Reflection on “1984” Ending

Through moments of great suspense and endless monotony, George Orwell’s 1984 proved a very eye-opening book. The novel was increasingly difficult for me to read and by the close of it I felt wholly defeated. I realized that this reaction is very appropriate and even expected because Orwell’s depiction of a totalitarian society based in hatred and war hysteria is not meant to be a hopeful one. Orwell served his purpose in outlining all of the issues with dictatorial regimes, like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia that were in power during the publication of 1984. Orwell’s purpose was to show the reader the (mostly) average citizen of this society, that being Winston, and his desire to break free of the oppression he has been placed under. The first part of the book outlined the workings of the Party society, the second showed Winston’s beginnings of serious rebellion and the third divulged into his punishment at the Minilove facility where he was beaten down, both physically and in spirit.

I saw the novel as a solid critique of totalitarian regimes, specifically it’s citing of the USSR’s violations of human rights. 1984 proved difficult for me to read seeing that the culture of the Party-world was based in a strict class hierarchy and demanded readers believe that all humans being selfish and power-hungry. This reading is necessary though because denying there is greed and oppression in the world only serves to further hide the existence of greed and oppression.

Ultimately, the ending the of book for me was a difficult one to process. Winston sits in a bar, alone and alcoholic, a human devoid of hope. Upon hearing the news of a great victory for Oceania, Winston leaps up and celebrates wholeheartedly. The final lines of the book prove it’s most powerful. Winston thinks to himself “…everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.” (298). I found the end to be almost ironic in that the reader is lead to believe that Winston might still have some spark in him. Possibly he is celebrating the victory because it may end the endless war, but in actuality Winston has truly attained doublethink and his acceptance of his dictator’s power is the cherry on top of his repentance dessert.

Explication of “Barbie Doll”

Marge Piercy’s poem Barbie Doll follows a female from girlhood to death, her life a metaphor for the harm that beauty standards cause women. The piece opens with an account of the subject’s toys such as dolls, stoves and makeup, all objects that represent traditional  femininity and thus this “girlchild” is thrust into her first gender role. The poem’s point comes into focus with the subject’s classmate stating “You have a great big nose and fat legs.” A contrast to this statement is the subjects characterization that outlines the girl as being “healthy, tested intelligent, possessed strong arms and back, abundant sexual drive and manual dexterity.” Despite the strength and wit the child possesses she “went to and fro apologizing” for her appearance and existence and believed “Everyone saw a fat nose on thick legs.” This belief led her to “exercise, diet, smile and wheedle” while societal pressures to “play coy” and “to come on hearty” repeatedly wore at her patience and confidence. Piercy utilizes overstatement to outline the subject’s struggle in that she “cut off her nose and her legs and offered them up.”
The final stanza depicts the woman’s demise and final resting place. No longer does she wear her own make-up but has been painted with the “undertaker's cosmetics.” I find this line interesting in that while alive the subject had no agency in her appearance once she was ridiculed, she existed to please everyone else and now someone else is applying her makeup. Another intriguing line is one that states the girl as having a “turned-up putty nose.” This leads me to believe that the subject went so far as to have cosmetic surgery to fix her perceived imperfection. My theory is that the woman of this poem struggled with an eating disorder and complications of this lead to an untimely death.
The closing lines are powerful and serves to emphasize the author’s views “Doesn't she look pretty? everyone said. Consummation at last. To every woman a happy ending.” The line “Doesn't she look pretty” is assumed to be spoke by a attendee of the funeral, a person that shows remorse for the girl yet still only truly sees her for her appearance. The use of “pretty” also finally validates the subject in her attempts to be and feel physically beautiful, but such attempts are in vain for her struggle has killed her. This too-late-validation is mentioned in the lines “Consummation at last. To every woman a happy ending.” Ultimately the “happy ending” is ironic in that the currently high standards set for women in society make for no real closure in that no female feels adequate.

Impressions of Julia from “1984”

