Last Blog of the Year!

Since this is the last blog of the year, I would like to take the time to blog about a book I recently read just for fun ..yes, I have started to read for fun- all thanks to AP Literature. (Ms.Clinch, I can see you smiling and saying “goal accomplished!) Anyways the book is called “2 States” by Chetan Bhagat, one of my favorite authors. This book is full of interracial commentary on marriage and how marrying from different parts of the state can cause traditional chaos. Bhagat also emphasizes that marriage is not just about spending the life with your husband or wife, but with the whole family; so technically, one is not just marrying the love of their lives, but their families as well. As weird as this sounds, in the Indian culture, it hold full validity. India is such a state in which there are a plethora of different traditions, languages, and even ways of living and because of such large and minute differences, often times families reject to be open minded in society to maintain peace and carry on their traditions (kinda of like survival of the fittest in the theory of evolution- you live to mate with the same kind that is unflawed and pass the genes to the next generation); similarity is our Indian society that has a mental set of maintaining tradition. What society hasn't realized yet is that each generation has evolved and become more modern- they have learned to accept the differences within society and build friendships. In fact, evolution within these upcoming generations are vital, even with the parents- and this is what Chetan Bhagat emphasizes. He states that older individuals have a crystallized cognition, unable recognize that change is good, and unable  cooperate with the new generations. But the problem does not lie within her parents, it lies within the chil. he child does not take the time to teach the parents why cross-traditional marriage is necessary, why i is beneficial, why they need his to happen; rather, they scream at their parents and lie, perhaps even flee...and this is totally wrong. Nonetheless, this novel has sparked my mind, making me realize the real reason to my parents disapproval of some things- they have a crystallized perception of how we should live and don't’ want to change it, but ti is my duty as a child to go ahead and explain rather than be “whiney” and act childish.

A note to Mr.Hosseini and some commentary on this awesome novel of yours

In honor of the catharsis I feel while reading A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini, I would like express some words to the author:

Dear Mr.Hosseini,

Although you probably do not read my blog, this is my way of showing gratitude towards your writing and the purpose of the novel. To me this novel is more than just a commentary of the subordinate of women and the Afghani lifestyle that is so harsh and somewhat corrupt, rather it is a questioning about life and the loyalty or duty one holds while also saying true to their self. The charecters of the novel- especially the women enlighten me by showing how important they are to the family and the future generations. Hence to me, the women within this society are loyal not only to their families, but to themseleves- if they do not believe, then that does not translate to future generations. Also, while reading your novel, I kept track of 2 types of themes- that is the generation gap and the gender gap that is heavily touched upon.  Firstly, I will extrapolate on the gender gap. The gender gap between men and women lies in the difference of hierarchy. Men in the Afghan society were perceived to be the dominating force and the women their possession, almost doll like. Due to such oppression on the women, they face a much more mental strain resulting in an emotionally depressing lifestyle (as seen with Mariam). This emotional living is what separates the two genders. Although, when they shares a common suffering or adversity, they can once again be reunited; in other words, the adversity mends the gaps between husband and wife within a house hold. This can been seen with Mariam and her husband: "it pained her considerably- to picture Rasheed panic-sticken and helpless, pacing the banks of the lake and pleading with it to spit his sons back onto dry land. And she felt for the first time a kinship with her husband. She told herself that they would make a good companion after all" (77).  This basically states that the only reason she feels comfortable with Rasheed now is because they hold the same adversities- they have something in common that they can dread together about. Now for the discussion on the generation gap which is seen between Mariam and Laila. Note that previously women and education did not go hand in hand, in the part of the novel, that changes. In fact, "marriage can wait, education cannot" (103). The Afghan society has changed- they are now starting to understand the failure in marriage at a young age due to naiveness. Once a girl gains education, they have the ability to hold a relationship within society. Nonetheless, thus far in the book, I find this a social commentary on the life of the Afghan women and their oppression within society, perhaps even the struggle to rise to the top. 

Prose Writing- a little review and refreshment before the AP Exam!

In order to prepare for the AP Literature Exam, I have decided to choose prompts and write essays and outlines for the open questions. When scrolling through the prompts, I came along this one prompt that I really thought fit well with the novel The Name Sake, that I read over the summer...but as Ms.Clinch says: "Never write on a book that you haven't reviewed! It's death." Hence, I took the time, to review my annotations and some notes for Lahiri's novel. Below is the following prompt that I will attempt to answer and discuss using The Name Sake.

