Travis’ Blog

The theme of this work is class struggle. The lions symbolize the lower, working class. This is proven by the references to them scrounging for food, living on the streets, and their hatred with the “well fed” pigs. The well fed pigs are the upper class, which is shown by the warnings for them to leave the streets and the references to how well they eat, in contrast with how poorly the lions do. It is showing the anger, resentment, and jealousy of the lower classes, and is in many ways warning the upper class of the lions potential outbreak and hostile take over.

The poem was probably written as a result of his trip back to Brooklyn. The author saw that the working class was growing hungry, desperate, jealous, and vengeful. In a way of responding, he protested the fear with which we should react to treating people so poorly.

who ate fire in paint hotels or drank turpentine in
Paradise Alley, death, or purgatoried their
torsos night after night
lost battalion of platonic conversationalists jumping
down the stoops off fire escapes off windowsills
off Empire State out of the moon,
who created great suicidal dramas on the apartment
cliff-banks of the Hudson under the wartime
blue floodlight of the moon & their heads shall
be crowned with laurel in oblivion,
who plunged themselves under meat trucks looking for
an egg,
who cut their wrists three times successively unsuccess-
fully, gave up and were forced to open antique
stores where they thought they were growing
old and cried,
who jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge this actually hap-
pened and walked away unknown and forgotten
into the ghostly daze of Chinatown soup alley
ways & firetrucks, not even one free beer

Suicide seems to be a prevalent motif in the poem “Howl” by Allen Ginsberg. It is interesting to note that even without suicide, the characters in the poem are struggling to survive. However, there seems to be a changing description of suicide. First, he talks about people sitting in their rooms drinking turpentine (a poison), then self mutilation. The word “death” seems to refer to the character, saying that the character was either already dead, or died as a result of these actions. Next, it moves to jumping off of fire escapes and the Empire State Building. This time, however, he is more ambiguous as to the survival of the characters.

Next, they write “suicidal dramas” on the Hudson. At this point, the Ginsberg does not even directly state that they are trying to commit suicide. It seems as if he is almost reluctant to state it directly, so instead, says it in a more decorative and fabricated form. Next, they plunge themselves under meat trucks looking for an egg. This is entirely different than any of the prior suicidal attempts because this time, the character is attempting to get food for survival. The image of some desperate, dirty, man crawling on hands and knees trying to get an egg shoots through the mind of the reader. It is unclear whether this is a suicidal attempt, or a mistake, however. Which has once again changed from earlier in the poem. He does not directly state if they are trying to kill themselves.

Then, he changes to say that they tried to cut their wrists, but were unsuccessful. This is another change, the suicidal attempts are shown to be futile, and instead, the characters work in antique stores. Then once again, our final image of suicide is jumping off the bridge and surviving. This is the last mention of suicide, and it is shown as unsuccessful, and presented in an almost comic or satirical manner. He says it as if the entire thought of suicide is funny.

This could symbolize Ginsberg’s own transforming thoughts of suicide. It begins serious, direct, then slowly progresses to a secret suppression, and ends as a humorous joke.

One of the fundamental themes of the play A View From The Bridge is loyalty. This is shown through two seperate betrayals, first by Vinny, then through Eddie. Vinny was shown to betray the loyalty of his family by turning in his own family. After this betrayal, the audience learns that breaking this code is unforgivable. Vinny is cast out by his family, and never seen again. The characters even touch on the idea that Vinny is dead. This instills the idea of loyalty into the minds of the reader, and foreshadow what will happen to Eddie. Then, Eddie betrays his fatherly loyalty by kissing Catherine,  his family loyalty by turning in relatives, and his neighborhood loyalty by turning in neighbors relatives. Due to all of these, Eddie loses his respect, name, and in the end, his life. The tragedy to this is that it was so obvious, and Eddie even touched on the issue of never breaking your families loyalty earlier in the play. However, he broke away from his morals, and ultimately killed himself in the process.

