Popular Mechanics-->Childhood Memories

Plot__#
This film would be about a middle-aged man named Freddy McDoogle. He is married with two kids and works as a special effects designer. At night, he travels to random houses and kills people in the most horrendous of ways while he flashes back to times in his childhood when his parents abused him, because they were too busy fighting to care about him. Freddy is the baby in "Popular Mechanics." The final murder will be of his parents. He will tie each to ropes and stretch them to death. During this, he will flash back to the scene that is the short story. It will illustrate the effects of bad parenting while having the thrill of a horror film. It will include the exact plot of the story but add on.
Point of View<<<
The film will have two point of view. The part of the film that involves the story will have a first person point of view that is from the baby Freddy's perspective. The part of the movie that isn't a flashback will be from a third person omniscient point of view. It will show inside the houses of the victims to show what they do that reminds Freddy of his parents. It will be little things like using red sidewalk chalk that will cause him to kill them. He feels bad after the killings, so the viewer will also see him talking to himself about how bad he feels. The viewer will also see how he reacts with his family due to the abuse he received as a child. The two points of view will accentuate the experiences that he had as a child.
Characterization==='
This only character that will be deeply characterized is Freddy. His reactions with his family and his victims will show that he is a compassionate person. He doesn't want to kill his victims, he feels like he must to get the memories out of his head. The parents will also be characterized through the flashbacks. These will be more direct characterizations while Freddy's is indirect. The viewer will feel sympathy towards Freddy, because it was the abuse that causes him to commit the murders. he cleans up and buries the bodies, showing that he does care for them. Though he is a serial killer, he will be seen as compassionate. He will turn himself in after the murder of his parents, showing that he is finally content with himself and his memories.
Setting%
The setting of a suburb outside of Philly makes the nice neighborhood in which he lives feel homey and nonthreatening. This will add to the scariness, but also to the sympathy towards Freddy. He does not live in the ghetto where he could be seen as a bad person. He lives in a nice neighborhood that shows that he cares for his family and wants the best for him. The setting of the flashbacks will mirror the story. It will takes place in a dark house that has no detail besides the dark. It will create a scary, violent setting in which he is abused by his parents. This setting will illustrate why Freddy has the memories that he does.
Theme1234567890
The theme of the film will also mirror the story. It will show the negative effects of parents that care more about winning against their spouse than their children. It will show this through the flashbacks that show why Freddy does what he does. Each one will have a unique, neglectful act that causes Freddy to commit a murder. The acts by the parents will be so unbelievable that the viewer will understand Freddy and how his parents caused his murders. This theme will also be shown through Freddy's attempted care for his children, He is so overcome by his memories that he has trouble showing love, but he does try to care for them. It will show the correct motivations of parents.

He showed that cereal box what's up.

Plot@
The plot of the film is extremely different from the story. The story focuses on the realizations that Anderton makes regarding the minority report, but there isn't even a true minority report in the film. Anderton, instead, tries to figure out the reason that he was set up, which he partially is in the film. This causes the point of the film to stray away from the story. The plot of the film adds much for drama and excessive details that are necessary for a film, but that change its meaning. The film's plot creates a meaning of the importance of motivations, which is important in the story, but not nearly as important. Another main plot difference is that Anderton takes one of the PreCogs and has her help him in his hunt. This takes the place of the men that help him in the story. The result is a closer connection to the PreCrime concept, making its flaws more visible in the film. The flaws of PreCrime are evident in the film, which explains its demise in the film, which does not occur in the story. All details in the film lead up to this drastically different ending.
Point of View#
Considering the fact that this was a film, it had a very similar point of view to the story. It focused on Anderton and his actions. This focus causes an emphasis on the actions of Anderton and how his decisions and realizations affect the other characters. The main difference is that the film also has scenes that deal with characters that aren't Anderton. The main reason for this is the subplot of the murder of Amy Lively that does not exist in the story. Because a man kills Amy and Anderton's ex-wife must figure this out once he is imprisoned, there must be scenes that don't involve Anderton. These scenes mainly serve to point out the flaws of PreCrime. They show the loopholes that allow murder to go undetected. These flaws result in Anderton making actions that are fueled by motives different than those in the story. These scenes allow the issues of Anderton's motivations to help Agatha (motivations that aren't in the story, but ones that greatly drive him in the film) to shine through in the film. This point of view is necessary for the subplots to exist.
Characterization+
This is the area of the film that most mirrors the story. Anderton is mainly characterized through his actions and reactions to the situations he is in. He is motivated by different things, but the fact that he stops at nothing to reach those goals show that he is a determined, goal-oriented person in the film as well as the story. Films mainly use indirect characterization, because there are rarely narrators to directly characterize. This forces interactions to have a much more important role. One example is when Anderton undergoes surgery and pain to be gain access to the lab again. He is so determined that he will risk his life to understand what is happening to him. Other characters are characterized in the same way, but on different levels. Anderton receives most of the story's focus and is the deepest character in the story, showing that his character traits and how they push his actions is a main meaning to the story. The fact that his actions are what show who he is places the emphasis on those actions.
Setting>
The only true difference in setting is that the story is in New York while the film is in Washington D.C. This, however, has no major impact on the meaning. The fact that the film takes place in the future shines a light on the primitive attitudes that the PreCrime workers have. Anderton suggests that he does not view the PreCogs as human, showing his lack of concern for their well being. This futuristic setting also reveals the lack of change in human nature. If the film was set in present-day America, the flaws of society would not seem abnormal. Because the flaws that are in the film also exist today, they show how society has not changed over time. The setting also allows the idea of character to be emphasized. The people in society are always being watched, so people can see their true character. The issue of character must be a motivation for every person's thoughts and actions. These motivations are a key meaning to the story. In general, the story must take place in the future for the technology to exist. It is not the physical setting that matters, but rather the time period that is essential.
Theme)
Because this is a Sci-Fi film that focuses on actions, there is not a theme that is easy to identify. The theme of realizations is not one that the film focuses on. Rather, the film focuses on the idea of motivations and how they affect decisions. Anderton is willing to shoot Leo, because he is angry that he was set up. Leo is willing to die, bacause he is protecting his family. Anderton's ex-wife is willing to stand up to Lively's killer, because she still loves her husband. The main motivation for Anderton is his dead son. he claims responsibility for his death, and will do anything to avenge it. These motivations cause the film to have many little subplots. Each character has his own little story that connects to the other charcters and their stories. As a result, the film's hectic plot connects through the characters' motivations. This theme of motivations is what brings the film together in the end.

The Lottery...Where you get to stone your momma.

This story is messed up. From the beginning, I got the feeling that this wasn't the typical lottery. I picked up on the fact that piles of stones and pockets full of stones were mentioned a great amount of times. The townspeople where way too on edge to be in a drawing to win some money.
I definitely liked that the story has that surprise ending. It really points out the flawed thinking of society today. The fact that people would place tradition and superstition as more important than life is just absurd. The fact that the narrator shows no emotion also adds to the horror of the story. It is just a great message overall. I'm very impressed that the author thought of writing the story in this way and about this topic.

You're Ugly, Too.

This story was very interesting for me. I'm trying to decide if I like Zoe or not. In some ways she is a lot like me. She seems not to have a filter on what she says. Any person knows not to mention death when a guy asks what you think about love, but she obviously thinks that's okay. In some ways, she is a sympathetic character. She does not seem to communicate with people very well, making the reader feel sorry for her, but I can also see her as an unlikeable character, due to her choice of words. The way she speaks almost makes her seem stuck up, because she has no concern for what she says.
I am officially going to say that I like Zoe. She seems to be a very sincere character. She says what she means and does not try to put on an act for anyone. I also think that the last line makes her seem a little womanly. She finally cares about what the guys thinks of her. When she begins to think about how she looks, the reader finally sees that she does like this guy. It adds a new perspective to her character.

The Drunkard- #6

Well this story is just full of irony. I would say that the most ironic part of the story is the scene where the father is walking his son home. So many times before, the father has been the one walking home drunk, but this time the roles are reversed. The son drinks all of his fathers beer, and gets terribly drunk. His father must walk his drunk son home. It is also ironic that the father, though he is not drunk at all, is still scolded by the old ladies on the street. He would have gotten the same treatment if he was drunk. The people around him find any excuse to get mad at him.
The final ironic point is that the mother is proud of the son. She knows that her son needed to drink the beer to keep his father from doing so. he saved the family money by getting drunk himself. It is ironic that he needed to get drunk himself to prevent his father from getting drunk.

Popular Mechanics- #5

The title of this story makes the methods of the parents seem like mechanical things that they do without feelings. The parents in the story do not refer to their child by name or even by gender. They do not see the child as a child, but rather as another item that they are splitting up in the divorce. This is why "Mine" is not as fitting. Though they do claim the child as theirs, they do not have any care for the child. They only care that their spouse does not get possession of the child. They take a very rough approach to attaining the child, and this is why the title fits. They decide the "issue" of their marriage disputes over the child just like any other, by playing tug-o'-war.
I would also like to mention that I really liked this story. I think that it really shows the absurdities that occur in divorce disputes. And I also think that the image of this baby being ripped in half is kind of funny as well.