Prior to Part Two of Orwell’s “1984” I was wary of Julia as a character and shared the same fear as Winston that she was a person not to be trusted. She appeared cold and deceptive. My perception of Julia, like Winton’s, changed dramatically with the first chapter when she slips the infamous note. The note proved that there is a softness to her and a clear penchant for being a traitor of the Party. Julia, then still referred to as ‘the girl,’ is smart about her passing of the note, with a begging facial expression, a deliberate fall and the secret passing of the note. Initially I worried the note was a trap but Winston’s excitement proved otherwise. They meet at Victory Square and she gives him detailed instructions for a meeting and then reaches out to hold his hand, a move that depicts clever planning and romantic inclinations. The two meet in the field. Julia is not vain and “couldn’t care less” (120) about Winston’s slightly haggard appearance. Winston reveals his initial impressions of Julia and she is delighted that her disguise of a “good Party member,” (121) is convincing enough and she admits to being extremely involved with Party volunteer work so as to ensure a good cover. She has a knack for determining who is against the Party, another instance of her apparent cleverness and know-how of the party. Her insight into the Party does not damper her anger however, and she has (as Winston states) “an open jeering hatred” which is framed by shocking the “coarseness of her language” (123). Julia, like Winston, has an appreciation for the beautiful and the unnecessary, like the singing thrush in the woods. Prior to having sex, Julia openly admits to sleeping with “scores” of men within the Outer Party and that she is “corrupt to the bones” (125). Julia proves intelligent in many ways like with skills in communicating beyond the Party’s notice but claims she can only seem to handle machinery, not literature. Ideals of hers are that one must “break the rules and stay alive the same” so as to avoid vaporization but stopping the Party is “stupid” (131). Julia isn’t totally blind to the Party’s wrongdoings but her focus is on this that directly affect her, like the stigma surrounding sex, love and privacy. Despite this Julia is a positive person and enjoys living in the ‘now,’ and incredulously asks “Don’t you enjoy being alive?” (136).

Chapters four through six serve to reinforce Julia’s penchant for rebellion (with the purchases on the black-market) but lack of will to change the nation simply for the sake of change (with her dismissal of not caring about the nation’s ever-changing history).

Predictions for "1984" Part 2

1. At this point in the novel 1984 (approaching Part 2) there is a question of where the narrative of Winston Smith’s will go. There is a chance George Orwell’s story will reflect that of Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games trilogy where the protagonist becomes the leader of a nation-wide rebellion. In chapter 8, Winston finds that the lowest class, the Proles, could potentially overthrow the government if they chose to do so. This route proves unlikely, for Proles are unconscious and uncaring of political actions. The second move the book may take is the uneventful-account-of-misery plot where a character, like Winston, describes their horrible life in intolerable conditions where no definitive plot is created. The novel is simply an account of an individual through everyday life. I have trouble believing this second theory because the formatting of the book appears that exposition lies in Part 1 and more action will be seen in Part 2. My personal prediction for the story would be that Winston spirals into a hopeless depression (he’s already mostly there) that leads to a quiet case of insanity and he is eventually vaporized by the Thoughtpoilce after someone finds out about his diary-keeping. Despite this being possible, I am most partial to the first option of potential plot direction. This is because it appears Winston is becomingly increasingly comfortable being insubordinate, like with visiting the junk-shop a second time and claiming he would like to keep photographs from the Minitrue. Winston claims his views on history are “right” and thus he must “[defend]” (81) the Party-members from Big Brother. Thus I find he will try to incite rebellion.
2. I have a sinking feeling that Winston will be killed off by the close of the novel. This could mean that he attempts a rebellion, it backfires, and he is quietly vaporized. 
3. Going off of the “protagonist becomes the leader of a nation-wide rebellion” plot I think that Winston’s rebellion will have to involve other people. O’Brien has been portrayed as very important to Winston and I think if Winston is able to get him alone the two could talk and O’Brien could divulge his anger while Winston confesses his keeping a diary.
4. There is much mention of the sexual repression Winston experiences so I predict that Winston will undergo an awakening of sorts. I have a hunch that Winston will encounter a female character that also wants to rebel and she will become a partner-in-crime and possible romantic interest. 

Reflection on the Ministry of Truth in “1984"

In George Orwell’s novel 1984, protagonist Winston Smith works at a government building entitled the Ministry of Truth, or Minitrue (in his national language of Newspeak). The building itself is monstrous and composed of “glittering white concrete” (4). The edifice is huge and stark white so as to contrast the decrepit and dark housing complexes that the citizens must live in. On the front of the building there are the nation’s Party Slogans that read “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is Strength” (4). These slogans define the ideals of this totalitarian society, one that relies on battle, oppression and unconsciousness. The Minitrue specifically focuses on news and entertainment. Winston’s job at the office is to alter “every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance” (40). The nation of Oceania is led by an all-powerful and revered leader named Big Brother. Big Brother’s government officials, like Winston, aid him in remaining honest and respected. Although this honesty is not genuine,  for the Minitrue seeks to destroy all evidence of the government lying and suppress any individuals or occurrences that go against Oceania’s totalitarian regime.
The Ministry and it’s actions mirror those of dictator Joseph Stalin and his Soviet Union. Stalin ordered the purge of individuals that were against the newly formulated Communist government. Officials tried to remove influential figures from documentation and thus change Soviet history. This shaping of the past was done through censoring news, altering images and demolishing film. Political opponents of Stalin, similar to Big Brother, were edited out of history as they fell out of favor with the leader.