The reason this idea of loyalty is so important to the blue collar, Italian class in this time period was because of struggle. Blue-collar immigrants were struggling as it is, but in addition, many of the family members in Italy were doing worse. It appears that the group is forced to rely, trust, and help one another in order to make ends meet for themselves as well as families. The communities were forced to trust one another, and because of this, betrayal was unforivable.

In 1957, Miller was charged with contempt by the US Court of Appeals for having communist ties, and was heavily pressured to give up names in the process. Because of this, he had to choose between community and family loyalty and being deported, or staying in America but breaking the bonds of trust. This adds more complication to the play, perhaps, because it appears that Miller may be showing himself what would have happened had he betrayed like Eddie did.

I believe that loyalty was a complicated issue for Eddie because he was being pulled by two conflicting loyalties, loyalty to himself, and loyalty to his family and community. In a sense, Eddie was in a lose, lose situation. On one hand, he could let go of Catherine, but at the same time, I believe that would be betraying himself. Through the play it becomes apparent that Eddie has feelings for Catherine that go far beyond the father-daughter relationship. In a sense, had he betrayed his love, he probably would have died inside anyways. This paradox of loyalty ended up destroying Eddie, and complicated his perception of morals.

After a few readings of the short story, I began to notice some fairly powerful literary devices being employed which I had missed on the first couple reviews. After our discussion in class, I began to notice the raw power and deceiving simplicity of Hemingway’s writing, and it forced me to read more in depth. While the topics posted on the mother-blog are worth writing about, I believe that are several things worth noting in the short stories, and I have decided to write on my own topic.

One constantly overlooked aspect to the short story Hills Like White Elephants is Hemingway’s powerful symbolism, which is employed throughout the story and greatly enhances the theme of the work.

There are two symbols which particularly caught my attention, and both regarding the same subject. As the man urges the girl to perform an abortion, through her dialogue, the woman conforms to the idea. However, it is fairly obvious that there is an ample amount of inner conflict with the decision. On one hand, she has the choice between life, or death. On the other, she has the choice between conformity or individuality. In a sense, ration versus emotion.

The two continue in a lengthy dialogue, as the man says that he does not wish for her to do anything she does not want to, there is a peculiar pause in the dialogue. The narrator comes and describes something else. “The girl stood up and walked to the end of the station. Across, on the other side, were fields of grain and trees along the banks of the Ebro. Far away, beyond the river, were mountains. The shadow of a cloud moved across the field of grain and she saw the river through the trees.”  By breaking the dialogue, Hemingway brilliantly places emphasis on this description of the landscape surrounding them. He states that she sees fields of grain and trees, mountains, and a gorgeous river. As the woman is attempting to decide between the potential life, or death, of her unborn baby, Hemingway describes a scenery full of life and beauty. This is a symbolic representation of her body with the baby.

The dialogue then continues, the two continue their discussion, but the tone of the woman seems to have changed. She is less confused, more direct, and appears to have came to more of a concrete conclusion. She wishes to end the conversation entirely, and once again, the dialogue is broken. “They sat down at the table and the girl looked across at the hills on the dry side of the valley and the man looked at her and at the table.” This is a direct contrast to the previous description of the landscape. It is seen as dead, dry, and barren. This is a symbol of her body after the abortion, one without life, without joy, and without the pleasures of beauty.

These two symbols, though subtle, create a dramatic impact on the meaning of the story, and provide substantial emphasis to the feelings and emotion of the otherwise barren and dry story.

To begin, I am in no way a connoisseur of art, and feel wrong pretending to be. I have never studied art, I have never learned anything on varying technique or style, and I have no idea on the time frame dynamics over which art has evolved. I can hardly tell the difference between “Swans Reflecting Elephants” by Dali, and Picasso’s “Starry Night.” For this assignment I have been asked to comment on the modernistic trends saw throughout the 1913 Armory, and to be quite sincere, I have no idea. After reading through each of the galleries, I have not even vaguely learned about what makes modern art any different from any other art, nor what any other type of art is. However, after an online tour through the 1913 Armory, here is my ignorant take on modern art.

