"These are the days when Birds come back" by Emily Dickinson

Emily Dickinson, in her poem, “These are the days when Birds come back”, comments on the uncertainty of religion and implies that religion can be neither proven nor disproven.  In the footnotes in Perrine’s, it says the time of year represented in the poem is an Indian summer. An Indian summer is a sudden heat wave that occurs in the fall. Even the time of year depicted in the poem is representative of uncertainty as even when it is supposed to be cold, there can be a sudden, unexpected shift in temperature. I think the heat wave represents any unexpected or difficult time in life.  In the first stanza, “ a Bird or two” is fooled by the Indian summer and think that summer has returned.  Birds symbolize a higher connection to God which is represented by the fact they in flight they are physically closer to God. The fact that the word Bird is capitalized indicates that these birds are connected to God in some way and may be angels. The Birds looking back could be a metaphor for religious people who in an unexpected time of trouble, don’t look to God, but “take a backward look” or look for solutions from other sources.  The reason why religious people look back is because God can be neither proven nor disproven and thus they can’t be sure if God is the solution to their problems.

In the next stanza, “The skies resume the old”, as in they return to normal when the trouble has passed. However this transition is described as “sophistries of June” because the troubles appear to have passed for misleading reasons. The religious people think that the reason that their troubles have passed is because of God, but this can’t be proven. This image is depicted in the last line of the stanza: the portrayal of “a blue and gold mistake” is representative of a summer day where the sky is clear and the sun is shining.

Even though the Indian summer fooled the birds, it is a “fraud that cannot cheat the Bee”.  In the footnotes of Perrine’s, it says that the bee is “an allusion to one of the apocryphal tales of Solomon, who distinguished between real and artificial flowers by pitting a bee in the room; the bee of course flew to the real”. According to this description, the bee represents the ability to distinguish between the real and the artificial. Dickinson says that she was “almost” fooled which “induces” or influences her beliefs.  So unlike the other followers, she wasn’t fooled to blindly believe in God, but appears to take a more neutral stance on religion. He may or may not exist.

Dickinson describes death as the moment when one discovers whether or not God exists. The “altered air” represents a kind of enlightenment.  “Oh Last Communion in the Haze” is when you become enlightened to the existence or nonexistence to God as it is when the “haze” is lifted. When we die we “partake” in “bread” and “wine”. This represents the body of Christ, and in eating, we are becoming closer to God in the afterlife after we die. However, bread and wine are also associated with the death of Christ; so possibly upon us dying and not going to the afterlife, we will realize that God doesn’t existence and our idea of God dies. Either way we won’t be sure of the existence of God until we die, but at that point it is too late. 

The Alternate Ending of A Doll's House.

The alternating ending of the play changes everything. As I wrote in my previous blog, the original ending is powerful because Nora’s fate is unclear. Will she break free of society? Can anyone break free of society? A woman leaving her husband in the 1800’s was unheard of and was societal suicide. Ibsen pushes against the boundaries of society and critics the confines that favor conformity over individuality. Of course this is the sort of stuff we love in AP Lit. We could have a seminar on this for all 6 periods if allowed and I think this is what Ibsen was aiming for when he wrote the play. He wanted to challenge the social norms of society. However the problem with that is that society at the time didn't want to be challenged. It is ironic that the very thing that Ibsen challenges, the suffocation of individuality by social conformity, ends up causing him to write a new ending. Driven by a need to make money and “survive”, Ibsen conforms to society and writes the ending that society wants. Sounds familiar? Kristine conforms to society and gets married so that she can “survive”. Nora plays along with Torvald so that she can “survive”.  In all of these cases, social conformity = survival. For Ibsen “the wonderful” would be when society is ready to read the original ending of A Doll’s House. Maybe this is another reason why Ibsen hated the alternating ending; he realized that in writing it he exemplifies that not even he can break free.

I actually like that there are two endings. It shows the impact that the final lines of a work have on the meaning of a play and it is an interesting point of comparison. However seeing the alternate ending only, as many people did when the play was released, completely changes everything. Many of the questions that the original play evokes become answered. Nora can’t break free of society, that’s why she stayed with Torvald. Also, as a woman, she wouldn't dare give up her “sacred duties” to her husband and her children because in society’s eyes, her only reason for being alive was to fulfill those duties. If Ibsen took away all the allusions to sex and alcohol, it could be a Disney movie where the loving wife tries to save her husband whose hubris won’t allow him to receive help and this gets the wife into trouble. Her husband comes to her rescue and accepts her wrong doing. Actually this sounds exactly like Nora’s fantasy. The difference is while in the original ending the doll house falls apart and Nora decides to leave it in favor of living a life based in reality, in the alternate ending Nora returns to the doll house and nothing changes.  In the alternate ending, the play loses its original purpose because the boundaries of society aren't challenged, they are accepted. Each ending represents various paths in life we must between in many decisions that we make. Do you take the path of individuality or conformity? Do you take the difficult route of uncertainty or do you take the path of least resistance and familiarity? Whether or not you know it, the conflict of the doll’s house is present in your daily decisions. 

