So I saw sort of a trend of people using their last blogs to remember all of the good times during AP Lit, so I thought I'd join in on this for my very last blog ever (which I'm proud of myself for even doing). Honestly, AP Lit was really fun, if you leave out all of the work and stress and procrastination when considering what fun is. This class has taught me a lot about symbolism (and that sounds totally fake and horrible but its true and I know I won't forget some of what I have learned for a very long time). For the first couple of books this Frankenstein and Winesburg  mostly, I totally was not feeling this class and as far as I can remember, I did not start to really feel this class until Hamlet. That play changed all works of literature for me forever. Everything really is Hamlet, even Invisible Man is Hamlet. Invisible Man is the other book that really changed everything for me. There was just SO MUCH to that book. Too much. Its like now I am analyzing movies and tv shows and everything I read. It has even gotten to the point where I have started considering the connotations of words that people use when talking to me. Likeeeee. This class really affected me, probably more than most of my other classes. It has both ruined me for any other book I will ever read ever, while also allowing me to realize just how much there is to book s and plays and poems and everything. All in all, I really liked this class and now that I am at the end looking back, all of the work and stress was totally worth it. I would do it all again.

Time has finally caught up with me

So I guess I can't just do poems for all three of my blogs, no matter how much I want to, so I'll have to talk about some book now. The last one I read, A Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan, was so fabulously good that I went to Barnes and Noble and tried to buy another of her books, but they were out so I bought a different one that the lady assured me was sort of similar called The Interestings which is good so far. Anyway, the Goon Squad was a good book. I don't think it was very AP Lit worthy, especially compared to all of the other novels that we have read this year, but I think that it might be able to work for some prompt at some point, however I know that I will write about Invisible Man almost definitely for the exam this Thursday. This book was ordered so strangely and there were different weird points of view and narrative styles and it was all so complex and seemingly unconnected but then it ended up all being tied together. Juilee thinks it was a cycle but I totally disagree. One thing that I thought was weird was how in the first part of the novel Lou was like seemingly super important because he came up a lot but then in the second part he wasn't there at all. But then there was Lulu which sounds an awful lot like Lou and they were both pretty similar. Lulu is like the less greasy, more respectable version of Lou. They both have the innate ability to influence and almost control people. So that was weird. And then the way that the book began and ended with Alex, a character that did not appear in the novel anywhere other than the first and last chapter. That was weird too because what was that supposed to mean? Something like how even if you think you have just a small part in the world you actually have a big part and you are at the beginning and end of someones story??? I don't know. There are a lot of things in this book that I do not really totally understand. Like the general's chapter (which for the record was my favorite chapter) how did that fit into anything? I get where Dolly and Lulu and Kitty fit in but why did it all need it be centered around a dictator? I don't even know. Maybe this book was totally lit worthy and I just didn't try hard enough to analyze it because I enjoyed it too much. Hm. From now on I will never read a book the same way I did before this class. I will always connect fire with knowledge and point out the light and dark parts and it will annoy me forever, but I will always remember this class.

Sonnet Double I

Sonnet II

When forty winters shall besiege thy brow,
And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field,
Thy youth's proud livery so gazed on now,
Will be a totter'd weed of small worth held: 
Then being asked, where all thy beauty lies,
Where all the treasure of thy lusty days; 
To say, within thine own deep sunken eyes,
Were an all-eating shame, and thriftless praise.
How much more praise deserv'd thy beauty's use,
If thou couldst answer 'This fair child of mine
Shall sum my count, and make my old excuse,'
Proving his beauty by succession thine!
   This were to be new made when thou art old,
   And see thy blood warm when thou feel'st it cold.

Shakespeare man. Shakespeare. I like Shakespeare now way more than I liked him before this class. Its totally because of Hamlet. Knowing that whoever Shakespeare was was able to put so many meanings into literally every word (even if I do not always believe there is as many purposeful layers as it appears there are) is just mind blowing. I also really enjoy his sonnets and sonnets in general actually. Love poetry makes me very happy. I wish I lived in a time where courting was a thing, except that's totally not true because I am way  impatient in general, but I wish my girlfriend wrote me love poetry. Well anyway, yes Shakespeare is good yes. Last month I did Shakespeare's first sonnet, so this time I decided to do his second one (which I have not even read yet but swagever). So for a quick recap of what it says, its basically like "when you are really old and wrinkly and people ask you where all of your beauty went, wouldn't it be great to have a child and say that's where it all went and then he could carry on your life when you are dead." If this poem is really addressed to Shakespeare's young man friend, then its super sad since they can not have children together. This actually kind of feels like a "we shouldn't do this because you can't have kids this way and I just want you to be happy" poem. Which is super sad but also super sweet because it shows how much Shakespeare loved this guy. Anyway, the whole theme of this sonnet, which for some reason feels shorter than most other sonnets, is growing old and having something to survive after you. That seems like a theme that is present throughout several of Shakespeare's sonnets, dying and having something left afterwards. That's sad. Shakespeare makes me sad. Unless I am totally missing it, there actually doesn't seem to be a couplet tie in this sonnet? There aren't any repeated words so. The volta is at the third quatrain where it changes from sad death to wishful remembrance or something. Basically this poem was way sadder than I thought it would be and now I'm sad.

BAttle Royal aka the entire novel

So for the seminars on Invisibile MAn that we have been having, I originally wanted to do the paint fiasco scene, however I was unable to sign up for it, a tragedy, so instead I did the next most interesting/important seeming scene:the Battle Royal. This scene was actually a short story that Ellison wrote originally and from it he was inspired to wrote an entire novel, this novel is called Invisile Hombre (spanish edition si?) SO, knowing that the entire book was based off of this one scene and aslo knowing that generally the entire novel can be seen in the first chapter of a book, we can predict that the whole novel is present within this battle and after having studied it extensively, I can confirm that this is in fact true. The most striking motif seen througout the novel that orginates in this Battle Royal is the eye imagery that is created by the white folk surrounding the black fighter guys who are in turn surrounding the "Magnificent blonde" stripper. If you visualize this with just the volors in mind, you can see (haha get it? see like eyes) that it creates an image of an actual eye. This is seen throughout the novel and it also connects to the whole idea of invisibility and sight and blindness and knowledge and essentially to everything within the novel ever since everything is connected. Another interesting thing that i found in my research was an article that dealt with the females in the novel, mainly with the stripper, mary, and sybil. THe author claims that in order to understand why Ellison makes these women in to simple stark stereotypes, we must first accept these stereotypes as true This point was very interesting to me because we weren't just told to think about it, this author literally said to accept it as true, something that is not said very often when analyzing literature. After accepting these steretypes as true (or really lkying ans saying that I did) the rest of the article was very interesting becasue it discussed ]the similarities between the blonde woman in the Battle Royal and the invisible man in that same event, similarities that he fails to see, but still ones that teach him “his first lesson in invisibility." They were both being used as entertainment for the white guys, they were being ocmpletley controlled (something that the I M goes on to encounter a lot), and they were both also very terrified at parts. Basically the Battle Royal is the most important scene in the entire novel. ALong with this other stuff, somee connectons can also be seen with the electric rug and the explosion healing machine, the bronze gold coins and the bnank he breaks, the way the men control him and his relationship with the brotherhood ans Ras etc etc etc. In the end, if I had to suggest one part of this bookfor someone to read in order to be prepared for seminars or something, it would be this scene because it is literally a microcosm for the rest of the novel.