The Minority Report.....short story style

Plot!
The story is split into ten little chapters that follow the realizarions of Anderton. As the story progresses, Anderton realizes the truth and meaning behind the predictions of his crimes, and he uses those realizations to prevent Kaplan from destroying the Precrime headquarters entirely. The setup of the plot in this way allows the reader to follow Anderton in his realizations of the truth. The plot also has a very rapid pace. It does not focus on minute details, but rather gets to the point of what is happening and moves on. This parallels Anderton's fast-paced state of mind as he is suddenly brought into the intense situation and must hastily decide how to deal with it. He does not focus on the details around him, but rather focuses on the major events that are causing the potential problem. In the same way, the story's plot is fast-paced, especially during the times when Anderton is hurried. On page 130, when Anderton is being kidnapped, the story does not reveal many details about the kidnapping. It focuses on his "being dragged through the rent that had been the door." This helps illustrate Anderton's frantic state of mind.
Point of View?
The story is told from third person point of view and focuses on Anderton and the environment around him. The fact that Anderton is the only character that the narrator knows about further emphasizes the mental progressions of Anderton. We immediately know that the point of view is this when we are told that, upon seeing Witwer, Anderton thinks that he is "getting bald. Bald and fat and old" (page 119). This point of view has a further impact when Anderton believes he has been betrayed by "my wife and a younger man" (page 131). The narrator does not reveal that his wife is trying to help in the Precrime lab, so the reader is forced to make the realizations that Anderton does as he makes them. This story focuses on these realizations, and if the narrator was omniscient, then the realizations would not come as a shock to the reader, eliminating the theme of the story. This point of view is essential for the reader to be as oblivious to the goings on as Anderton is.
Characterization$
The characterization of the main character, Anderton is completely indirect. Though there are other characters that are characterized through both direct and indirect, they do not have as large of an impact as Anderton. Anderton is mainly characterized as a hasty yet determined character. This is best shown when he immediately leaves when he sees that he will commit a murder, or when he states "I'm going to murder Kaplan anyhow" (page 146). Though he knows that this act will hurt him and his family, he does it for the better of his program that he started. He is determined that his program will work. He makes hasty decisions that may not be the best, but do ultimately benefit his program. These characteristics are slowly revealed throughout the story. This further goes along with the realizations of truth by Anderton. As he makes knew decisions of what to do, the reader is shown a new aspect of his character. At the end when he leaves with his wife, the story has finally revealed all of his character, just as he has made his final realization of truth.
Setting%
The physical setting of the story has little significance, but the story is set in a different time period. Though most of the story seems like today, the society has been able to harness the thoughts of people who can read the future. They have made these people pretty much machines, taking away all dignity they have. One of Anderton's subordinates is "in charge of the monkey block," which refers to the area of the lab that has the humans that predict the future (page 122). This shows that society has become much less considerate of human dignity. This lack of dignity makes Anderton's realizations that he needs to sacrifice himself for mankind even more noble. He shows dignity to all of the world when most of society does not even show it to the people that help protect them. This realization of the importance of human dignity is yet another realization that Anderton makes regarding the truths of the world around him.
Theme~
As I have stated in every little section of this blog so far, one of the themes of this work is Anderton's realization of the truths around him. He originally sees the majority report and a hoax, but he eventually realizes, on page 149, that, due to his actions, "Kaplan, as the majority report had asserted, was dead." He realized that the majority report was right all along, but not because he was a bad person. He killed Kaplan, because he cared more about his program and the safety of the country than he even knew. He realizes his compassion and willingness to sacrifice as he learns the truths of the reports. These realizations are a major theme of the work. They are not only made by Anderton, but they are simultaneously made by the reader. This further emphasizes that theme. The reader realizes the theme of realizations which hammers home the theme itself. Woah

Eveline.

I understood this question the least. I understand that she is sitting in her house watching the night come, but i can't tell if she is remembering the events described or if she is actually experiencing them. I can tell that her father is abusive, especially since the mom is dead, but I don't know if she is actually experiencing her dad in the story. I just can't quite tell. I will definitely need to read it again to see.
One thing that I am confident did happen is the boat scene. I love that fact that most stories with that situation end with the girl following the guy, but not this one. Eveline is just like "well I'd love to, but no thanks". I just love that. I wish more stories had realistic endings like that.

The path was worn, all right.

This story is pretty weird. At first, I thought that I was reading about a walk in the park. Most of it involves Phoenix's walk, but it is more the stops that matter. She continuously stops and talks to people that are not there, which makes me wonder if this story even happened. I wonder if the man that she talks to that seems to be real isn't just another product of her imagination. It is obvious that the scarecrow and the ghost aren't real, but is it possible that the man and the medicine stop didn't happen either? I guess we will never know.
I also want to discuss the issue of her grandson. The final question hints at this, but I'm gonna say some stuff about it too. The reader does not know if the grandson is alive or not, but it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that Phoenix's life focuses around helping him. He is what keeps her going, and that is what we must focus on. The issue of his existence isn't a big deal.

I'll show you a children's story.

"Once Upon a Time" made me laugh out loud. I very rarely like stories that I truly like, but when someone writes a children's story about a child getting shredded in razor wire, I must applaud them. This said, I'm going to answer question two which kind of relates to that. The stylistic devices that create the satirical atmosphere of the story are the sarcastic uses of phrases that are common in children's stories. Many children's stories end with the phrase "and they lived happily ever after." This story had that phrase in its opening line. That shows, from the beginning, that the story is making fun of children's stories. The story is full of examples like this that further illustrate it as a satire. The fact that the child gets shredded by razor wire due to a children's story's inspiration is only the icing on the cake. This story is a perfect example of a satirical piece. I loved it.

Miss Brill (the Russian)

Well question five asks what the importance of the lady in the ermine toque is. Well I'll tell you. Miss Brill is socially naive. She doesn't understand any of the events that are occurring around here. We know this because the story is told from what she sees. It is obvious that she sees everything as good and awesome, while most things that she sees aren't too pleasant. The lady in the ermine toque is CLEARLY (yes, I am quoting Mr. Costello's book with the answers) a prostitute. She is soliciting some guys in the scene that Miss Brill encounters, but Miss Brill doesn't know that. She thinks that it is just a pretty lady talking to some guys. This is a prime example of how Miss Brill has no idea of what is going on around her. She is a little old lady who sees the world as perfect, when it clearly is not.
On another note, I have no idea what is up with the funky hat. She seems sad when she puts it up in the end, so I just don't know its importance. Hopefully I'll find that out soon.

Everyday Use?!?!

Okay so I'm not sure that I really understood this one. First off, I don't know why a woman would change her name from something semi-normal, Dee, to something like Wangero. I understand that she is being cultural, but that's just crazy. I also would like to point out the fact that it appears that this cultural change is an act. It is too extreme to be real.
Also, I think that the last paragraph is odd. The women seem so civil and proper throughout the story, then they suddenly whip out the snuff. It does make them seem like they are comfortable with each other, but couldn't it be something like lemonade or Popsicles? I just don't like the choice of common ground. Either way, I'm just not a fan of this one. I've definitely read better.

So why were they hunting in the snow?

I am going to focus on the irony in this story. First, it is ironic that Kenny is shot for no reason at all. Though Tub thinks he is protecting himself, he has no need to. Kenny, as we find out, was told to shoot the dog. He had no intention of shooting Tub. It is also ironic that the two men seem upset that their friend has been shot, but they really aren't too concerned. They show us this by taking his blankets when they are cold and by stopping at the tavern. Their comfort is more important than his life.
I also really, really like the last line. I think that it is so clever to take a very common phrase, change one word, and completely change the meaning to a much deeper connotation. The fact that the narrator uses "different," not "wrong" shows that they chose this path. It was intentional. They meant not to take their friend to the hospital. Even if it wasn't a choice, it was a subconscious one. This story is about their true motives.

Hunters in the Snow- Question 7

The scene where Frank and Tub stop at the tavern is intended to show how careless they really are. They leave their wounded friend in the truck. It's an absurd choice that most people couldn't fathom making, but that just shows how bad of friends they really are. It is as if they didn't care at all that they shot their friend. This scene is really explained in the last line of the story. The narrator tells us that the two had taken a "different" turn a long way back. I think that this is referring to their careless mentality. They never really planned on making the correct turn to go to the hospital. Well, they may have thought they did, but they didn't care enough to make it happen.

Bartleby the Scrivener- Question 4

This ridiculous "I would prefer not to" has a crazy impact on the daily lives of everyone in the story. First off, it makes the fellow scrivener's mad. They feel that they must do everything for him, because he would prefer not to do it. At first, they were not sure how to respond to this abnormal behavior, but they end up threatening him. On the other hand, the lawyer almost feels sympathetic for Bartleby. He sees the reactions not as rebellious, but, because they seem odd, as a sign of lack of intelligence. These sympathetic feelings make him allow Bartleby to do things that he would normally not allow. He originally is okay with Bartleby's sleeping in the building. He eventually realizes how weird it is that Bartleby will not do anything, only sit there, and asks him to leave. When he gets that same phrase again, he reacts by moving the office. Though this is an extreme reaction, it is elicited by an extreme person.

Interpreter of Maladies.

This one wasn't nearly as good as the other two. It doesn't have an exciting plot and the names are very confusing. I know it takes place in India, but some common names would have been nice. Anyway, it does focus on some issue that are applicable in today's world. People's priorities get in the way of their life. Mr. Das fantasizes about India as a tourist attraction, and he fails to appreciate it as a home for his parents. Also, Mrs. Das treats Mr. Kapasi like a shrink and tells him secrets that are none of his business. She wants help from him even though he makes it clear that he cannot give it. She makes her relationship with him rot very quickly due to her awkward secret telling.
I think that the message of this story is that people need to get their priorities in order. One should worry about family and other people's well-being above their own selfish interests. This is a universal theme that is applicable in all time periods.