Explication of “To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time”

In Robert Herrick’s piece To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time, he gives advice that is indicative of the title. The first two stanzas give descriptions on “rosebuds” and the setting of the “Sun” where these are symbols that indicate a lack of spare time in living. The second stanzas are more literal in that Herrick explicitly asks the reader to not waste time and marry soon.
The first lines finds one should “Gather ye rosebuds while ye may.” The buds are symbolic of a lifetime, where their beauty could presently be so evident but quickly dead-and-gone by the following day.  Herrick essentially is stating that humans have very little time on earth and mortality is ever-encroaching. The second symbol utilized is the sun. This “glorious lamp,” is in contesting with itself where “The sooner will his race be run” the “nearer he's to setting.” Again, Herrick is emphasizing mortality and how life can be looked upon as a race where they are suddenly over and a person’s metaphorical sun has set on them.
The third and fourth stanzas differ from the first in that they are less figurative and more advising. As with the first half of the poem Herrick finds that people must act soon in all they do for “age is best which is the first.” The following line is where Herrick’s advice on being keen with time sees reason. Herrick believes that action should be done “When youth and blood are warmer,” this singles out young people as his subject. Herrick’s ultimate thesis is clearly stated in the final stanza where he warns the reader to “be not coy, but use your time, / And while ye may go marry; / For having lost but once your prime / You may for ever tarry.” Herrick’s title of To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time makes total sense upon completion of the poem. Herrick wants (presumably female) virgins to make haste in finding partners to wed so as to not waste their “prime” of youthfulness and have to possibly live out life as a spinster. Herrick’s sole belief is that virginity should not be preserved but made use of in youth.

Explication of "To His Coy Mistress"

To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell depicts a nameless man speaking to a nameless woman. Here the male speaker begs of the female to be intimate with him and he is quick to remind her of their ever-encroaching mortality. Ultimately, this is the narrator’s inquiry for sex of the mistress and this is best seen in the first stanza. His justification is that there is little time for the two of them saying her refusal to become a sexual partner of his is akin to a “crime.” The man alludes to the rubies of India and compares the mistresses thievery (or stealing of sex from him) to British imperialism. The speaker is not soley considered with a physical relationship but displays having love for this mistress as well. He compares his building affection to the slow process of creating an empire. Upon completion of this empire of love he believes she would “show [her] heart,” which could either mean be finally intimate with him or pay him back with her falling in love, as well. The speaker is genuine in this empire metaphor asserting “For, lady, you deserve this state, / Nor would I love at lower rate.”
The second stanza the speaker returns to his anxiety over time, he fears “Time's winged chariot hurrying near.” But one line later he contradicts himself, stating “yonder all before us lie / Deserts of vast eternity.” It can be argued that the narrator’s incongruity stems from his being desperate for consummating a sexual relationship and then later slowly building a romantic bond. His warning if she doesn’t comply is her eventual resting in a “marble vault” where “worms shall try” to take her “long preserv'd virginity.”
The third and final stanza is his continued plea that the two consummate their relations while they still have a “youthful hue,” to their skin. He finds that if they are quick to get together now then they may “languish,” later. He claims that their “pleasures” will aid them in passing “Thorough the iron gates of life,” and manage the daily strife they are sure to face. His concluding lines are “Thus, though we cannot make our sun / Stand still, yet we will make him run,” depict both the pressure the narrator feels over the passing of time and his finding that with sex they can both speed up and slow down time.

Who reigns as best villain in King Lear?

Thus far in Shakespeare’s King Lear, it is apparent that Edmund is the most villainous character. Edmund is dubbed ‘villainous’ because he is the individual who does the most wrong and lacks any and all guilty feelings. Edmund is a master of deception from his first monologue. He finds that he is just as worthy of respect as his half-brother, Edgar, and feels he’s been “deprived” (1.2.3) in all respects due to his being a bastard child. His father, Gloucester, enters and Edmund is quick to manipulate him into receiving a falsely-worded letter. The letter states that Edmund is to get half of the inheritance, according to his brother and against his father’s wishes and current societal norms. Gloucester is angered by this indiscretion on Edgar’s part and marks Edgar as a villain. The action itself is devious but it’s Edmund’s behaviors that makes the trick all the more cunning. Edmund feigns subordination and inferiority, claiming he is undeserving of the inheritance but at the close of the scene he states “Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit” (164). Edmund then goes to Edgar saying it’s in his best interest to leave, for Gloucester is mad at him.
A true master of deception can make their victims see them as protecting and aiding them when really they are accomplishing the opposite. This continues in Act 2 when Edmund confides in Edgar that he should vacate his hiding spot and leave the Kingdom entirely. Edmund proceeds to draw his sword on Edgar to fool Gloucester. Edgar then has a chance to leave. Edmund even goes so far as to wound himself so as to convince Gloucester of Edgar's villainy. Edmund is quick to give Gloucester his altered version of the story and the Earl sends out men to have Edgar killed. The first by-product of Edmund’s wrath is Edgar’s descent into the Poor Tom character and excommunication from his Kingdom and family.
Edmund makes is so that the royal family is tricked into thinking Gloucester is an enemy to them, due to his loyalty to Lear. Edmund has seen his wealth be threatened by this loyalty and he will throw any family member under the metaphorical bus if that is what’s necessary to maintain power. Edmund finds that “The younger rises when the old doth fall” (3.3.23), with no semblance of remorse. Edmund discloses Gloucester’s treason to the bloodthirsty Cornwall, who finds Gloucester a traitor and thief of King Lear. Gloucester is blinded by Cornwall, this being the second product of Edmund’s villainous ways.