Out Out with your stereotypes

‘Out, Out—’
BY ROBERT FROST

The buzz saw snarled and rattled in the yard
And made dust and dropped stove-length sticks of wood,
Sweet-scented stuff when the breeze drew across it.
And from there those that lifted eyes could count
Five mountain ranges one behind the other
Under the sunset far into Vermont.
And the saw snarled and rattled, snarled and rattled,
As it ran light, or had to bear a load.
And nothing happened: day was all but done.
Call it a day, I wish they might have said
To please the boy by giving him the half hour
That a boy counts so much when saved from work.
His sister stood beside him in her apron
To tell them ‘Supper.’ At the word, the saw,
As if to prove saws know what supper meant,
Leaped out at the boy’s hand, or seemed to leap—
He must have given the hand. However it was,
Neither refused the meeting. But the hand!
The boy’s first outcry was a rueful laugh,
As he swung toward them holding up the hand
Half in appeal, but half as if to keep
The life from spilling. Then the boy saw all—
Since he was old enough to know, big boy
Doing a man’s work, though a child at heart—
He saw all was spoiled. ‘Don’t let him cut my hand off—
The doctor, when he comes. Don’t let him, sister!’
So. But the hand was gone already.
The doctor put him in the dark of ether.
He lay and puffed his lips out with his breath.
And then—the watcher at his pulse took fright.
No one believed. They listened to his heart.
Little—less—nothing!—and that ended it.
No more to build on there. And they, since they
Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs.

This poem is by Robert Frost, the man who totally did not write that poem about Santa Claus. I think that this poem is AP Lit worthy mostly because I googled "AP Lit worthy poems" and this was on a site that was like "top 20 must read poems for AP Lit students", but also because we have talked about him in class. So, instead of being basic I decided to take the poem less read, and use this one. This poem is in essence about, well after actually reading it, I'm quite confused as to what the deep meaning is. It;s probably something to do with the fact that people only care about matters that involve them since as soon as this boy died, they just "turned to their affairs", essentially forgetting that this personified saw had "snarrled and rattled" this boy's hand off. This was a very dark poem and honestly I was surprised because I guess I have not really read and Robert Frost poems, so I expected them to be less dark. The saw in this poem may represent something like society wherein the boy would represent freedom of speech or ideas or something and tis like society has a mind of its own (its something that shouldn't usually act out of its own will) and so it immediatley killed this boy''s hopes and dreams (and literally killed him) as soon as he got excited about something. So this poem seems to maybe be about censored society, although there is a high chance that it is actually something else. Another unusual aspect of this poem is that it reads much like a short story, when in fact, its a poem!!! The fact that the boy "must have given the hand" seems to connect back to this idea of society, its like when people blame the victim for the accident like in rapes or what not. THen there is the line from the woman who simply says "supper". THis could be a commentary on the role of women in society, as if they are only there to provide for the rest of us, in this case the boy. Then since she seemed to not even have a reaction to the fact that this kids hand was just chopped off, it also seems like a comment on women as if they are simply mechanical beings made to serve a single purpose, not that I think that Robert Frost thinks this about women, in fact he is probably using this charectirization to bring to light a prexisting stereotype.

So yeah, just like in everything we ever read, I has decided that my interpretation of this poem is that it is a comment on the stereoptypes in sociery, as well as the prevalence of censorship and general creativity disrupting that occurs within it.

Sonnet 1 aka the young man is the one and only

Sonnet 1- Shakespeare

From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decease,
His tender heir might bear his memory:
But thou contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thy self thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel:
Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament,
And only herald to the gaudy spring,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content,
And, tender churl, mak'st waste in niggarding:   
Pity the world, or else this glutton be,   
To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.

This is Shakespeare's first sonnet, at least in the "young man" series. So, it will be interesting to look at this sonnet compared to the other shakesperean sonnets that we have analyzed. Since this is the very first sonnet, we can use context clues and intuition to predict that this will be more loving and possibly even more sincere than later sonnets, like the ones to the dark lady which just seem sketchy and awkward, or the ones that involve the young man's other suitor or the rival or whatever. All of those seem to have the potential to be tainted with some alterior motive, but this one is early enough, well its the earliest one so duh, but it still probably has some sort of innocence in it that has yet to be tainted. Granted I have not read the thing yet, but I soon will. I know that this is a shakespearean sonnet not only because I searched "Shakespeare sonnet number 1", but also because of its ABAB CDCD EFEF GG rhyme scheme, the fourteen lines cut into three quatrians and a copluet, and finally the fact that it stick s to iambic pentameter, meaning that it has ten syllables per line as well as going by the hard soft syllable rule that goes along with this. So, with not context clues, we could know that this was a shakespearean sonnet. It differs from an italian sonnet or a petrarchian sonnet because of the rhyme scheme since the other types of sonnets follow either an interlocking ABAB BCBC CDCD EE rhyme scheme or the other one which I can not currently remember. 

So basically what I think that shakespeare is saying in this poem, apart from the obvious subject of love, is that he truly adores and admires his young man suitor guy, and he thinks that his beauty can stand on its on while some others have to have some fuel for it. That can be seen in the line "Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel," see so here shakespeare is saying that this guys "flame" or his beauty or life force or something is basically eternal, an idea that ocnnects back to the shakespearean sonnet we read in class where he was like apologizing for not praising the kid but then covered himself by saying that his beauty would last even after wars ans such, actually no thats a mix of two of the sonnests that we read, but the idea is still there.

So basically in conclusion, this sonnet just like evry sonnet is about how shakespeare is in love with his young man and he thinks that his beauty and life force are eternal.