How I Met My Husband

I really like this story. My favorite part was the irony of the last page. The entire story implies that the narrator is going to marry the plane man. It messes with the reader's mind and focuses on these events and details that make the relationship between the plane man and the narrator the center of the plot. The fact that she marries the man that saddened her at one point is very ironic. The mailman doesn't bring her the letter, making her begin to fake smiles at him. Ironically, she ends up marrying the mailman.
The other odd part of the story is that the title implies that the story will be about her meeting her husband, but the meeting of this man only takes place in a few paragraph. It is almost like the meeting of her husband was an afterthought that was thrown in at the end. The title of the work makes it obvious that that is not the case, but it does make the work very ironic.

How embarrassing.

So after reading the questions at the end of "A Rose for Emily," I got the impression that the ending was supposed to be a big surprise. As I mentioned in my previous blog, I saw details throughout the story that made it pretty obvious. As soon as I read that her house smelled of nastiness, I knew that her dad's corpse was in there. Maybe it is because I have watched crime shows in the past that have had a similar ending, but I was not surprised by the ending. It also could have been because I was told it was creepy. One part of it that did creep me out a bit was the fact that the people were creeping around her house after she died. I don't understand why everyone was so interested in the creepy lady's life. Just let her be.
I would like to mention, however, that the author of this story was messed up. Who writes a story about that?!?! Of all the things a person could write about, why would they pick that. Oh well. It made for a good AP Lit read. I'm also sure that he did get the tone across that he wanted. It is definitely one of the a story with a creepy tone.

A Rose for Emily

This story was full or foreshadowing. It talks of her stench, and focuses on her father's death. These two details were the biggest hints for me. Why else would there be a bad stench from a house in which the daughter did not want to give her father's corpse away? The effect of this foreshadowing is that it gives creates a disgusted feeling throughout the story. Each detail that point towards the ending of the story shows how disturbing Emily's actions are. It creates a very eerie tone that would not be present if the foreshadowing did not occur.
The foreshadowing is almost necessary for the piece's full effect. It is what keeps the story flowing. The details that are essential for setting up the ending are what foreshadow that ending. It is almost like the foreshadowing is a byproduct of the story itself.

Don't do it!

"Do not go gentle into that good night" is a favorite of mine. I love villanelles, and this one is just about as good as it gets. I love that the speaker is able to use the repeated phrases in multiple ways and with multiple meanings. It gives an almost magical power to the poem. It seems like the speaker is pleading to the person who is dying not to go easily. He wants the person to go out with a bang. I also like that the poem sticks to the pattern and makes it work with the poem. It seems like the concept of a villanelle was made for this poem in particular. This Dylan Thomas fellow is rather brilliant. He really added some magic to this poem.

Death, be not proud

This poem has a pretty nice little message to it. The speaker speaks directly to death (apostrophe!!) and tells it that he isn't scared of him. He is telling the reader not to be afraid of death, and not to let it control people's lives. It is much better to understand that it is inevitable, and just let it happen. I think that it is a pretty good message. If people let death rule their lives, they will forget about life itself. They just need to focus on what they can control and understand that it will happen eventually.
It seems to me that sticking it to death is a pretty common message in poetry. I feel like I have blogged about that message before. I guess if a poet is going to write about death, they might as well not be sad when they do.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (that's twenty of em).

"Edward" just might be one of the most annoying things that I have ever read. Despite that, it does have some good pattern to it. Most of the lines in the poem are repeated a few times. This creates a flow to the poem that makes it feel much more like a conversation. It also uses the word "O" twenty times. I'm not quite sure why the speaker does this, but it seems to add some sort of emphasis. I picture a person with their finger pointing at a person and scolding them. The mother and Edward seem to be in some crazy discussion where each person knows the answers to the other question, yet they ask anyway. That is why the mother never reacts to Edward's answers. She already knows what he did. She is actually the one who told him to kill his father.

Poor Lonely Hearts...

"Lonely Hearts" has a very sarcastic tone to it. It isn't really making fun of people, but more pointing out how ridiculous the people sounds. The fact that people specify the body shapes of the people they want, but not anything about personalities show the subtle shot at society. The speaker seems to feel that the people don't really want love when they send out these ads. The sarcastic suggestions that the people are looking for love imply that sex is actually the craving of those writing the ads. I agree with the speaker. People focus way too much on the physical aspect of relationships, and too little on the actual substance of it.
On another note, I think that putting an ad in the newspaper is a ridiculous idea. If a person is desperate enough to look in the newspaper for love, then they probably aren't the best person to have a relationship with. No offense to those who use them, but I just think they are rather crazy. I doubt they ever work. Please find a new way of finding dates. That is all.

Oxen Schmoxen.

It seems to me that "The Oxen" is about Jesus, or it is at least supposed to remind us of Jesus. It is on Christmas Eve, involves a flock, straw, kneeling, and oxen. I think that it might be an allusion to Jesus. The speaker seems to be doubting his faith, or the truths behind it. He doubts whether the shepherds or folks like that actually came to see Jesus. He does say, however, that if he was told to go see some kneeling oxen, he would follow. The message and point of this poem isn't that clear. There are multiple ways that the poem can be interpreted. However, it is making me think, and that was the goal of the poet. This poem was not exactly one of my favorites.

What is a Dover Beach?

The beginning of the poem "Dover Beach" had some rather nice imagery in it. The calm sea and moon-blanched land has a very tranquil feel to it. It calms the reader down to where the speaker wants him to be, allowing him to get the full effect of the poem. It also sets a tone of calmness that has that same effect. I reminds me of a time in Sedona when I was sitting on my balcony of my hotel looking out over the area, and I felt a real, true calmness. Thought this poem deals with oceans and not red mountains, it did have that same effect on me.
The rest of the poem after the first stanza have a different effect. It compares faith to that ocean, but it has a negative connotation, because that faith has been lost. The speaker forces the reader to feel calm, then shoots him down by telling him that that calmness is gone. That is cruel yet effective.

Crossing the Bar

This guy has a pretty good message in his poem. In the poem, he wishes for a death without sadness. He understands that death is going to happen, so he doesn't want to feel sad himself and he doesn't want others to feel sad either. He wants to go in a peaceful way and know that he is going to be going to a better place. This is a good message for anyone in any time period to listen to. We are all going to die at some point, so why be sad while doing it? He also wants no sadness of farewell, so he doesn't want those around him to mourn either. That is the most difficult part. Most people have trouble dealing with the loss of a loved one, so being happy when someone dies is not a very easy task. And though it isn't easy, it will ease the pain in the end. This is a timeless message that everyone can relate to at some point in their lives.

This isn't a play.....

My mistress' eyes is one of the few that actually make sense this week. The tone makes a hard shift towards the end. It starts as almost a negative tone towards his lover. He says everything that is better than her. It sounds like he is just bashing her for no reason. He then gets to the point of the poem. He switches to a loving tone that says that he loves her despite all of the things he mentioned.
I think that this is a really true poem that has a timeless message. Most people have friends or girlfriends or parents that they get mad at sometimes, but love them despite that. Shakespeare writes about a topic that is easy to relate to. I know I have felt that tone shift and I'm sure most people are in that boat with me.

APO 96225 phone home.

I loved this poem. The point of the poem just smacks you in the face as soon as you read it, and after reading The Things They Carried, I am able to understand the poem quite well. The mom says that she wants to know what is really going on with her son. He keeps trying to sugar-coat his situation for her, but she insists that he tell the truth. Once he does, she gets upset and he starts to lie again. This is rather ironic. She thinks that she wants to know, but I think she really wants him to say that he isn't lying and that it actually isn't that bad where he is. The boy should understand this, and he does at the beginning, but he eventually gives in.
This poem uses that irony to show the disconnection between the families of soldiers and the soldiers themselves. The soldiers were experiencing things that they never thought were possible, and the families had no idea how truly bad it was. This poem shows that they didn't want to know either.

Much Madness is Divinest Sense.

Ms. Dickinson, you never disappoint. This poem made absolutely no sense to me. She seems to think that being mad is perfect or even divine. With how she writes, this doesn't surprise me. She also thinks that having sense makes a person mad. Obviously she is trying to be tricky here, and it's working. I think that she is trying to say that if a person thinks outside of the box, they are good thinkers, so they have divine sense. That kind of makes sense. If a person thinks like everyone else, then they don't think well, so they are "mad." She thinks that the brilliant people are the ones that think crazy yet genius thoughts. Maybe this is why she writes like she does?
Despite all of that, she uses a paradox of sanity and insanity to make the reader think. She obviously achieved that goal with me.
I didn't like this poem very much, but it was humorous to read, as most Dickinson poems are.

...in a barbie world

The poem "Barbie Doll," though written a while ago, couldn't be more relevant in today's world. It is a poem that uses irony to point out society's flawed picture of what beauty is. The girl, because she is seen as being fat and having a big nose, is told she needs to be funny to make up for her bad looks. Though the girl is healthy, she sees a need to change herself in order to fit other people's idea of healthy. She does something to herself that "kills" her previous self but makes her "pretty." Ironically, after she had died, everyone finally says how pretty that new body she has is. Though this sounds ridiculous, the author is showing society that this is what they do to girls today. Girls often feel forced to change themselves to become more acceptable in society. The same happens to boys, but it usually isn't with looks, but with some action or behavior. No matter what it is or to what extent, society is pushing people into doing things that they do not need to do. I like to think that I don't care what others think of me, so this doesn't apply to me, but I'm sure I have done something to please others. No matter if it applies to me or not, it is still a valuable message that society should listen to.