Explication of “Gathering Leaves,” and Relation to King Lear

Robert Frost’s poem Gathering Leaves, reflects on Autumn’s necessary task of raking. The speaker opens the piece with tactile imagery relating to “bags full of leaves,” and utilizing a simile that states they are “light as balloons.” Frost continues to use imagery but in the auditory sense in that he discusses the sounds associated with raking and compares it to “rabbit and deer / Running away.” The following stanza is one that relates best to Shakespeare’s King Lear in that it discusses nature’s power and how it is something the speaker cannot harness, even though it is a part of him. Gathering Leaves’ narrator claims “But the mountains I raise / Elude my embrace, / Flowing over my arms / And into my face.” This individual finds that nature’s great power, or “mountains,” are out of his reach even though they touch upon his “arms” and face.” This image is very similar to Act 3 of Lear when the King is standing out in the storm and challenging the harsh weather. In Scene 2, Lear cries “Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow!” (3.2.1) and a close-reading proves that the storm’s effects mirror the chaos occurring in Lear’s life. This is akin to Gathering Leaves in that following the assertion of Nature’s power the narrator compares raking to the futility of life. Frost writes “I may load and unload / Again and again / Till I fill the whole shed, / And what have I then?” thus depicting the repetitiveness that is raking and it’s lack of accomplishing anything substantial. The speakers even discusses the uselessness of the leaves being raked saying they are “nothing for weight,” “nothing for color” and “nothing for use.” Ultimately the narrator comes to the conclusion that leaves are a harvest themselves, albeit a useless one.

King Lear versus Nature

King Lear introduces the theme of nature in Act 1. After having disowned Cordelia, Lear refers to her as “a wretch whom Nature is ashamed,” (1.1.213). It is here Lear appeals to Nature and sees it as being an enforcer of the social order. The social order that Lear demands is one where children are loyal to their parents, unlike his “wretch” Cordelia. Later in Scene 4, Lear provides an apostrophe to Nature where he asks the gods to punish Goneril by going “Into her womb,” to “convey sterility” (1.4.246). Thus far, it can be seen that Lear calls to Nature when his authority is called into question. Lear has given away all of his lands but refuses to have his power diminished in that it is simply natural for him to be the one to rule. After being refused to see Regan on the grounds of sickness, Lear remarks “Whereto our health is bound; we are not ourselves / When nature being oppressed, commands the mind / To suffer with the body” (2.4.102-104). This statement further delves into Lear’s beliefs on nature in that what is being said is not done out of convenience for his self-centered and vengeful persona. This is an honest and understanding allowance that finds when an individual is ill they no longer function in a normal way, similar to Lear’s previous notions that when norms are compromised, Nature is wronged. The discussion of Nature by Lear begins to reach it’s climax at the close of this Scene when Lear tells Regan “Allow not nature more than nature needs, / Man’s life is cheap as beast’s” (2.4.264-265). Here Lear asserts that his army is a truly unnecessary item of his because all items not essential to survival are unnecessary. He argues that humans have desires beyond that of basics like food and shelter. Lear sees that human nature demands excess.

Act 3 sees not just Lear’s discussion about Nature but his actual interaction with it. Lear stands outside in a raging storm, having been pushed out by his daughters. Lear calls to the Heavens “I tax not you, you elements, with unkindness; / I never gave you kingdom” (3.2.16-17). Lear claims that Nature never hurt him, something his daughters were so quick to do after gaining his inheritance. As the King stands under the tempest and cries “Here I stand your slave, / A poor, infirm, weak and despised old man” (3.2.19-20). King Lear admits that he is lacking the strength, power and likeability of his previous years and sees that he is now a slave to Nature and all of it’s “horrible pleasure” (3.2.19), meaning he is willing to be struck by lightning because he lives in a corrupted society that lacks gratefulness. This is seen in his lines “Crack nature’s molds; all germens spill at once / That makes ingrateful man!” (3.2.8-9).

