is originally made out to be this great engineer it is soon revealed that the term "Doctor" is overrated in their society. The first sign of human ignorance and stupidity comes from the satirical and classical Vonnegut style example of Bud Calhoun. As an excellent designer Bud created a machine that did his job for him, however it did it so well that he was no longer needed. Bud, in his lust for creating new things, did not think about the consequences of his actions and therefore must now suffer the consequence of being outdone by a machine. The society in the novel did not think about the consequences of the technology they were feasting on and therefore has become a society dependent on them.

This dependency is seen when the Shah of Bratpuhr visits the nation. As he takes his tour he witnesses how much humans have come to rely on the machines more than themselves. For example, the housewife who is bored most of the time and who wants to do laundry by hand to occupy her time. Another example comes from the computer, EPICAC XIV that the Shah encounters. Americans hold the piece of machinery in such high regard and believe it to know all, however when the Shah asks it an ancient riddle it is unable to answer, thereby proving its total efficiency.

Finally the end of the novel is almost a testament to the entire theme. After the rebellion and the Illium works is destroyed along with the machines in the adjoining town, the members of the town, members that took place in the uprising, the people who just destroyed all the machines, were choosing to put them back together. The "Reeks and Wrecks" those who jobs the machines replaced began to build the machines all over again. This only further adds to the satiric attack on human ignorance throughout the novel.

heart of darkness. quote.

The quote I selected from Heart of Darkness we already answered a question on during the reading however it was one that made an impression on me and I felt that it is very significant to the rest of the novel, despite how short it is.

"'Don't you talk with Mr. Kurtz?' I said. 'You don't talk with that man - you listen to him,' he exclaimed." (132)

Although in this instance the Russian is referring to Mr. Kurtz's and his unbelievable charisma, the quote certainly has more to it. Even though Kurtz is referred to as a voice for a large portion of the novel, the quote is not entirely about his charismatic way with words, it goes much deeper. As the novel reaches part III and we are finally introduced to Kurtz we find out that he is a clear depiction of someone who has lost all sanity, and is a representation of the heart of darkness found in every man. Kurtz has embraced his instinctive impulsive nature and his own humanity is questionable. Therefore, knowing this about Kurtz the quote has much more significance. "That man" in the quote does not only represent Kurtz but also the evil that lies within a person, or so Conrad believes. When the Russian says, "you don't talk with that man - you listen to him" it is basically saying that the evil within us can control us if the right circumstance presents itself. This evil to can't really talk to, it is just there, and will come out on its own. However, you do listen to it and this is why Kurtz is in the position he is in. Kurtz listened to his animalistic instincts and relied less on his own human capacity to reason. Marlow found himself close to his level, almost losing himself in a shroud of darkness. This proves how strong the voice of darkness is in someone. Marlow caught himself at the last second, he was able to "draw back his hesitating foot" however he wasn't able to stop himself from listening to the voice of impulse within him.

Colonialism in the heart of darkness

Conrad cites examples in Heart of Darkness that truly depict how awful the effects of colonialism were on the natives of a country. As Marlow progresses further and further into the heart of the Congo he finds himself further from the reaches of society.

On page 83 is a scene that depicts the horrendous treatment of the native African people. “They were dying slowly – it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now – nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation…” The narrator finds this group of helpless individuals lying, nearly lifeless, in the shade of a tree. Making note of how these people were not criminals or enemies, one is to believe these were the displaced natives from that region. They have done nothing wrong but work under horrific conditions. Not getting proper medical treatment they basically wait to die under the tree. They go unnoticed by most, being that the narrator doesn’t make note of their existence until his is nearly on top of one.