"Ozymandias"..."God Bless You."

The central theme of this poem is "it isn't your actions that people remember, it is your reputation." The poem is about a person saying that they were told a story about two legs in a desert that were accompanied by a head. These were of a dead king whose head was depicted as mean, strict, tyrannous, etc. Though the head's plaque spoke of his great powers and great deeds, all that remained of him that is focused on is his head. This shows that the author is warning the reader that all people will remember about us is how they see us in their minds, which usually comes from our reputations. The person that put that head in the desert only remembered the king's mean nature. Though the king may have done great things, we don't know that. The message is for people with authority, or people in general, to treat everyone so that they will be remembered in a positive light. This may be hard, considering we cannot control what people think of us, but we must try.
I'm not sure if I agree with this message or not. I like the idea of being nice to people, but it seems to put a lot of emphasis on what other people think about you, which I don't see as important. What do y'all (most likely Mr. Costello) think?

Bright Star.

The poem "Bright Star" has some odd imagery in it. The speaker wants to be like the star in that it can see everything and is alive eternally, but he also has reasons that he doesn't want to be like the star. He realizes that the star is alone and that is not what he wants. The speaker wants to be with his love forever, which describes his motivations for wanting to be like the star. In my opinion, I wouldn't want to be like that star. I don't think that being alive forever sounds that good.
I also think that the image of a star laying next to some pretty woman is a funny one. I personally think that the speaker needs to focus more attention on his love and less attention on being a star. Despite that, the poem does have some good imagery and use of apostrophe.

More of Emily.

"I taste a liquor never brewed" is pretty surprising coming from Emily Dickinson. She usually writes these sullen poems about death, but this one is rather happy. It talks about how she feels intoxicated by the beauty of nature. This is an interesting imagery that the reader can easily relate to. Most people have seen some sort of scene in nature that they would consider beautiful. For me, that scene was in Hawaii. One night on the beach, I saw a sunset that was so beautiful, I would consider it intoxicating. I can relate to the feeling that the speaker is talking about, and I'm sure that most people can too. The imagery that Emily uses, "pearls," "butterflies," and "saints," creates an image of the intoxicating beauty that the speaker sees. It creates a wonderful image of nature that the reader is also intoxicated by.

Ribbit.

"Toads," in my opinion, has a pretty good message. It speaks about the angers of bad jobs and how people want to get away from those jobs. The speaker is frustrated with the job that he has, and he wants to as happy as the other people that he sees in the world. He wants to stand up to the man and speak out against his oppressive hand that forces people into these jobs. This is a pretty easy poem to apply to today. With the economy the way it is, people have to take jobs that they do not enjoy. This poem speaks about those people's wanting to get out of those jobs. Despite the poem's persistence, I don't think it is a reasonable message. People cannot just go have whatever job they want, just because they don't enjoy their current one. That may be why the poem doesn't really mention any serious action to change the speaker's circumstance. He realizes that he may be stuck in his current situation. He has a sort of "oh well" mentality. Though that isn't very optimistic, it is rather realistic.

She is miffed....miffed off.

The poem "February" has a rather odd tone. The closest word I could come up with was miffed. I could picture her yelling the entire poem at her cat in a very angry way. The poet shows a sinister attitude towards the cat, men, and all people in love on Valentine's Day. She seems to be angry throughout the entire poem, but it's not a crazy, mad angry, it's more of a sarcastic angry. If the tone was mad, the reader would feel that same anger, but I don't; I laughed when I read it. That is why "miffed" fits. It implies that she is annoyed, and that is why she speaks sarcastically. There is a humorous aspect to the novel that makes the reader agree with the speaker, because she is understandable.
I would also like to add that, though I do not like poetry, this is my favorite poem I have ever read.

Full of similes.

"Dream Deferred" is made almost entirely of similes. It uses these to show what could happen to a dream that is deferred. The function of these similes is to create a vivid image of what could happen to the dream. The reader gets a clear image of a dream shriveling up like a raisin into something that cannot be attained. Each simile creates a worse image of what could happen to the dream, and no one wants their dreams to become those images. What person wants their dream to seep puss? This creates a desire to follow ones dreams, which is what the author is trying to cause through his poem.
The last simile creates my favorite image. An exploding dream almost seems dangerous. This forces the reader to think that they could be harmed by their deferred dream. Though the author doesn't specifically state which simile describes what happens when a dream is deferred, he makes the author think of possibilities, none of which sound pleasant.

not about a spider.....

The poem "The Widow's Lament in Springtime" is obviously about a sad widow, so I'm not going to talk about that. I'm going to focus on the springtime part of the title. A widow can easily be sad in winter or summer or fall, so why make the poem take place in the spring? Spring is characterized by flowers, and it is these flowers that set off her sadness. She used to see beauty in the flowers, but now she forgets their true beauty. She now sees her dead husband in them. Maybe she thinks of the flowers at his funeral, or maybe they just remind her of him, but either way, it is the flowers of spring that amplify her sadness. Her son sees happiness in the distant, free field of flowers, but the widow is hesitant to see the happiness there. She wants to go to that place and sink into the marsh near the flowers, but for some reason she doesn't. I see that reason as one of her not being comfortable leaving her yard. Though it makes her sad, it reminds her of her husband. She doesn't want to leave a place that brings him to her mind. Though it would benefit her to leave, and she knows that it would, she can't bring herself to doing it.

Emily, you worry me.

Emily Dickinson's "I felt a funeral, in my Brain" is disturbing. If taken literally, it is about a person who is dead and writing about witnessing their own funeral from inside the casket. Why on earth would a person want to write that? I just don't get it.
Now that that's off my chest, I can do some analyzing. The fact that she says she feel a funeral in her brain, not her head, makes me think that there isn't any physical pain, just emotional pain. She seems to be having some sort of mental troubles that cause her to feel like she is dying, not physically, but mentally. She is wearing "boots of lead" that are weighing her down and hindering her progression out of her troubles. Some think that it has to do with her having an emotional breakdown, which I can see, but I think she is just depressed. She is still sane enough to understand what is happening, so she is only thinking, or maybe hoping, that this funeral would happen to her. No matter what is happening to her, it isn't good and she realizes that. She needs help. Or maybe she just shoulda had a V8.

And the twains converge.

The point of "The convergence of the Twains" is to show appreciation for the Titanic, yet mourn for its loss. It speaks of the "jewels in joy designed" and how the ship was beautifully designed. It speaks of how it had noble goals and had wonderful "structure, grace, and hue." It then compares the growing of the ship to the growing of the iceberg that ended it. The iceberg and the ship were both of grand size and beauty. They were two separate beings that coincidentally crossed paths and one ended the other. The poem, though about a sad topic, does not focus on a sad message. It focuses on the slender that was in the wreck and the beauty that remained afterwards. It gives the reader a different perspective on the wreck. Though it is an unusual one, I like it better than a sad perspective.

I don't remember it looking like this.....

The poem "London" has an extremely melancholy tone. Every line speaks of people's sadness and crying and sighs and blood. It is just terrible. I have been to London and I thought it was a pretty happy place, but I'm sure the writer was speaking of a time other than 2009. However, if the goal of the poet was to create the melancholy tone, he was very successful. The first three stanzas are all about the people. Their sadness, their children's sadness, and their blood. The reader gets a very sad feeling after reading the poem, because every word has a sad feeling to it. The line that really shows this is "the hapless soldier's sigh runs in blood down the Palace walls." An image of soldier's blood on a castle is about as gruesome and sad as it gets. The word "cry" is also repeated in multiple stanzas which adds to the tone. Though I like happy poems, I can definitely see that the poems tone is conveyed very well.

Oh the poems.

Well the poem "To Autumn" really confuses me. With poems, I want them to have some secret meaning, but this one doesn't seem to have that. I am going to focus on its imagery though. The fruits such as grapes and apples that it focuses on help bring the season of autumn to life. It also appeals to the sense of touch. The first line mentions the "season of mists," which I imagined on my skin after I read that. One can hear the "wailful choir" of gnats and see the "barred clouds" in the sky. Though the poem isn't that exciting, it is a wonderful example of effective imagery. The author, John Keats, uses this imagery to make his view of the season of fall come to life in the readers mind. The reader remembers and experiences the senses that the writer appeals to. The tone of the poem is a happy one due to the enhanced images of autumn. They bring to mind bright colors, good tastes, and pleasant smells that create that happy tone. The theme of the beauty of autumn is also brought out through the vivid imagery.

If his head got any bigger...

