Off the top of my head, I cannot recall a time when I have worn a hypothetical mask for a really and truly serious reason. Because sure, I have worn a hypothetical "mask" before, like pretty much everyone else in the world has. I think that at some point, all of us are sick of our emotions being out on display and just want to be closed off for a little while to just be able to ignore things that we do not want to dwell or focus on any longer.
If I do not want someone to know how I am feeling at the moment, I think that it has always just been easier to wear this hypothetical mask you are asking me to write about. For instance, today at work, my boss, who I fondly refer to as "Crazy Joan", yelled at me because apparently my desk is not at her preferred level of cleanliness. And instead of crying because her face is scary when she yells, I contained myself. I suppose you could call that "wearing a mask". And then I cried a little bit when she left because she obviously is not a very nice lady.
Another time I have done this is when one of my friends got a really, really, ugly homecoming dress. She does not go to our school, thank goodness, so I did not have to look at it for a long time. But this dress was seriously ugly, and she asked what I thought of it. What was I supposed to say? "That dress looks like someone threw up on it and then sprinkled a hefty dose of cat litter on top"? No. She would have punched me in the face. So I smiled and said I liked it. Because otherwise, she probably would have cried...she's like that.
For small reasons like those, I have masked my emotions. But when I feel very serious about something, I usually do not want my opinion hidden, so I would not mask that. But there definitely have been times when I have needed to do this.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
"The Pit and the Pendulum"
The characteristics of dark romanticism are quickly introduced into the short story "The Pit and the Pendulum" by Edgar Allan Poe. The narrator immediately tells of his despair and sickness, saying that he felt his senses were leaving him (Poe). The setting is also very mysterious in the beginning, another characteristic of dark romanticism, and even when the setting is first revealed to be in some kind of apartment with thick curtains and candles all around. However, the setting soon changes and is less obvious, seeming to be a prison or dungeon of sorts, and the reader still does not know what led the main character/narrator to be there, and where exactly the narrator is, other than just a nondescript prison. It seems that the narrator then begins to hallucinate, adding more mystery to what is real and what is not. The ideas of dark romanticism are anti-transcendentalism, meaning that beauty and nature and individuality are not important. Poe writes garish, ugly scenes, but this descriptive imagery allows you to put the picture in your head and draw some of your own conclusions. This continued air of mystery draws the reader in further and is one of the biggest parts of dark romanticism.
The reader is still totally out of the loop for what is really going on in the story, so Poe supplies little flashbacks here and there. The narrator seems to have been captured somehow, with people looming over him and of the horror that the narrator felt upon being captured (Poe). The intense imagery that Poe uses in the story is also consistent with dark romanticism ideas, and this is evident throughout the entire story. The narrator notes while in his dungeon that "the darkness of eternal night encompassed me" (Poe), and the darkness and added despair in the story is highlighted and emphasized several times as the reader continues through the narrators ordeal. This focus on darkness and nighttime is important, showing the dark and Gothic qualities of the writing style.
As the reader, I cannot help but wonder if the story is entirely truthful. A lot of dark romanticism stories try and trick the reader, making dreams and thoughts seem like a true part of the story, and then changing course suddenly. However, the reader can never really know if they are being tricked until the author decides to make it clear that all is not as it seems.
One of the strongest elements of "The Pit and the Pendulum" is pure fear. The narrator is terrified, not knowing where he really is and not able to remember how he even got there with the exception of a few hazy and nondescript details. He is obviously terrified of whatever dungeon he is trapped in, and dreads what is to come. Eventually, he escapes his torture chamber by falling into a pit of some sort, only to be terrified once more by the swinging pendulum with razor like blades that comes closer and closer to him with each swing. The narrator continues to agonize and despair, making the story seem darker and darker with every word. It seems as if hysteria begins to overtake him, distorting mind and his senses and his death seemingly continues to draw nearer. More and more troubles are encountered by the narrator as the story continues, making the story characteristically suspenseful, both by Poe's standards and the standards of dark romanticism. The story ends with unexpected salvation, and the truth about the mystery is revealed.
Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Pit and the Pendulum." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library. Web. 24 Nov. 2010..
The reader is still totally out of the loop for what is really going on in the story, so Poe supplies little flashbacks here and there. The narrator seems to have been captured somehow, with people looming over him and of the horror that the narrator felt upon being captured (Poe). The intense imagery that Poe uses in the story is also consistent with dark romanticism ideas, and this is evident throughout the entire story. The narrator notes while in his dungeon that "the darkness of eternal night encompassed me" (Poe), and the darkness and added despair in the story is highlighted and emphasized several times as the reader continues through the narrators ordeal. This focus on darkness and nighttime is important, showing the dark and Gothic qualities of the writing style.
As the reader, I cannot help but wonder if the story is entirely truthful. A lot of dark romanticism stories try and trick the reader, making dreams and thoughts seem like a true part of the story, and then changing course suddenly. However, the reader can never really know if they are being tricked until the author decides to make it clear that all is not as it seems.
One of the strongest elements of "The Pit and the Pendulum" is pure fear. The narrator is terrified, not knowing where he really is and not able to remember how he even got there with the exception of a few hazy and nondescript details. He is obviously terrified of whatever dungeon he is trapped in, and dreads what is to come. Eventually, he escapes his torture chamber by falling into a pit of some sort, only to be terrified once more by the swinging pendulum with razor like blades that comes closer and closer to him with each swing. The narrator continues to agonize and despair, making the story seem darker and darker with every word. It seems as if hysteria begins to overtake him, distorting mind and his senses and his death seemingly continues to draw nearer. More and more troubles are encountered by the narrator as the story continues, making the story characteristically suspenseful, both by Poe's standards and the standards of dark romanticism. The story ends with unexpected salvation, and the truth about the mystery is revealed.
Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Pit and the Pendulum." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library. Web. 24 Nov. 2010.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Analysis of Criticism of "The Raven"
I chose the criticism "The Self-Deconstruction of 'The Raven'" by Leland Person to analyze. This was the first criticism I saw on Bloom's Literary Reference that was of substantial length and actually looked a little bit more interesting than some of the others. Leland points out first that Edward Allan Poe does not approach writing like a lot of other authors do. Instead, Poe is broad, and therefore the reader has to make some of their own conclusions for the poem or story (Person). The biggest problem with this style of writing, which I do agree Poe uses, is that the story and its' meaning can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, and the reader will never know the true answer. However, Person also says that maybe Poe wanted it to be like this, and I agree that Poe wanted people to read further into the literature so that they could derive their own theories about the peom or story. I personally think that Poe wanted the mystery to continue far after the writing was actually done.