King Lear Act 2 - Edmund's deception

Previous to Act 2, Edmund had duped his father, Gloucester, into thinking Edmund's brother Edgar was going against his wishes of not providing Edmund with inheritance and he convinced Edgar he planned to help him by having him hide within their manor.  Act 2 opens with Edmund being told a rumor about a quarrel between the Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Albany (both husbands of the Lear sisters) and decides to use it in his plot to oust Edgar. Edgar enters and Edmund advises him to “fly this place!” (20), so as to avoid being caught up in the dilemma and face Gloucester’s wrath. Edmund convinces Edgar that he will help him by issuing a false threat in Gloucester’s presence. After Edgar leaves, Edmund goes so far as to harm himself to make his scheme more convincing. Edmund tells Gloucester that Edgar’s intention was to “Persuade me to the murder of your Lordship” (43). Edmund also adds that Edgar insulted him and created a fake letter to trick the two men. The lie has Gloucester convinced and he has men sent out to find and kill Edgar. Edmund’s plot reveals his conniving and wanton personality. Edmund believes he is justified in receiving Gloucester’s inheritance in that he has struggled as a bastard child his whole life. Gloucester is quick to believe Edmund’s lies and seek out punishment for Edgar, proving a sudden shift from preferring neither child of his to calling Edmund a “loyal and natural boy” (83) who deserves his fortune.  Edgar is a trusting character in that he goes along with all Edmund advises him to do and is punished for doing no wrong, a theme in this play that implies a fundamentally good and honest character.

Explication of "The Man with Night Sweats"

Thom Gunn’s poem “The Man with Night Sweats,” gives a vivid account of an individual suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and their experiencing an evening of sweating. The speaker describes waking up “cold,” throwing the reader into the uncomfortable and sudden feeling of their experience. He contrasts this discomfort with the line “Prospered through dreams of heat,” to describe his intimate past. The “dreams of heat,” having unfortunately caused the narrator to “Wake to their residue, / Sweat, and a clinging sheet.” Here the reader is lead to believe that the sexual past of the speaker has caused them to contract HIV and progress into suffering from AIDS. He utilizes the image his “flesh” as being a “shield,” that was resilient in that it “was gashed, it healed.” His unsafe sexual choices were “adored” at the time but led to him becoming sick and no longer living in a “body [he] could trust.” The skin metaphor is continued with the lines “The given shield was cracked, My mind reduced to hurry, My flesh reduced and wrecked.” This is the narrator’s experience with realizing the illness he had contracted and now has a busy mind and a wrecked body. The second to last stanza return the reader to the speaker’s room where he is “Stopped upright / …Hugging my body to me / As if to shield it from / The pains that will go through me.” Here the use of shield has switched it’s meaning from his ruined body to his own caring for himself and attempt to prevent and soothe the “pains” that AIDS has caused him. The final line speaks of the man’s resignation to the larger-than-life issue at hand, stating “As if hands were enough / To hold an avalanche off.” The cold imagery returns in the word “avalanche.“ The first line shoes that his illness causes him to grow cold and the last claims AIDS’ entire existence is akin to a snowy natural disaster, something that kills, freezes over and is both naturally caused and possibly the fault of a certain human.

Hamlet Character Rankings

Preference
1. Ophelia - I would tentatively say that Ophelia is my favorite character of the play simply because despite the blatantly misogynistic vibe of Hamlet, particularly Hamlet himself, Ophelia rebelled as a female and was able to strike down the social order in part by allowing madness to speak her mind and commit suicide in a vastly Christian nation. My favorite rhetorical device of Shakespeare’s is the scene in which Ophelia gives out flowers in what appears to be a state of madness but actually has much more significant meaning. Ophelia feels limited in her speech in sanity so when she goes mad, her honesty unleashes through implications of the provided flowers.
2. Horatio - Horatio is a trustworthy character and a dutiful servant/friend to Hamlet. I chose him as second because he offended me the least and ended the play on an honorable note.
3. Gravedigger - The Gravedigger, despite his lack of sympathy, was wildly clever and managed to equalize all kinds of people in Hamlet’s eyes.
4. Laertes - Despite my distaste for Laertes when he admonished Ophelia for her potential sexual choices I liked that he was a fearless character and was forthright with his anger and revenge, unlike Hamlet. Also his guilt at the end of the play seemed sincere, and I appreciated that.
5. Hamlet - In class Hamlet has been described as whiny, indirect, and duplicitous. I agree that Hamlet is a less-than likable individual, but I’ve enjoyed his wit since the beginning of the play and can’t help but root for him at the finish when he finally slays Claudius.
6. Claudius - The King was not written as a wholly affable or sympathetic character but I’m someone that admires a good villain and saw him as both a good motive for Hamlet and possibly a person he identified with in an Oedipal sense.

Loyalty
1. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern- The pair may not be entirely helpful in Hamlet’s case but they are consistently valuable to Claudius and aid him whenever possible. Their job-well-done even leads to their unfortunate death.
2. Horatio - Horatio is endlessly dependent. Even in the final act when he wished for death from the traumatic events he stayed faithful to Hamlet’s orders that he “tell [his] story.”
3. Ophelia - Despite her father Polonius’s controlling and patronizing nature, Ophelia remains obedient to him.
4. Gertrude - The Queen is stuck between agreeing with her husband and protecting her son, although she manages to balance both. This is somewhat struck down by the last scene when Claudius instructs her not to drink and she sassily replies “I will, my lord. I pray you, pardon me.”