Prompt: Sonsyrea Tate’s statement suggests that “home” may be conceived of as a dwelling, a place, or a state of mind. It may have positive or negative associations, but in either case, it may have a considerable influence on an individual. Choose a novel or play in which a central character leaves home yet finds that home remains significant. Write a well-developed essay in which you analyze the importance of “home” to this character and the reasons for its continuing influence. Explain how the character’s idea of home illuminates the larger meaning of the work.

So here it goes:

            The Namesake, by Jhumpa Lahiri, is a classic, powerful, culturally-dilemma novel through which Lahiri strongly enriches the essence of tradition and family, more so, the importance of leaving home and it's value through indentity. In this novel, Lahiri constructs the Ganguli family, with a man Ashoke and his wife Ashima, who have an arranged marriage in Calcutta. As per the tradition of the Bengalis, the women must follow the man, and so Ashima, post-marriage, accompanies Ashoke to Cambridge, Massachusetts- a beginning to a new life, a cultural shock. The story revolves around their son, Gogol, who suffers through his life due to his name- a traditional, non-American, ethnic identity. The character of Gogol is vital  in the novel in order to portray Lahiri’s purpose, that is, to illustrate the beauty of an individual, their identity, and their roots from which they originated; in fact, the novel illustrates that identity can neither be changed nor suppressed as it is innately assimilated within us.

            The instant the son of Ashoke and Ashima is born, he is faced with "crisis"- a name. This definition of a name, is often and blatantly defined as a  stamp of identification; although, from where the Ganguli family were brought up and raised, the name given to any individual was not just a tool for identification, rather family connection, a symbolic characteristic, a family representation. The name, was nonetheless the "root of a tree," that kept family alive within oneself. Gogol, the son, lived a tough life as a child; he dealt with issues ranging from love, bullying, and family loyalty, and blamed it on his parents. It is important to note here that even though his parents did absolutely nothing to hinder his life or cause trouble, he blamed his parents for his quandary, more so, he held his parents responsible the negative aspects that emerged because of his name. In a sense, Lahiri portrays a common misconception about life- that your parents are the cause of worries, when in reality, they haven't. This misconception often leads to disloyalty in regards to parent-child relationships and such disloyalty is clearly the primary cause of the "tangles between generations." The truth lies in the fact that a child does not have the ability to recognize themselves for who they are when faced in a new situation, in this case, a cultural shock. Not only is this truth present through the novel, but also universally. At times, this disloyalty amongst family members questions societies motives: Is society built upon changing those that are different? Why? How does this harm families? Is society causing a child to lose their roots, traditions, and cultural values?

            Lahiri's narration of Ashoke's thoughts really enhanced the essence and importance of being close to the roots through which one originated as it has one's "true" identity. Ashoke, who was slowly dying, did not tell his child about his death, yet still suffered through his sons constant nagging and stubbornness. Why don't our parents say anything when we are stubborn? It was astonishing to realize that parents want us to learn independence, hence their lack of interference in our lives. They "duty" remains to give us a name, identity, some values and cultures, and let us loose...like a bird. The beauty of the book, was the fact that Jhumpa exhibited the role of the parent and the child implicitly, without attacking the audience. She led the audience to introspect about respect.

            Jhumpa Lahiri, truly exhibits a work of literary fiction as she constructs a plot that depicts a universally applicable theme of loyalty and the importance of values that originate within the home. Nonetheless, the authors diction, writing style, and pathos, was well presented in order to fulfill her purpose- to make the audience decipher  over their behavior towards their family and how these values translate into future behaviors through life endeavors. 

Analysis of a Contemporary Poem by Li-Young Lee: A Story

A Story 

Sad is the man who is asked for a story
and can’t come up with one.

His five-year-old son waits in his lap.
Not the same story, Baba. A new one.
The man rubs his chin, scratches his ear.

In a room full of books in a world
of stories, he can recall
not one, and soon, he thinks, the boy
will give up on his father.

Already the man lives far ahead, he sees
the day this boy will go. Don’t go!
Hear the alligator story! The angel story once more!
You love the spider story. You laugh at the spider.
Let me tell it!

But the boy is packing his shirts,
he is looking for his keys. Are you a god,
the man screams, that I sit mute before you?
Am I a god that I should never disappoint?

But the boy is here. Please, Baba, a story?
It is an emotional rather than logical equation,
an earthly rather than heavenly one,
which posits that a boy’s supplications
and a father’s love add up to silence.