In "The Raven", the reader has to determine what the meaning is of the repeated use of the word "nevermore", spoken by the raven that is tormenting the narrator of the story. Because Poe does not tell the reader what this means, they have to try and make it up for themselves and determine the truth. Person says that there is a possibility that Poe never meant for the word to have a real meaning, but used it to make the reader think and develop some of their own ideas. The poem can also be interpreted in a lot of different ways, making it harder to tell what a lot of the little references mean, or if they are significant at all.
I think Poe is a wonderful author, and this method he uses, to allow the reader create their own philosophy and meaning to the story, makes him even better. However, the idea that "nevermore" has absolutely no meaning in the story (Person) is a little hard for me to accept. Unlike Person, I do think that Poe had a purpose and meaning behind this repated word, other than to force the reader to think. There is a chance that Poe's meaning is really insignificant, but I think that there is definitely still some kind of meaning hidden there that Poe may not intend for others to totally understand.
Person goes on in his criticism to say that the reader is sort of able to control the story, which I definitely agree with, but not on all levels. Poe gave the reader a room to interpret the story however they wanted, but still had a set ending and beginning. The main point that Person tried to get across in the analysis was that Poe allowed the reader to give their own edge to the story, but I think that Poe also did not let the reader stray too far from what he actually had planned for the story. Overall, this criticism seemed to be pretty well-researched, and had a lot of opinions that were backed up with thoughts and evidence, and Person made a lot of good points that I agreed with, and some that I did not.
Person, Leland S., Jr. "Poe's Composition of Philosophy: Reading and Writing 'The Raven,'" Arizona Quarterly 46, no. 3 (Autumn 1990): pp. 1-2, 8, 12. Quoted as "The Self-Deconstruction of 'The Raven'" in Harold Bloom, ed. Edgar Allan Poe, Bloom's Major Poets. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 1999. (Updated 2007.) Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= BMPEAP25&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 22, 2010).
In "The Raven", the reader has to determine what the meaning is of the repeated use of the word "nevermore", spoken by the raven that is tormenting the narrator of the story. Because Poe does not tell the reader what this means, they have to try and make it up for themselves and determine the truth. Person says that there is a possibility that Poe never meant for the word to have a real meaning, but used it to make the reader think and develop some of their own ideas. The poem can also be interpreted in a lot of different ways, making it harder to tell what a lot of the little references mean, or if they are significant at all.
I think Poe is a wonderful author, and this method he uses, to allow the reader create their own philosophy and meaning to the story, makes him even better. However, the idea that "nevermore" has absolutely no meaning in the story (Person) is a little hard for me to accept. Unlike Person, I do think that Poe had a purpose and meaning behind this repated word, other than to force the reader to think. There is a chance that Poe's meaning is really insignificant, but I think that there is definitely still some kind of meaning hidden there that Poe may not intend for others to totally understand.
Person goes on in his criticism to say that the reader is sort of able to control the story, which I definitely agree with, but not on all levels. Poe gave the reader a room to interpret the story however they wanted, but still had a set ending and beginning. The main point that Person tried to get across in the analysis was that Poe allowed the reader to give their own edge to the story, but I think that Poe also did not let the reader stray too far from what he actually had planned for the story. Overall, this criticism seemed to be pretty well-researched, and had a lot of opinions that were backed up with thoughts and evidence, and Person made a lot of good points that I agreed with, and some that I did not.
Person, Leland S., Jr. "Poe's Composition of Philosophy: Reading and Writing 'The Raven,'" Arizona Quarterly 46, no. 3 (Autumn 1990): pp. 1-2, 8, 12. Quoted as "The Self-Deconstruction of 'The Raven'" in Harold Bloom, ed. Edgar Allan Poe, Bloom's Major Poets. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 1999. (Updated 2007.) Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= BMPEAP25&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 22, 2010).
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Raven
Literal Meaning:
One night at midnight while I was weary and reading a book of legends, I was almost asleep when I heard tapping at my door. I thought it was a visitor at my chamber, telling myself not to be afraid. It was December, and the fire was dying out slowly. I started to hope for tomorrow, because I was lost in sadness thinking of Lenore, who is no longer alive. The purple curtain at my window rustled and scared me more than before as my heart started beating faster. I stood up, assuming that there was a visitor at my chamber door, nothing more. I became more brave and stopped hesitating, I called out to the visitor, apologizing and saying that I had been dozing and therefore had not answered the door sooner. I could barely hear the noise and then I opened the door, shocked to see that there was no one there at the door- just darkness.
I stood looking into the darkness with fear, wondering what was going on. It was silent and the darkness was unrelenting, and all I heard was the whisper of the word "Lenore!", to which I echoed, "Lenore!". And that was it. I went back into the chamber, still startled, and then heard more tapping, only louder than before. This time I assumed that the noise came from something at my window, so I went to explore and had to assume that it was simply the wind making the noises I heard. I opened the shutter and there was a raven, which flew into my chamber and then perched above the door on a bust of Pallas. It just sat there, nothing more. The black bird continued to sit, stirring my sadness and then making me smile. It was grim and stately, and as I spoke to the raven about my sorrow, it simply replied, "nevermore".
I was astounded at the words of the raven, and marveled at this ability. The word it spoke meant little to me, with little relevancy. It continued to speak only one word, "nevermore" as time went on, and uttered no other words. He did not move, and the bird continued to say the word. The silence was broken and I was unhappy, caught up in my sorrow as the raven continued to speak only one word- "nevermore". The raven seemed to be tormenting me so I put my padded chair in front of the door and sat on it, trying to figure out what was going on with this whole bird thing. I sat and guessed, but could not decide what was going on for the life of me. It's fiery eyes burned me as I continued to sit on the chair in the lamp-light, thinking about how Lenore really is nevermore (because she's dead).
The air then grew heavy and dense and my memories of Lenore began to torment me, although I tried to forget them. I wanted to forget Lenore, but these constant reminders made it impossible to do so. As the raven said, "Nevermore". I will never be able to forget. I thought the raven was a prophet sent from someone, possibly the devil, and asked if I would ever stop being haunted by Lenore and the memories I have of her. I begged for the prophet to tell me, and the raven simply said, "Nevermore." Lenore was up in heaven with God, named by the angels. She was a rare and beautiful woman. And the raven continued to repeat the same word.