Explication of poem "35/10"

Sharon Old’s poem “35/10” is a poem that outlines a scene involving mother and daughter. The speaker, a mother, brushes out the hair of her young daughter and reflects on the differences the two share, particularly the child’s youth and her aging. The title “35/10” presents the central meaning of the novel, that being a side-by-side comparison of the mother (age 35) and her daughter (age 10). The first contrast of the poem is the girl’s “brown/silken hair” and the speaker’s “grey gleaming” atop her scalp. The woman describes herself a “silver-haired servant behind her,” using the term silver to further display her graying hair and calls herself a servant because it provides not only the connotation that she cares for her but that her looks are bellow her daughter’s, even placing herself “behind” her in both physical senses of the word. The poet describes her neck folds as “clarifying,” while her child’s “fine bones of her/hips sharpen,” to show that both females are gaining more plainly seen characteristics but the mother’s age is growing more clear, while her daughter’s woman-hood and thin frame are now in sharper focus. The contrasting continues with the lines “As my skin shows/its dry pitting, she opens like a moist/precise flower on the tip of a cactus.” The speaker describes herself as a dry pit and her daughter is seen as a “moist…flower.” The use of flower can be read with differing connotations. Firstly, flowers are a symbol of beauty, something that the girl has recently acquired. The symbol is also a reference to the youth’s virginity, a trait that stands precarious, as if on the thorny top of a cactus plant. This idea of child-bearing is reinforced with the next lines that compare the speaker’s “falling” ova that are more likely to be a “[duds]” and her girl’s “purse of eggs, round and/firm as hard-boiled yolks“ which “is about/ to snap its clasp.” The final lines depict the narrator’s attitude to the shift between the two, saying “It's an old/ story—the oldest we have on our planet—/the story of replacement.” To the author, she is bitter and resigned to the change, citing that her youth and beauty is easily interchanged with her daughter’s and that this shift is as old as time itself.

Thinker vs. Doer

My general belief is that all humans are both thinker and doer. In most cases one cannot exist without the other. A second generalization is that all humans lie on a spectrum of action. The dichotomy of thinker versus doer is similar to the physiological response of “fight or flight.” There are those that weigh their options and exit a situation and some that simply act on impulse. Like the spectrum concept, most people lie in the middle, but in the dramatizations that are Shakespearian plays, most seem to exist in the extreme. This is seen best in Act 4 where Prince Hamlet continually debates over whether to kill his vile half-father/half-uncle King Claudius. To Hamlet “A thought which, quartered, hath but one part wisdom / And ever three parts coward.” The Prince finds that when a person over-thinks a situation they are held back by three-quarters of cowardice and only one-fourth of reasonable evidence. Hamlet is an individual that would be considered a thinker by most standards and lie very east on the spectrum of fight and flight. Hamlet’s counter-part in the play, Laertes, represents the fighters in society. He acts prior to thinking something through. When news of his father’s death gets back to Laertes he immediately returns to his homeland of Denmark and confronts King Claudius, who he believes is to blame, and proceeds to insult and threaten him. Laertes has nothing holding him back while Hamlet doesn’t seem to allow anything to push him forward.
I relate more to Hamlet in that I am very much a thinker but less frequently a doer. I sometimes feel caged in my mind and unable to function with my body. I over-think things but feel as if I don’t act in excess. I try to accomplish all that is needed of me but sometimes a particular action is filtered so many times through my brain that it never reaches completion and has been lodged into the deep recesses of my psyche. This isn’t to say that I have no purpose at all. Most deeds are done on auto-pilot and our brains are too preoccupied with other thoughts to even recognize the action being done while other times the action is never done because our mind has latched onto something else. I am a thinker, but this is something I pride myself in because without proper reason our actions could be done in vain.

Explication of poem "Break of Day"