The poem,  A story, by Li-Young Lee, conveys a complex relationship between the father and a son through their dispute between the old and the new, more so, holding on to the past rather than moving on to the future. Seen in stanza one,  is the characterization of the father, or the man- that fact that he "can't come up" with a new story shows two main things: firstly, he may not have been accomplished to share a new story and perhaps that is his only story as a role model to tell and secondly, perhaps he doesn't want to tell a new story as he is "stuck in the past." Stanza two not only captures the characterization of the boy but also a further understanding of the father, or the man. In line 4, the boy wants "a new one." This need for something new lends its hand to believe that child wants to explore new things, hear new stories in order to learn about the world. But, is the father ready for this dispersement into the world of knowledge? Does he believe that the boy is ready for a new story, perhaps a new journey? No- this is seen in line 5 when "the man rubs his chin, scratches his ear." Such actions are all common signs of curiosity and fear. The man as he is stuck in the past, fears his sons leaving and wants to replay the same actions in order to stop the young man from growing. The growing is not taken in a negative way by the man, he is just simply fearful. It is interesting to note that in stanza 3, the speakers states that out of all the stories in the world, he only told one. Why? Perhaps if the man tells about the world rather than a story concentrated with the knowledge that he wants the boy to know and learn from, he may go astray. Although, this lack of progression and the stagnation in the past hinders his relationship with his son- in line 8 to 9, the speaker even states that "The boy/ will give up on his father." Stanza 4 shows the nagging by the father to hold on to his son, and not let him grow from a boy who is dependent on his father's stories to a man that can make his own stories by exploration. Note that in stanza 5, the boy  has no shame towards the fact that he is leaving his father. The symbolism of the keys is the opening to the door' the boy is now ready to learn something new, therefore, he is unlocking the door into the new world (away from his father's confinement).  It is ironic that the father views himself as a god like figure,  but doesn't live up to this name as he hold his son from discovering- usually god is a figure of evolution, one that helps man discover. But is the father truly helping? The last stanza ends in relief and sigh as the father states their partition builds silence...but that is true love. The boy will remember the stories without asking (hence an emotional attachment). 

Yea, He is a fool, but Jonah and the Whale?

he Invisible Man, the narrator of the novel, is similar to Jonah from the Old Testament. In order to relate the Invisible Man to Jonah, it is important to understand the basis of the story. Jonah is asked by God to to visit Nineveh and stop the evil or bad behavior; although, Jonah rebelled against this as he wanted man to get punished for their sins and fled to sea. Along the ship ride, a storm hit and Jonah was blamed for such situation- in fact, they questioned his motives, his belief of god, and also asked him for advice to stop the storm. They threw Jonah off the boat, into the storm as it got worse, and the storm ceased. Such incident led the men to believe that God listened to Jonah. Taking this story into consideration, one can say that the Invisible Man represent Jonah due to his entry into a new city that takes him for a ride. When the invisible man first enters town, he felt a sense of uneasiness. He states that “the train seemed to plunge downhill now, only tolunge to a stop that shot me out upon a platform feeling like something regurgitated from the belly of a frantic whale” (158). This is stated when he is departing the subway- to him such action most likely imitates that feel of isolation and segregation from the local community as he is new to New York. Deviating from the fact that he is different from the local townspeople (parallel to the sailors on the boat), he is most similar to Jonah when he is questioned by Bledsoe about taking Mr.Norton on the drive. Just like the sailors question Jonah about how he doesn’t pray to stop the horrible storm and thinks it is his fault for the occurrence of the storm, Bledsoe blames the narrator (the Invisible Man) and states that he has “dragged the entire race into the slime!” (141). Bledsoe explains that he gave him an “opportunity to serve one of our best white friends, a man who could make him a fortune.” This shows a direct parallel between Jonah and the Invisible Man as they both represent hated being of society as well as a rebellious figure in which the normal can’t see past their action nor can they extract a meaning. The meaning of the drive for the Invisible Man was nothing but an impulse without control from the conscious- he was left with no choice; similarly, Jonah was left with no choice but to go against god’s will in order for men to be sinned- they both lived up to their desires ( to help).   