The Original Ending of A Doll's House

The final scene of A Doll’s House dictates how you read the play. The whole plays builds up to the ending in a way.  The final scene represents a moment of enlightenment for Nora who realizes that in trying to meet the social expectations of her, she has given up her own individuality. Torvald even tells her, “you are a wife and mother before you are anything else”, which exemplifies that society expects her to put her husband and children before herself. At this point Nora probably feels like a slave to a family and society that takes her for granted; she dedicates her whole life to serving her father and her husband. Of course Torvald, a man who has strictly obeyed his gender role in society, is baffled by Nora. A woman leaving her husband was something that was unheard of in 1800 society. It is ironic that while the man is expected to be the enlightened one who guides the ignorant wife who blindly follows him, Nora is the one who is enlightened about the true nature of their relationship and thus guides Torvald who has been blindly following society. Nora leaving Torvald represents her breaking the societal chains that have kept her from developing as an individual. Yet this raises the question, can you really break free from society? I mean unless you on a mountain by yourself, everyone is shaped by the society they live in. Sure Nora has left her societal obligations to Torvald and her children, but she will still be confined by how the outside world judges her. She will be looked down upon as a woman who left her husband and she will have difficulty finding work.  So is she truly free of society? Will Nora, who has lived her whole life sheltered by the warmth of the doll’s house, be able to survive in the harsh, outside world? I think implies that she won’t. Kristine, a foul for Nora, is pushed back into marriage. Nora says for her to return, “the most wonderful of all would have to happen”.  The wonderful represents when Torvald can treat her as his equal which would allow them to have a “true marriage”, one not based on lies or pretending. However I don’t think the most wonderful thing will happen. Torvald’s last line in the play, “The most wonderful -?!” ends with a question mark, meaning that he still questions what the wonderful is.  If Torvald doesn’t even know what the most wonderful thing is, how can he ever achieve it? Though Ibsen seems to imply that Nora will be unsuccessful in breaking free of her societal expectations and possibly changing society, history tells a different story. Women’s rights was achieved by independent who forcefully went against the grain such as by entering the work force and showed the world that women can operate in society without being babied by their husbands. Some women like Kristine did so out of necessity while others like Nora did so for personal development. The unresolved fate of Nora is what makes this play so thought provoking, possibly implying that the struggle between the individual and society is forever on going. 

Analysis of Ars Poetica by Archibald Macliesh

Archibald Macleish in “Ars Poetica” uses paradoxical imagery to potray that a poem should evoke a part of human experience by tapping into our senses rather than trying to answer some philosophical question or have a deeper meaning. The first line, “a poem should be palpable” says that the purpose of a poem should be obvious and easily perceived by the senses or the mind. The reader should just be able to get it when he or she reads the poem. This suggests that poems should aim to be simple and direct without complexities that could cause the meaning to be misinterpreted and maybe that the reader should aim to find paradoxical simplicity within any complexities of a poem. Also, a poem should be interpreted through the senses by which we experience life. This understanding should be evident like “globed fruit” as no one needs to explain the taste of fruit to someone for them to be able perceive the flavors. Taste is also something that can be innately sensed.  The meaning of the poem should also be nourishing and natural like the taste of a fruit. Additionally, they should be “Dumb as old medallion to the thumb” which is contradictory as medallions are items that awarded for past accomplishments and thus have vivid memories attached to them. “Silent as the sleeve-worn stone of casement ledges” evokes the sense of touch.  Poems also should be “silent” or “wordless” which is contradictory as poems are comprised of words. However by being wordless, it implies that a poem is instead comprised of parts of human experience that influenced it rather than just by words and thus the meaning of the poem should be easily understood with any explanation.  “A poem should be motionless in time” and convey a universal meaning that will be applicable throughout time like the moon which can be seen no matter where in the world you are. Like the changing stages of the moon, poetry should also changes from one era to the next so that it always retains relevance.  In doing so, a poem “releases twig by twig the light-entangled trees” and sheds light on parts of life that otherwise would have been shrouded in night like darkness.  Similarly, the title of the poem means the Art of Poetry in Latin which is a dead yet relevant language that even today influences many of the world’s languages today. However the speaker states that “A poem should be equal to: Not true” and thus isn’t searching for truth, but instead is simply trying to capture the essence of human experience such as grief which he portrays as an empty doorway or a maple leaf or love. A poem is a representation of a certain part of life.  The poem ends with the lines that “a poem should not mean but be” suggesting that a poem should not seek to have a hidden meaning that the reader much search for or try to decipher within the text, but should  represent that meaning in way that the reader simply grasps it as he or she reads the poem.

