For my final AP English novel, I chose Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut. Several years ago I read Cat's Cradle (another vonnegut book) but sophomore english and really enjoyed it. So, this being his other classic, I figured it would be a good choice. Also, I knew it was a war book, focusing on the Dresden fire bombings, and though I have always had a ww2 interest, I know next to nothing about Dresden.
So far I am about 1/4 of the way through the book, and at this point do not know which direction my paper will lead. The story has been interesting, but the 1st chapter was written in Vonnegut's voice, recapping his life and slowly introducing the maine story, so it took a while to get used to his style. Also, once the actual story starts, it skips around the timeline almost like the first section of The Sound and The Fury. There could probably be a good comparison drawn between the two. A huge difference though is that Vonnegut's writing one can make sense of haha.
It should be interesting. I expect to finish in the next week or so.
My name is Yon Yonson
I come from Wisconsin
I work in a lumber mill there
The people I meet
When I walk down the street
They ask me my name and I say
My name is Yon Yonson, I come from Wisconsin
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Slappin da Bass Maan
Claude McKay was a Jamaican who immigrated to the United States in 1912. In his sonnet “America,” McKay uses constant imagery to share his feelings about his new country. The imagery is used to emphasize how despite McKay loves his country, he stands against the majority when it comes to certain issues. Though never mentioned, we can infer that the issue is race and its role in the US in the 1920's and 30's. However despite the maltreatment of African-Americans, McKay shows that he also understands the opportunities everyone has in America to influence the future.
The poem begins with a contradiction. "Although she feeds me bread of bitterness, And sinks into my throat her tiger's tooth, Stealing my breath of life, I will confess..." ok, he probably hates this place right? ”I love this cultured hell that tests my youth" (lines 1-4). So right off the bat there is a serious discrepancy in the feelings of the speaker, for why would you love anything that holds you back? Is there something addicting in this "cultured hell" that attracts him? Perhaps some sort of drug or lifestyle that has ups and downs. The speaker goes on to say that he stands "erect against her (America's) hate," (line 6) but only has the strength to do so because of the vigor and energy that being in America gives him. Therein is another contradiction, for we know he is fighting against the masses over the role of race, yet from those masses he gets the strength to fight. Maybe it’s a provocation thing.
In 1919 McKay joined a group of black radicals who created the African Blood Brotherhood. They were known to disagree with the nationalistic ideas of Marcus Garvey, preferring to remain in America and forge a place for themselves. That attitude can be seen in "America," as the speaker sees himself as a "rebel" (line 8). Obviously the speaker suffered some sort of persecution for his beliefs and was being punished for them, for he says, "As a rebel fronts a king in state, I stand within her walls" (lines 8-9). Through the persecution he endures, the speaker gains perspective.
The poem concludes, "Darkly I gaze into the days ahead, And see her might and granite wonders there, Beneath the touch of Time's unerring hand, Like priceless Treasures sinking in the sand" (lines 11-14). Here the speaker is referring to all the amazing accomplishments of America. Yet he believes that despite those great accomplishments, America is still doomed and will be viewed by history as a nation with great potential that failed due to intolerance (priceless treasures sinking in the sand).
Throughout "America" the use of imagery helps give the sense that the speaker is an introspective man, unafraid of speaking out with opinions different from the norm. He puts the idea/feeling of vigor into liquid form in line 5, saying "her (America's) vigor flows like tides into my blood" (line 5). Later he shares the result of standing up against the majority, "Her (America's) bigness sweeps my being like a flood" (line 7). Another example is when instead of simply saying how things change through history, McKay writes "beneath the touch of Time's unerring hand, Like priceless treasures sinking in the sand," (lines 13-14). Come on, that's legit.
I found the fact that this was written as a sonnet interesting because it seems like such a modern topic whereas sonnets seem so old fashioned and Shakespearean. Yet I feel that it made the topic more serious, and allowed for the speaker not to come off as a radical anti-government Joe the plumber person. (just kidding). Nonetheless, I feel that the message of the poem is very important. Americans tend to have sizable egos and remembering that all other great empires through history have fallen is important, even if we have accomplished so much.
This has been the Prince, layin down some knowledge.
Prince out.