Prepping for Seminar- The Fool Archetype...it's everywhere

In the late 13th century, the fool had many duties; for example, as a form of entertainment, the fools we get paid depending on the amount of satisfaction, laughter, and joy they provided to a crowd. Such definitions fits the start of the Invisible man during “Battle Royale,” when black men are chosen to be put into the ring and fight. At the end, the invisible man wins and wins a scholarship prize. Although it almost seems wrong to take the money, he does so anyways, after all he faced stupidity. The word stupidity is the connotation of the fool. Often times, the fool is interpreted as a “wise,” “cunning,” yet stupid as they were never part of the group (always in isolation away from the norms). Once again, this definitions provides a basis for the invisible man. Note the the invisible man was considered part of the “negro” group through which he was isolate and away from the society in the south. Although, when he reaches the north (Harlem City, New York), he twists his thinking (showing the fictional reality) in order for him to fit, persay. The major fool, who is a hidden character in the novel, is the Invisible man’s grandfather. In fact, the Grandfather serves as the basis of the novel, providing the Invisible man with the drive to move forward. He is not explicitly called  a fool, although, in order for him to proclaim the shameless and disobedient acts he created, he have had this inner non-sane personality within (just as the fool would have). It is interesting to note that the fool never often revealed by a name nor an identity- similar to that of the invisible. They are always hidden from society. Perhaps this need for hiding is driven by the act that they don’t want their stupidity and unrealistic behavior to be attached with a name. Instead they are called by what their duty is. For example, in “Battle Royale,” the man’s duty was to be a slave to the public and live out the white man’s urge or sexual drive, hence he was called and viewed a player or slave. He was a black man, subordinate, more so inferior to that of the town, hence called a negro man. All names that he were called, were nothing but adjectives. The fool is also known to preface the surface, rather than extract a true meaning. They also lack the ability to come out of their “costume” and experience life as they would normally. Sometimes it is beneficial to be a fool in order to succeed, but not to the point of naiveness and where such can hinder the ability to explore the world for new opportunities. Advice is given to the invisible man page 153, “Learn to look neath the surface”. One must “come out of the fog, young man, and remember you don’t have to be a complete fool in order to succeed” He even states that one must “play the game, but don’t believe in it” (153). 

IM Deep analysis!

"She seemd like a fair bird-girl girdled in veils calling to me from the angry surface of some gray and threatening ea. I was transported. Then I became aware of the clarinet playing and the big shots yelign at us....He tried to hid himself with boxing gloves"

When reading the prologue of this book, the one thought that sparked my mind was emphasis of "blind."  The invisible man, thus far, nameless, seems to suffer from this disease of blindness- being a black man. The invisible man is not blind to his environment, rather vise-versa. It is sad to hear that during this time period, full of Armstrong Jazz and blues, was the racist side- undermining the African Americans and framing them as "bad." The one incident the invisible man faced when the white man accused of "muggling" annoyed me. Perhaps it was because of the ignorance the man faced, more so society at that time period. It's weird how this "invisible man" does everything secretly and unknowingly- hence the title, the invisible man....first of all, he lives under, in a basement and steals power from a company. Now this is a bit ironic. Why? Well first of all, these white tenants refuse to go anywhere close to the basement, showing how egoistic and status-obsessed they are. Nonetheless, they are technically blind to all that is going around, especially with people unlike their kind. Another interesting aspect that I noted was the importance of time and illusion- he mentions that whenever he is high, under the influence of marijuana he loses a sense of time, but I feel it was more than just this. With such intoxication, one no longer is part of this egoistic, self-centered world, he is part of his own world- one that is invisible to everyone. It is ironic how to society he is invisible, yet he impacts their life to a certain extent. Take for example the tapping of power- the whole town is searching for the man behind such crime, yet they can't find him. He is almost like a ghost- a spirit who does actions, without anyone finding out.

-Now moving on to chapter 1, which i find rather disturbing and cruel.  I question the beginning of the chapter- why is a white girl (who is suppose to have a higher rank than a black man) exposed in the center of these men? What is the significance of this? Another point to consider is, why do they me young experience this horrendous defeat for money...that is fake? It seems that through this chapter, and including the prologue, a motif of power is seen. Firstly, power is what he steals from the white men, yet when in the rink, he is hurt from this electrical power that is running through the coins that the young men fight for. Another symbol that is noticed is the illusion of dreams. In the prologue, the narrator states that he uses drugs to feel a sense of relief and when he is dreaming in chapter 1, he dreams of his grandfather giving him something to laugh about. These illusions are what keeps him going, keeps him calm, and perhaps sane.

Poem for the month! Some AP practice...