According to the motherblog, “modernists are interested in how our perception and consciousness work, rather than how the world works.” I believe this can be exemplified through the simple focus on which pictures took up the majority of the tour. It is rare to nil that any of these paintings main focus is on anything aside from people. Whether it is a painting of a dream home, three women drying their hair, or a Robert Aitken sculpture of  a man, nothing focuses purely on the concept of nature. The majority of the paintings depict various forms of common/middle class lifestyles of the time period. This is shown through Gallery C’s “Circus” painting. Rather than focusing on the world surrounding people, it appears that modernists focus on the actual people.

Next is the concept of defamiliarization. Many of the gallery descriptions explained how shocking and original many of the paintings found at the 1913 Armory were. One clear example of this was Robert Henri’s “Figure in Motion.” This full frontal, realistically painted nude woman shocked many of the viewers of the time. It went against the common, traditional, and classical way of viewing art. By doing this, the viewers were shown an entirely new aspect to what art can be. In doing this, it defamiliarized them with art. They had grown viewing, studying, and appreciating art, but had probably believed it to be only specific genres and styles. Then, all familiarity was abandoned. This is the second aspect to modern art.

Next, the art has several layers which can be analyzed by its viewers.  One example of this is shown in the contemporary sculpture “George Bellows” by Robert I. Aitken. This sculpture is of a man’s upper chest and head, and it made out of metal. The man has ears, a neck, eyes, a nose, hair, a mouth, and is looking blankly at the camera. Since all things must have underlying meanings and that is what makes them so great, one can take many things out of this sculpture. He has no arms, no body, no feet. He is made out of what appears to be metal. Many would not think this had multiple meanings, but scholars would tell them differently. The man is made of metal, metal is an element. One must dig in the ground to get to the metal, then heat it to extreme temperatures in order to craft it. When people think of things found underground, and extreme heat, there is only one thing they can think- hell. The man has no body, which clearly (and obviously) shows that in hell, not only is one made out of metal, but no arms, legs, stomache, heart, etc. are necessary in hell. Any person with a mind would make this connection, and could see that the sculptor added this underlying message on purpose.

To conclude, I would like to discuss the enjoyability of the tour. Not only did I get to read about people I did not know, but I also got to look at paintings and sculptures I could not even begin to understand. If nothing else, you know something is modern when it shows you how ignorant and unknowledgable you are. So if ever in doubt, when you are trying to figure out if something is modern or not, ask yourself three simple questions. Do I have any idea what this is? Do I think people would be shocked by this, even though there is nothing really very shocking about it? Is the meaning of this art peice so complicated and ridiculous, that anyone trying to explain it would not only sound over zealous and completely unrealistic, but probably like they have a minor case of schizophrenia? If you answered yes to at least two of these questions, you know it is modern art. The 1913 online tour showed me one thing, depicted by this quote, “Abraham Walkowitz and Joseph Stella’s paintings could also be found in Gallery E, testaments to their work prior to the Armory Show. Walkowitz, who had a solo exhibition at Stieglitz’s ’291′ gallery a few months before the Armory Show, was familiar with the work of Cézanne and Matisse, but his paintings did not show marked signs of their influence. He was perhaps more impressed by the drawings of children, exhibited at Stieglitz’s gallery in 1912…” In other words, “Wow, I’m never, ever, ever, going on another online art tour for the rest of my life, unless my sleeping pills aren’t working”

The narrator plays three vital roles in the excerpt.

Firstly, he persuades the reader to view both Carrie and Mrs. Vance in the way he percieves them. By placing so much focus on Carrie’s insecurities and Mrs. Vances experienced elegance, the reader begins to view the two as having an almost student, teacher relationship. This is important because it shows Carrie’s new desires for the rich.

Secondly, he explains to us what is happening in the scene. By describing the entire experience, the reader understands what is going on. Without the narrator, there would be no story at all. However, by adding in many thoughts and insights, the reader gains a significant advantage. They can now understand the character’s emotions, thought process, as well as reasoning for the actions they do.