Invisible Man aka a book full of lies

Honestly, I do not like Invisible Man so far. I do not like it at all. You know how theres that idea that you might not be able to believe like anything a first person narrator says? Yeah, I feel like that totally applies to this book. Also, before we really get into that, there are some parts where its just seemingly pointless metaphors after metaphors and it feels like I could just skip four pages and still know what was happening in the story. Like with the blind guest preacher who was giving a sermon about the founder (weird). He was just talking and talking and none of what he was saying about the founder seemed important at all. Okay, back to the real reason that I dislike the book: all of the lies that I feel like this guy is telling. The biggest thing that I have felt was complete bs so far was the boxing match or whatever the heck it was before he was given a scholarship. Things like that do not happen in real life and I highly doubt they happened back then. not only was it so unbelievable, but there were also some inconsistencies with his descriptions of the other 'boxers.' At first they were giant thugs who were so angry that this little scrawny kid had made their friend lose his job. Then they were all very scared and worried right before the fight, as if they did not know what was going to happen. How could they not know what was going to happen if it was their job? Also, the way they all vaguely knew how to fight blindfolded and they all knew not to touch the electric rug too much also suggests that they had done it before. That electric rug though, like what the heck??? The way all of the white guys were attacking them and throwing them on the rug?? That just did not seem plausible to me at all, also why the heck would the school superintendent put him through all of that and then be like "oh yeah I totally respect this kid and I want him to have all of this money even though he almost got beaten up when he said something about equality." That entire part made me completely lose faith in the truthfulness of this narrator. The next dumb part that I totally think is unrealistic is the whole deal with Mr. Norton. Like firstly, why is there a mental hospital on the school campus/close to it? Why do they let all these men roam around freely to drink and have sex with whores? How am I supposed to think that this actually happened? Maybe I have unrealistically positive beliefs about the world, but I really just cannot believe the way that Mr. Norton was acting/being treated, the way all of the men were acting, the way the bar tender was acting, the fact that whiskey apparently cures illnesses, the fact that incest is super interesting to white men, etc. Just all of these things so far, I just can not believe any of them and its making me just really not want to read the book and thats a major issue, so come on mr nameless narrator, make your story more believable!

Hamlet as the normal guy

Hamlet as the moral judge or savior?

So I've decided to type up some of the post it notes from the class discussion giant sheet thing we had and then address them one at a time. So here we go:

'Hamlet believes himself to be the moral judge: trying to avenge his father, sees it as the right thing to do, trying to get his mother away from Claudius'
Well I do not agree that he thinks he is the moral judge, I think it is just in his nature to be the judge. He does not go around trying to pass judgement on his friends and family, it just comes out of his mouth with all of the other intelligent nonsense he says. Yes he is trying to avenge his father, but is that because its the right thing to do or because the ghost scared the heck out of him and told him he was a fat weed for not doing anything? I think its the second one because prior to the ghost's appearance, Hamlet was not taking any action except for being sassy. Then yes he is trying to keep him mother away from Claudius, but that does not seem too moral judgey to me. If my uncle killed my dad and then married my mom, I'd be pretty uncomfortable too and I'd try and get her to realize it was super gross.


'"When he is drunk, asleep, or in his rage, or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed... then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven, and that his soul may be damned and black as hell" (end scene III) Hamlet as the moral judge likens himself to God in determining how Claudius will go to hell in death.'
Here it seems to me like he is being more of a god type figure rather than a moral judge. he isn't passing judgement on Claudius, he's damning him to hell and plotting his death. Also, with the beliefs of these people in mind, if I was Hamlet I would totally try to get Claudius to go to hell since he killed my dad. That's where he deserves to be.


'Hamlet watches Claudius's expressions while Claudius is watching the play to determine if he committed the crime. "For I mine eyes will rivet to his face, and after we will take our judgement ...."'
Okay so I know that he literally says that he's passing judgement here, but I think its more like he'll decide if he is guilty or not. This is just Hamlet being a good guy. he wants to make sure that he isn't attacking an innocent man and I think that is totally normal and rational.


'Hamlet's condemnation of Gertrude as a sinner and his condemnation of Ophelia for lying are examples of him being a moral judge.'
Okay well first the definition of condemnation is the expression of very strong disapproval or the action of condemning someone to a punishment. Now, the first one I can agree with, but I have a feeling that this person meant the second definition (unless they were Shakespeare then they meant all of them). I definitely disagree that Hamlet was condemning either of the women. In my opinion, he seriously loved both of them, and, seeing the end of the play, he did not wish either of them a bad end or any harm at all. So yeah I don't agree with this one at all.

We real cool? More like I real cool

We Real Cool

by Gwendolyn Brooks


We real cool. We

Left school. We

Lurk late. We 

Strike straight. We 

Sing sin. We 

Thin gin. We 

Jazz June. We 

Die soon.

I found this poem on a "21 poems worthy of AP Lit" article and I think it is also in that little poetry packet that we sometimes read from, but I do not think that we have done it yet, so I am going to do it. Firstly, this poem makes me happy in a sad way. It creates a sing-songy rhythm that is given a dark tint at the end. There is obviously a ton of repetition in this poem and that is what really creates that rhythmic feeling. It feels like it is some sort of commentary on the rap culture or the general school drop out community. The simple sentence structure, which is as simple as it can get, like grammar at a first grade level, supports this theory. To me, it feels like a bunch of kids who are all jokingly rapping together, but the author of this poem made the lines feel much more serious than just some kids joking around. The seriousness of the lines does not take away from the youth vibe that this poem gives off, but it does skew the readers perception of the presumed kids that are saying all of this. Rather than being some lame kids who are joking around in a classroom, it feels more like a group of kids, almost like a gang, all hanging around somewhere shady where they are trying to earn their street cred or whatever it is you earn for yourself on the street. The format of this poem also creates an unusual pace that is easily changed depending on the way it is read. If you stop at each "we" and pause for a mount, the poem feels and sounds significantly different than if you choose to read through with only small pauses. It makes sense to pause at the "we"s, so assuming that that is the correct reading, the pacing of this poem and the way that the lines are set up makes it seem as though the actions that these kids take part in define who they are. The way that the actions are placed before each of the "we"s places the emphasis on the action, implying that it comes first before the kids do. This is the case in all of the lines except the first one (which is also the title). The line "We real cool." serves to establish what these kids are, what they are trying to prove/support with the following lines, and even how their attitudes are. This is the only line where "we" comes before the action, suggesting that these kids are actually cool and that that is not a statement that is being used as support, its more of a known fact, like the original reason for all of these actions. Just like this first line, the last line also hold some serious weight when considering the meaning of the poem. Looking at only the literal last line of the poem, "Die soon." creates such a dark, gloomy, impending doom type feeling, like it is sure to happen. It also seems to reestablish that the speakers here are kids, they are not meant to be out on the streets like this, they don't yet know how to defend themselves, they are just kids. 

In the poem "We Real Cool" by Gwendolyn Brooks, the pacing, line structure, and sentence stucture are used to tell the dark story of some kids with no forseeable future, by creating an intense mood and impactful tone.