As the AP Literature Exam date get closer, my anxiety in regards to the poem free response question increase. In light of solving my anxiety problem, for this blog, I have decided to take an old AP Exam poem prompt and analyze it in 30 min. I choose to do the 2006 AP Exam poem prompt; Here is a link: http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/_ap06_frq_englishlit_51753.pdf

And my time starts now (tick toc tick toc):

Most humans wish or dream to control their world (to be the center of it); most human wish perhaps to make no mistakes, to sore heights, to be perfectionist. most humans wish time was in their hands and their lives were directed by the time they gave themselves. The poem, “Evening Hawk,” by Robert Penn Warren displays humanities hope of controlling time as a weakness that holds them back to conquer the heights. Nonetheless, the speaker indicates that nature is not only the most powerful source that drives humanity, but is so powerful that it can not be touched, nor framed to fit one’s need. The poem portrays a naturalistic view on mankind’s vulnerability to hold a position like a “hawk.”

The poem begins with a vivid description of the hawk, although, the speaker does not indicate that it is his hawk he is speaking out till the end. This use of suspense questions the reader as to who the subject of the poem may be. The details in this first stanza, are very grandiose- all depicting some object powerful and big- of great impact. For example in line 4, the author states “The last tumultuous avalanche of/ Light above the pines and guttural gorge.” First of all, the adjectives tumultuous and guttural connotate to loud and powerful noises, almost that of a thunder. The use of the words avalanche and gorge depict a being greater than the average human being- perhaps god, but later we find that all this noise that was made was just by a hawks arrival, as he states in line 6- “The hawk comes.” The powerful adjectives along with the thunderous descriptions are important to note and he frames the hawk as a individual that can make a difference, one that has the ability to control all. The hawk may symbolize a higher being such as god, but in reality, the speaker is describing the inner ego of a man.

The next stanza refers to his wings symbolizing man’s hands or arms that are used as a source of manipulation. Note that at the end of this second stanza he states that “The crashless fall of stalks of Time.” This relates to line 11 when he states that “Who knows neither Time nor error.” Technically, what the speaker is saying is that man tries to ignore what natures real time is and tries to make his own, when in reality, nature is the real verdict over such.

Hamlet Discussion- Class Poster Response

Hamlet can be interpreted through many frames- whether it is Hamlet as the fool, Hamlet as the savior, or Hamlet as the Villain, he is never just one of these. What made me really interested was the discussion over Hamlet as the “fool.” When looking up the archetype of a fool, I found these characteristics: one that has comic relief, enjoys making a crowd laugh, very cynical, ignores social boundaries, and most importantly- acts absurdly. This absurd behavior roots from the “antic disposition” he will put upon; he states: “As I perchance hereafter shall think meet/ To put an antic disposition on” (187-188). Matter of fact, these all express the very clever Hamlet.  Although, whenever I think of the word “fool,” I think negative and silly, hence for the purpose of the debate or discussion I framed Hamlet as the “con man.” It is interesting to note that a con man has everything that a fool has, but is just risky and multifaceted- oh look, just like Hamlet. Take for example Hamlet’s current behavior; from the inside, he dreads his fathers deaths and wants to take revenge over Claudius, but he must put on a show to society in order to hide his intentions. So technically, he is “conning” society, nonetheless, turning them into fools as well. Often times though, we think that con men or fools are bad, when in reality they could be good- either an antagonist or protagonist. What is Hamlet? From Act 1 to Act 4 (what we have read thus far) he seems as if both. The protagonist Hamlet is trying to do his duty of taking revenge over his fathers murder (what the ghost told him to do) whereas antagonist Hamlet is the crazy, mad, fake being that actually manipulates society so he can fill his duty. “O cursed spite/ That ever I was born to set it right!” (202-204).  This selfishness (and self-fulfillment he is so obsessed with) is the root cause of why I think he can be an antagonist. He is not aware that he is hurting others, but in reality, he was done much damage to the kingdom. Starting with Ophelia’s restlessness, to the King’s and arousal, to friendship manipulation, and ending with the unintended death of Polonius. Therefore, Hamlet is an Antagonistic con man unknowingly.   In Fact, he thinks he is opposite the devil- almost god like: “ I’ll have these players/ Play something like the murder of my father/ Before mine uncle…Assume a pleasing shape” (613-615). In Hamlet's mind he is the center of the world has the ability to “shape” or control. Hence, we can see him as the “writer, actor, and director- destinies creator- god. What is ironic though is that Hamlet wants society to be real, and the actors to be real, when in reality, those are the ones that are the least moral. In scene ii of Act 3, he states that “suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that/ you o’erstep not the modesty of nature” ( 12-15). Such statement enhances Hamlet’s ironic disposition throughout the play of “seeming vs. ising.” All in all, Hamlet can be characterized through many lights.