I started to yell, screaming at the raven to go back into the night and just leave me alone. I wanted it to leave me alone with my loneliness and leave its perch on the bust above the door to my chamber. But the raven stayed, never leaving or moving, tormenting me with it's eerie prophecy, continually telling me "nevermore."
Poetic Devices:
-Repetition, like in the repeated use of the word "nevermore".
-Simile/Metaphor, like when Poe compares the raven to the devil or a prophet.
-Imagery used to set up the setting of the story and make it descriptive.
-Rhyming, examples: lore/door, floor/Lenore, before/explore.
-Symbolism, because the Raven can be seen as a symbol for Lenore's death and the sorrow he feels.
Figurative Meaning:
I think that the grief that the narrative felt due to the death of his love, Lenore, caused him to sort of lose his mind. I cannot say if the raven is real or a hallucination caused by stress, lack of sleep, or drugs, but I think that the narrative's feelings caused the raven to "appear" to him in the poem and force him to confront his thoughts about Lenore and her untimely death.
Poe, Edgar Allen. "The Raven." PoemHunter.Com - Thousands of Poems and Poets.. Poetry Search Engine. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. .
One night at midnight while I was weary and reading a book of legends, I was almost asleep when I heard tapping at my door. I thought it was a visitor at my chamber, telling myself not to be afraid. It was December, and the fire was dying out slowly. I started to hope for tomorrow, because I was lost in sadness thinking of Lenore, who is no longer alive. The purple curtain at my window rustled and scared me more than before as my heart started beating faster. I stood up, assuming that there was a visitor at my chamber door, nothing more. I became more brave and stopped hesitating, I called out to the visitor, apologizing and saying that I had been dozing and therefore had not answered the door sooner. I could barely hear the noise and then I opened the door, shocked to see that there was no one there at the door- just darkness.
I stood looking into the darkness with fear, wondering what was going on. It was silent and the darkness was unrelenting, and all I heard was the whisper of the word "Lenore!", to which I echoed, "Lenore!". And that was it. I went back into the chamber, still startled, and then heard more tapping, only louder than before. This time I assumed that the noise came from something at my window, so I went to explore and had to assume that it was simply the wind making the noises I heard. I opened the shutter and there was a raven, which flew into my chamber and then perched above the door on a bust of Pallas. It just sat there, nothing more. The black bird continued to sit, stirring my sadness and then making me smile. It was grim and stately, and as I spoke to the raven about my sorrow, it simply replied, "nevermore".
I was astounded at the words of the raven, and marveled at this ability. The word it spoke meant little to me, with little relevancy. It continued to speak only one word, "nevermore" as time went on, and uttered no other words. He did not move, and the bird continued to say the word. The silence was broken and I was unhappy, caught up in my sorrow as the raven continued to speak only one word- "nevermore". The raven seemed to be tormenting me so I put my padded chair in front of the door and sat on it, trying to figure out what was going on with this whole bird thing. I sat and guessed, but could not decide what was going on for the life of me. It's fiery eyes burned me as I continued to sit on the chair in the lamp-light, thinking about how Lenore really is nevermore (because she's dead).
The air then grew heavy and dense and my memories of Lenore began to torment me, although I tried to forget them. I wanted to forget Lenore, but these constant reminders made it impossible to do so. As the raven said, "Nevermore". I will never be able to forget. I thought the raven was a prophet sent from someone, possibly the devil, and asked if I would ever stop being haunted by Lenore and the memories I have of her. I begged for the prophet to tell me, and the raven simply said, "Nevermore." Lenore was up in heaven with God, named by the angels. She was a rare and beautiful woman. And the raven continued to repeat the same word.
I started to yell, screaming at the raven to go back into the night and just leave me alone. I wanted it to leave me alone with my loneliness and leave its perch on the bust above the door to my chamber. But the raven stayed, never leaving or moving, tormenting me with it's eerie prophecy, continually telling me "nevermore."
Poetic Devices:
-Repetition, like in the repeated use of the word "nevermore".
-Simile/Metaphor, like when Poe compares the raven to the devil or a prophet.
-Imagery used to set up the setting of the story and make it descriptive.
-Rhyming, examples: lore/door, floor/Lenore, before/explore.
-Symbolism, because the Raven can be seen as a symbol for Lenore's death and the sorrow he feels.
Figurative Meaning:
I think that the grief that the narrative felt due to the death of his love, Lenore, caused him to sort of lose his mind. I cannot say if the raven is real or a hallucination caused by stress, lack of sleep, or drugs, but I think that the narrative's feelings caused the raven to "appear" to him in the poem and force him to confront his thoughts about Lenore and her untimely death.
Poe, Edgar Allen. "The Raven." PoemHunter.Com - Thousands of Poems and Poets.. Poetry Search Engine. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. .
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Journal #24: Scaring the Bejeezus out of Me
There are several things in this world that simply scare the bejeezus out of me. Old people. Clowns. Spiders. Feet. Hangnails. And nothing scares the bejeezus out of me like a stupid Jack-In-The-Box.
Old people scare me simply because they make me sad. Whenever I go to a nursing home I'm torn between wanting to adopt the residents and wanting to run away from them and their wrinkly skin. But mostly, I want to run away. I find it unnatural for old people to be clustered together like that, even though a lot of them probably have no other place to go. Also, old people typically have cold hands (you know, with the poor circulation and whatnot) and their lips are so chapped that I want to pin them down and force some Carmex on them.
Clowns are another thing that terrify me. Why do those people feel the need to paint their faces (conveniently hiding their true identities), wear terribly mismatched clothes and gi-norm-o shoes, and try and make people laugh with incredibly stupid jokes that often make no sense at al? It honestly does not make sense to me why they would do that. I've seen an episode of Supernatural where this magic people dressed up as clowns, chose a child/family as their victim, and then creeped on said child until they were invited into their homes. And then, the clown impostor would EAT the parents. End of story, because I feel that it pretty self-explanatory.