When I read the poems that Perrine references, I interpretted them as his students did. After he explains his thoughts on them, his way of seeing them makes sense too, but why would a poet write a poem that needs a secret formula for interpretation? Literature is one of those subjects that has no specific formula for success. It is not an exact science, but rather an art, so it cannot be treated like a science. I'm sure that Perrinne has many papers that say he knows a lot more about literature than I do, but that doesn't mean he can make some law for correct reading of poetry. I think that he wants to make it easier for him to grade his students' papers by giving all poems a right and wrong meaning. Yes, I can't make every poem on earth mean whatever I want, but if a poem says "Daffodil" in it, it isn't a stretch to say it's about flowers. I don't like that Perrinne has a very arrogant tone in this essay and tries to make all of us seem like fools for thinking the logical thing about a poem. He needs to get a grip and realize that he sounds rather ridiculous.
On a more academic note, there were some things that he said that made sense to me. He talks about not making assumptions, and I like that. Certain words like "Daffodil" can have more than one implication and forcing one definition to fit the rest of the poem is probably not the best way to go about interpretting poems. I also like that he says that all of the details need to work together. The poet has very few words to express their thoughts, so each word is chosen carefully. Each detail centers around a specific theme and if one detail does not fit one's interpretation, they probably have some flaw in it. Despite that, there still can be multiple interpretations that can fit a poem. I realize that poets write poems with one interpretation in mind, but poets as well as Mr. Perrinne need to realize that most poems can be seen in more than one way.

Imma Be....wrapping things up.

This novel was good. I've never been a big fan of reading, but this was different. I was able to learn from the book, but also enjoy it. O'Brien used different writing styles throughout the novel, yet kept the important themes consistent. The characters like Tim, Rat, Mary Anne, and others were easy to relate to but still interesting.
My favorite aspect of the novel was that O'Brien explains his novel's point to the reader by telling what makes a good war story. Page 65 explains that a true war story "does not instruct nor encourage virtue." He later says that a war story cannot always be believed to be factual, but can be taken as truthful in what they seem and teach. O'Brien does not try to sell his extreme stories as totally truthful; he, instead, explains that the message behind the story is the truth. The stories explain the war that he is writing about.
I really enjoyed this novel and and glad that I had to read it. I can definitely see myself reading more Tim O'Brien novels in the future.

All about Mary Anne.

The story about Mary Anne is an odd one. For a woman to come over to Vietnam not as a soldier but just as a girlfriend was an insane idea in that time. It was even crazier for her to run off with a group of soldiers and actually fight. Now if this is a true story, I'm not quite positive about, but I do know what O'Brien was trying to tell the reader through this story.
Mary Anne came over as an innocent girl, and she left as a hard-core soldier. The war changed people, and Mary Anne was a perfect example of that. Everyone that went into the war came out a different person, and the characterization that occurs to Mary Anne illustrates that change to the reader. O'Brien tells us that after the war, "she never returned. Not entirely, not all of her," (page 100). Through this story, true or not, O'Brien paints a picture of the true negative changes that the War brought on in people.

Tone.

The tone of this novel is tough. I've thought of plenty of words, but none of them really encompass the entire novel. Despite this, I've found a word that come pretty close, and that word is regretful. The novel is mostly about people looking back at events in their past and trying to alter what happened so that they feel better about their actions. They try to save themselves by telling the story with some half truths in it.
O'Brien doesn't come out and truly set the tone until the very last sentence. "I realize it is as Tim trying to save Timmy's life with a story," (page 233). O'Brien tells us that he is trying to save his old self through the story that he is telling. Each chapter tells a different story with its unique tone, but the majority show an attempt to correct someones past.
This tone that O'Brien creates adds a timelessness to the novel. At some point in a person's life, they will want to redo something from their past. Even if it isn't as extreme as the novel's examples, the feeling of regret is one that everyone can relate to, no matter their time period.

"Speaking of Courage."

O'Brien wrote this chapter about a man named Norman Bowker. He wrote a letter to O'Brien about one of his books, complaining that it did not tell the real story. That letter inspired the writing of that chapter. Three years after it was written, Bowker killed himself.
The chapter is about Bowker's thoughts and imaginary conversations that had to do with his cowardly behavior that resulted in the death of a fellow soldier. In the next chapter, on page 154, O'Brien tells us that "he did not freeze up or lose the Silver Star for valor. That part of the story is my own." I don't quite get why O'Brien would add that part to the story. If Bowker was heroic that night, why would O'Brien write otherwise?
I'm going to hypothesize as to why he did so.
When O'Brien said that he didn't freeze up, he also mentioned that he has "avoided thinking about his death and his complicity in it." Bowker talked a lot about how Kiowa's death was his fault, even though it was obvious that it wasn't his fault. O'Brien is going through the same thing. Though O'Brien had no effect on Bowker's inevitable death, he feels like he did. That chapter allowed O'Brien to respect and honor Bowker while expressing his own feelings.

A fellow named Rat Kiley.

He liked to tell stories and rambled with the best of them. O'Brien uses him as the narrator of many of his stories. He has an odd style of telling stories, but that's not what I want to talk about. After O'Brien was shot, he hears a story about how Rat Kiley began to hear things at night. After a while he couldn't take it anymore. On page 212, we are told that "the next morning he shot himself."
This story really hit me hard. Rat Kiley, throughout the majority of the novel, is a very lively, fun character. He came to Vietnam happy and joyful, but the war changed him. He ended up shooting himself in the foot as a miserable, pathetic man. As O'Brien tells us, "nobody blamed him" for what he did (page 212). The war changed him.
I'm not quite sure if this story is true or not, but I am sure that this story is true for someone; that is what O'Brien wanted to tell the reader. The war did bring someone to that tragic act, and he wants us to feel that remorse and sorrow for those who lost their lives (or the lives they knew) to the war.

Lies!!??!?!?!?!

On page 68, O'Brien tells us that his stories don't tell the exact truth, but rather "the hard and exact truth as it seemed." This confused me for a bit. How can he tell us a war story if most of it is just made up? But I think I answered my question. He isn't telling the stories for the sake of informing us on the happenings of the war. He is telling the stories for the sake of illustrating the effects of the war. It doesn't matter to him how Curt Lemon died; what matters is that the reader understands the effect that his death had on the soldiers around him. He describes the different reactions to his death and how people dealt with it differently. These were the facts that mattered.
He also did this stories to paint the reader a picture. He describes a grotesque image of a dead man not so that the reader knows which eyeball he lost, but so the reader understands the types of horrors experienced in the Vietnam War. I appreciate this type of fabrication. He isn't doing it to add to the excitement of the novel, but to add to the reader's understanding of the war.

My favorite paradox.

"I hated him for making me stop hating him," (page 190). This is my favorite quote in the novel. It's a paradox that O'Brien uses to describe his situation with Jorgenson. Tim wanted to hate him. He wanted so badly to despise the guy and get revenge for the pain that he caused him. Despite that, Jorgenson's apology and remorse caused O'Brien to, against his will, forgive him. Tim hated that. He hated that he couldn't hate Jorgenson any more. He hated that he had been forced to forgive the man that caused him pain, and, subsequently, he hated that he could no longer hate the war that had brought on that pain.
O'Brien brings a great deal of timelessness to the novel with this one sentence. Every reader has wanted to be mad at someone, but that person has forced them, through their actions, to forgive them. The reader can easily relate to the story that O'Brien is telling and the feeling that the situation elicits.

He "killed" him.

I love the way O'Brien tells some of his stories. He spends an entire chapter talking about the man he killed. "One eye was shut. The other was star-shaped hole," he tells us on page 124. He tells us about the mental torment that killing that man put him through. He even tells us about that man's life plans that he cut short by killing him. Then, all of the sudden, he tells us that he didn't kill that man. He just found this guy on the side of the road and that someone had killed him. Though this kind of bugged me for a while, I am beginning to appreciate his reasons for doing this. I actually see two reasons for doing that. One is to describe the mental anguish that the war caused soldiers. Even if a person didn't kill that guy, they were on the side that caused his death. If it wasn't for them, that person may not have died. Even though his death was not their fault, they would see it that way. The second reason is that O'Brien, though he writes from the first person point of view, may not be writing all of the novel form his experiences. I think that the "I" in the novel maybe the all soldiers that fought in the Vietnam War. Though O'Brien did not kill that man, someone did. That same someone probably thought the same things that O'Brien said he did. O'Brien is telling this story not only for himself, but also for all of the soldiers that don't have the chance to write it.

More of this first person stuff.

As I previously said, most of the novel is written from the first person point of view. It involves sentences like "I wasn't there when he got hurt, but Mitchell Sanders later told me the essential facts," (page 208). The first person point of view is a very effective choice when writing a war story. It creates a believability and a timelessness that the third person point of view struggles to create. The reader knows that the author experienced the events that he is writing about, so they are much easier to believe. The reader is also more likely to feel sympathy for the characters because they are more easily seen as real people, because they are talked about as having relationships with the author. This makes the novel and its stories come to life in the mind of the reader, because it is written from the first person point of view.
The timelessness comes from that fact that the story comes to life. The reader doesn't see the story as a factual account of something that happened years ago, but rather as a set of events that could easily happen in their lifetime. They can now relate to the novel on a deeper level. The novel, though about an event that happened in a specific time in history, can be applied to any era and any person's life. This comes from its being written from the first person point of view.

Point(s) of View.

Well I'm going to talk a bit more about the points of view that O'Brien uses. All of the novels that I've ever read have a single point of view in them, but this novel is different. The majority of the novel is told from first person point of view, but it actually starts in third person point of view. This is a very effective strategy for keeping the reader engaged. The first chapter or so sets up the stories in the novel. It explains the importance of the title as well as explains the setting and what it was like during the Vietnam War. Most sentences sound like the one that starts page five, "what they carried was partly a function of rank, partly of field specialty." Though O'Brien experienced this too, he does not use the first person word "I."
The rest of the novel after this is told mostly from the first person point of view. It involves O'Brien telling the stories as they happened to him. On page 74, he sets up a story by saying "this one did it for me. I've told it before- many times, many versions- but here's what actually happened." This is a prime example of the first person. He involves himself in the story and tells it as he saw it. It creates a much more personal account of the war.