Hamlet's Soliloquy - To be or not to be? hmmmm

Throughout  the poem Hamlet, the multiple façades of man are used  promote truth and honesty, more so, uncover a mystery (Hamlet's true feelings). Why Hamlet's feelings remain enclosed within his intelligent mind is for the revenge of his father...but it is more than this. After his father's murder, can he trust anyone?  Act III, scene  i, builds upon this motif of trust and the dismissal from society to remain true to himself and his father. It is also to find himself, and  be in the "Dragon" and discover his purpose in life- should he live to seek his father's revenge or should he live to die and possibly be in a place of hell after death? Hence, the "To be or not to be" (line 62) speech shows the self questioning he must go through in order to answer a simple, yet complex question. Thus, the speech exhibits shaper like qualities from Grendel- what is the meaning of life? Now from the soliloquy, as he his questioning his duty in life, he wonders whether or not there is a point to living- should he commit suicide. Going back into the texts, this relates to Hamlet's words when he says" That this too solid flesh would melt/ That, and resolve itself into a dew/ Or that the everlasting had not fix'd/ His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God." What he is saying here is that death forcefully or suicide is against God's wishes and destroying God's gift is a sin. Notice that he view's God above him, and hence his decisions are based on pleasing this higher being, avoid any troubles that he must face from the curses of this higher being- God. Now, the soliloquy also faces such dilemma of death, contemplating "to be or not to be" aka do I live or not? Is it my duty (again the motif of duty arises!) to carry this burden of revenge? What I question  through this is the noun "that we know  not of". Who is Hamlet referring to when he says that man flies to whom he does not know? This could go either way- fly to heaven with the Gods, or Hell with the demons...but either way, man tries to escape the reality. To me, this whole soliloquy is based on the fact that he must, as a son, take revenge. Therefore, he states that "Than fly to others that we know not of?/ Thus conscience does make cowards of us all." This pretty much states that what defines men is our ability to just leave a situation without trying to resolve a conflict or perform the duty that is bided with the conflict. Nonetheless, because all men do such a thing, they are all "cowards." Just the mere thought we must escape from this life (take the easy route) makes man a whimp. The tone of his soliloquy is powerful yet frightened as seen at the end when he says "Be all my sins remember'd." At first he debates the need to take such revenge, and  now he says that he has committed sins in the pat, therefore to avoid that (the fear or evil and hell) he will do such thing. 

Much Madness is divinest sense- Poem Analysis

Much madness is divinest sense 
By: Emily Dickinson 

Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye,
Much sense, the starkest madness.
’Tis the majority
In this, as all, prevail:
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur, you’re straightway dangerous
And handled with a chain.

This poem advocates a thought, that to most humans, our normal society, would deem as odd and different. The jist of lines revolves around the fact that madness is the pure essence of truth, the driving force of introspection and realism. Hence discovering one's inner self is fostered by the insanity. Madness roots are part of all our sense- it is a universal calling of self questioning and discovery. 

Note that through the poem, "madness" is neither physical anger nor the state of a psychological disorder, rather it is the uncovering of oneself, which can be tiresome and gruesome, also painful, hence the "madness." This madness also has another denotation, that is struggle. To find ones self, is often a struggle due to the plethora of thoughts that one must organize and make sense of. Hence the poem concentrates on this meaning of madness and its role within the mind- it is a positive type of madness. 

There are many symbols in the poem, first stating with the "eye. The "eye" or the being that wishes to see what a normal human struggles with must face madness. Those with a "discerning eye" are often proposed as the wise and clever, justifying their "madness." Often, as a society so obsessed with the normal actions and behavior, calls these clever people "mad" or "crazy" mistakenly. Insanity is the root of or basis of sanity. The eye can also represent a new source of light, that enters through the pupil. When we are sane, or too calm, we often bypass or are blind to the real essence of our existence...indulging in the material rather than the mind. Hence the eye, or the inner light of the mind is lost. Once we break out of this sanity, sometimes becoming insane, we can see the inner mind more clearly and analyze our stance as humans. 

The essence of life is fostered by the real madness that prevails in all, yet is hidden, or "bare in appearance". The sheerness of such madness is the majority. Thus we are concealed within the sanity of preservation of our normality that we lack an understanding of thy true self. We fear insanity only constitutes lack of understanding and has no need in a humans life. When one believes that they are "mad," they have experienced the pure essence of sanity. Without this realization, one hinders their ability to reconcile and handle life; nonetheless the face "danger"- they are trapped by a chain (this chain being the initial thoughts of sanity rather than madness). Breaking away from sanity is a positive thing as it helps uncover the underlying thoughts that itch to come out in the form of insanity. Once they are out, the mind is free. 