Act III scene i AKA Drama

Act III scene i AKA Drama. After seeing the movie versions of this whole scene, it has become very apparent as to how very important stage directions, acting decisions, setting, costumes, and everything else is because the meaning and inflections of the play can be changed so very easily. Now, if I were directing this scene it would be more similar to the Gilderoy Lockhart version than the Doctor Who version. The Doctor Who version made me very uncomfortable. The way he stared into the camera and his very slow talking speed was extremely weird and I did not like it. Also, he was too mean to Ophelia. Now, for my version, firstly, for major theme decisions, I would decide that Claudius and Polonius definitely did hear the "to be or not to be speech". Hamlet would have known that they were listening the entire time and, similar to the Gilderoy Lockhart version, he would move/look/speak in their direction during his speech. Next, I would make the nunnery scene totally heartbreaking, because it really is heartbreaking. I would have set up that Hamlet and Ophelia really did love each other, however they had not had a sexual relationship, but they were very close, very in love, and very trustful of each other. This way, the nunnery scene would be construed to be Hamlet telling her to save herself, both from the evils of man and the world, as well as possibly for him for after all of this mess is over. Now, although this would be a sweet message, Hamlet would still know that Claudius and Polonius were watching, so he would have to make it sound mean and unloving, but I would make it clear that Ophelia was only acting hurt. She would understand that Hamlet wanted her to wait. Somewhere earlier in the play I might throw in a little scene where he tells her about what is going on that way she knows that he does not actually hate her and that he is not actually crazy. And because of this addition, it would be obvious that Ophelia was lying about where her father was not to deceive Hamlet, but to aid him and to continue to act like what was happening between them was real. I think it is super important to protect Ophelia for some reason. Back to the scene, I would have Ophelia being very over dramatic so that the audience knew that she was in on it, but Claudius and Polonius would be fooled by her act. Similar again to the Gilderoy Lockhart version, I would have Polonius realize how horrible he had been treating Ophelia, so he would hug her and comfort her while Claudius continued to plot. I just really feel this strong connection with Ophelia. She has been thrown around throughout the entire play with complete disregard to her feelings. If Hamlet really does love her, then he is not at all acting like it. Now, know that he is on a revenge mission because his father was murdered, but if they truly love each other, I feel like she should be included in Hamlet's plotting and decision making. She needs to be more important.

An index of key words from the first act of Hamlet aka a quick dictionary

Play- a dramatic composition or piece, a drama; a dramatic performance, as on the stage; exercise or activity for amusement or recreation; fun or jest, as opposed to seriousness; a pun; the playing, action, or conduct of a game; the manner or style of playing or of doing something; an act or instance of playing or of doing something; one's turn to play; a playing for stakes; gambling; an attempt to accomplish something, often in a manner showing craft or calculation; maneuver; an enterprise or venture; deal; action, conduct, or dealing of a specified kind: fair play; foul play; action, activity, or operation; brisk, light, or changing movement or action; elusive change or movement, as of light or colors; a space in which something, as a part of a mechanism, can move; freedom for action, or scope for activity; attention in the press or other media; coverage; an act or instance of being broadcast




Duty- something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation; the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation; an action or task required by a person's position or occupation; the respectful and obedient conduct due a parent, superior,elder, etc.; an act or expression of respect; a task or chore that a person is expected to perform; an assigned task, occupation, or place of service; the military service required of a citizen by a country; a specific or ad valorem tax imposed by law on the import or export of goods; a payment, service, etc., imposed and enforceable by law or custom; tax: income duty; the amount of work done by an engine per unit amount of fuel consumed; the measure of effectiveness of any machine; the amount of water necessary to provide for the crop in a given area; bowel movement.




Suit- a set of clothing, armor, or the like, intended for wear together; a set of men's garments of the same color and fabric, consisting of trousers, a jacket, and sometimes a vest; a similarly matched set consisting of a skirt and jacket, and sometimes a topcoat or blouse, worn by women; any costume worn for some special activity; a business executive; the act, the process, or an instance of suing in a court of law; legal prosecution; lawsuit; one of the four sets or classes (spades, hearts, diamonds,and clubs) into which a common deck of playing cards is divided; the aggregate of cards belonging to one of these sets held in a player's hand at one time; one of various sets or classes into which less common decks of cards are divided, as lances, hammers, etc., found in certain decks formerly used or used in fortune telling; the wooing or courting of a woman; the act of making a petition or an appeal; a petition, as to a person of rank or station; a complete group of sails for a boat;


Seem- to appear to be, feel, do, etc.; to appear to one's own senses, mind, observation, judgment,etc.; to appear to exist; to appear to be true, probable, or evident:; to give the outward appearance of being or to pretend to be




Is- 3rd person singular present indicative of be.




Speak- to utter words or articulate sounds with the ordinary voice; talk; to communicate vocally; mention; to converse; to deliver an address, discourse, etc.; to make a statement in written or printed words; to communicate, signify, or disclose by any means; convey significance; to produce sounds or audible sequences of individual or concatenated sounds of a language, especially through phonation, amplification, and resonance, and through any of a variety of articulatory processes; to express data or other information audibly by means of an audio response unit; to emit a sound, as a musical instrument; make a noise or report; to bark when ordered; to bay on finding a scent.



State- the condition of a person or thing, as with respect to circumstances or attributes; the condition of matter with respect to structure, form, constitution, phase, or the like; status, rank, or position in life; station; the style of living befitting a person of wealth and high rank:; a particular condition of mind or feeling; an abnormally tense, nervous, or perturbed condition; a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation; the territory, or one of the territories, of a government; any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union; the body politic as organized for civil rule and government; the operations or activities of a central civil government



Nature- the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities; the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization; the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals,or rivers; natural scenery; the universe, with all its phenomena; the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe; reality, as distinguished from any effect of art; the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person,animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character; the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct; character, kind, or sort; characteristic disposition; temperament



Reason- a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc; a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action; the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions,judgments, or inferences; sound judgment; good sense; normal or sound powers of mind; sanity; a premise of an argument; the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge,either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.



Silence- absence of any sound or noise; stillness;the state or fact of being silent; muteness; absence or omission of mention, comment, or expressed concern; the state of being forgotten; oblivion; concealment; secrecy.