(643)
The poem begins with a contradiction. "Although she feeds me bread of bitterness, And sinks into my throat her tiger's tooth, Stealing my breath of life, I will confess..." ok, he probably hates this place right? ”I love this cultured hell that tests my youth" (lines 1-4). So right off the bat there is a serious discrepancy in the feelings of the speaker, for why would you love anything that holds you back? Is there something addicting in this "cultured hell" that attracts him? Perhaps some sort of drug or lifestyle that has ups and downs. The speaker goes on to say that he stands "erect against her (America's) hate," (line 6) but only has the strength to do so because of the vigor and energy that being in America gives him. Therein is another contradiction, for we know he is fighting against the masses over the role of race, yet from those masses he gets the strength to fight. Maybe it’s a provocation thing.
In 1919 McKay joined a group of black radicals who created the African Blood Brotherhood. They were known to disagree with the nationalistic ideas of Marcus Garvey, preferring to remain in America and forge a place for themselves. That attitude can be seen in "America," as the speaker sees himself as a "rebel" (line 8). Obviously the speaker suffered some sort of persecution for his beliefs and was being punished for them, for he says, "As a rebel fronts a king in state, I stand within her walls" (lines 8-9). Through the persecution he endures, the speaker gains perspective.
The poem concludes, "Darkly I gaze into the days ahead, And see her might and granite wonders there, Beneath the touch of Time's unerring hand, Like priceless Treasures sinking in the sand" (lines 11-14). Here the speaker is referring to all the amazing accomplishments of America. Yet he believes that despite those great accomplishments, America is still doomed and will be viewed by history as a nation with great potential that failed due to intolerance (priceless treasures sinking in the sand).
Throughout "America" the use of imagery helps give the sense that the speaker is an introspective man, unafraid of speaking out with opinions different from the norm. He puts the idea/feeling of vigor into liquid form in line 5, saying "her (America's) vigor flows like tides into my blood" (line 5). Later he shares the result of standing up against the majority, "Her (America's) bigness sweeps my being like a flood" (line 7). Another example is when instead of simply saying how things change through history, McKay writes "beneath the touch of Time's unerring hand, Like priceless treasures sinking in the sand," (lines 13-14). Come on, that's legit.
I found the fact that this was written as a sonnet interesting because it seems like such a modern topic whereas sonnets seem so old fashioned and Shakespearean. Yet I feel that it made the topic more serious, and allowed for the speaker not to come off as a radical anti-government Joe the plumber person. (just kidding). Nonetheless, I feel that the message of the poem is very important. Americans tend to have sizable egos and remembering that all other great empires through history have fallen is important, even if we have accomplished so much.
This has been the Prince, layin down some knowledge.
Prince out.
(643)
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Dolly the Sheep
I really don't know how much the title relates to A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, but it was the best of the several mediocre play on word things that came to mind.
First of all, I must say that this story is written in such a way that I find myself disliking Nora. Maybe it is because she seems all over the place in her emotions, but I just find it difficult to sympathize with her, even if the borrowing of money and forgery were done with fine moral justification. What I do find interesting though, is how her and Mrs. Linde's positions fluctuate almost correspondingly. In the begginning of the play, Mrs. Linde is a widow, having had no children, and having worked to support a sick mother and several young brothers. As her mother passes and her brothers age, her purpose for existance seems to fade. Nora, on the other hand, begins the play "holding all the cards." She is kind of happily married, has children, a successful husband, and even (secretly) contributed to saving his life. This gives her a secret sense of satisfaction, a sense of purpose if you will, something Mrs. Linde lacks. Then, in the concluding scenes of the play, we see Mrs. Linde join a family, attain children, and find past love. All this occurs while Nora decides that she wishes to leave her role as a mother and wife and live for herself. This shows for the first time in the play that a woman can have a sense of purpose outside of motherhood and housewifedom (that isn't a word but you get what i'm saying). That, i believe is the redeeming quality of Nora, for she almost surprisingly shows a strength which is not seen even in the more weathered Mrs. Linde. I suppose this makes the play feminist, but even if not, it definitely gives interesting insight into the roles of women in the 19th century and how one can deceive oneself into happiness. I don't know much about the actual role of women in the 1800's, for I always pictured them still being without much independence, so I suppose Nora should be looked up to, even after all the deception she deals in.