Analysis of Ellen Olenksa

Ellen Olenska is a cultural hybrid who was influenced by French culture during her marriage with the Count but has returned to America where the social customs are very different.  French society is driven by experience and understanding while the Old New York society remains in a perpetual state of innocence which is most prominent among the women. The Old New York society is driven by old fashioned customs that society blindly obeys without understanding why or questioning them, “inexorable conventions that tied things together and bound people down to the old pattern”. The lack of understanding leads to a very superficial society. This disgusts Ellen Olenska who asks “Does no one want to know the truth here, Mr. Archer? The real loneliness is living among all these kind people who only ask one to pretend!”. Because Ms.Olenska moved away with the Count, she was not conditioned to forever remain in a state of innocence like her fellow American women as Mr. Archer states, “the Polish Count must have robbed her of her fortune as well as her illusions”. As a result she is able to see parts of the society that the other women have to been taught to remain blind too. This difference as she states is the reason for her loneliness. Newland Archer also sees through the “illusions” of the American social system.  Like Countess Olenska, he is “sick of the hypocrisy that would bury alive a woman of her age if her husband were to live with harlots”. He believes “women ought to be free – as free as we are”; an unconventional viewpoint that Countess Olenska embodies in many ways.  She doesn’t need to be constantly accompanied by a man. For example, she ended a conversation with a gentlemen even though “etiquette required that she should wait, immovable as an idol, while the men who wished to converse with her succeeded each other at her side.” However she doesn’t purposely going against the customs, she was “unaware of having broken any rule”. Because of this, Newland Archer and Countess Olenska have a special bond, “there are only two people here who make me feel as if they understood what I mean and could explain things to me: you and Mr. Beaufort”. The contrast between a society based on experience(the French) and  a society of innocence(The Old New York society) is highlighted by the contrast of Countess Olenska and May Welland who are foils of each other.  Mr. Archer is fascinated with the Countess who represents the realism that is lacking in the superficial Old New York Society. In fact, when thinking of his fiancée,  Mr. Archer is “discouraged by the thought that all this frankness and innocence were only an artificial product”. However with Countess Olenska he knows she will say what’s on her mind and won’t be “oppressed by his creation of factitious purity, so cunningly manufactured by a conspiracy of mothers and aunts and grandmothers and longdead ancentresses”. Through the countess, Mr.Archer identifies the “illusions” that everyone else is blinded to and he says she is “opening my eyes to things I’d looked at so long that I’d cease to see them”.

William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience

William Blake contrasts the innocent  Lamb in “Little lamb” with the dangerous tiger in “The Tyger” and asks the question, “Did he who made the lamb make thee?”. Aspects of both the lamb and the tiger can be seen in humanity and the world in the general.

“Little Lamb” begins with a child questioning the origin of the lamb, “Dost thou know who made thee?”. The seemingly obvious answer would be some god or deity. The lamb here represents innocence and purity as it has “clothing of delight”, “softest clothing” a “tender voice”. Now in the second stanza, the child answers the questions that he just previously asked the lamb. He reveals that the one who created the lamb also “calls himself a lamb”. However this time the connotation of a lamb refers not to the creation but to the creator, Jesus Christ. By referring to both the creation and the creator as a lamb, the creation is shown to be a reflection, or mirror image of the creator. The poem ends with the line, “Little Lamb God bless thee”, however to whom the lamb refers to remains ambiguous as it could refer to the creation or the creator.

While the lamb that is described in “Little Lamb” represent innocence and purity, the tiger in “The Tyger” is characterized by violence and terror. The tiger represents an investigation into the existence of evil in the world. It raises the question, would the same God who made the innocent lamb also create the dangerous tiger? Throughout the work the speakers asks a series of questions about the origin of the tiger. The poem begins with the contrasting description of a “Tyger burning bright” and “the forest of the night”. Burning has the connotations of energy, power, and danger which differs from the placidity of the night. And though the tiger is evil, it has “fearful symmetry” and thus is beautiful. The fact that the tiger’s creator must “twist the sinews of thy heart” implies the corruption that exists inside the tiger but not in the lamb. The poem continues with the portrayal of forging the tiger to create it which seems like an unnatural method to create life, like victor when he created the creature in Frankenstein.  The speaker asks the question, “Did he who made the Lamb make thee?”. The lamb represents the goodness in world and the tiger represents the evil in it. This leaves the unanswered question that did the same god who made all things good in the world also make all the evil things in it as well. The first and last stanza of the poem are the same except for the last line of each and it changes; It changes form “What immortal hand or eye/Could frame thy fearful symmetry” to “Dare frame thy fearful symmetry”.  This one word change shifts the meaning from is possible to would God venture to do so. And if the creation is a reflection of the creator as suggested by “Little Lamb”, is the evil that the tiger represents present in our creator?