And like most people, my mind plays tricks on me and things scare me even more. Like after I see a scary movie...I'm inconsolable. I do that weird running leap/jump onto my bed at night just in case someone is going to grab me...it's a sickness. My mind also often freaks me out with imaginary noises, scenarios, and that awful "Oh my lord, there is someone watching me, I am legit gonna die right" feeling. Good stuff.
Old people scare me simply because they make me sad. Whenever I go to a nursing home I'm torn between wanting to adopt the residents and wanting to run away from them and their wrinkly skin. But mostly, I want to run away. I find it unnatural for old people to be clustered together like that, even though a lot of them probably have no other place to go. Also, old people typically have cold hands (you know, with the poor circulation and whatnot) and their lips are so chapped that I want to pin them down and force some Carmex on them.
Clowns are another thing that terrify me. Why do those people feel the need to paint their faces (conveniently hiding their true identities), wear terribly mismatched clothes and gi-norm-o shoes, and try and make people laugh with incredibly stupid jokes that often make no sense at al? It honestly does not make sense to me why they would do that. I've seen an episode of Supernatural where this magic people dressed up as clowns, chose a child/family as their victim, and then creeped on said child until they were invited into their homes. And then, the clown impostor would EAT the parents. End of story, because I feel that it pretty self-explanatory.
And like most people, my mind plays tricks on me and things scare me even more. Like after I see a scary movie...I'm inconsolable. I do that weird running leap/jump onto my bed at night just in case someone is going to grab me...it's a sickness. My mind also often freaks me out with imaginary noises, scenarios, and that awful "Oh my lord, there is someone watching me, I am legit gonna die right" feeling. Good stuff.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Thoreau Criticism
I looked on Bloom's Literary Reference Online to find a criticism on Thoreau and the title that stuck out the most to me was "Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?", which was written by Michaela Keck. Throughout the analysis, Keck most noticeably talks about Thoreau's ideas of "interconnectedness", and how he wanted to break away from society and leave behind most everything that he knew. Thoreau wanted to focus on the things wrong in his life, and Keck places a lot of emphasis on that. Keck also points out that the main reason that Thoreau went off into the wilderness was to "spend time on himself" and see if he could still survive (Keck). Keck continues to talk about the things that Thoreau did while staying at Walden, and emphasis some of the philosophies that he tried to keep up over the two year, two month, and two day stay there.
The analysis itself was pretty well written and easy to read. I do not think it could really be considered college-level reading, but it was still factual and to the point without being overly simplistic. Keck also included different sources in her criticism, making it seem more well rounded and not too opinionated. Keck even used different parts of Walden to emphasis and back up some of the points that she made throughout her criticism. Reading Keck's analysis/criticism also makes it easier to understand some of the slightly obscure points that Thoreau tried to get across in Walden that were totally lost on me- due to language and age and such. A lot of Thoreau's ideas are very different than ideas people now have (and I do not think I know any people willing to live like he did for those two years), and Keck kind of puts his words in more simple and common terms in her analysis.
Thoreau meant for Walden to be an "old fashioned" sort of documentary- not to persuade, but to inform (Keck). When Thoreau went back to society after his stint in the wilderness, he was sort of seen as a hypocrite, and Keck does spend some time talking about this. She also says that if a reader were to look at Walden as a persuasive book or essay, they would see Thoreau as a complete failure for going back to society the way that he did, and also for giving himself little indulgences along the way (although I do not think dinner with a sibling can really be seen as an indulgence, no matter the situation Thoreau was in).
Overall, I would say that this criticism was pretty good. It was well written and although the topic seems a little dull, the essay did not seem to drag on forever. Walden was not meant to be a part of the "American Dream"- it was just Thoreau writing about how he personally got away from the pressures of society. The essay also seems well researched, which I think is a very important quality.
Keck, Michaela. "Thoreau's Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?" In Bloom, Harold, ed. The American Dream, Bloom's Literary Themes. New York: Chelsea Publishing House, 2009. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=1&iPin=BLTTAD021&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 16, 2010).
The analysis itself was pretty well written and easy to read. I do not think it could really be considered college-level reading, but it was still factual and to the point without being overly simplistic. Keck also included different sources in her criticism, making it seem more well rounded and not too opinionated. Keck even used different parts of Walden to emphasis and back up some of the points that she made throughout her criticism. Reading Keck's analysis/criticism also makes it easier to understand some of the slightly obscure points that Thoreau tried to get across in Walden that were totally lost on me- due to language and age and such. A lot of Thoreau's ideas are very different than ideas people now have (and I do not think I know any people willing to live like he did for those two years), and Keck kind of puts his words in more simple and common terms in her analysis.
Thoreau meant for Walden to be an "old fashioned" sort of documentary- not to persuade, but to inform (Keck). When Thoreau went back to society after his stint in the wilderness, he was sort of seen as a hypocrite, and Keck does spend some time talking about this. She also says that if a reader were to look at Walden as a persuasive book or essay, they would see Thoreau as a complete failure for going back to society the way that he did, and also for giving himself little indulgences along the way (although I do not think dinner with a sibling can really be seen as an indulgence, no matter the situation Thoreau was in).
Overall, I would say that this criticism was pretty good. It was well written and although the topic seems a little dull, the essay did not seem to drag on forever. Walden was not meant to be a part of the "American Dream"- it was just Thoreau writing about how he personally got away from the pressures of society. The essay also seems well researched, which I think is a very important quality.
Keck, Michaela. "Thoreau's Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?" In Bloom, Harold, ed. The American Dream, Bloom's Literary Themes. New York: Chelsea Publishing House, 2009. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=1&iPin=BLTTAD021&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 16, 2010).
Journal #23: A Week Without...My Lifeline.
A week without technology. Okey dokey...are you serious? Like, is this legit? I believe we have had a conversation very similar to this one in the journal "My Favorite _____" (aka "My Favorite Thing). A week without technology would not end well for me. I actually have had to experience this before, while on a mission trip...in Kentucky. It was awful. When I finally got to check my email five days later, I had 237 emails, most of which were from Target and Mallorie Kay Lohman. I just do not do very well when I do not have my most favorite of things.
Television is not as important to me as my iPod and cell phone, even though I still enjoy it. Thursday nights are full up with The Big Bang Theory, 30 Rock, The Office, Outsourced, and Community, while Tuesday nights are dedicated to Glee and Sunday nights Desperate Housewives. However, there are have been many times that I have been unable to watch my favorite shows, and it does not bother me that much, because they are just television shows. There are other things that I can do other than watch television, like read or bake something or do a delightful little arts and crafts project.