Lastly, the narrator sets us up for two main points. Firstly, he foreshadows Carrie’s return to the stage. By explaining her mental attempts at trying to figure out what she can do to get the things she wants, and having her question acting, the reader can easily guess at what she will be doing for the rest of the novel. Also, he sets us up for her unhappiness and unsatisfaction. By showing her overwhelming desires to have what she cannot, the reader realizes this happiness and contentness will soon blow over.

At the end of the story, our main character succeeds as well as loses. This is a very interested plot twist. The reason the woman won is because she finally overcame her captivity. The husband locks her in a room in the top of the house as her mind slowly deteriorates. She becomes a slave, or a prizoner in many senses, and by breaking the bonds of her owner, she also breaks into the life of freedom. The reason she loses, is because her mind has finally decayed beyond the point of return. Her insanity is clearly shown in the quote. As her dead husband lies on the floor, she barely even notices. Rather, she focuses on walking around the room and the yellow wallpaper. This symbolizes her greatest loss because she can no longer live a normal life, in fact, her life will probably be over as far as she knows it. Ironically, the same day she gains her independence and freedom.

One poem of Dickinson I found slightly depressing was number 465. While the meaning of the poem and theme is not necessarily a depressing one, the entire setting as well as presentation is. I heard a fly buzz– when I did– focuses on people’s nature to get distracted by minuscule things, even in very serious times. The depressing part about the poem, however, is the setting. The speaker is first of all, dying. One may argue that even though the speaker is dying, it is almost a peaceful ending which lightens to mood. I disagree, however. The speaker talks about “the stillness of the air” the speaker emphasizes the serious note and the complete sadness which is being felt in the room.

A second indication of the depressing nature of this poem can be found in the lines, “The Eyes around — had wrung them dry –

And Breaths were gathering firm…” In other words, everyone in the room had cried their eyes out due to the speakers deaths, and everyone was dreading the moment the speaker would actually pass away. Even though the poem’s main meaning was not something depressing, and the speaker is not upset about dying, the prevalent theme of the poem is still death, and the pain of others is still described in detail. While people generally expect Dickinson to be depressed, I believe she doesn’t tend to write depressing or sad poetry. But out of the poems we read, I believe this one can most easily be presented as so.

I dwell in Possibility –

The poem being initiated by the “I” show that it is highly personal, the poem focuses on the “I.” We can assume that the speaker in the poem is Dickinson herself because she was writing this poem only for herself. This line interests me… I dwell, which can mean linger, in capital Possibility. So she lingers with hope? With potential? I wonder which definition of possibility she is referring to. Or is it a name? That would explain the capitalization. It’s possible that she did it for the sake of emphasis I suppose. This line shows that it’s probably going to be about possibility in a love relationship? Something of that sort.

A fairer House than Prose –

Interesting. So possibility was meant as potential in the first line. I wonder if she purposefully used the word “possibility” in order to throw the reader a figurative curve ball. So she is in a house which is fairer, or better, than Prose. again, strange capitalization. House, Prose… Emphasis again? This line suggests it’s a comparison poem between Prose and her house of possibilities. House… I wonder why she uses this metaphor. A house is somewhere one resides, lives, and as we talked about in class, somewhere which was very, very definite in the life of Emily. Prose, as in fiction writing… So she is doing something, or living, or residing in a better place than fiction writing.

More numerous of Windows –

Windows is the main idea of this line. Her home of possibilities has more windows, windows are objects to look at things from. They bring in sunlight. What else could she mean? She capitalized Windows, the final word of the line, same thing as the last two lines. So her home is that of poetry, poetry has more windows than fiction… What could windows represent? More light, more freedom, it is easier to observe perhaps? She was locked in a home for so long, maybe looking out a window was the only time she ever escaped. I suppose windows would be of the uptmost importance.

Superior — for Doors –

Superior, or better. Once again she’s just clarifying the reader understands the superiority of the possibility home, or poetry, or whatever. She line breaks here, maybe because it’s such a short line she feels it will be too quick and abrupt. Doors… Doors, again, like the windows, are made to leave, escape. But I suppose it could also mean to enter. So how could a door apply to poetry? So many ways to enter it, to leave it… The possibilities, as she referred to earlier.