This quote is taken from Marlow’s stay at the Coastal Station; here the affects of colonialism are prevalent and numerous, even as Marlow treads into the next station colonialism still has control. By the time Marlow reaches the inner station however the atmosphere is a mix of the destruction of colonialism and Kurtz’s insanity. The Inner Station is surrounded by death, with the heads on stakes, and the mound of ivory. Colonialism is what surrounds this death as well as part of the reason for Kurtz’s insanity. Also Kurtz’s projection of himself as a god, took advantage of the people of the Congo. Colonialism did not solely reap a country’s natural resources for market profit; it also was an attempt to strip a nation and a people of their culture. This is possibly the greatest evil, stripping one from their humanity. Kurtz’s transcended into darkness because he lost the capacity to be human.

ug, how many more of these do i have to do... invisible man, motif

One repeating motif throughout Invisible Man was the black/white color mentioned in areas throughout the novel. In the paint factory scene this motif is largely prevalent and can be seen to represent a number of things. The paint, which was supposed to be a dazzling white, the purest white on the market, was made from dark colors at first.

"I watched him kneel and open one of the buckets, stirring a milky brown substance... he stirred it vigorously until it became a glossy white" (199).

The paint here isn't just paint, it is a symbol for the black race becoming subdued and overpowered by whites. The brown substance represents the black people and the fact that they are stirred until they are no longer brown is the oppression placed on them by the whites. Because the narrator describes the substance as a "milky brown" and not dark brown or black, it may also represent him. The narrator himself isn't as black as others and the Brotherhood even makes a comment along the lines of "Shouldn't he be blacker" later on in the novel. The narrator, the focus of the novel, is easily manipulated by whites and blacks alike throughout the novel. The paint represents him becoming one of them. This can be related to Dr. Bledsoe, who is considered a traitor to his own race. Bledsoe, although black, speaks to the narrator as if he was a white plantation owner. Bledsoe depicts the "Optic white" as he has shed all his black color for a white shade; he is the epitome of the manipulated black man in the novel, because he finds his cause as noble as ever even though he is like an enemy to his own race.

Also the tag line of the "Optic white" paint in its ability to cover up anything, any tint or stain. This represents the white man's attempt to cover up black culture and essentially give the black people a new identity. The white paint covering up the dark stains is representative of the "pure" white race covering up the dark "stains" of the black culture.

invisible man. quote.

This quote appears on page 15 but I think it is one of my favorites because it captures the essence of the narrator's journey throughout the novel.

"All my life I had been looking for something, and everywhere I turned someone tried to tell me what it was. I accepted their answers too, though they were often in contradiction and even self-contradictory... I was looking for myself and asking everyone except myself questions which I, and only I, could answer."

Like I said this quote embodies the narrator's struggle throughout the novel. Appearing in Chapter One as a recollection of previous years the narrator is now aware of his naivety and has come to accept the fact that he had been completely manipulated. This quote ties in directly to one of the last scenes in the novel when the narrator starts to burn the items in his briefcase. The briefcase, which is a recurring symbol throughout the novel and represents the false promises and hopes laid before the narrator throughout his journey, is finally burned at the end signifying the narrator realizing his own stupidity and becoming an invisible individual.

In this quote the narrator also makes reference to the number of people who mislead him, but may have been confused themselves. Mr. Norton was an example of someone who was self-contradictory. He thought that he was doing a good thing, sponsoring the college that the narrator attended. However, as readers we know that Mr. Norton is ignorant to the "bigger picture" and although he thinks he is contributing to better society, he really is one of the evils he is trying to eliminate. He comes to refer to the narrator as more a thing than a human at the end of his tour and the machine reference is brought in, making the narrator out to be more a tool with a purpose than a human. Another man who was self-contradictory was Brother Jack. He, like Mr. Norton, lacked the vision to see the bigger picture and although the Brotherhood wanted to do some form of good, Brother Jack eventually was fighting against the people he should have been trying to unite. This self-contradictory can be seen as absurd because even when trying to make progress, humans seem to turn back to primal instincts to try to accomplish their goal.

thoughts on invisible man.