Another form of technology that I would have to give up if I were to "unplug" my life would be my computer. Like my iPod and cell phone, it would be hard for me to give up my laptop, simply because I use it to procrastinate and spend time. For instance, before I remembered to finally finish this blogpost, I was creeping on facebook and checking my email and simply messing around before I decided that I should probably get this done.
To sum it up, I would be very lost without my technology. It is not like I have an unhealthy obsession...I was raised in this generation where instead of playing outside, people watch television and movies, and instead of having a baby sitters club, we get on facebook. That is just the way things are, whether people like it or not.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Exceptions to Laws
I hate when people bring up so scenario's like if your sister was dying and you did not have enough money to buy the magical exilir, would it be okay for you to steal it? No. No, it would not be okay. You cannot just steal something because someone needs it. People get sick and people die every single day. You might not want your sister to die...but she's sick. It's going to happen, and instead of risking stealing something, you should be spending more time with the sister you are so concerned about.
I do not think that there are very many exceptions to breaking the law. For the most part, laws are set in place to keep society in place and structured, and to keep people safe. But like most everything else in the world, there are a few exceptions to this. Although there are these exceptions, the consequences of these can still be pretty harsh.
Gandhi is an example of this. To gain freedom and rights for his country, he exhibited civil disobedience. He did not do anything extreme, like murder or violent activities. Instead, he was nonviolent while he tried to make a point. Hunger strikes and long marches are examples of this. Technically, Gandhi and his followers were breaking the law. But they were not hurting anyone, and they were not being radical or extreme. They still suffered the consequences of breaking the law- spending nights in jail and being hurt.
There would be several other exceptions, like Nazi-Germany or hostile Africa. The rules/laws were ridiculous, and there were people who tried to defy them. Many of them were punished and even killed, but this is an example of when breaking the law might be considered okay.
I do not think that there are very many exceptions to breaking the law. For the most part, laws are set in place to keep society in place and structured, and to keep people safe. But like most everything else in the world, there are a few exceptions to this. Although there are these exceptions, the consequences of these can still be pretty harsh.
Gandhi is an example of this. To gain freedom and rights for his country, he exhibited civil disobedience. He did not do anything extreme, like murder or violent activities. Instead, he was nonviolent while he tried to make a point. Hunger strikes and long marches are examples of this. Technically, Gandhi and his followers were breaking the law. But they were not hurting anyone, and they were not being radical or extreme. They still suffered the consequences of breaking the law- spending nights in jail and being hurt.
There would be several other exceptions, like Nazi-Germany or hostile Africa. The rules/laws were ridiculous, and there were people who tried to defy them. Many of them were punished and even killed, but this is an example of when breaking the law might be considered okay.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Gandhi vs. Thoreau
The main difference between "Civil Disobedience" by Henry Thoreau and "One the Eve of Historic Dandi March" by Gandhi is very simple. Gandhi had a true purpose to fight the government and the wrong they were doing. Thoreau, however, had no real, important purpose. He was jailed for his refusal to pay a poll tax- he spent one night in jail, probably less than 24 hours, and was given good food before someone else paid his poll tax and he was released (Thoreau). Gandhi, on the other hand, spent countless nights in jail. He was beaten and went on hunger strikes and did this all without complaint- because he was making a point. The British control in India really was unfair, and as was their treatment of the native people (Gandhi).
Thoreau was being egotistical. He did not pay his due poll tax because he did not want to vote, and this is unfair. There were probably plenty of other people around that did not want to vote either, but they probably paid the due tax and stayed out of trouble (Thoreau). Thoreau did this for himself, not for others. He was selfish and impractical and was trying to make a point that really did not need to be made. Just because he thought the taxes were doing towards a war he didn't support didn't mean that they actually were. Eventually, this money could have come back to him in another way.
Gandhi was much more justified in his civil disobedience. Although I do not agree with or condone breaking the law, I think that there are exceptions. Like...if you lived in Nazi-Germany. Or India during this time period...Gandhi was fighting for his rights and the rights of his fellow countrymen. He not penny pinching and trying to avoid a relatively small tax, he was trying to change history and do good things so that people would be treated more fairly and altogether better (Gandhi). Thoreau was definitely not above the law...and neither was Gandhi, who paid for the misdemeanors he committed. A big difference is that Gandhi anticipated and did not complain about the consequences of his actions. He knew that, by law, he was doing wrong. But Thoreau, on the other hand, seemed to kind of think that he was above the law in the way. He tried to make himself a martyr when it was his own fault he was jailed for a short period of time.
One more difference is that Gandhi...he's the real deal. He was not just playing around, he was not just trying to make a little point. He was trying to change the world- and he succeeded. Great people like Martin Luther King Jr. have followed in Gandhi's nonviolent tactics, and Gandhi also eventually won the fight against the British influences in India. Thoreau seemed to be...dabbling in civil disobedience, just to see what would happen. I do not think that he was all that serious about taxes, but what trying to make a point. His approach was poorly thought out and he came off looking like a really stupid person. I am not a fan.
Gandhi, Mohandas. "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 229-230. Print.
Thoreau, Henry."Civil Disobedience." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 220-227. Print.
Thoreau was being egotistical. He did not pay his due poll tax because he did not want to vote, and this is unfair. There were probably plenty of other people around that did not want to vote either, but they probably paid the due tax and stayed out of trouble (Thoreau). Thoreau did this for himself, not for others. He was selfish and impractical and was trying to make a point that really did not need to be made. Just because he thought the taxes were doing towards a war he didn't support didn't mean that they actually were. Eventually, this money could have come back to him in another way.
Gandhi was much more justified in his civil disobedience. Although I do not agree with or condone breaking the law, I think that there are exceptions. Like...if you lived in Nazi-Germany. Or India during this time period...Gandhi was fighting for his rights and the rights of his fellow countrymen. He not penny pinching and trying to avoid a relatively small tax, he was trying to change history and do good things so that people would be treated more fairly and altogether better (Gandhi). Thoreau was definitely not above the law...and neither was Gandhi, who paid for the misdemeanors he committed. A big difference is that Gandhi anticipated and did not complain about the consequences of his actions. He knew that, by law, he was doing wrong. But Thoreau, on the other hand, seemed to kind of think that he was above the law in the way. He tried to make himself a martyr when it was his own fault he was jailed for a short period of time.