I do love vernacular.

Usually vernacular is a regional thing, but the vernacular O'Brien uses is a type of language unique to the soldiers in the Vietnam War. The main difference in their language is the profanities. The use of these profanities helps bring the reader into the world that O'Brien is describing. The use of "we pay our f[rea]kin' dues" (page 88) instead of "we pay our dues" helps the reader understand what type of environment the soldiers were in. This use of profanities, for me at least, doesn't bother me in the novel. When reading a novel about the Vietnam War, or any war for that matter, this type of language is expected. It adds a great deal of truth to the novel, as well as help bring the reader into the story. This vernacular is yet another way that O'Brien is able to bring his story to life.

Song Tra Brong.

Well before I start talking about its relevance, I would just like to say aaaaahahahahahahahaha. I could say that name for days and it would not get any less funny. So anywho, this is a name of the river that a lot of the action in the novel takes place near. It plays a major role above that, though. It seems that the Song Tra Brong is used by O'Brien to explain the course and happenings of the war. It overflowed at the most inopportune times, causing much damage, and it took the lives of many, many people.
"Casualties were flown in by helicopter" to a medical facility near the Song Tra Brong (page 86). It was the place of taking lives on the battle fields, but also the place of saving lives at the medical facility. Every aspect of the war could be found at this river. Though it doesn't seem to be a major character in the novel, it can definitely be seen as one. It changes with the weather just like a character changes. I'm not quite sure if O'Brien wanted it to be a character, but I see it as one.

Imagine all the imagery.

When most people think imagery, they don't see themselves being completely grossed out. Despite this, O'Brien, on page 118, is able to use some intense imagery to make a certain scene come to life. When talking about the man he killed, he describes in great detail the state of the body. "His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye was shut, his other eye was a star-shaped hole." This type of detail continues on for an entire page. This grotesque scene was not uncommon in Vietnam during the war. O'Brien is able to bring the reader into his story by painting such a vivid picture of the image he is describing. The reader can experience the horror of seeing a mangled body and knowing that you were the cause of it. It was hard for most soldiers to cope with that feeling, and the reader can fully understand that, because they have been brought into the war and all of its horrors.
This type of imagery also brings a sense of timelessness to the novel, because the reader, even though they may not have been alive during the Vietnam War, they can experience it through the writing.

That's messed up.

Okay so one part of the novel way delightfully disturbing. On page 215, the platoon talks to a dead guy and do some pretty odd stuff to him. After handing him some orange slices, Mitchell Sanders says "a guy's health, that's the most important thing." I'm not sure how most people felt about that, but it gave me a feeling somewhere between nausea and surprise birthday party.
I suppose their actions are understandable. They were getting killing people while getting shot at themselves. They needed some sort of entertainment as well as a way to make light of the situation they were in. By making a joke out of a guy they had killed, they wouldn't be weighed down by guilt and sorrow later in life while thinking about all of the people they killed. O'Brien is hitting on a topic that I'm sure most people can understand. Everyone has laughed when they wanted to cry or made light of some terrible situation. The author is showing the reader that the soldiers still had these human needs. They could not deal with the horror they saw, so they did what all of us would have done. This adds a sense of timelessness to the novel, because everyone can relate to what they did. Even though it might not have been something that odd, everyone has done something like that.

Just a bit of motivation.

The motivation for most things is pretty clear. Jealousy, lust, greed, hunger, or whatever it is, the author usually makes it rather clear. The case is no different on page 184. After being shot and not helped in a timely manner by a new medic, O'Brien tells us that he wanted "to make Bobby Jorgenson feel exactly what I felt. I wanted to hurt him." The motivation to cause this pain is obviously revenge. But I think there is more behind this motivation. I don't think it's just revenge against Jorgenson, I think it's revenge against the war. I wasn't really Jorgenson that caused the pain, he was just an easy scape goat. And it wasn't just the guns shot that brought on the pain, that was just the tangible cause. The real pain was due to the war as a whole. Most of the pain was emotional, but O'Brien couldn't blame anyone for that. He was changed forever by this war, and he wanted someone else to suffer that same change. Deep down he knew that his motivations weren't warranted and that he could never make someone pay for the damages caused. This motivation was one that most people of the Vietnam War were driven by. By not directly stating it, O'Brien is able to illustrate the mental turmoil that the war caused in those fighting it.

Oh the anecdotes.

This novel is more or less a compilation of over sized anecdotes. My favorite, and the one I'm going to focus on is the one about the death of O'Brien's childhood friend. After seeing a dead man in Vietnam, O'Brien tells a friend that the man reminds him of someone. "There's this girl I used to know. I took her to the movies once. My first date," he said on page 216. The girl's name was Linda. O'Brien tells us about the date and how he finds out about her having a brain tumor. He tells us how she died and he went to her funeral. He tells us that though he was only 9, he truly loved this girl.
Though a pretty lengthy anecdote, it is one that puts the turmoil cause by the war into perspective. This anecdote shows us how even the death of someone you didn't know could bring back terrible memories. The memories of the war were very similar to this one. They were vivid and usually not positive. O'Brien uses this anecdote to show the true effects of the war.

Things are looking up.

Okay so I'm not going to go into too much detail about the setup of the book (that's for another post), but I do want to talk about the concept in general. The novel is set up with a bunch of little short stories, some of which connect. All of them are told from the memory of the author, but they aren't always told from his point of view. I think it's a pretty cool concept. One chapter might be informative. "What they carried varied by mission," page 8 tells us. This is in an informative chapter told from the third person. Another might be a chapter in which O'Brien is telling the story and is even a part of it. The varies pretty consistently, and I like that. It's a concept that I've never really seen before. I'm curious to see how he continues this throughout the entire novel. It seems like a good novel so far. It is informative but not boring. That's difficult to do.

Big, juicy simile

I love this. I absolutely love this. "Love what?!" you say. Oh, nothing. Just a freaking awesome SIMILE!!!!!
The chapter entitled "stockings" (pages 111 and 112) in pretty much one big simile party. When discussing Henry Dobbins, O'Brien tells us that "in many ways he was like America itself, big and strong, full of good intentions, a roll of fat jiggling at his belly, slow of foot but always plodding along, always there when you needed him, a believer in the virtues of simplicity and directness and hard labor." The rest pf the chapter continues talking about him, but I was quite intrigued by this sentence. O'Brien is able to describe his view on the country and the war by comparing them to his characters. He thinks that the country isn't the most efficient or successful in their wars, but they always go in for the right reasons. The Vietnam War was a very controversial one, so this was a very tactful way to express what he thought about the war. He shows the reader that all of Henry Dobbins actions will parallel with those of the U.S. by starting the chapter with that very clear simile.
I would also like to add that I am trying to see what O'Brien wants us to get from the creepy pantyhose story, but I just can't figure it out. Any help there would be awesome. Maybe it's just a weird story with no hidden message, but I'm not sure.

Mister Jimmy. What irony.

Lieutenant Jimmy Cross really, from what I've read thus far, is a truly odd character. He really loves this Martha, but the more we are told about them, the more we realize how pathetic he is. O'Brien uses this ironic situation to describe how desperate the soldiers in the Vietnam War were. The reader thinks that Martha and Jimmy are in love when she is first introduced. However, when more is said about her, the reality is revealed that he loves her and holds onto her pictures in an attempt to feel like he is fighting for something or someone. Jimmy really needs to carry this love of her to continue fighting in the war. Its is ironic how she obviously has no feelings for him, but he will not admit this. He needs not to admit this to help him survive.
Jimmy carries the regrets of when "he should've carried her up the stairs to her room and tied her to the bed and touched that left knee all night long," but didn't (page 4). He uses the illusion that she still loves him to give hope of something better after the war.

And so starts The Things They Carried

I am now starting my blogs about the Tim O'Brien novel, The Things They Carried. Going into this one, I was pretty optimistic about my liking it. My APUSH teacher had actually suggested that I read it this past year. Knowing that I don't like reading, she thought this would fit into my interests. I didn't read it then, but was excited when I found out that this was on the list of books to read this summer. I also knew that it couldn't possibly be any worse than the last novel I read. All of that considered, I was still a little shaky going, because I haven't had the best of luck when it comes to school-required books.
The first chapter mainly discussed the things they literally carried and why they carried them. "The things they carried were largely determined by necessity," (Page 2), but they also carried things that just made them feel more comfortable. This chapter seems just to be setting up the rest of the novel. It is rather amazing how heavy the stuff they carried really was.
There doesn't seem to be a plot here, but the book also seems like it doesn't really need one. We'll see whether it ends up having one or not.

But why was the sun also rising?

I am quite puzzled by the title of this book, The Sun Also Rises. The sun plays absolutely no part in the novel. No one really shines or rises or anything like that. I can't think of a metaphor involving the sun, so I am lost. Considering my confusion, I did a bit of research to try to find out the meaning behind the novel's title. I did find out that the original title of the novel was Fiesta. This is actually the title used in the edition in several foreign countries. That title makes sense. They went to a fiesta in Spain for the climax of the novel. So why would Hemingway change the title?
I also found out that the title is a quote from the Bible. The passage talks about generations coming and going and the sun rising and falling and rising again in the same place. I think that Hemingway chooses this passage to show how no matter what happens to a person, they will end up right back where they started. This happens to Jake and Brett in the novel and it happens to every person in their life. Hemingway's novel is about character development, and he shows this through the title.
As the count said on page 67, "that is the secret, you must get to know the values." Hemingway tells us what a good and decent person looks like, but we must figure out how to make that a part of our lives.