A Poem and a Novel

This January, I have had couple of goals in order to keep reading and get my brain working: firstly, read, analyze, and relate poems that I enjoy and secondly, to read more books! Keeping these in mind, I would like to share a poem and a book I read recently. 

First for the poem: 

Great experiences should

be valued like silver,every day is as precious as a box of gold.If we only lived in this moment and made the most of it,we would experience joy, peace and love untold.~ Raphael Notch

When reading this poem, one common phrase rings a bell- YOLO. Y.O.L.O- a common slang phrase used among the high school crowd of our generation, almost like a savior. A savior we say? Yes, the ultimate haven for the frets in life. We use the saying "you only live life once" to contradict our affinity to try, our capital actions. Why try, why struggle, why search beyond the stars, when we only live once? Life is so short, live it. Is this dilemma, the scorching nag of laziness, a healthy habit for us? Is it the indicative immunization for our motivation? More so, are we stranded in the midst of introspection with no catalyst for progression, for our ultimate happiness we seek to find? Do we try, do we live?

Second- a sad yet lovely novel:

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, in Love in the Time of Cholera, a tragic love story( NY: Editorial Oveja Negra 1988) , suggests that south American culture defines love as society's complications,  as a  physical and mental disease, and as an agent to retain youthfulness.  He develops such definitions first by describing why "it is impossible not to become what others believe you are;" second, by emphasizing that "there is no greater glory than to die for love;" lastly, by accepting that "age has no reality except in the physical world." Marquez's purpose was to prove that love is not controlled by a mutual feelings, but by nature's obstacles and mindsets. Because of Marquez's poetic and dense tone, he was able to communicate the essence of love in south American culture in many different aspects, creating a dynamic plot line that easily grabs attention from both adolescents and adults.

Walking through Hamlet- some theories, perhaps?

In class on Friday, while watching Hamlet, it was interesting to note all directors choices based on the text. Although scenes one through three were interesting, they were basically just laying the foundations...but when we get to scenes four and five, here is where the real play begins- Hamlet finally meets the "Ghost" of his father. Starting from the beginning of the play, Shakespeare introduces the Ghost as an omen. First of all, the scenery at the beginning of act one is gloomy, mirthful, and dark, and cautious (as the guard is keeping a look out for all the possible dangers that could disrupt the night); nonetheless, this is already indicative of something "bad." Once Shakespeare adds the ghost, the plot changes. Everyone's minds are geared towards finding this ghost, finding its purpose, and most importantly trying to find out why it is dressed in armor like the late king. Two things to note about the ghost: one, it does not speak and two, it is dressed in armor (just like the late king) from top to bottom. Hmmm....Why would it not speak? and why would the ghost state this clearly? Perhaps there is some sort of secret that this immortal being must confess, but only to Hamlet- this is only my theory, for we question this through our reading. The ghost is also dressed as if ready-to-fight. Why? Was there about to be dual? Fights over the won lands? Who knows...It's weird to note that all these men see the ghost, so we can clear the fact that it may be an hallucination. But knowing that all these men were devotees of the king and Hamlets best friends, it may be that they are just picturing the king, rather than the ghost actually being the king due to the fact that they all miss the kind, more so, dread his departure. The men could perhaps hate the new king, Claudius so much that they refuse to see Claudius in the kings armor that represents pride, prosperity, rivalry, and strength. Hence why Hamlet calls him a "satyr."
This brings up a good point in scene 4 when Hamlet further bashes on the kings affinity for wine, loudness, and rowdiness. This is quite opposite from the king described, who hold complete strength and is the same when seen in front of the palace and only. Therefore, Claudius can be described as 2 faced- just like the satyr who is half man and half animal. To society and the kingdom, he is like that of a human (gentle, king, compelling in nature) and when in hiding or infatuated with wine and festivities, he is like an animal (loose, carefree, and weak).
It can clearly be seen that Hamlet despises the new king, Claudius, in his long speech (scene 4). The speech pretty much states that Claudius will bring down the palace in terms of morality as he is highly obsessed with the pleasures of the scenes (wine and sex). Could this hurt the palace? Yes, perhaps..so this is exactly why hates the new king. He wants to preserve the kingdom. 