One more difference is that Gandhi...he's the real deal. He was not just playing around, he was not just trying to make a little point. He was trying to change the world- and he succeeded. Great people like Martin Luther King Jr. have followed in Gandhi's nonviolent tactics, and Gandhi also eventually won the fight against the British influences in India. Thoreau seemed to be...dabbling in civil disobedience, just to see what would happen. I do not think that he was all that serious about taxes, but what trying to make a point. His approach was poorly thought out and he came off looking like a really stupid person. I am not a fan.
Gandhi, Mohandas. "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 229-230. Print.
Thoreau, Henry."Civil Disobedience." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 220-227. Print.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Rejection of Romanticism
Although Emerson embraced and celebrated Romanticism during a lot of his writing career in the nineteenth century, towards the later years of his life he began to reject Romanticism and then began to completely shy away from it and changes his ideas and belief regarding philosphy and life in general. In my opinion, Emerson first started to reject Romanticism early on because of the many different hardships that he experienced during his life. First, his wife died when she was only nineteen years old and he was in this twenties. Emerson reportedly refused to mourn the death of his wife (Edmundson) and continued on with his life. Although he may have refused to mourn this loss outwardly, their is a very good chance that the emotional pain took its toll on Emerson. And then only a few years after the death of his wife, Emerson also lost one of his brothers; the one he had always been closest to. Losing loved ones, especially spouses or siblings, causes a lot of tragic emotional pain. The pain that must have come along with these various losses must have been hard on Emerson, and probably eventually made him rethink his life and what he believed in. I think that as Emerson continued to experience loss throughout his life, he started to give up on the idea of Romanticism, and along with it, the related ideas of Transcendentalism.
Transcendentalism is a branch of Romanticism that calls for people to view different objects of the world as just small versions of the whole universe. It also says to trust one's own intuition (Define). I think that as Emerson continued to go through life and experience struggles and more loss, he started to rethink his support of the ideas that go along with Romanticism and with it, Transcendentalism. I do not blame Emerson for this change of heart- I think that these ideas probably sounded good to Emerson at first. He liked the aspects of nature and beauty that went along with Romanticism, and therefore he believed in it and wrote his essays and other works in the style. However, as Emerson grew older, he experience hardships that caused his outlook on life to change pretty dramatically (Edmundson). After he endured the loss of his wife and brother, Emerson later lost his son, Waldo. He continued to change his philosophies, and I do not think that it makes him a hypocrite. As his life changed, his ideas began to change as well.
As Emerson began to move away from the ideas of Romanticism, he moved towards some Freudian ideas instead, like the belief that condensed liberation is inadequate (Edmundson). I think that as Emerson aged and experienced different things, his ideas continued to change as well. Mostly, I think that he began to reject Romanticism and Transcendentalism simply because those beliefs and ideas just did not work out for him and the things that happened in his life. He gave up on them because that was not the way his life was going.
"Define Transcendentalism." Dictionary.com. Web. 11 Nov. 2010..
Edmundson, Mark. "Emerson and the Work of Melancholia." Facts on File. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Transcendentalism is a branch of Romanticism that calls for people to view different objects of the world as just small versions of the whole universe. It also says to trust one's own intuition (Define). I think that as Emerson continued to go through life and experience struggles and more loss, he started to rethink his support of the ideas that go along with Romanticism and with it, Transcendentalism. I do not blame Emerson for this change of heart- I think that these ideas probably sounded good to Emerson at first. He liked the aspects of nature and beauty that went along with Romanticism, and therefore he believed in it and wrote his essays and other works in the style. However, as Emerson grew older, he experience hardships that caused his outlook on life to change pretty dramatically (Edmundson). After he endured the loss of his wife and brother, Emerson later lost his son, Waldo. He continued to change his philosophies, and I do not think that it makes him a hypocrite. As his life changed, his ideas began to change as well.
As Emerson began to move away from the ideas of Romanticism, he moved towards some Freudian ideas instead, like the belief that condensed liberation is inadequate (Edmundson). I think that as Emerson aged and experienced different things, his ideas continued to change as well. Mostly, I think that he began to reject Romanticism and Transcendentalism simply because those beliefs and ideas just did not work out for him and the things that happened in his life. He gave up on them because that was not the way his life was going.
"Define Transcendentalism." Dictionary.com. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Edmundson, Mark. "Emerson and the Work of Melancholia." Facts on File. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Journal #21: Emerson vs. Franklin
Ralph Waldo Emerson obviously shows examples of self-reliance through his essay...which is actually titled "Self-Reliance", so it is pretty obvious that self-reliance is big for Emerson right from the start. In the essay he wrote about the importance of being able to depend on yourself and to able be to reflect upon yourself as well. Emerson wrote in the Romanticism (Transcendentalism, specifically), which put emphasis on innocence and nature and youth. His idea was that you needed to get away from the world once and a while so that you could self-reflect and think about all of the things going on in your life.
Franklin also showed signs of self-reliance. In his virtues, like the Masonic virtues, Franklin listed some traits that would take some self-reliance to accomplish. Part of Franklin's philosophy was not to lean too much on others. I cannot say if Benjamin Franklin was into self reflection, though. However, the two do not necessarily go together. Emerson wanted his self reflection to be done privately, away from the eyes of the rest of the world. This meant having to have self-reliance to be able to actually be able to "get away". Emerson brought nature into this by saying that a person can relax in and be one with nature, giving them peace so that they can start to reflect upon what has happened in their lives. Franklin, however, definitely did not place as much emphasis on nature and innocence and such. He was more concerned with society and the going on's of society, as well as how he appeared in the public eye. He was much more focused on the ideas of Rationalism, science and knowledge, than of things like nature and youthfulness.
Emerson was much less concerned with society and much more concerned with nature and one's own self. Franklin supported self-reliance to accomplish the virtues that he set out, but he did not place as much faith in it than Emerson did.