Tongue- the usually movable organ in the floor of the mouth in humans and most vertebrates, functioning in eating, in tasting,and, in humans, in speaking; an analogous organ in invertebrate animals; the tongue of an animal, as an ox, beef, or sheep, used for food,often prepared by smoking or pickling; the human tongue as the organ of speech; the faculty or power of speech; speech or talk, especially mere glib or empty talk; manner or character of speech; the language of a particular people, region, or nation; a dialect;  a people or nation distinguished by its language; tongues, speech, often incomprehensible, typically uttered during moments of religious ecstasy



Ear- the organ of hearing and equilibrium in vertebrates, in humans consisting of an external ear that gathers sound vibrations, a middle ear in which the vibrations resonate against the tympanic membrane, and a fluid-filled internal ear that maintains balance and that conducts the tympanic vibrations to the auditory nerve, which transmits them as impulses to the brain; the external ear alone; the sense of hearing:; keen or sensitive perception of the differences of sound,especially sensitiveness to the quality and correctness of musical sounds: an ear for music; attention; heed








PS I'm sorry Mrs. Clinch all of the snow distracted me and senior year is so tiring and I have a job and I'm in a very committed over-a-year-long relationship and I get distracted easily, so I forget about my blogs and you should pity me and not give me too bad of a grade please

PPS I'm also sorry for running out of ideas to blog on and for rambling so much, but this blog might actually be useful for future blogs on Hamlet so yes.

I Thought I was Not Alone, and I was right because everyone else is blogging now too

I Thought I Was Not Alone by Walt Whitman
I thought I was not alone, walking here by the shore,
But the one I thought was with me, as now I walk by the shore,
As I lean and look through the glimmering light--that one has utterly
disappeared,
And those appear that perplex me.


Okay so I just really have a thing for Walt Whitman. Whether that is because of his wonderful poetry that I am very in love with, or his wonderful granddaughter who I equally adore ( May Whitman (the actress (her?))), or his wonderful life story that makes me very happy (at least what I know of his life), it does not really matter because he is the only poet that I ever want to blog on and the AP board can just deal with that and maybe they might even throw some of his poems in on the test. Or maybe the entire test might just consist of Walt's poems (look at me calling him by his first name like we are old friends (I wish we were old friends, or new friends)). Is he even that AP lit worthy? Is googling 'Walt Whitman love poetry' for every blog really making me a good AP lit student? Is it good to ask so many rhetorical questions to the higher powers of AP Litland? I do not know, but honestly probably not. Anyhow, there is a poem upon this blog that needs to be analyzed! So here we go (epic music playing in the background)! *Movie commentator voice* In a world where only Walt Whitman poetry exists and it all needs to be analyzed lives a girl who is having too much distracted fun. Okay the poem yes the poem.

The whole poem gives off a very confused, sort of saddened tone, making me question why this was on a love poetry website. The most important part of this very very short five line poem seems to be the "by the shore" line since it is repeated twice in this short poem. "Shore" can be defined as: the land along the edge of a sea, lake, broad river, or other water formation; some particular country; land, as opposed to sea or water; the space between the ordinary high-water and low-water mark; or of, pertaining to, or located on land, especially land along the edge of a body of water. So there does not appear to be really any double meaning in this repetition, he was probably just honestly writing about walking along the beach. Beaches, however, have some connotations that come to mind like romance, renewal, or even disaster. So this might be a long winded connection to romance and disaster.

The "one" that the speaker thought was accompanying him along this relaxing walk along the beach may symbolize a lover that has recently left/betrayed him. It seems as though the speaker was relying on this person and then they left without a trace. The fact that this person has "utterly disappeared" leaves a feeling of bewilderment, surprise, disappointment, and maybe even a little dash of anger. It is totally reasonable for the speaker to be feeling all of these things because his loved one has just left him, out of the blue, seeming to have left no trace as to where he has gone except for a "glimmering light" from where he evaporated. Maybe this lover was in fact water that has now turned into steam in the air and that is why the light is glimmering because there is a bunch of water particles floating around in the air, but probably not.

The line "And those appear that perplex me" really perplexes me honestly. What are "those"? Are they people? Are they the water particles? Are they sharks and little fishes in the water? It's probably just other people (although it would be more fun if it were sharks and little fishes with little fish faces). These people probably feel foreign and unwelcome to the speaker because he has lost his rock. The speaker has just been left and now all of these people are just appearing in front of him. Like that's rude and they should leave him alone to mourn his heart in peace!

Polonius AKA Double Agent?

So I had a pretty interesting thought while we were watching the over dramatized movie version of Hamlet (who looks way too old to be playing Hammy, or maybe hes the perfect age, no idea at this time) with the sub that one day... Polonius is King Claudius's right hand man, right? And King Traitor-Face Claudius seems to kind of hate (or maybe envy or maybe even care for) Hamlet right? So, what if Polonius says all of those mean things to Ophelia and makes her break up with Hammy because Claudius told him to? Claudius could be trying to weaken Hamlet or maybe anger him? Like he might be afraid that Hammy is going to come after the throne so he wants to take away what he loves most. Or he might even be trying to protect Hamlet for some convoluted, unseen reason. Interestingly, there is no evidence of how Polonius treats Ophelia in a normal, non slut shaming situation. Really we never have the chance to see the two interact before he calls her a dirty, shameful, nearly pregnant whore. So maybe that was completely out of character (although his other actions make it seem like it was not too far out of character) and that is one of the reasons why Ophelia was so phased and affected by his outrageous speech (or maybe just because her father called her a whore and banned her from talking to her lover). Another interesting thing in this weird, horrid situation is that when Ophelia tells her father about Hamlet's crazed look and arm grabbing, he immediately is like 'oh gosh well he must love you and in that case we must go and tell the king right now at this moment without further delay'. This shows that his number one priority is the king and letting the king in on everything that is going on with Hamlet, supporting the double agent idea, and also it shows how he instantly changed his mind and said that they did love each other. If your belief can be changed that quickly then it makes it seem like it was kind of wishy washy in the first place. Polonius does not seem like the kind of man that would quickly change his own beliefs and opinions (he seems more like the stubborn, conservative, no change is good change kind of guy really), so this quick change seems pretty fishy to me. Really, I just do not like Polonius (in fact I really despise him, almost as much as I hated Torvald) and I may just be trying to find an excuse to call him a snivelly little liar, or maybe this idea is actually pretty solid. It seems that only time will tell..................

Turn O Libertad for clever titles are not easy

Turn O Libertad by Walt Whitman

Turn O Libertad, for the war is over,

From it and all henceforth expanding, doubting no more, resolute,

sweeping the world,

Turn from lands retrospective recording proofs of the past,

From the singers that sing the trailing glories of the past,

From the chants of the feudal world, the triumphs of kings,

slavery, caste,

Turn to the world, the triumphs reserv’d and to come—give up that

backward world,

Leave to the singers of hitherto, give them the trailing past,

But what remains, remains for singers for you, wars to come are

for you;

(Lo! how the wars of the past have duly inured to you, and the

wars

of the present also inure;)

Then turn, and be not alarm’d O Libertad—turn your undying face,

To where the future, greater than all the past,

Is swiftly, surely preparing for you.