Looking back...

This book has been a very interesting one. It started off talking about Cohn, and it seemed that he would be the main character. That quickly turned and the novel went from there. The main point of the novel seems to be that of character developments. There wasn't really a main character, but rather a group of main characters. My personal favorite character was Bill. He didn't really fit in, but he didn't try to. He just sat back and watched all of the other characters make a fool out of themselves. He didn't rock the boat, and he knew his place and stayed there. I respect that kind of person. He was who he was and didn't try to change that to feel more comfortable.
My least favorite character was Mike. He had no self-respect whatsoever. He saw that Brett was cheating on him, but instead of saying something to her, he just put down the people that she was with. Instead of facing his problem, he took his anger out on others. I don't respect people like that. I think that my reactions are what Hemingway intended from the novel. He wanted the reader to get angry with the type of person that Hemingway didn't like. He also wanted the reader to like the type of person that Hemingway does. Hemingway successfully shows the reader what type of person he wants them to be and hopes that they will try to change to that type of person.

Some call it characterization.

There are two ways that Hemingway develops characters in the novel: direct characterization and indirect characterization. Most direct characterization is done with Cohn. Hemingway needs to make sure that the reader understands Cohn and his character traits, so he tells the reader things like "He was a nice boy, a friendly boy, and very shy, and it made him bitter," (page 12). This type of characterization gives the reader very clear descriptions of the character that show their development and personalities in a very easy to understand way. The reader now understands why Cohn does what he does, because they are told that he is bitter and what made him that way.
The other type of characterization is one that must be understood by the reader. It can be seen in the ways that the characters interact. Mike makes fun of Cohn and insults him for hanging around Brett. This tells the reader that Mike is very insecure. Also, Brett chooses Jake to talk to with her problems, showing the reader that Jake is a good listener and kind. Hemingway is able to show the reader what the character is like instead of just telling them.
The effects of these to types are that simple, strong character traits can be established through the direct method. This ensures that the larger, more important traits are understood by the reader. The more complex character traits and character developments can be shown to the reader through interactions with others, creating a better picture than the first method. Both are used by Hemingway, but their intentions and results are slightly different.

And Brett loves...?

I have found the million-dollar question. With how free Brett is in her love life, it's pretty difficult for me as well as most other readers, I would assume, to tell who the person that Brett actually loves is. It isn't Cohn. She runs off with him, but talks poorly about him behind his back and supports those who don't like him. It isn't Mike. Though she is supposed to marry him, but she is so unfaithful that she obviously doesn't want to marry him. It isn't Pedro. She runs off with him after the fiesta in Spain, but she quickly realizes that she doesn't want to be with him. At this point every person that she ran off with or was going to marry is out, so who do we have left? We have Jake. From the beginning of the novel, Brett has flirted with a lot of guys, but she can only have deep, meaningful conversations with Jake. Whenever one of the two needed help, they would only feel comfortable going to the other. On the final page of the novel, 251, Brett acknowledges how they should be together by saying "Oh, Jake, we could have had such a damned good time together." I think that in the time of their lives after the novel, they will continue to live as they have, but understand their love a bit more.
Hemingway puts this relationship in the novel to show the reader what traits he believes make a couple truly in love. These traits are true no matter the time period that the reader lives in. This adds to the timelessness of the novel.

And he uses tone.

It seems to me that the tone that Hemingway sets in the novel reflects the mood that he was in when he wrote it. I don't know enough about Hemingway to decide his mood, but based on the novel, I'm going to say that he felt detached. Hemingway, throughout the novel, sets the tone of detached through characters and setting. The characters such as Jake, Mike, Bill, and Wilson-Harris all are war veterans who feel detached after the war. They speak and act as if, since the war, they are not normal people in society. I think Hemingway must have felt detached from some part of his life too.
In the final chapter, on page 241, Hemingway puts Jake in a detached area to further the tone. "Off on the right, almost closing the harbor, was a green hill with a castle. The raft rocked with the motion of the water. On the other side of the narrow gap that led into the open sea was another high headland. I thought I would like to swim across the bay but I was afraid of cramp." This final setting to the book really sets a tone of detached, because there is something that Jake wants to do, but because he is so far away, a fear keeps him from accomplishing that task.
Hemingway, by setting this tone, is able to elicit a certain emotional reaction of pity from the reader. The reader feels the same detachment that the characters do, causing them to empathize with them.

Why so cruel?

One thing about this novel that really disturbed me was the outright cruelty with which some of the characters treated each other. On pages 146-147, within a few lines of each other, the following things are said-"Shut up. You're drunk," "Go to hell, Mike," and "Damned noble of you." Stuff like this happens throughout the entire novel. It's pretty amazing how cruel the characters are to each other, and I was wondering why Hemingway would put that into his novel, but I think I've figured it out. Hemingway seemed to be a rather bitter fellow. The way that he has the characters treat each other makes that very clear. Also, I think that he saw a certain cruelty in society, and it angered him. He wanted the readers of his time to see how the characters acted and wonder if they treated others the same way. Hemingway was hoping to make a change in his society by doing this. I think he is also challenging readers of any time to make the same change in their lives. This creates a timelessness in the novel, because it can be read and related to by anyone from any time period.

Conflicts- external style

As I've previously said, the novel has some internal conflicts in a person's head, but it also has some external conflicts between two or more people. The major external conflicts involve the main issue that Hemingway focuses on in the novel- love. Most of them are between Cohn and another major character. Cohn punches Jake and argues with others, but I'm going to focus on the conflict between Cohn and Mike. Mike is a bit upset about the affairs that Brett has and he knows that Cohn has feelings for Brett. On page 146 he tells Cohn just how he and Brett feel about his being around all the time. "Why don't you know when you're not wanted? You came down to San Sebastian where you weren't wanted, and followed Brett around like a bloody steer. Do you think that's right?" In a very cruel way, he confronts Cohn about his being around Brett all of the time.
Hemingway uses this to show the reader the effects of speaking their mind. Hemingway obviously doesn't like the way that society has no filter when it comes to what they say, and he is using this external conflict to show the negative effects of that. He creates a timelessness in the novel by using issues that are not specific to his time, but rather can be applied to anyone's life.

Conflicts- internal style

In this novel, the major character that has the biggest internal conflict is the narrator, Jake. His debate has to do with Brett. He obviously loves her, and it seems that she has feelings for him too, but she also has feelings for other men. When they are alone, she seems to love him too, but when others are around, she doesn't act the same way. On page 42, Jake tells us how this issue makes him feel. "This was Brett that I felt like crying about. Then I thought of her walking up the street and stepping into the car, as I had last seen her, and of course in a little while I felt like hell again. It is awfully easy to be hard-boiled about everything in the daytime, but at night it is another thing."
Throughout the novel, Jake is constantly watching Brett run off with one guy or another. He doesn't want to make Brett upset, but he is constantly debating in his head whether or not to make his feelings more obvious to her. This is a debate that many people have in everyday life, and Hemingway is playing to that. He adds a timelessness to the piece by creating an internal conflict that not only produces drama in the novel, but also draws the reader into the characters' relationships that are easy to relate to.

About those bulls...

I'm going to explain why I think Hemingway chose to have the characters' final place of meeting to be at a bullfighting fiesta. Many people see bullfighting as the perfect display of respect for animals, as well as an extremely graceful sport. Hemingway uses the bullfights to describe the relationship between the characters by showing how they are not what the bullfight is- graceful and controlled. On page 221, Jake says when talking about Pedro that "in his own bulls he was perfect." This is how Hemingway sees the bullfight. He sees them as perfect and uses this to contrast the characters.
While the characters in the novel have trouble getting what they want, the bullfighters gracefully and honorably kill the bull with relatively little trouble. While the characters are cruel to each other and verbally and physically attack each other when they are weak or vulnerable, the bullfighters put themselves in harm's way to give the bull as fair a chance at winning as they have. And finally, while the characters have no control over their situation or, more importantly, themselves, the bull fighters use skill, tact, and grace to control the bull during the fight. These are all ways that Hemingway shows the reader how bullfighting can be the model for relationships. He was obviously a big fan of bullfights. I'm not exactly to that point yet.

And now, why Pedro?

Pedro obviously isn't a main character. He only appears in a few chapters and doesn't really say much. But as Mike tells us on page 194, "Brett's gone off with that bull-fighter chap." The reason Hemingway has Brett run off with Pedro is to show the reader what type of person he admires in society. Pedro is honest and kind, yet he is very strong and courageous. Hemingway admires this type of person. The reader will most likely root for this character to get Brett over Cohn or Mike and, perhaps, even Jake. However, despite Pedro being the ideal man, Brett chooses to come back to Jake at the end of the novel. This shows that Hemingway realizes that the nice, honest man doesn't always win in the society he lives in. Hemingway is trying to get the reader to think about what sort of characteristics that they value. This creates a timelessness in the novel, because the reader, no matter what era they are from, can read this novel and relate to the issue being dealt with.

Why Bill?