Franklin also showed signs of self-reliance. In his virtues, like the Masonic virtues, Franklin listed some traits that would take some self-reliance to accomplish. Part of Franklin's philosophy was not to lean too much on others. I cannot say if Benjamin Franklin was into self reflection, though. However, the two do not necessarily go together. Emerson wanted his self reflection to be done privately, away from the eyes of the rest of the world. This meant having to have self-reliance to be able to actually be able to "get away". Emerson brought nature into this by saying that a person can relax in and be one with nature, giving them peace so that they can start to reflect upon what has happened in their lives. Franklin, however, definitely did not place as much emphasis on nature and innocence and such. He was more concerned with society and the going on's of society, as well as how he appeared in the public eye. He was much more focused on the ideas of Rationalism, science and knowledge, than of things like nature and youthfulness.
Emerson was much less concerned with society and much more concerned with nature and one's own self. Franklin supported self-reliance to accomplish the virtues that he set out, but he did not place as much faith in it than Emerson did.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Journal #20: Self-Reflection
Hmm. Taking a break from society seems a little impossible. Society is kind of surrounding us...because we kind of are society. So unless you are planning an exorcism or are going to purposely get lost in the woods, you are going to have a problem with that whole "take a break from society" thing. Apart from mediation and intense thought, it is hard to have a serious self-reflection.
Self-reflection is still important, although I do not think you need to take a break from society to achieve this. Finding a quiet place doesn't mean that your taking a break from society...it just means you have found a a peaceful and probably really relaxing place where you can use phrases "letting go" and "be one with nature" to describe your feelings of elation. Being secluded does not always mean that you're away from society, depending on the circumstances...even if you "get away from it all", you still have your own thoughts and emotions to deal with. So unless you manage to suppress your feelings (which is kind of unhealthy. by the way...), you will never truly achieve true peace. It is good to try and relax and calm down, but it is difficult to completely shut the rest of the world out. We are so impressionable that there is always something on our minds. At this very moment, I am trying to type this blog and I am distracted by the thoughts of other homework I have to do tonight, the sound of my parents talking and watching television in the background, and my feelings of extreme exhaustion. Also, I am pretty hungry. So even though I am really trying to focus on doing my blog post, the rest of the world, not to mention the rest of me, is calling for my attention.
So, to make myself happy, I think that I will just wrap this nice little blog post up and am off to eat some frozen blueberries from a plastic cup.
Self-reflection is still important, although I do not think you need to take a break from society to achieve this. Finding a quiet place doesn't mean that your taking a break from society...it just means you have found a a peaceful and probably really relaxing place where you can use phrases "letting go" and "be one with nature" to describe your feelings of elation. Being secluded does not always mean that you're away from society, depending on the circumstances...even if you "get away from it all", you still have your own thoughts and emotions to deal with. So unless you manage to suppress your feelings (which is kind of unhealthy. by the way...), you will never truly achieve true peace. It is good to try and relax and calm down, but it is difficult to completely shut the rest of the world out. We are so impressionable that there is always something on our minds. At this very moment, I am trying to type this blog and I am distracted by the thoughts of other homework I have to do tonight, the sound of my parents talking and watching television in the background, and my feelings of extreme exhaustion. Also, I am pretty hungry. So even though I am really trying to focus on doing my blog post, the rest of the world, not to mention the rest of me, is calling for my attention.
So, to make myself happy, I think that I will just wrap this nice little blog post up and am off to eat some frozen blueberries from a plastic cup.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Journal #19: Ideal USA
I honestly do not think there is such a thing as an ideal USA. Somewhere along the way, there would inevitably be some kind of conflict. Whether it be corruption or the economy, the chance that something would go wrong is undeniably high. If there really was an ideal USA, it would not be a Utopia, it would be a Dystopia. I really think that there is no such thing as an Utopia, because I also think that perfection is impossible. No matter what, there is always going to be some kind of flaw in the system.
Reality says that there will never been an ideal country or society. Problems are going to come up in almost every situation- poverty, recessions, hunger, disease, and violence can happen no matter what kind of world we live in. There are a lot of people who simply don't care about others, and these are the kinds of people that contribute to making societies Dystopian instead of Utopian. It all can boil down to human nature, if you look at it that way. Humans make errors- that's undeniable. Everyone lies, or cheats, or steals at some point in their lives. Some people do these kinds of bad things repeatedly, not really caring about the outcome or what is at stake. There are always going to be problems in the world and in our country. The problem can be something big like terrorism, or it could be something small like the road system. The point is, a lot of problems are unavoidable.
In an "Ideal America", everyone would have to be happy, which is also impossible to accomplish. There is no proven way to make every single person in the country happy- it just can't happen. Some people won't be happy for anything, and some people might think something will make them happy when it really won't.
I cannot describe an Ideal America because I'm facing the facts- there will most likely never be an ideal anything, because there are problems everywhere and with everything- our laptops lose battery power, our cars break down, our loved ones die, we lose our friends, our pencil runs out of lead, our alarm clocks don't go off. Just because our society cannot be ideal doesn't mean we can't be happy- it just means that we're always going to have some kind of problem.
Reality says that there will never been an ideal country or society. Problems are going to come up in almost every situation- poverty, recessions, hunger, disease, and violence can happen no matter what kind of world we live in. There are a lot of people who simply don't care about others, and these are the kinds of people that contribute to making societies Dystopian instead of Utopian. It all can boil down to human nature, if you look at it that way. Humans make errors- that's undeniable. Everyone lies, or cheats, or steals at some point in their lives. Some people do these kinds of bad things repeatedly, not really caring about the outcome or what is at stake. There are always going to be problems in the world and in our country. The problem can be something big like terrorism, or it could be something small like the road system. The point is, a lot of problems are unavoidable.
In an "Ideal America", everyone would have to be happy, which is also impossible to accomplish. There is no proven way to make every single person in the country happy- it just can't happen. Some people won't be happy for anything, and some people might think something will make them happy when it really won't.
I cannot describe an Ideal America because I'm facing the facts- there will most likely never be an ideal anything, because there are problems everywhere and with everything- our laptops lose battery power, our cars break down, our loved ones die, we lose our friends, our pencil runs out of lead, our alarm clocks don't go off. Just because our society cannot be ideal doesn't mean we can't be happy- it just means that we're always going to have some kind of problem.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Holmes Poem Analysis
The poem I chose to analyze was "The Height of Ridiculous" Oliver Wendell Holmes. I'm not going to lie, I chose this poem because I liked the title. It is immediately clear that Holmes is somewhat of a literal writer. He still uses the "flowery" language that was common in the romanticism period, but there are no difficult "hidden meanings" to interpret in the poem. Holmes conveys his sense of humor into the poem and manages to keep the mood light and simple- there does not seem to be any underlying issues going on throughout the story detailed in the poem.