So firstly, I really love this poem. It just feels so sweet and almost rejoiceful to me. It's as if Walt and his romantic companion have finally conquered some hurdle to be able to be together. Knowing what I know about Walt, I am hypothesizing that he had just gotten his boy to be okay with the idea of being gay, so now all of the inner war is over and stuff like that. I might be completely wrong, but that is just what came to mind for me the first couple of times that I read it. Now, being a good AP Lit student, I know that I have to come at this poem as if I had no background knowledge whatsoever. So, here we go: I think that knowing what "Libertad" means /is is very very important to be able to understand this poem properly. After doing some defining, I have found a lot of definitions for this word, which is Spanish in origin. So here they are: an act of undue intimacy, a leave granted to a sailor, Liberty, freedom, independence, release, looseness, the condition of being free, the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints, freedom of choice, immunity from an obligation or duty. Honestly, I think that all of these fit this poem very well, so nice job Walt. However, none of them really make sense if it is meant to be a person who is the Libertad, so it might be that another, yet to be discovered, translation is something like Libertarian. Either way, looking back at those definitions, they all make sense. 'An act of undue intimacy' fits if this is really about Walt or the speaker loving the Libertad unconditionally while the Libertad is still worried about appearances. 'A leave granted to a sailor' is almost like this man has finally been freed of his duty, so now he may be with the speaker. All of the freedom, independence, release, and the rest of the definitions are pretty obvious. So on to a different point! Looking at the layout of the poem, assuming I found the correct layout, the first line is indented and then much shorter than the next. This is interesting to me because I feel like it might be just the summation of the whole poem, like if you did not feel like reading everything, just read that line and you will be good. Anyway, all of the poem is just one big sentence with a plethora of commas, a couple semicolons, and an interjection. This format gives a feeling of it all being one idea, as if it could be said in one breath. It is almost like the speaker was too excited, eager, or urgent to stop at all while he was giving the good news to his Libertad. However, I do think that the poem requires a slower reading, not too slow, but slow enough to really get a feeling off of every word. So this almost clashing of emotions and sort of requirements is an interesting mix. But I am over the necessary word count, so this will all be continued in my paper!

"Beowulf the Movie" aka "nooooo hahaha no please no stop"

              Firstly, if you have ever seen Beowulf the movie, please join me in a quick laugh followed closely by a terrified and disgusted groan: hahahahaaaaaaa ughhhhhh. Thank you. Now that we have gotten that out of our systems, we can discuss how absolutely ridiculous that movie is. In Beowulf the epic poem, Beowulf is a strong hero who has come to boast and destroy the evil in this forsaken land, but in the movie, Beowulf is a half naked liar, who seems to be strong enough, but insists on wooing Wealtheow and shutting down Unferth. I feel like there is not much to analyze in this movie, but I still need to talk about it you know? Like why did the director decide to make the movie only 2% like the book? That 2% being that Beowulf is the guy, Grendel is the first monster, and Hrothgar is the king. However, while those characters kept their names and basic roles, none of them kept their traits or characteristics. I almost don't even want to talk about Grendel. For the first half of the movie I honestly had to continuously repeat to myself  "this is not my Grendy, this is not my Grendy", because like seriously come on mr director what is going on. The first seen in this movie is seriously Grendel, who is a huge, seriously deformed, human type thing, ripping his head open with his hand/claw because his disgusting exposed eardrum is being hurt by the Danes' merrymaking. Now honestly, I feel for the guy, I understand why he did what he did. He just seemed like a big baby to me, but why did he have to be so gross? I just connected so much with Grendel from his book that now the Grendel, the way he was portrayed, it probably affected me more than most people. Okay, moving on from the worst part of the movie, lets talk about Grendel's stupid origins. Grendel is Hrothgar's son. Funny right? First of all Hrothgar's character in this movie is disappointing. He is drunk and old and fat and extremely rude to Wealtheow. Now, I may just be being forgetful, but I don't remember him being any of that in the book. Okay so Hrothgar was 'seduced' by Grendel's mother, a serpent-like form of Angelina Jolie, like she is literally Angelina Jolie with some scales. She doesn't even live in a cave guarded by fire snakes like come on mr director you missed the descent! Okay, but yeah she seduced Hrothgar so now Grendel is his son, and honestly they did a good job of showing the resemblance, especially after Grendel freaking shrank and shriveled like what. Okay yeah but that's his son so that is a big plot twist and Wealtheow is all mad about it and I thought it was very, very dumb. But then, skipping around a bit, it gets much, much worse. After Grendel dies, instead of attempting to seek revenge, Grendel's mother just makes Bewoulf spawn her another child, which I think is a total blow on female kind. Apparently all we're good at is seduction and child rearing? But yeah so Beowulf impregnates Grendel's mother, then marries Wealtheow after Hrothgar dies, then after several years this dragon starts attacking the land, but it is really Beowulf's shapeshifting-monster-son? They did not explain that very well and it was very dumb and I hated this movie. Okay also who is Beowulf's faithful brother-man supposed to be? I didn't recognize his name, which sounded like a mixture of wheat and Wealtheow. Okay so lets throw some analysis in here. Lets try to analyze the hero's journey. First Beowulf arrives, his call to action was knowing that Hrothgar needed help, but he must have skipped the refusal of the call stage. Next he was supposed to meet his mentor, I guess this could be Hrothgar since he gives him that stupid dragon horn that makes him have sex with Grendel's mother. Next hes supposed to cross the threshold, honestly I don't know what this would have been in the movie. Next he has tests, allies and enemies, This part is easy to identify, all the danes and geats are his friends, Grendel and Grendel's mother are his enemies, and facing them are his tests, one of which he failed. Like his only job was to not have sex with Grendel's mother and to kill her, but no instead he does it and then lies about it to everyone like yeah okay. Next is the approach, I guess this is the whole time until the dragon-boy-man-son comes. No actual this is probably before he goes to see Grendel's mother. So then he does that, which is the ordeal where he is supposed to face his greatest fear. Next is the reward, this would be him becoming king and getting Wealtheow. Next is the road back which is when the slave finds the stupid dragon horn. Next the resurrection, so this is when the dragon-thing comes. Then he is supposed to return with the elixir, but he fails and dies. So yeah honestly the whole movie was confusing and I just felt like I needed to share my feelings with a community that may have seen the movie because my mom did not understand why I was so distressed during the movie. So basically in my opinion, the director just wanted to make a fast paced adventure hero story that had absolutely no meaning to it, and he succeeded in that. But in the processes, he soiled a great classic, confused thousands of viewers, and severely scared a little eight year old me and made me leave the theater.