Picture Analysis

“2.7 million children in Egypt don’t have a childhood.” This compelling public print ad wants to bring awareness to millions of Egyptian children who must forgo childhood in order to begin working a make enough money for their families. The ad depicts a young boy working in a repair shop fit for a grown man. He is shown to be a boy who is already living the life of a grown man. Robbed of his childhood, he spends much of his time working; he has no time to play. The boy is so small that he wouldn't be able to reach many of the tools without climbing on a ladder. The shop is dirty and many of the tools in the background appear dangerous. This is not a fit location for a young boy to be. The boy on the left side of the picture who is seen wearing a blue and white flannel shirt is already growing patches of gray hair on the sides of his head, symbolic of the stress and hard work that this boy has to endure. The skin on his face is worn like that of a grown man who does laborious work. On his forehead, the boy has a scar, likely from an accident while working, an indication of the dangers of his job. Bags are apparent under his eyes due to the lack of sleep. However, despite his body showing signs of stress and overwork, the boy’s eyes still retain the innocent look of a young boy. As he looks the viewer in the eyes, he sparks a sense of awe that would make anyone feel bad for flipping the page of their magazine without doing anything to help him.  The colors in the picture are very washed out which give the picture a very dreary tone. The lack of vibrant colors indicates the lack of fun which is instead is replaced by dull times. What’s powerful about this ad is that it reads, “2.7 million children in Egypt don’t have a childhood.” The sheer number of children who are working in these conditions and deprived of their childhood because of work shows that this is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. In the bottom right of the ad, it says, “Call Us. 012 1817 555” The font is so small however that it is difficult to read the number which hurts the cause if those who want to help can’t do so because they can’t read the number to call.  This ad speaks to everyone, including people who have lived a privileged childhood and now from firsthand experience the joys that it should bring and people who come an underprivileged background and understand the hardships that you must endure to survive in similar situations. Similar incidents of child labor used to happen in the United States before child labor laws were passed that prohibited employers from working young people in unsafe conditions. Though Egypt has similar laws, they seem to be ineffective in solving the problem.

The Snow Man

The Snow Man

“One must have a mind of winter 

To regard the frost and the boughs 

Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;

And have been cold a long time 

To behold the junipers shagged with ice, 

The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think 

Of any misery in the sound of the wind, 

In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land 

Full of the same wind 

That is blowing in the same bare place

For the listener, who listens in the snow, 

And, nothing himself, beholds 

Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.”

                                ~Wallace Stevens

            While reading Grendel, we have discussed illusion vs. reality. On page 22, Grendel says “I create the whole universe blink by blink.—An ugly god pitifully dying in a tree!” which suggests that one’s reality is based upon perspective and that everyone is the creator of their reality. As a result many ideas aren't necessarily universal such as good or evil. Similarly, in “The Snow Man”, Wallace Stevens suggests that your idea of reality is influenced by your perspective. In the poem, Wallace compares the different descriptions of winter from the viewpoint of a person whose reality is just what he sees and a person who uses their perspective to understand and form his own reality .

            The first stanza of the poem describes winter in a very non-objective way.  There are no interpretations. It is just a description of what is simply there. However to do this, “One must have a mind of winter”. I believe this means that for someone to see winter for what it is without casting judgment on it such as whether or not they like winter, they must view it with detachment and indifference.

             Now the description of winter in the second stanza sharply contrasts the description of it in the first stanza. While in the first stanza Stevens depicts winter with a very cut and dry description, in the second stanza he offers interpretations and analysis of winter. He describes winter as “cold” and the spruces as “rough” and thus he is offering his judgments of winter. The second line of the stanza begins with “To behold” which gives winter a wondrous and mystical representation.  The reason why this stanza differed so much from the first was because he allows his own perspective and interpretations of reality to influence his description of winter.  This reveals the impact that our own beliefs and viewpoints have on our interpretation of reality. For example, in Grendel, the Shaper doesn't change what actually happens, he changes the Dane's perception of the events. 

              The third stanza however suggests that it is human tendency to try to interpret the world around us. Rather than just observing, humans analyze and try to give meaning to things. As a result our own perception is always shaping our perceived reality and thus two people can have different understandings of reality even in the same situation. However if we didn't do this, we would simply be observing without interpreting and understanding what we see.

              The fourth stanza suggests that we still observe the same things even though we interpret them differently. There is a universal “sound of the land” that we all share. Also there is “the same wind that is blowing in the same bare place” and no matter where you are, you experience that same wind.

              The poem closes by indicating the necessity of our own perspective and interpretations when observing the world. Without it, we observe without understanding. In doing so we see “Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is” and instead end up seeing nothing. 

The Similarities between the "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" and Winesburg, Ohio

Although not apparent to me upon initially reading “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” after reading Winesburg, Ohio, I now see many similarities between the works. In many ways for example Prufrock is portrayed like a grotesque as defined in “Book of the Grotesques”.

Firstly, the structures of both works are very fragmented. Prufrock can be divided up into six sections that each appear to have their own meaning. Each fragment of the poem reveals another aspect of Prufrock’s story; however, there are reoccurring themes that are present throughout the story that connect the fragments together. To gain a full understanding of the text, each fragment must be read in context of the rest of the poem interpreted with the greater meaning of the whole poem in mind. Similarly, Winesburg, Ohio, which is a short story cycle, is told in fragments of bits and pieces of time in George Willard’s life.  Again, though each chapter is a separate story of its own, each story adds to the greater meaning of the work as a whole. In both works, this fragmentation is indicative of the isolation experiences by characters—Prufrock in “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” and the grotesques in Winesburg, Ohio. They are unconnected parts whose separateness is contrasted by their desire to be part of a whole.