Bill is a pretty baffling character for me. He seems pretty similar to Jake. He was in the war and likes to drink. I think he likes to drink, because he is mentally distressed from the war. His function appears to be a stable person for Jake (and even the reader) to relax with. He seems to be the character that is easiest for a reader to relate to. He likes to fish, he likes to drink, and he is nice to pretty much everyone. But the major thing that I picked up on is that Bill never seems to fit in. He doesn't appear to be a main character, and he isn't involved in all of the love issues that keep the novel going. On page 158, he says to Cohn "we're the foreigners." I think that he is talking about himself when he says this. He is the outsider of the novel, not in the sense of an outlaw, but in the sense of not fitting in.
Hemingway, because the novel is all about characters and their relations, needed to place a relatively normal character that was sort of left out. This allowed for that kind of person to relate to him. Hemingway created yet another character that allowed for the novel to possess a timelessness.

Robert Cohn as a foil.

"Robert Cohn was once middleweight boxing champion of Princeton," (page 11). Hemingway chooses for the reader's first image of Cohn to be one of a fighter. In the novel, he fights for many things. But one thing that is always true is that he is fighting against some other character. Cohn is not a typical foil character who goes against one character. Cohn, at some point in the novel, goes against just about every major character. He loves Brett, which causes him to go against Mike. They get in numerous verbal altercations over his obsession with Brett. He also physically attacks Jake on page 195.
Throughout the entire novel, Cohn spends his time foiling one character or another. Hemingway uses this type of foil not only to contrast other characters, but also to epitomize the extreme personalities in society that he does not approve of. Cohn serves as a character that can be molded into many types of people that are easy to understand because they are common in society. Hemingway uses this unique type of foil to bring a timelessness to the novel and its characters.

Why yes. That is an anecdote.

I'm going to turn the steering wheel here a bit and go back to the very beginning of the novel. I've been thinking about why Hemingway put in that anecdote about Cohn's life, and I think I know why. Cohn is described on page 12 as a member "of one of the richest Jewish families in New York." He had everything that he could have wanted, except for love. He married once, but that ended in divorce. We are then told about Frances and we soon realize that they aren't in love, but Cohn just feels like he needs a woman in his life. After that relationship fails too, the novel really begins. These two failed relationships that the short anecdote tells us about set the stage for Cohn's place in the novel. Hemingway uses this anecdote not because we need to know so much detail about Cohn's life, but because we need to understand the reasons why Cohn is so desperate for Brett's love throughout the novel. Hemingway successfully uses this anecdote to allow us to see the troubles of Cohn and why his personality is such a desperate one. We are able to see into the character of Cohn through this anecdote.

Disappointed.

The back of this novel told me that one of the aspects of the novel was about "the brutal bullfighting rings of Spain." Reading that, I expected some betting, or some intense rivalry, or at least some controversy, but, as usual with this book, I was disappointed. I really thought that the main climax was going to involve some street fight between Cohn, Jake, and their clan and some Spanish loan sharks. That didn't happen. Why this novel is so popular and so highly rated I have no idea. For me to enjoy a book, it must have action and it must have a fast-moving plot that keeps me interested; this novel has neither. I'm starting to understand the significance of the character developments and all of that. That is nice and all, but come on Mr. Hemingway. We all aren't psychologists and most readers need some sort of plot to keep them interested. I appreciate what you were trying to do, but I would also appreciate a bit of action somewhere in the novel. On page 185, Brett says "Darling, don't let's talk a lot of rot." I think that Hemingway was trying to talk to the reader there. He wants us to do what Brett is saying to do and not focus on the bad, but on the good of the novel. I'm trying my best to do so, but I'm failing at this point.

First Person Point of View, quizas?

Well, in this post, I'm going to discuss why I think Hemingway chose to have the story told from the point of view of Jake, one of the main characters. The main point of the novel thus far seems to be the development of the characters and their relationships with each other. I've always heard that the best way to understand someone's character is through other people's reactions to them. Hemingway is able to use Jake and his reactions to other characters to give the reader the opinions that Hemingway wants them to have.
The way that Hemingway does this can only be explained by showing what he could have said if the novel was written in third person. When explaining Cohn's history and how that history made people perceive him, he could have said "people were not impressed by Cohn's boxing title." But since he wrote in first person, he was able to say, on page 11, a phrase that is much more impactful- "do not think that I am very impressed by that as a boxing title, but it meant a lot to Cohn." Phrases such as this show a sense of looking down upon Cohn by other characters, causing the reader to do the same. It also enlightens the reader as to Jake's compassion and kindness because he reveals that he will allow Cohn to be happy with his unimpressive title. It is situations like these that show why Hemingway chose to write his novel about character development from the first person point of view.

Pssst. Antihero.

I previously mentioned that I thought Cohn was the main character, then I didn't. Well, now I do again. I think that Hemingway is using him as an antihero. He lacks all of the admirable characteristics that people expect out of a novel's hero. Cohn is described by Jake (and Hemingway) as "nervous," (100) "shy," (11) and "bored, (168) as well as many other negatives. These are not attributes that the reader will appreciate. Hemingway portrays Cohn as this antihero to persuade the reader to have the opinion of Cohn that Hemingway wants them to have. He uses Cohn as the typical person who wants to please everyone but angers those people in the process. The reader immediately doesn't like Cohn and are constantly rooting against him. Hemingway is able to elicit these reactions from the reader by having the narrator, who the reader trusts, describe Cohn as having mainly negative personality traits. This draws the reader into the character interactions that occur in the novel. The reader knows someone like Cohn in their life and can relate to other characters' reactions to Cohn. This creates a timeless aspect to the novel that allows people to relate to its issues and characters.

Motivation?!?!?!

Well I'm starting to see why Cohn acts the way he does. He is over Frances and the other girls he has had feelings for, and is now going for Brett. He leaves Jake "a note saying he was going out in the country for a couple of weeks," (75) but doesn't tell him where. We later find out that he's been chasing Brett and stays with her for a little while. It is now apparent to me that all of Cohn's actions at this point are motivated by his longing for Brett. Hemingway has played with the issue of motivation a lot in this novel. He shows how the love of a certain woman can cause men to ignore obvious wrongs, make stupid choices, and travel places they wouldn't usually go. These love-driven motivations are something that every person will be able to relate to at one point in their life. Hemingway really adds a timelessness to his novel by playing on these motivations that aren't specific to his time period. He successfully brings the reader into the lives of the character by making them people that the reader can easily relate to.
I think I'm starting to understand the point to this novel. The characters and their developments are ones that the reader can relate to. I'm hoping to see these character developments more as I continue to read.

Oh Brett...

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding Brett. She obviously has some feelings for Jake. She visits him at home and is always flirting with him and such. But she also flirts with many other men. She appears to enjoy drinking and dancing with every man with a pulse. I had grown okay with that until I heard that she was engaged. Seriously, Mike?? I do believe that if my fiance "kissed standing at the door" (71) with some fellow that wasn't me, I wouldn't be with her much longer. I haven't heard anything about her having a lot of money, so Mike must be as desperate as can be. But I guess this isn't somewhere I should be poking my nose. Brett isn't going to change her ways, and Mike isn't going anywhere. And I am pretty impressed by how all of these people can cheat on each other left and right and still be best buds. They go out drinking at least twice daily, and seem to have no significant issues with each other. Those are either some very strong friendships, or some very oblivious boyfriends.
I really did think that at this point I would have found a plot of some sort. Mr. Hemingway has yet to make a plot obvious and it is starting to annoy me. I understand that this novel is a classic and all, but I really don't know how people have enjoyed this. I'm just hoping that this plot awakes from its slumber soon.

Smells Like Local Color

France and French culture seem to be a big part of the novel so far. Hemingway tries to portray the type of environment that the characters are living in by focusing on their dialect, customs, etc. On page 29, Brett is described as wearing "a slipover jersey sweater and a tweed skirt, and her hair was brushed back like a boy's." Also, the characters, who speak mostly English, insert little bits of French. This can be seen on page 31 when a patronne says "C'est entendu, Monsieur." The description of the French-style clothes, as well as French phrases, that, though not in the readers' language, can be understood, remind the reader of the French environment of the novel and how that environment influences the actions that they make.
Another major example of local color is in the landscape. A natural landscape isn't focused on, but rather an urban landscape. The characters spend most of their time going from cafe to cafe drinking, eating, and dancing. This is a very common way to spend free time in Paris, and the extent to which the characters do this really emphasizes the importance of these activities in France. Due to Hemingway's use of local color, the reader really understands why the characters do what they do.

This Robert Fellow

After the first four chapters, I'm still lost on where this novel, The Sun Also Rises, is going. After the first two, I was certain that the novel was going to be about Robert Cohn. He was the only person talked about in detail, and Hemingway seems to think we need to know an awful lot about him. Why we need to know about the "inferiority and shyness he had felt on being treated as a Jew at Princeton," (page 11) I don't know. Apparently it is going to be useful information later, as are all of the other details we receive early in the book. Randomly in the third chapter, the narrator shifts his focus to himself and Lady Brett, as well as Cohn and a few others. Cohn really isn't talked about much after the monologue at the beginning.
The back of the book tells me that some "brutal bullfighting rings" are going to be involved in the novel somehow. Unless the five bars and three cabs that they've been in so far are metaphors for bullfighting, the real plot hasn't shown itself yet. The novel is a bit boring at this point, but that is expected. I'm looking forward to seeing where the plot and characters go from this point. I'm not a big book fan, but for a book, this isn't bad.