Once I was innocent, but then I experience the pain of procrastination

"Holy Thursday" (Songs of Innocence)

‘Twas on a Holy Thursday, their innocent faces clean,

The children walking two and two, in red and blue and green,

Grey headed beadles walk’d before, with wands as white as snow,

Till into the high dome of Paul's they like Thames’ waters flow.

Oh what a multitude they seem’d, these flowers of London town!

Seated in companies they sit with radiance all their own.

The hum of multitudes was there, but multitudes of lambs,

Thousands of little boys and girls raising their innocent hands.

Now like a mighty wind they raise to heaven the voice of song,

Or like harmonious thunderings the seats of Heaven among.

Beneath them sit the aged men, wise guardians of the poor;

Then cherish pity, lest you drive an angel from your door.

"Holy Thursday" (Songs of Experience)

Is this a holy thing to see

In a rich and fruitful land,

Babes reduced to misery,

Fed with cold and usurous hand?

Is that trembling cry a song?

Can it be a song of joy?

And so many children poor?

It is a land of poverty!

And their sun does never shine,

And their fields are bleak and bare,

And their ways are filled with thorns:

It is eternal winter there.

For where'er the sun does shine,

And where'er the rain does fall,

Babes should never hunger there,

Nor poverty the mind appall.

                 For this blog I'm supposed to take a Blake poem, analyze it, and then connect it back to Grendel if possible. Luckily, I noticed a connection or a similarity between Blake's things and Grendel. Blake has this theme of Innocence vs Experience and Grendel lives that theme. He goes from the innocent baby in his cave, to the experienced one who "create[s] the world blink by blink". He goes from that innocent boy, to the one who knows violence and is appalled by it. Then he goes from that boy to the boy dazzled by poetry, having gained the knowledge of his purpose in life. Then he goes from this content boy to one filed with malice and violence, the most experienced of all of his stages. In Blake's poems, specifically the two above, there is not an obvious listed occurrence that banishes the children from the happy realm of innocence to the dark one of experience, it just seems to be a natural pathway through life. If you examine the rhyme schemes and line lengths in the above poems, it is apparent that the Innocence poem has a constant AA BB type rhyme scheme, while the Experience poem has a broken rhyme scheme that only appears occasionally. The rhyme scheme in the innocence poem represents how happy and hopeful and joyous the children are. It brings the feeling of prancing around and just being happy. Then in the experience poem, the broken rhyme scheme represents the broken hope and happiness within the people. Occasionally there is a glimpse of happiness, but for the most part it is all dreary and glum. Then looking at the actual lines' lengths, the lines that make up the innocent poem are long, with little punctuation. In contrast, the lines within the experience poem are very short, and have much more punctuation, especially in the second stanza where there is a mark every line. The short lines seem to show how little hope the experienced people are. They seem to be too tired to expand on what they are saying. The punctuation seems to signify like discipline within these people. The exclamation points and question marks create a feeling of harshness maybe even punishment. It seems as though the experienced people have been taught not to talk too much, or that they have learned through their experience that it is better for them to keep their mouths shut. Okay now connecting back to Grendel, his innocence and experience are the most evident when looking at his  encounters with the shaper and the dragon. When Grendel first saw the shaper, he had been pretty innocent up until then, but then the shaper filled him with a childlike joy that caused him to weep with joy. This is very highly contrasted with his time with the dragon. The dragon soiled Grendel's mind, telling him that he must be violent towards the humans because he is the only thing that gives them meaning. Also looking at meaning, the shaper gave him a purpose, he made him feel like he belonged in their society, even if he was the bad guy.On the other hand, the dragon took away his meaning, telling him that he was easily replaceable. This all connects back to Blake because the shaper signifies the happy, innocence of the children seen in the innocent poem above,  while the dragon signifies the dark, hopelessness of the people within the experienced poem.

554 words about Grendel

Honestly, I thought Grendel was a stellar novel and that is not just because my Grandpa's doppelganger wrote it (John Gardiner vs John Gardner heh heh). I'm not exactly sure why, but I really relate to Grendel, although that does sound a bit odd, me having a connection with a giant, furry, monster, man-baby. Well no matter how odd my connection was, I did gain a pretty impactful take away from this novel. Out of all of the ruckus and nihilism and false meaning, I found the tale to be a warning. If your life is out of balance, you are going to end u;p being ripped apart, maybe even literally by a dreamy, horse-shouldered, oven-chested evil hero. Ever since chapter five, when the dragon ruined poor little pacifist Grendel, Grendel was fighting an inner war between two very contrasting sides. When Grendel first meets the Shaper, he is presented with beauty, art, meaning, purpose, family, even friendship. The Shaper unintentionally teaches him to be calm, to only kill when he feels it is necessary, to observe from a quiet place among the trees, even to desire friendship. In my opinion, Grendel seems pretty happy during this part of his life, if we omit the part where he begs and sobs for a friend of course. Then, mystified by the Shaper's mystical ways, Grendel feels like he needs some sort of explanation; he knows that the Shaper is a liar and the wants to know why it feels so real, so he goes down to meet the dragon. One important thing that I found here is that while under the Shaper's wing, Grendel is above the people, up in the trees, but when he goes to see the dragon, Grendel must go down below the ground into a dark, dirty cave. It is almost as if he is falling down into the dark side. When he gets down there, the dragon just rips him apart. He plants this idea that nothing matters, that Grendel himself does not matter, that the world is a cycle, so what you do really does not matter because it will happen anyway. He makes Grendel feel small and insignificant. After his dumb encounter with the dragon, Grendel becomes a different monster-person-thing. Grendel decides that he might as well completely destroy the men, since it does not matter whether he does it or not, so he rips them apart. He goes into their village and, upon finding that he is invulnerable, he just kills a bunch of people. The Shaper never bred this sort of violence within Grendel, even though he did sing of wars and rivalries and such. So basically my main point of this blog is to show how contrasting these two sides of Grendel are. He's got his peaceful little, softhearted, poetry loving side. But then he also has his horridly mean, torturous, ugly, murderous side. So from all of this, I felt like Gardner was really telling his readers that they need to find a balance within their own lives, take all of the bad influences and all of the good influences and find a good, neutral central point to live in. Because if you do not, you will end up going crazy, singing songs, dancing, killing, and maybe even in the end desiring death.