It seems that the main purpose of the poem is to simply entertain his audience.
Holmes, Oliver W. "247. The Height of the Ridiculous." Bartleby.com: Great Books Online -Quotes, Poems, Novels, Classics and Hundreds More. Web. 03 Nov. 2010. http://www.bartleby.com/248/247.html
It seems that the main purpose of the poem is to simply entertain his audience.
Holmes, Oliver W. "247. The Height of the Ridiculous." Bartleby.com: Great Books Online -Quotes, Poems, Novels, Classics and Hundreds More. Web. 03 Nov. 2010. http://www.bartleby.com/248/247.html
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Journal #18: Poem
Okay, so we're supposed to write a romanticism poem? Alrighty...roses are red, violets are blue, and a bunch of other stuff. Instead of writing a poem, I'm going to take this assignment liberally and talk about Romanticism poems instead.
One of the first uses of the phrase "roses are red, violets are blue" can be traced back to Sir Edmund Spenser in "The Faerie Queene", which was written in 1590. The poem reads "It was upon a Sommers shynie day, When Titan faire his beames did display, In a fresh fountaine, farre from all mens vew, She bath'd her brest, the boyling heat t'allay; She bath'd with roses red, and violets blew, And all the sweetest flowres, that in the forrest grew." (I'm not going to lie, I got this information from wikipedia and I really don't care). Poets and other random people have continued to use this phrase throughout time and this line has changed to things like "Roses are red, violets are blue, this poems stinks, and so do you."
I read some other people's poems and they are so humiliating that I refuse to write one myself. I can't rhyme like at all...cheese, geez, moo, coo, blah, blah, blah. That would be the extent of my poem, and everyone would laugh at me and I would probably cry and I don't need anymore stress in my life. My junior year is jammed packed with weighted classes and I feel like their repeatedly kicking me in the face and in the stomach. Next year will be wonderful...two weighted classes (plus Art IV) and a bunch of other blow off classes. It will be beautiful, and I am very excited for it.
This is the end of my journal. My hatred for poetry is...eternal.
One of the first uses of the phrase "roses are red, violets are blue" can be traced back to Sir Edmund Spenser in "The Faerie Queene", which was written in 1590. The poem reads "It was upon a Sommers shynie day, When Titan faire his beames did display, In a fresh fountaine, farre from all mens vew, She bath'd her brest, the boyling heat t'allay; She bath'd with roses red, and violets blew, And all the sweetest flowres, that in the forrest grew." (I'm not going to lie, I got this information from wikipedia and I really don't care). Poets and other random people have continued to use this phrase throughout time and this line has changed to things like "Roses are red, violets are blue, this poems stinks, and so do you."
I read some other people's poems and they are so humiliating that I refuse to write one myself. I can't rhyme like at all...cheese, geez, moo, coo, blah, blah, blah. That would be the extent of my poem, and everyone would laugh at me and I would probably cry and I don't need anymore stress in my life. My junior year is jammed packed with weighted classes and I feel like their repeatedly kicking me in the face and in the stomach. Next year will be wonderful...two weighted classes (plus Art IV) and a bunch of other blow off classes. It will be beautiful, and I am very excited for it.
This is the end of my journal. My hatred for poetry is...eternal.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Thanatopsis Explanation
Thanatopsis by William Cullen Bryant is a poem that talks about nature, death, and dying.
In the first stanza, Bryant is talking about dying in general and the very thought of dying. He says that dying is sad and cold and dark, detailing the more negative aspects. As the first stanza continues, Bryant goes on to explain that when a person dies, it's not so bad because the earth reclaims that person and they become a part of nature. He says that when the oak tree's roots extend to the buried, they pierce the dead person to make them a part of the tree. Although Bryant first called death cold and sad, his tone changes slightly when he says people are not alone in death because of their connection with nature.
Everyone dies, everyone is buried, and everyone becomes on in nature is basically the point Bryant begins to convey. He says that after death you join those who have died before you and will later be joined by those who will die after you, like a repeated cycle of death and nature. Bryant writes in his poem that bodies become a part of the earth and the beauty of nature is due to those who have died.
Bryant also says death is not bad because people remain immortal through death because they are technically still living through nature. Because of this, Bryant says that there although there are many people on earth, this number is even larger because he thinks dead people are still technically a part of earth because they have become a part of the nature that surrounds living people. Bryant says the worst part of death would be dying without anyone else noticing, even though everything that breathes will die one day and become one is nature so it does not really matter. People will continue living even after you die, but no matter how each individual acts after your death, they will all have the same fate. According to Bryant, the individual lifestyles that people led do not matter because at the end, everyone will die and be placed with each other.
The most important part of the poem is that Bryant wants people to realize that they will die along with everyone else; it is important to be happy while living so that when your day comes they will go in to death happily.
In the first stanza, Bryant is talking about dying in general and the very thought of dying. He says that dying is sad and cold and dark, detailing the more negative aspects. As the first stanza continues, Bryant goes on to explain that when a person dies, it's not so bad because the earth reclaims that person and they become a part of nature. He says that when the oak tree's roots extend to the buried, they pierce the dead person to make them a part of the tree. Although Bryant first called death cold and sad, his tone changes slightly when he says people are not alone in death because of their connection with nature.
Everyone dies, everyone is buried, and everyone becomes on in nature is basically the point Bryant begins to convey. He says that after death you join those who have died before you and will later be joined by those who will die after you, like a repeated cycle of death and nature. Bryant writes in his poem that bodies become a part of the earth and the beauty of nature is due to those who have died.
Bryant also says death is not bad because people remain immortal through death because they are technically still living through nature. Because of this, Bryant says that there although there are many people on earth, this number is even larger because he thinks dead people are still technically a part of earth because they have become a part of the nature that surrounds living people. Bryant says the worst part of death would be dying without anyone else noticing, even though everything that breathes will die one day and become one is nature so it does not really matter. People will continue living even after you die, but no matter how each individual acts after your death, they will all have the same fate. According to Bryant, the individual lifestyles that people led do not matter because at the end, everyone will die and be placed with each other.
The most important part of the poem is that Bryant wants people to realize that they will die along with everyone else; it is important to be happy while living so that when your day comes they will go in to death happily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)