Of Chambers as the Cedars –

Chambers… By using the word chambers rather than rooms, it envokes a sense of elegance. Chambers and Cedars both begin with C, and each of them are capitalized… I’m not sure if there is anything to that. So in poetry, there is elegance. Straight forward enough…

Impregnable of Eye –

Impregnable, as in cannot be denied? Of the eye… Eye is the first body part used in the poem. So the house is so beautiful the eye cannot deny it’s power, beauty, etc. This is a powerful image as she continues with her metaphor. It seems as if she creates a metaphor and goes with it, like the idea becomes the metaphor itself rather than the underlying meaning.

And for an Everlasting Roof

The key word, capitalized again, “everlasting.” This is no ordinary house. A roof which will last for an eternity. How does this tie into the poetry compared to prose idea? A roof is built to protect the inside. It is a shell, a cover. And it is everlasting, something we can always trust to be there. Does poetry have a roof? Possibly just the cover or shell of it will last forever. How can it last forever, though? I suppose poetry is writting in the mind, in the heart, in the soul… And ideas can never die. Even if the paper has wilted, the ink has been smeared, the idea will live on. Maybe this is the idea of an everlasting roof.

The Gambrels of the Sky –

Gambrels… Isn’t that like a frock of horses? And in the sky? There must be another meaning to gambrel that I haven’t picked up on. Well, again, she capitalizes all of the main words in the line. I think it’s safe to say she simply does it for emphasis. Line break at the end of the line.

Of Visitors — the fairest –

The best people come visit this house. This must be referring to the readers. The people who come read poetry are the fairest, the best, the most spectacular. What else could visitor be outside of the metaphor? Writer, perhaps… But regardless, the people she relates to with poetry are the fairest. Strange that fairest isn’t capitalized. It’s the first end word which is not.

For Occupation — This –

Occupation capitalized, line break, then this. What is “this?” I suppose it is the home of possibility, the poetry, etc. I wonder if this will be explained more in the next line. Once again, I’m drawn to the question, why the line breaks? I think I can safely conclude the capitalization is just to emphasize, but the line breaks? Maybe it’s just a way for her to break apart each new idea?

The spreading wide of narrow Hands

“Narrow?” I wonder why she went out of her way to point out the fact that they were narrow hands, rather than just hands. So this is a strange turn in the poem. She focused solely on the house and describing why poetry is better than prose, but now she paints the image of hands being spread. What could this mean? Spreading hands as in stretching? I wonder if it is spreading wide of arms, or just hands. I’m not sure how someone could spread their hands apart, nor why they would do it. Nothing is capitalized aside from hands, and no line break.

To gather Paradise –

So this explains the last line. It’s someone opening up to grab and pull in paradise. She ends the poem with a line break, which is sort of strange. So the poem concludes with the happy thought of paradise being pulled into the reader.

Observations

The short poem is an extended metaphor comparing prose to poetry.

Every line but the second to last ends with –

The final word of every line is capitalized aside from “fairest.”

No notable rhyme scheme, only a few rhymes which are generally slant.

Short thoughts rather than elegant and drawn out sentences.

At the begininning of the poem, the speaker uses words which alienate him from the rest of the world. The speaker talks as if he is seperated from nature as well as the rest of society. I believe this is the problem which presents itself at the start of the poem. As the poem continues and the speaker moves through his journey, however, the reader may notice that rather than using individual words such as you, I, them, it, etc., he begins to include himself in the overall scheme of things. The speaker resolves the problem by realizing everything and everyone are all so closely intertwined that he, nor anything else is truly alone or cast out. He becomes “one” with the rest of the world, in a sense, which seems to be a prevailing theme in most of Whitman’s works. In both this piece and Song of Myself, Whitman emphasizes the connectedness each of us should feel with the rest of the world. Whether it is two people lying on the grass, our atoms interconnecting in the air, or a man standing on a ferry, each of us blend together to form one.