Overall I enjoyed Invisible Man although the book was so incredibly dense that there is so much more I can still pick out of it. Like Mr. Klimas said in class, anyone could have written the story about an underprivileged black man from the South, however because the narrator was so intelligent, and we knew this, it made the story much more tragic and much more powerful. I think I liked the book because of the deep symbolism it had. Although some people may argue that it was too much, and I agree that it is a lot, I was amazed at what Ellison was able to incorporate. (I also felt pretty darn smart that I could find a whole lot in the symbols and allusions, but that's beside the point) I think that the novel has so much packed into it because of the message it is trying to convey. I felt it was like Heart of Darkness in a sense, without the whole heads on stakes thing, because it was able to show a darker side of human nature and human history. The battle royal scene, Jim Trueblood, and the narrator’s entire journey were all examples of how despicably humans can treat one another.

Similar to my reaction to Heart of Darkness the book was disturbing in parts but it also was a book that carried a heavy message and I found that this is what attracted me to it. It's not a book I would choose to read during a week at the shore, but overall I think that the book has made me look at myself differently. I empathize with the narrator because of how he was constantly manipulated throughout the novel, but it was almost surprising to see how such an intelligent man could be so easily controlled. When the narrator finally discovers his stupidity at the end of the novel I think it was a good way to end it. After all his suffering, the narrator finally finding the truth in his life, is like a window of hope. Ellison may have ended it this way hoping that we as humans could learn from the actions in the book and find a way to see the faults in our nature.

Player Piano... thoughts...

I don't know how much I fully enjoyed PLAYER PIANO. Although I found it interesting and easily a depiction of what the future may hold, the novel as a whole didn't fully capture my attention. The ending wasn't what I thought it was going to be and this changed the meaning of the book for me. I became connected with Paul in a way and hoped that he and the revolutionaries would succeed in taking down the machine-controlled nation. The novel, which ended in the society turning back to the machines they fought so hard to destroy, really was disappointing to me. I was hoping that Paul would succeed, even though Paul didn't full heartedly agree to everything he was doing.

The book itself, although having a point and making it very clear, was a let down for me because I had hoped things would change by the end of the novel. I also disliked the characters in the book, Paul included. I thought that Paul was indecisive and I saw his character to be weak in a sense. Even though he was finally caught with his cause, his struggle throughout the novel is understandable; however his constant changes in opinion bothered me. Like D-503 in WE, he believed in an ideal and didn't really want to let go of the hope and promise that came from that ideal.

Although the book was difficult for me to find wholeheartedly enjoyable I thought that Vonnegut's message was that of a frightful truth. Humans already are being replaced by machines and who is to say in the next hundred or so years that we are almost relying entirely on them. Like in HARRISON BERGERON, PLAYER PIANO paints a picture of a depressing future, but uses elements of dark comedy to give it a surprisingly believable quality.

Thoughts on Conrad's Heart of Darkness

Because Heart of Darkness was a disturbing novel on so many levels, I feel strange to say I enjoyed the story, however, I found Conrad's philosophical question to be interesting and therefore Heart of Darkness to me, is not so much enjoyable as it is a sad and possibly truthful look into humanity's depths. I found that the story mirrored my thoughts and opinion of Lord of the Flies. Although the book as a whole was disturbing and almost painful to think about both Conrad and Golding made points concerning the evil in man, and I find that to be an interesting and possibly unanswerable philosophical question.
In a freshman thesis I described how I believed in the concept, the notion, that people were born a blank slate, a tabula rasa, and that society influences an individual and brings out the evil within them. As a senior I have debated this question over and over in my mind and believe to have drawn up a new conclusion. After reading Heart of Darkness and Lord of the Flies, watching films such as Apocalypse Now, and hearing of the evil around the world, I cannot think that society alone will flood a man with such evil, to the point where his humanity is questionable. Kurtz, in both Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now are of course extreme cases, however although their state is so hard for me to grasp I don't think that it is impossible to exist. As I grow older I see things in new light and this is just one example. I now think that yes, man is born in a sense evil, or at least with the capacity to become evil. Humans or not we are still animals in a sense and given the right circumstance, I think that our primal impulsive instinct can lead us to the depths of darkness, where human morality ceases to exist.