            Consistent with the fragmentation, a lack of understanding is also a reoccurring theme throughout both works. Throughout the poem, Prufrock seeks understanding so that he can answer the “overwhelming question”. Prufrock presents the dilemma of the meaning vs meaninglessness of life in a mundane world. Prufrock also seeks understanding from others and he feels alienated because he is unable to properly communicate. He says “That is not what I meant at all/That is not it, at all” on line 97 and “it is impossible to say just what I mean!” on line 104 which reveals his desire to not only gain a personal understanding, but to also be understood by others.  Likewise, the grotesques in Winesburg, Ohio are characterized by a lack of understanding and the inability to communicate. Many of the grotesques for example don’t fully understand what makes them grotesque such as Wing Biddlebaum who says “There’s something wrong, but I don’t want to know what it is. His hands have something to do with his fear of me and of everyone.” Due to their lack of understanding of the nature of their grotesqueness, the grotesques are stuck in this state as they are unable to break free from it. They can't free themselves from it because they don't know what causes it. In addition to this, like Prufrock, the grotesques also are unable to effectively communicate with others. Enoch for example, “knew what he wanted to say, but he knew also that he could never by any possibility say it” which strongly represents Prufrock’s quote where he says that “It is impossible to say what I mean”. This lack of communication leads to the alienation of Prufrock and the grotesques and ultimately limits them from gaining the fully understanding that they seek.  

Analysis of an Interesting Ad I found

This is an advertisement for Marmaluzi, a brand of baby food.  The advertisement uses a whimsical tone to ridicule the idea of frozen meat being used in baby food. At the very top of the picture, written in font probably taken from a 1970’s horror movie, it says Frozen Meat. This simple change in font, which is too cliché of a horror movie to actually scare anyone anymore, gives the two words a mockingly dreadful tone. Directly under, in a very small and plain font, it reads Sounds like something out of a horror movie, suggesting that frozen meat being used in baby food is a “scary” idea; using frozen meat in baby food is something we should fear. At the fore front of the picture is a zombie like frozen chicken shooting green laser beams out of its eyes with its sale tag still attached to it. The women and children in the ad are running away from the chicken like anyone who was being attacked by a giant chicken with laser beam eyes would. The ad implies that it is common sense to run away from baby food that is frozen meat and to definitely not buy it for the baby.  The giant chicken also suggests that frozen meat is unnatural and unhealthy which is indicated by the the green goo and zombie-like appearance of the chicken. The fact that the chicken is giant further emphasizes the significance of the choice to feed your baby frozen meat or not. One of the stores has a sign that says FRESH MEAT. The frozen chicken’s attack on the fresh meat store symbolizes the effect that frozen meat has on companies that that don’t use frozen meat. Frozen meat is cheaper to produce than fresh meat and thus can be sold at a lower price. As a result, it runs the companies that sell fresh meat out of business and destroys them, similar to how the giant frozen chicken in the ad is about to literally destroy the fresh meat store. The destruction that the giant frozen chicken is creating could also be illustrative of the damage that frozen meat does to the body as it is a cheaper but less healthy alternative to fresh meat.

To promote its product, Marmaluzi attacks its competitors and depicts how its competitors' products lack quality rather than emphasizing how Marmaluzi’s products are of good quality. According to the ad, the horrifying nature of frozen meat should make Marmaluzi's fresh meat the clear choice. In the bottom left of the ad, next to three jars of baby food, it reads, “ Malmaluzi is the first and only baby food prepared using just-picked produce from Lithuanian farms. Never frozen, always garden fresh.”  This statement is at the bottom of the ad and written in small font due to the fact the emphasis of the ad is the lack of quality in the products produced by Marmaluzi’s competitors. The ad aimed at mothers or baby caretakers serves to convince them that they should buy Malmaluzi for their babies because it uses only fresh meat.

Response to "Tandy"