First of all, I must say that this story is written in such a way that I find myself disliking Nora. Maybe it is because she seems all over the place in her emotions, but I just find it difficult to sympathize with her, even if the borrowing of money and forgery were done with fine moral justification. What I do find interesting though, is how her and Mrs. Linde's positions fluctuate almost correspondingly. In the begginning of the play, Mrs. Linde is a widow, having had no children, and having worked to support a sick mother and several young brothers. As her mother passes and her brothers age, her purpose for existance seems to fade. Nora, on the other hand, begins the play "holding all the cards." She is kind of happily married, has children, a successful husband, and even (secretly) contributed to saving his life. This gives her a secret sense of satisfaction, a sense of purpose if you will, something Mrs. Linde lacks. Then, in the concluding scenes of the play, we see Mrs. Linde join a family, attain children, and find past love. All this occurs while Nora decides that she wishes to leave her role as a mother and wife and live for herself. This shows for the first time in the play that a woman can have a sense of purpose outside of motherhood and housewifedom (that isn't a word but you get what i'm saying). That, i believe is the redeeming quality of Nora, for she almost surprisingly shows a strength which is not seen even in the more weathered Mrs. Linde. I suppose this makes the play feminist, but even if not, it definitely gives interesting insight into the roles of women in the 19th century and how one can deceive oneself into happiness. I don't know much about the actual role of women in the 1800's, for I always pictured them still being without much independence, so I suppose Nora should be looked up to, even after all the deception she deals in.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Hillbilly Willy
No offense to the other members of my english class, but for some peculiar reason I found what I personally spoke about (willy and his garden) most interesting, so that I what I shall expand on in my blog.
We as readers only see a small segment of Willy's life, right at the end, but through flashbacks we also see several of his major disappointments in life, which he seems to constantly be thinking about. In the several day period of the play Willy seems to dwell on the things that went wrong in his life, so imagine if he had been doing this for years! No wonder he is depressed, for even though he is still in denial about it, Willy accomplished nothing significant in his life, for he himself is insignificant and mediocre. I believe that his desire to plant a garden can be deciphered two ways. The first is that the garden stands for his life, and at the end it is barren, devoid of any life or accomplishment, so he wishes, at the end to plant something (like his idea to kill himself so linda will receive his life insurance money). The other interpretation of the garden is that he wishes to leave something behind after he dies, so he plants some seeds, hoping to make some sort of a lasting impression on the world, which he had been unable to accomplish so far.
The fact is that Willy is a loser. Unlike the other salesman who had hundreds of people attend his funeral, only Willy's family and close friend attended his. When he goes in to see howard and ask for a job in the city, the fact that Howard is uncaring and unwilling to help willy shows that willy also has not left a lasting impression in his own workplace, despite having worked there for years.
So should we sympathize with willy? yes. In fact, it's hard not to. From his story we can see the consequences of not letting dreams go after they should be deemed unattainable, for then, not dealing with reality, we could become as out of touch as willy was.
This has been the Prince of Belair, laying down some mad insight.
Prince Out.
We as readers only see a small segment of Willy's life, right at the end, but through flashbacks we also see several of his major disappointments in life, which he seems to constantly be thinking about. In the several day period of the play Willy seems to dwell on the things that went wrong in his life, so imagine if he had been doing this for years! No wonder he is depressed, for even though he is still in denial about it, Willy accomplished nothing significant in his life, for he himself is insignificant and mediocre. I believe that his desire to plant a garden can be deciphered two ways. The first is that the garden stands for his life, and at the end it is barren, devoid of any life or accomplishment, so he wishes, at the end to plant something (like his idea to kill himself so linda will receive his life insurance money). The other interpretation of the garden is that he wishes to leave something behind after he dies, so he plants some seeds, hoping to make some sort of a lasting impression on the world, which he had been unable to accomplish so far.
The fact is that Willy is a loser. Unlike the other salesman who had hundreds of people attend his funeral, only Willy's family and close friend attended his. When he goes in to see howard and ask for a job in the city, the fact that Howard is uncaring and unwilling to help willy shows that willy also has not left a lasting impression in his own workplace, despite having worked there for years.
So should we sympathize with willy? yes. In fact, it's hard not to. From his story we can see the consequences of not letting dreams go after they should be deemed unattainable, for then, not dealing with reality, we could become as out of touch as willy was.
This has been the Prince of Belair, laying down some mad insight.
Prince Out.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Life of A Prince
As the white version of the Prince of Bel Air, I find myself more qualified to comment on Hamlet then many others. Everyone in my English class has made good points throughout our discussion, but because none of them are princes or princesses, who are they to judge Hamlet and his actions?
Hence, I would like to take a minute to dispel several beliefs about Hamlet that I have encountered and believe are incorrect.