The weirdness begins- Invisible Man

When reading the prologue of this book, the one thought that sparked my mind was emphasis of "blind."  The invisible man, thus far, nameless, seems to suffer from this disease of blindness- being a black man. The invisible man is not blind to his environment, rather vise-versa. It is sad to hear that during this time period, full of Armstrong Jazz and blues, was the racist side- undermining the African Americans and framing them as "bad." The one incident the invisible man faced when the white man accused of "muggling" annoyed me. Perhaps it was because of the ignorance the man faced, more so society at that time period. It's weird how this "invisible man" does everything secretly and unknowingly- hence the title, the invisible man....first of all, he lives under, in a basement and steals power from a company. Now this is a bit ironic. Why? Well first of all, these white tenants refuse to go anywhere close to the basement, showing how egoistic and status-obsessed they are. Nonetheless, they are technically blind to all that is going around, especially with people unlike their kind. Another interesting aspect that I noted was the importance of time and illusion- he mentions that whenever he is high, under the influence of marihuana he loses a sense of time, but I feel it was more than just this. With such intoxication, one no longer is part of this egoistic, self-centered world, he is part of his own world- one that is invisible to everyone. It is ironic how to society he is invisible, yet he impacts their life to a certain extent. Take for example the tapping of power- the whole town is searching for the man behind such crime, yet they can't find him. He is almost like a ghost- a spirit who does actions, without anyone finding out.

Now moving on to chapter 1, which i find rather disturbing and cruel.  I question the beginning of the chapter- why is a white girl (who is suppose to have a higher rank than a black man) exposed in the center of these men? What is the significance of this? Another point to consider is, why do they me young experience this horrendous defeat for money...that is fake? It seems that through this chapter, and including the prologue, a motif of power is seen. Firstly, power is what he steals from the white men, yet when in the rink, he is hurt from this electrical power that is running through the coins that the young men fight for. Another symbol that is noticed is the illusion of dreams. In the prologue, the narrator states that he uses drugs to feel a sense of relief and when he is dreaming in chapter 1, he dreams of his grandfather giving him something to laugh about. These illusions are what keeps him going, keeps him calm, and perhaps sane.

An Echo Sonnet- By: Robert Pack

The poem titled "To an Empty Page," by Robert Pack, is an echo sonnet, in which the speaker carries a conversation with himself (the voice) and the Echo (his conscious). In order to completely extract meaning from this poem, I did some research in regards to "Echo" and Greek mythology. Echo, a beautiful young girl lived in the woods, denied of the loved of any man or god due to the curse (or punishment) by Zeus's wife. The punishment was that she could only echo, or repeat the last words of others, she could never answer them.  Similar to the Echo is the speaker, who talks to nothing but a blank, empty page (a title reference) in order to extropolate on "nature's call," what I see as the essential theme of the poem. Starting from verse one, the word "empty" and it's forms are used repeatedly, including the title, hence the importance of emptiness lies in his ability to talk to his conscious without disruption from an outside force; in essence, he is talking to nature (himself). Notice how after each line, the echo repeats the last word of each sentence. Perhaps, this notion of the echo interfers with his stubbornness to think otherwise (in reference to line two). He questions whether he must master joy or grief, and answers grief as the echo's ability to repeat is constraint to the last word or a rhyme of it. Keeping this in mind, the pattern of a,b,a,b,cc,d,e,f,e,f,g,g, also known as a Shakesperian sonnet, plays a significant role in defining the meaning of poem. When analyzing this rhyme scheme, I noticed that every action is followed by some form of nature; for example, start-art and grief-leaf. Seen here is push from nature, or perhaps destiny that guides his actions. His start is based on nature's art, perhaps the abnormalities of it too. This abornormality is seen in  line when when he states "Leaf blooms, burns red fefore delighted eyes." It is bizzare how a leaf blooms (we do not know whether the blooming is pretty or wild), but we do know that after this leaf transforms and grows, it is immediately burned, but before "delgihted eyes." The connotation of eyes are awakening, life, passion, finding, and discovering, which is paradoxical in line 5 because instead of continuing to grow, it is burned, but they are delighted. This hints that nature's beauty, comes from the grief of our perceptions, that contribute to art. We can take this further and say that this art, fostered by nature's destruction is vital to "consolation in the heart" (line 3). Because nature's destruction is now framed as a usual for relief, It can be said that is starting form grief, in order to reach this state of happiness or joy- grief gives him joy, rather than the other way around.