            Last week during class, we had lit circles about various stories in Winesburg, Ohio. However, due to a lack of students, we were unable to have a lit circle on the story "Tandy". Though this is one of the shortest stories in this short story circle, Anderson manages to provide a compelling commentary on the role of woman within its four pages.
           In the story, the stranger defines tandy as "the quality of being strong to be loved. It is something men need from women and that they do not get". Throughout history, women have been treated as weak and subordinate to men. However this definition of tandy, "something men need from women", gives power to woman by stating that tandy is a feminine trait that men need. Although men need women who are tandy, being tandy isn't a trait that is universal to all women. The stranger tells to the girl, "Be Tandy, little one. Dare to be strong and courageous...Be brave enough to dare to be loved". Since the girl must "Dare to be strong" and "brave", it implies that being tandy is trait that she must work for; that being tandy isn't a trait that all women innately possess, but is a quality that they must strive to achieve. The condition of being tandy is also described as "something more than man or woman", which gives it a divine or transcendent quality. At the very end of the story when the girl insists on being tandy, she is accepting the responsibility to achieve the divine quality of being tandy.
           The story of "Tandy" was especially relevant during the time period that Anderson wrote Winesburg, Ohio. 1919 was during the heart of the feminist movement. Possibly Anderson believed being tandy was the "new quality in women" that women needed in order to revolutionize how they were treated in society and their perceived roles in society.
           The stranger who names the girl Tandy is portrayed as a prophet like figure. Out of all men, he is the only one who knows the difficulties of being a woman and even says "Perhaps of all men I alone understand." At the end of the story, he is also described as bestowing a "vision of words" that the girl grasps on to as truth. It is ironic that Tandy's dad pays very little attention to her while the stranger views her as the next generation of tandy women. The girl's father embodies the old view of women in which they were mistreated and neglected in society.
            The narrator never says the name of the stranger or the name of the girl before she was named Tandy. By not stating the girl's name, it further emphasizes the importance of her new name and that her role before being named Tandy was insignificant. Now the word Tandy literally defines her. By not stating the name of the stranger, it underscores his irrelevance as an individual. He is not important as an individual; he is just the medium in which the girl discover tandy. At the end of the story, the stranger simply wakes up one morning and boards a train back to his home town in Cleveland.

Analysis of "Mirrors" by Sylvia Plath

" I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions. 

Whatever I see I swallow immediately 

Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike. 

I am not cruel, only truthful ‚ 

The eye of a little god, four-cornered. 

Most of the time I meditate on the opposite wall. 

It is pink, with speckles. I have looked at it so long 

I think it is part of my heart. But it flickers. 

Faces and darkness separate us over and over. 

Now I am a lake. A woman bends over me, 

Searching my reaches for what she really is. 

Then she turns to those liars, the candles or the moon. 

I see her back, and reflect it faithfully. 

She rewards me with tears and an agitation of hands. 

I am important to her. She comes and goes. 

Each morning it is her face that replaces the darkness. 

In me she has drowned a young girl, and in me an old woman 

Rises toward her day after day, like a terrible fish."

~Sylvia Plath

      Sylvia Plath, in her poem "Mirrors", embodies the relationship between one's inner and outer selves. The narrator is a personified mirror. The mirror understands and interprets what is sees. In the poem, a woman is obsessed with the image that the mirror reflects of her. She continually returns to the mirror to analyze her appearance. Later, the narrator becomes a lake. The lake, who unlike the mirror, has depth, can see through exterior facade and peer into her inner self. Through the woman's relationship with the mirror and the lake, Plath reveals the tension that exists between one's true inner self and the self that they falsely project to others.
         The poem begins with the mirrors describing itself as "silver and exact". The mirror wants to qualify itself as portraying a true image of what it reflects. The mirror doesn't  reflect what the viewer wants to see; instead it reflects what is actually there. It isn't "cruel, only truthful". However the mirror has more power than it acknowledges. The mirror is catoptric and shapes the light in a manner that the viewer can understand.  The mirror is facing a pink wall which implies that it is the part of the household used by the women. The poem was written during the beginning of the feminist movement. The poem possibly seeks to criticize the emphasis that women place on their exterior appearance. The mirror who claims to innocently reflect what it sees, shapes the lives of the women who use it and who's lives revolve around the image that it reflects. Habitually, the women return to the mirror to check upon their appearance. However, the outer self that the mirror reflects is only a facade that the woman hide their inner-selves underneath.
        In the next stanza, the narrator is a lake. Like the mirror, a woman uses the lake to look at her reflection. However the lake has depth and doesn't only reflect the woman's exterior appearance, but also allows her to see into her inner self. The lake allows her to see "what she really is". However the woman is upset with what the lake reveals. Each time she looks at herself in the lake, she sees her fleeting youth and youthful beauty. She cries because she is witnessing the loss of the beauty that she has emphasized throughout her whole life. However the woman also cries because the lake reveals something about her inner self that doesn't align with want she wants to be. She uses the candles and the moonlight to change her reflection in the mirror. However they are "liars" and only the mirror will "reflect it faithfully". The woman is saddened because she knows the lake reflects her true inner identity. As her outer beauty fades, the woman fears the day when the faults that the lake reveals in her inner self will manifest themselves in her outer self. In the last line, the woman is compared to a terrible fish, which is a personification of her transformation into an old woman.
     

Mary Shelley's Quotation of "Tintern Abbey" in Frankenstein

“The sounding cataract
Haunted me like a passion: the tall rock,
The mountain, and the deep gloomy wood,
Their colours and their forms, were then to him
And appetite; a feeling and a love,
That had no need of a remoter charm.
By thought supplied, nor any interest
Unborrow’d from the eye.”