1. Hamlet wanted to die. Bullshit. No prince would ever want to die unless
a. he was about to married off to some hosey
b. his kingdom was going through a coup and he was losing power
c. he was about to be made king
d. someone was beating him in a war
otherwise, princes have totally sicknasty lives! I mean, just look at those two from england. It doesnt seem to me like they're too unhappy. I'm serious about the "about to be made king thing" too. that would really blow. all the functions, benefits, and responsibilities. Princes just get to party and screw around.
The only real perk of being king is that you're totally in charge, but then again, the only person who outranks a prince is the king. If i wasn't a prince, I'd probably still want to be nobility, like a knight. Ha, actually, every once in a while when i meet someone new Ill introduce myself as Sir Alexander beller, and they think i'm joking around.... which I am. But then I seriously tell them that my dad donated a bunch of money to some cause of the Crown like 20 years ago in england, and for that he was knighted, and so when he dies I actually will be Sir Alexander Beller. They key to getting people to believe is that I said my dad donated money (something simple and believable) opposed to saying he took a bullet for the king (or something ridiculous like that). Haha, that is one of my favorites.
Wow. off topic.
Hamlet.
Ok, I guess I just feel that hamlet should be cut a break. When someone is pretending to be crazy, OF COURSE they are going to lose touch with their feelings and actually become a bit crazy. Think of him as a method actor. OF Course he has to act crazy around ophelia, i mean, her dad is a snoop.
So i say, as a prince and one who can empathize much better then others with hamlet's position, CUT HIM A BREAK.
He's just a boy who's confused cause his uncle killed his daddy and married his mommy. In that position, I think anyone would be acting a little crazy, especially in the search for revenge.
Hence, I would like to take a minute to dispel several beliefs about Hamlet that I have encountered and believe are incorrect.
1. Hamlet wanted to die. Bullshit. No prince would ever want to die unless
a. he was about to married off to some hosey
b. his kingdom was going through a coup and he was losing power
c. he was about to be made king
d. someone was beating him in a war
otherwise, princes have totally sicknasty lives! I mean, just look at those two from england. It doesnt seem to me like they're too unhappy. I'm serious about the "about to be made king thing" too. that would really blow. all the functions, benefits, and responsibilities. Princes just get to party and screw around.
The only real perk of being king is that you're totally in charge, but then again, the only person who outranks a prince is the king. If i wasn't a prince, I'd probably still want to be nobility, like a knight. Ha, actually, every once in a while when i meet someone new Ill introduce myself as Sir Alexander beller, and they think i'm joking around.... which I am. But then I seriously tell them that my dad donated a bunch of money to some cause of the Crown like 20 years ago in england, and for that he was knighted, and so when he dies I actually will be Sir Alexander Beller. They key to getting people to believe is that I said my dad donated money (something simple and believable) opposed to saying he took a bullet for the king (or something ridiculous like that). Haha, that is one of my favorites.
Wow. off topic.
Hamlet.
Ok, I guess I just feel that hamlet should be cut a break. When someone is pretending to be crazy, OF COURSE they are going to lose touch with their feelings and actually become a bit crazy. Think of him as a method actor. OF Course he has to act crazy around ophelia, i mean, her dad is a snoop.
So i say, as a prince and one who can empathize much better then others with hamlet's position, CUT HIM A BREAK.
He's just a boy who's confused cause his uncle killed his daddy and married his mommy. In that position, I think anyone would be acting a little crazy, especially in the search for revenge.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
No Response
Maybe it was because we didn't spend much time on it, or maybe because I didn't read it Freshman year, but either way, Oedipus blew me away. I was not really expecting all that too happen. But, I guess we shouldn't expect anything less from one of the greatest tragedies of all time.
Honestly, I just feel bad for Oedipus. I mean, i guess curiosity kills the cat, or in this cause, ruins the life of the king, but still. All his crimes he seemed to do without any malice or evil in mind.
Perhaps we cannot escape our own fate. Perhaps zeus is more powerful then any god we have today. I may never know. Oedipus leaves me wondering about my own fate.
I am still a young lad with no particular skill set. I suppose my path for life hasn't been chosen. Or maybe it has been, only I am still unfamiliar with it. That's the thing though, I just feel bad for oedipus, cause he was a pretty cool dude. Just like myself. And his path was to be king, o wait, nope. He's going to be king, but also unknowingly kill his own father and doodle his mother. I mean, come on. Cut the guy a break. Then again, maybe that stuff has to happen to make up for all the fun one can have as king. Hmmm. There's some food for thought.