Upon first reading the poem “Break of Day,” by John Donne I was instantly struck by it’s similarity to a line from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. In Act 3 Scene 5 Juliet remarks “It is not yet near day. It was the nightingale, and not the lark, That pierced the fearful hollow of thine ear.” Juliet is begging Romeo to stay with her, claiming he doesn’t yet have to leave because it is not quite morning, a time when the lark would sing. Donne’s poem is similar in situation and having a feeling of desperation.
Donne opens the piece with “‘Tis true, ‘tis day, what though it be? O wilt thou therefore rise from me?” The first line depicts the narrator’s exasperation with passing time and sad inquiry of whether their lover will leave them. The narrator reasons with their partner, who is the receiver of these pleas, claiming “Why should we rise because ‘tis light? Did we lie down because ‘twas night?” He continues to disregard time with the expression “Love, which in spite of darkness brought us hither, Should in despite of light keep us together.” He finds that their being together should not be exclusive to night’s ability to hide them, an ability that they didn’t rely on for their connection in the first place.
The second stanza personifies day-light and gives it reason in the situation, logic that the two lovers seem not to have. The individual narrating claims “Light hath no tongue, but is all eye” in hopes of convincing his love that light has no power to indicate their time around one another and can only shed light on what they do. He does find that if light did have a voice, it would view their relations as vexed. The speaker states that “the worst disease of love” is “the poor, the foul, the false, love can / Admit, but not the busied man.” To the narrator, it is feelings that reflect the negativity found in a relationship, but those in the relationship themselves refuse to see it due to their ‘busied’ nature. The final line of the piece reflects the conflict felt by the subject. Donne writes: “He which hath business, and makes love, doth do / Such wrong, as when a married man doth woo.” The central issue of the poem is revealed in that the speaker is in love with a person that they are not legally wed to. The narrator addressing their lover is done most likely during the-morning-after when they wake and realize the fault in their decision and wrongs in their relationship. To the narrator, the break of day is also the end to his errant relationship.

To be or Not to be

To apply or not to apply? That is the question-
Whether it’s easier to decide impulsively
On a college that may not be for me
Or to choose them definitely and decide quite carefully
And find myself more lost in the college search?
To read up on, to research -
No more - and by giving up I end this process
The confusion and stress
It’s an abomination! But a necessary evil at best.
Financial Aid gives us pause. There’s the tours that
Take weekends out of our long life!
Pangs of someday missing family and friends, attack
The heart like whips and oppress the mind.
One grunts and sweats through high school,
Barely getting by and must consider higher education?
Fie, I tell you, Fie!
This process does make cowards of us all,
But still there is the end result, the resolution,
We will find out ways with thought and reason.
Our enterprising minds will go free into this new world and
These trying months will be but a blip on our life’s radar
And with the choice the currents pull us away,
From home and life here
To a new world and a new life of action.

Hamlet 2.1-2.2

In the entirety of Act 2 of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the reader is given insight into the parental lengths the parent figures in the play go to, so as to look out for their children. This is seen in Polonius’ plan for Laertes and Claudius’ ideas regarding Hamlet.
Polonius opens the first scene of the Act with a conversation he is having with servant, Reynaldo. It is quickly made clear that Polonius’ watchful eye on his son is more literal than originally thought. He asks Reynaldo to bring Laertes some money and letters, but prior to that he tells the man that he must spy on Laertes. He asks that he “inquire / of his behavior,” (4-5) by spreading rumors amongst the local French Danish people (after having their backgrounds checked) and determining if Laertes’ actions will bring “dishonor,” (21) to himself and his father. The situation presented will provide Polonius with information, but could still potentially harm Laertes’ social life. This begs the question: Why does Polonius wish to learn of his son in this dishonest way. Polonius himself states that the best method of watching Laertes is “by indirections find directions out,” (65). Polonius is a hypocritical, conniving, untrusting and self-satisfying individual so it is only sensible that he must spy on his seemingly deceitful son with his “fetch of wit” (39) master-mind plan but also tells Reynaldo he must “observe his inclination in yourself” (70), because gossip cannot be trusted.
A second breech of parental limitations comes in the second scene when Claudius proposes a plan to determine what is bothering Hamlet. He tells of Hamlet’s condition, with his wife, to two of Hamlet’s old friends saying that he has undergone a “transformation” (5) and the men must watch over Hamlet to find the problem and while doing so “draw Hamlet to pleasures” (15) to lift his mood and eventually the kingdom will finalize a “remedy,” (18) for the negative and crazed actions. Polonius claims Hamlet is mad, overstepping his bounds once again, and states that using Ophelia as bait (another less-than-moral parenting choice) could find them an answer. The friend-plan of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz by Claudius does not succeed and Hamlet is onto the hoax immediately. The reader is still left to wonder Claudius’ intentions. Was it genuine worry for Hamlet? Or concern simply for the odd behavior about the castle? Whatever the reason, Claudius (like Polonius) utilizes espionage to determine their child’s well-being and thus proves himself to be a lacking and untrusting parental figure.

