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.