After all this, I guess the only thing I really want for myself is not to become king of anywhere. But prince would do. O yes, prince would do. Do you notice how much fun those 2 in england seem to have? its completely unfair. Maybe I could be prince for a day.....
Honestly, I just feel bad for Oedipus. I mean, i guess curiosity kills the cat, or in this cause, ruins the life of the king, but still. All his crimes he seemed to do without any malice or evil in mind.
Perhaps we cannot escape our own fate. Perhaps zeus is more powerful then any god we have today. I may never know. Oedipus leaves me wondering about my own fate.
I am still a young lad with no particular skill set. I suppose my path for life hasn't been chosen. Or maybe it has been, only I am still unfamiliar with it. That's the thing though, I just feel bad for oedipus, cause he was a pretty cool dude. Just like myself. And his path was to be king, o wait, nope. He's going to be king, but also unknowingly kill his own father and doodle his mother. I mean, come on. Cut the guy a break. Then again, maybe that stuff has to happen to make up for all the fun one can have as king. Hmmm. There's some food for thought.
After all this, I guess the only thing I really want for myself is not to become king of anywhere. But prince would do. O yes, prince would do. Do you notice how much fun those 2 in england seem to have? its completely unfair. Maybe I could be prince for a day.....
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Goodbye Mr. Barbarian
Ok, So I honestly have no idea how to access JSTOR from my house, so I didn't read the article by Douglas Kerr (possible related to Steve Kerr? the worst thing ever to happen to Suns Basketball). I will read it tomorrow at school, so for now I'll simply write this blog on my own comparisons between Waiting for the Barbarians and Heart of Darkness. Who needs scholarly articles anyway when you have the analysis of one Alex Beller?
I guess the best place to start would be the titles. We can run down the checklist. Are both ominous? yes. Are both mysterious? yes. Are both sexual? ehh, not really. The mystery which can be percieved from the names of the two works of fiction is what i believe to be their main commonality. In Waiting for the Barbarians, citizens of the Empire associate the Barbarians with mystery. From this mystery stems fear, which brings the citizenry together (hating a common enemy). But, we have, um, what is the saying? beat the dead horse? Something like that. The point is that we have covered extensively in class how in Waiting for the Barbarians fear is used as a tool of unification.
In Heart of Darkness however, the mystery of Africa does not scare the European nations. Single europeans in Africa would be scared of the mysetry and forboding of the place, but at large, their society was not threatened as the Empire's was by the Barbarians. Europeans did not hate the African people, they were apathetic, secure in the future of their wealth and prosperity.
I hope i'm not being ambiguous, even though I'm sure that I am. Here is my point succinctly: in both Waiting for the Barbarians and Heart of Darkness mystery is a central theme. In Barbarians, it is seen as a motivator on a macro scale, while in Heart of Darkness mystery is something that Marlow experiences in his adventures. Get it?
I'll add in a few more paragraphs once I read that article.
Solid Semester Mr Coon, thanks for everything.
Beller Out.
Peace.
I guess the best place to start would be the titles. We can run down the checklist. Are both ominous? yes. Are both mysterious? yes. Are both sexual? ehh, not really. The mystery which can be percieved from the names of the two works of fiction is what i believe to be their main commonality. In Waiting for the Barbarians, citizens of the Empire associate the Barbarians with mystery. From this mystery stems fear, which brings the citizenry together (hating a common enemy). But, we have, um, what is the saying? beat the dead horse? Something like that. The point is that we have covered extensively in class how in Waiting for the Barbarians fear is used as a tool of unification.
In Heart of Darkness however, the mystery of Africa does not scare the European nations. Single europeans in Africa would be scared of the mysetry and forboding of the place, but at large, their society was not threatened as the Empire's was by the Barbarians. Europeans did not hate the African people, they were apathetic, secure in the future of their wealth and prosperity.
I hope i'm not being ambiguous, even though I'm sure that I am. Here is my point succinctly: in both Waiting for the Barbarians and Heart of Darkness mystery is a central theme. In Barbarians, it is seen as a motivator on a macro scale, while in Heart of Darkness mystery is something that Marlow experiences in his adventures. Get it?
I'll add in a few more paragraphs once I read that article.
Solid Semester Mr Coon, thanks for everything.
Beller Out.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