This is just to say that I didn't mean to put this off

“This is Just to Say,” William Carlos Williams

I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold

Yes I'm doing another poem again. I just like poetry. I wish we could does known artists though that would be cool. Either way I am going to be talking about this poem today. The first feeling that I get from this poem is one of blissful defiance. Yes he knows that he broke a silent pact, but it made him happy so it's okay in the long run. The tone that the speaker is using in this poem is not one of great repentance or of excessive worry, he seems to be taking it easy, like he knows that the owner of the plums will easily forgive him. It seems as though something like this had occurred in the past, like the owner of the plums should not have left the speaker alone with them because the owner should have known what would happen.  The way the lines are set up, how they are all so short and simple, also sheds light on how the speaker feels about the situation. He is not trying to cover up anything with a silver tongue, he is simply stating the facts. He feels that he has nothing to be guilty of.  There is a curious mixture of selfishness and unselfishness in this poem. The selfish part is most obvious since he simply at the plums because they were delicious, sweet, and cold. Te unselfish part is slightly more subtle. Although he does not apologize, the act of leaving a note is a sort of kind gesture to the owner of the plums. He is turning himself in, keeping the plum owner from extensive wonder. He also acknowledges that the owner was probably going to eat them for breakfast. This shows that he did not just mindlessly eat the plums because they were there, he ate them clearly aware of their purpose and the fact that he admits that is pretty selfless. Another interesting part of the poem is the use of the word icebox. That of course con notates a feeling of cold, frigidness, similar to the seemingly cold relationship between the plum water and the plum owner is. Oh I just thought of something. The cold motif  and the fruit motif cod be combined to show a different meaning in the poem. The fruit eating could be a loss of innocence or purity and the cold motif could be the peoples feelings towards what happened. The speaker does not seem particularly happy about what happened, he may Ben be silently regretful, something that may be seen in someone who made some sort of innocence losing mistake.  This could be connected to a literal loss of purity such as sex of course. Another thing to note in this poem is that the plums were meant for breakfast,  so they were meant for the morning.  The morning connotates discomfort, grumpiness, anger.  So maybe the  speaker was even trying to enjoy the forbidden fruit before it spoiled in the morning. Interesting. 

Long, Too Long Since My Last Post Oops

"Long, Too Long America" by Walt Whitman

Long, too long America, Traveling roads all even and peaceful you learn'd from joys and prosperity only, But now, ah now, to learn from crises of anguish, advancing, grappling with direst fate and recoiling not, And now to conceive and show to the world what your children en-masse really are, (For who except myself has yet conceiv'd what your children en-masse really are?)

I just really like Walt Whitman and his poetry. Maybe it is because of his descendant, May Whitman, being a very good actress (her?), or maybe it is because of how he lived his life. Either way, I really enjoy his poetry, so I picked another of his poems for this week. The title of this poem is "Long, Too Long America." By this the speaker is saying that America has prospered and seemed perfect for too long, so now they are suffering from it. The denotations of the word "too" is in addition; to an excessive extent or degree; more; extremely. So the time that America has spent just going along like everything is great is excessive. The speaker is criticizing America, telling them to take on greater tasks, to try harder, not to just cruise along. "Traveling roads all even and peaceful," signifies how easy America's reign had been so far in the past. "Even" has a denotation of level; flat; free from variations; uniform in action, character, or quality, equal in measure or quantity. So everything that America had accomplished so far was not difficult, there were not great mountains to climb over or any other difficulties in their attempts. "Peaceful" which means not argumentative, also solidifies this idea that America just went along with the flow and accepted all off the good things that were coming to them without really trying to get the good things. They did not fight for what they wanted, they were just lucky and it came to them. "You learn'd from joys and prosperity only," here the speaker continues to comment on how easy America has had it so far. In the next line the speaker says, "But now, ah now". These few words show a complete tone shift from the firs line. The first line seemed to be more joyful and thankful, while this line starts out with the speaker seeming bitter and sounding more like the speaker knew it all along. He seems much more stuck up in these few words than he did before. "To learn from cries of anguish, advancing, grappling with direst fate and recoiling not." In these next lines the speaker seems to have a bitter tone, like he is thinks America is getting what it deserves. The denotation of "anguish" is excruciating or acute distress, suffering, or pain. This word contrasts highly with "peaceful" in the first line. The speaker is saying that America has completely fallen down and are now suffering as badly as they can. The speaker seems a little smug about this because he thinks that America deserves to feel what many of it's citizens feel. Not every American is prosperous, and the speaker claims that in the next line, saying "show to the world what your children en-masse really are." "Really" gives off the feeling that America has been lying about or masking what has actually been going on with their people. They have just been putting up a front of glory and prosperity, when really many of their people are suffering. "En-masse" just means together, as a group, so all Americans are feeling this pain because the government refused to admit that anything was amiss before everything went downhill, or at least that is what the speaker is saying. Then in the next line the speaker seems to say that he is at a higher loevel of understanding than most people, claiming that only he has fully realized how badly Americans are suffering. So, in this poem the speaker calls America out for acting like they were great for so long that their people ended up really hurting.

The Lonely Extremities

A comparison of "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by T. S. Elliot and Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson.... Well the main theme of "Prufrock" that I really took away was that life is stressful and then you die. There is a lot of terminal feeling diction in this poem as well as much evidence of sulking. In Winesburg however the main thing I pulled away was that being lonely and thinking too much causes uncool abnormalities in your life and personality. If we trace this lonely idea throughout "Prufrock" there appears to be some of that in there too. Like in the first section where the speaker is talking about "one-night cheap hotels" and "half-deserted streets" (lines 6 and 7). Those are not phrases often used to express contentment or friendship. The cheap hotels part is basically a euphemism for hiring a prostitute, so since the speaker is drooping down to this level, he obviously does not have anyone to accompany him on a regular basis. This imagery is also seen in the same section on the next  line with "oyster-shells" which are another euphemism for sex. Along this same idea of lonely sex, in Winesburg George seems to be looking for a girl to get it on with in many of the stories that he is the center of. With Louise, who seems to have been his first lover, Kate, Belle, and then finally Helen, George is looking for a girl to spend time with. Until the end with Helen, George does not really have any friends, so he is always alone except when he is hearing peoples' stories. So these two works connect in the way that the two main characters are looking for a woman, presumably, to take to bed, but even more just to have as a friend. Along with this connection, there is also the feeling of fragmentation in both works. In Winesburg it is most often with hands, while in "Prufrock" it is seen with eyes, muzzles, arms, legs, hair. Most often it seems to be seen with arms. There is an interesting similarity, both works have that hand/arm thing going on. These are from the limb that is most active and both main characters are having trouble becoming active. They are not really able to do much with their hands/arms since they have no one to hold/touch. This idea also fits back into the loneliness aspect of both stories. So in my opinion that is the biggest connection that can be found between both stories. There are important themes of loneliness and fragmentation in both stories, signifying the characters' inability to connect with the people around them.