When I first read Frankenstein, I didn't even fathom the significance of Mary Shelley’s quotation of “Tintern Abbey”. However, after analyzing the poem in class, I have recognized why Shelley quotes the poem and what the quotation signifies.  In Frankenstein, Shelley incorporates Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey” to contrast Clerval’s and Victor’s views of nature. The poem highlights that Clerval and Victor are FOILS of each other to underscore qualities of each character that could otherwise be missed if the reader hasn't already read “Tintern Abbey”.

                 Shelley quotes “Tintern abbey” to define Clerval’s relationship with nature. Clerval’s relationship with nature is similar to Wordsworth’s relationship with nature when he was younger. Like young Wordsworth, nature is a source of joy for Clerval. He relishes in its beauty and enjoys nature for what it is. On their voyage to London, Victor describes Clerval’s reaction to nature as, “The scenery of external nature, which others regard only with admiration, he loved with ardour”.  This portrayal of Clerval’s relationship with nature aligns with young Wordsworth’s relationship with nature that he describes as “Their colours and their forms, were then to me/An appetite: a feeling and a love,” Both of them view nature as a necessary source of happiness and enjoyment.

                While Clerval’s relationship with nature is representative of Wordsworth’s relationship with nature when he was younger, Victor’s relationship with nature parallels Wordsworth’s relationship with nature when he was older. Because of his experiences, Victor has gained a deeper insight into nature than Clerval. While Victor can still appreciate the pleasure that nature provides, he doesn’t love it with the same boyish passion as Clerval. Instead, nature is a source of sublime tranquility for Victor. He has gained a deeper understanding about the world and life from nature that he didn’t originally have.  When he is despaired, he reflects upon nature and is restored by the “blessed mood” that it generates for him.  

Clerval’s and Victor’s relationship is comparable to Wordsworth and his sister’s relationship in “Tintern Abbey”. Victor sees in Clerval “what I once was”.  Though they are of similar ages, Victor has a more mature view of his surroundings. When Victor was younger, he viewed nature with the same “former pleasures” that Clerval does.  Victor is reminiscent of these older views of nature and finds pleasure in watching Clerval interact with nature just as Wordsworth enjoys watching his sister’s reaction to nature.

                Because of their contrasting views of nature, Victor and Clerval are foils of each other. While Clerval simply enjoys nature for the beauty that it is, Victor tries to understand and control it. Clerval may be illustrative of what Victor could have been like if he wasn't so obsessed with knowledge and hadn't created the creature. Unlike Wordsworth in “Tintern Abbey”, who appears to be unsure of which view of nature is better, Victor believes that Clerval’s view of nature is better than his own because in achieving this deeper connection to nature, Victor has heard the “sad music of humanity” and has subjected himself to many difficulties. 

A Major Minor Character: Justine Moritz

In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Justine Moritz is a minor character that only appears briefly, but has significant importance to the development of the plot. The conditions surrounding her arrest, trial, and eventual death shape and reveal many traits about Victor and the creature.

In the novel, Justine is depicted as an honest and virtuous girl. Although she was a servant, the Frankenstein family thought highly of her and treated with respect. Justine, who was rejected by her mother, had been taken into the Frankenstein family from a young age and during this time Victor’s family had become especially fond of her. We can see parallels between Elizabeth and Justine. They both are described to as virtuous and kind-hearted.  Like Elizabeth, Justine was also taken in by the Frankenstein family. Her parallels with Elizabeth foreshadow that Elizabeth also will die because of Victor’s creature.

When they hear about the accusations brought against Justine, both Victor and Elizabeth believe she is innocent. Victor believes that his creature committed the crime; However Elizabeth is confident in the goodness of Justine. Elizabeth’s firm belief that Justine is not guilty emphasizes the virtue of Justine and underlines the immense injustice that Victor has subjected Justine to by not revealing the truth of the situation at her trial. At Justine’s trial, Elizabeth speaks out to defend Justine.  However Victor remains silent in fear of being judged and persecuted if he tells the world about the creature he has created. This scene reveals an important aspect of Victor’s character; Victor is shown to be self-fish and spineless. Even with the ability to possibly save Justine, Victor still does nothing. However Victor still feels remorseful about Justine’s death.  He describes himself as “the murderer of William and Justine” and continually despairs over her death. Victor feels that he suffers far more from Justine’s death than Justine herself because while Justine had a quick death and her innocence to give her strength, Victor is burdened by weight of having multiple deaths on his hands and having to live with the guilt and regret.

The framing of Justine for William’s murder is also a defining moment for the creature. Before, the creature showed no intention to harm or extend his own mistreatment to others. When the creature saw Justine, he imagined that she, like everyone else, would detest him and that she resembled another beautiful object that he couldn’t have.  By releasing his anger toward Victor and the rest of society by killing William, and framing Justine, the creature demonstrates that he is finished passively being abused.