Explication of poem "Ars Poetica"

In the piece “Ars Poetica,” Archibald MacLeish explores the nuances of poetry and deems the way it should be written. The opening lines of the poem are: “A poem should be palpable and mute / As a globed fruit.” This simile is utilized to give an image to the reader, causing them to bring a “globed,” “palpable,” and “mute” fruit to mind. At first the comparison appears confused and nonsensical but in the entirety of the poem it makes the statement that poetry is a combination of words on paper, a silent object, that is brought to life. The exploration of silence continues in the verse with the phrases: “Dumb / As old medallions to the thumb, / Silent as the sleeve-worn stone / Of casement ledges where the moss has grown.” MacLeish isolates the word “dumb” to the third line so as to create the effect of quiet and continues with a simile “As old medallions to the thumb.” The image of holding a medallion is the author’s way of conveying that there is interest, value and longevity in poetry. Longevity of poetry is also explained with MacLeish’s line “as the sleeve-worn stone / Of casement ledges where the moss has grown,” where a rock has had such time to settle that it has gained a coating off moss. With the final line “A poem should be wordless As the flight of birds,” a new dimension is added to the imagery. Not only are the images’ silence symbolic to a poem’s lack of voice, but the imagery itself is what inspires poetry to be written. Things such as fruit, medallions, rocks and birds in flight are all subject of poems, if they are used as such.

The poet’s second verse is an extended metaphor of the moon’s rise at night. The stanza opens and closes with the line “A poem should be motionless in time / As the moon climbs,” this is referencing poetry’s tendency to capture particular experiences and suspend them in time with language. MacLeish uses the lines “Twig by twig the night-entangled trees” and “Memory by memory the mind—” to also depict the capture of  moment by a poem. The repetition of words indicates the building of poetry with word selection, it moves slowly as the moon does to it’s place in the sky.

The final paragraph portrays the meaning and reasoning behind poetry. MacLeish asserts “A poem should be equal to: Not true.” Here he defines that a poem can be seen by many readers in many perspectives. A poet’s message is never exactly translated into a reader’s mind, but it can be close or “equal to.” MacLeish continues with the claim that poems can stem from all areas of life such as “all the history of grief,” or simply “An empty doorway and a maple leaf.” MacLeish closes the poem with the lines “A poem should not mean / But be.”  The concept of poetry being representations of things and experiences culminates in MacLeish’s affirmation that a poem cannot be composed of language that does not provide the reader imagery, it must be so concrete and real that it does not “mean,” but it simply is. The make-up of the poem is simply because poetry should be simple, simple in that it speaks for itself and does so successfully.

Hamlet 1.1-1.3

Impressions of Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude 

The first two scenes of Shakespeare’s Hamlet give the reader introductions to the three main characters; Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude. The first member presented is Claudius. He opens Act 1 Scene 3 with an expression of grief over the recent passing of Hamlet’s father and then states that the memories of the late Hamlet are fresh in his mind but the soon-to-be family must still exist “together with remembrance of ourselves,” (Line 7). This allows him to segue into he and Gertrude’s recent engagement, calling it a “defeated joy,” (Line 10). Claudius seems genuine in his remorse but quickly disproves this with the expression of marriage. Claudius also is seemingly polite to staff and is greatly generous to Laertes. From his opening moments it seems this man is somewhat considerate and trustworthy. This assumption is instantly rebutted with Hamlet’s first line being an aside about how Hamlet refuses to be associated as his son. This presents Hamlet as a bitter and sarcastic character and places Claudius in a newly negative light. Later Claudius asks why “clouds…hang on you?” (Line 66) to Hamlet and the Prince is then introduced as a melancholy individual. Hamlet confirms this with a speech about how his appearance doesn’t nearly indicate the intensity of his sadness saying “all forms, moods, shapes of grief…denote me truly” (Line 82-83). Claudius’ response defines him as a harsh character claiming Hamlet’s clinging to grief as being “unmanly…incorrect to heaven,…impatient…and unschooled” (Line 94-97). Claudius does not tolerate his grief and even calls it a terrible weakness of Hamlets. 

Following this interaction the reader is given even more insight into Hamlet’s depression. He wishes that suicide was not illegal and calls his life “…an unweeded garden / that grows to seed” (Line 135-136). Hamlet also continues to negatively depict Claudius with the line “my uncle…no more like my father/Than I to Hercules.” Claudius is seen as foil to Hamlet Senior’s noble and strong constitution. In this line the reader also sees Hamlet’s sense of inadequacy in that he is far from being a Hercules of the world. 

Exposition on Hamlet continues to be provided in the following scene. Laertes calls Hamlet’s love for Ophelia “a violet in the youth of primy nature” (Line 7). To Laertes, Hamlet is nothing but an impulsive, lustful and hot-blooded youth who cannot love Ophelia properly. He also states that Hamlet’s choice in life “depends / The safety and health of this whole state” (Line 20-21) and he is totally bound to family obligations. 

The third main character, Gertrude, is seen less frequently in the first three scenes. Her first lines are asking Hamlet to lighten up and wear less dark clothes. She also asserts “Do not forever…/Seek for thy noble father in the dust” (Line 70-71). It is also known that she shares a bond with Hamlet. He only agrees to not leave for Wittenberg only when she asks and he only promises to obey her. Later he describes the loving relationship Gertrude had with his father and expresses shock over her quick grieving of him.