Justine’s death represents the loss of innocence in both Victor and the creature.  While Victor had no idea that the creature would kill William and could do nothing to save him, Victor did have an opportunity to save Justine. By not trying to save her, Victor essentially allows her to die along with his innocence. By framing Justine for William’s murder, the creature shows that he has evolved from a peaceful, benevolent being to a volatile and revengeful individual. 

Picture Analysis! Yay!

The picture above, from the World Wildlife Fund, has an elephant whose body is crumbling into a pile of sand at the forefront of the picture. The elephant is surrounded by what appears to be inescapable darkness. The process of the elephant’s body becoming a pile of sand is likely a metaphor for desertification and its effects on wildlife. The picture illustrates that when nothing is done to stop desertification, it is able to reduce an ecosystem teeming with life into nothing but piles of sand. An elephant was specifically chosen for this picture because it is a powerful animal, showing that not even the large, majestic elephant is safe from desertification. Elephants are also well liked by the public and help evoke sympathy from the viewers. The elephant’s face is contorted as if it was screaming in pain to show that desertification is a painful process for the ecosystem and wildlife that it affects. The darkness surrounding the elephant emphasizes the animal’s dreadful circumstance and suggests that the elephant has no means of escaping its fate.  There is a small beam of light coming from the top right corner of the picture. As the viewer looks at the picture and feels sympathy toward the animals affected by desertification, he/she becomes that small beam of light, or the last hope that these animals have of ever surviving. 

In the bottom right hand corner, it says “Desertification destroys 6,000 species every year.” This was typed small and in the bottom corner so that it was read after the viewers saw the rest of the picture and was able to interpret it for themselves. This factual statement was used to drive home how impactful desertification is on wildlife. It is important to note that the one line statement does not explicitly call the viewers out to action. However the viewers still understand that there is something that they can do to help the situation. This leaves the viewers to decide for themselves whether they want to help or deny these organisms help from desertification.

 By using an image of a dying elephant, the picture attempts to appeal to the emotions of the viewer. It speaks to the generally caring nature of human beings to strike sympathy with the elephant and the animals affected by desertification. By doing so, World Wildlife Fund hopes to spur the viewer to action and do something to make a change. The picture uses a morose tone to emphasize the need to take action against desertification. By depicting desertification as an evil that needs to be ended, viewers who don’t take action are left feeling guilty.

 Though the picture is of an elephant whose body is crumbling into a pile of sand, it is actually about desertification. The subtle details in the picture really help reinforce the idea that desertification is a harrowing process for the animals involved. The contortion in the elephant's face, the lighting, and the color scheme all come together to give the image a resonating effect.  

My Analysis of "Fire and Ice" by Robert Frost

"Fire and Ice" by Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

                In only nine lines, Frost manages to eloquently provide a powerful statement about the dangers of humanity’s darkest emotions. His reoccurring use of the words fire and ice create a duality in the impending destruction that he describes. Symbolism is fundamental to the meaning of the poem. Ice symbolizes “cold” and sinister emotions such as hatred while fire symbolizes “warmer” emotions such as passion and desire. According to Frost, though these emotions are on opposite sides of the spectrum, they are both capable of causing our destruction. His statements are not only warnings to society as a whole, but also too individuals in their day to day lives. His choice of diction by using the words “I've” and “I” gives the poem a personal ring to it, suggesting that he has had his own experiences with hatred and desire. However, his use of the word “tasted” indicates that he has had limited interaction with fire and ice.

 The tone is also key to the meaning of the poem. Throughout the poem, Frost downplays the subject matter by maintaining a sardonic tone towards the method of our destruction. In the first two lines, Frost’s use of the words “some” suggests that only a portion of the population is involved in the debate between fire and ice and that these thoughts are not universal. Frost does this to decrease the scale and significance of the subject.  In the last line of the poem, Frost casually states that ice “would suffice”. His use of the word suffice completely downplays the situation by implying that we may not be destroyed by our most powerful emotion, but instead by whichever emotion is simply adequate enough. His use of understatement contrasts the amplitude and importance of the subject matter.  It is expected that the means of our destruction would be discussed with a more serious attitude which is why I believe Frost’s tone is so important. His tone possibly indicates that there is no hope for humanity; so rather than getting frenzied over the unstoppable destruction, Frost simply states the destruction in a matter a fact way.  

In the first two lines, Frost makes a clear distinction between fire and ice and outlines his claim that the world will end in one these elements.  I find it interesting that Frost offers no alternatives to fire or ice. I believe this is because fire, which symbolizes desire, and ice, which symbolizes hatred are the two emotion in which all human actions can be traced back too. So everything we do can be traced back to either fire or ice. So no alternatives are necessary.

I can’t help but relate this poem to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In the novel, Victor’s world was destroyed by fire. His desire to achieve what no one had achieved before him lead to his downfall. Though his passion and desires were fueled with good intentions, they still blinded him from the potential consequences of creating life. On the other hand, the creature’s world was destroyed by ice. His hatred of Victor made him hell-bent on getting revenge on Victor.  Every aspect of the creature’s life was driven by his hatred for Victor.