The Importance of Being Earnest

As our AP exam nears, I thought it would be most effective to review our most recent work discussed in class, The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde. Because it is the only full on comedy we have read this year, I wanted to elaborate on some of the things I noticed in this play and discuss some of the ideas mentioned in the critical article "Anarchy and Individualism in "The Importance of Being Earnest." 

A big idea that is prominent throughout this play concerns conception versus reality. Every character has a picture of what they consider to be the truth. The characters are defined by their conceptions and imagination rather than the reality that surrounds them. A perfect example of this sort of character is Cecily. A secluded girl that lives in the country, Cecily's reality is her diary (which is in fact an account of purely fictional events that never truly occurred). She imagines for herself a perfect "love at first sight" engagement in which she marries a the perfectly named "Ernest." As mentioned in the critical article, "Cecily’s existence is based almost solely in her own imagination." In this play, many of the character's actions are determined by what they perceive to be the truth, or even what they want to be the truth. 

In this way, both Algernon and Jack create identities by which they lead double lives, playing on the lines of what is true versus what they believe to be true. Jack pretends to have a younger brother while Algernon pretends to have a friend by the name Bunbury. Both of these fantasies dictate the actions that the two characters take within their actual lives. In the same way, Gwendolyn, like Cecily, believes that a man named "Ernest" is the only man that she could ever fall in love with. Even when both Gwendolyn and Cecily discover the truth about Algernon and Jack, "manipulation powers prevail." It is simply absurd to see Cecily and Gwendolyn decide to fall in love with Algernon and Jack anyways, as long as the two are willing to change their names for the ladies. 

There is a lot of stress on appearances in this play, an idea that Wilde presents in such an absurd fashion that is causes the reader to reevaluate the morals and priorities that guide society (specifically Victorian society, as it was written in that day). Gwendolyn insistence loving with someone names Ernest illustrates the tendency of people in that time period to judge based on appearance of honor and goodwill as opposed to the truth. These ideas can be applied to our society, even today. We can see how outer appearances and superficial qualities are significant in this play when we witness Lady Bracknell's behavior. When Lady Bracknell discovers Cecily's wealth, she has a sudden change of heart in which he insists that Cecily and Algernon get married. The stress on superficial qualities such as status and wealth are mocked throughout the play. Because the characters focus on such trivial things, they end up in a false illusion of happiness, and are completely as ease with the hypocrisy that takes place about them. 

These were simply some of the interesting things I noticed in this play. There were numerous more, such as the detrimental nature of marriage to the individual and the elusive nature of morality within a society guided by superficially fixed principles. 

A Clear Midnight
Walt Whitman 

Well, the thing is, Mrs. Clinch keeps urging us to blog but my mind is so awfully crazed up right now with all the coming exams that I have absolutely NO clue what to even talk about [for the fear that my stress will overcome me - it is probably safer I keep quiet]. While pondering over what to blog about, I decided to write about some poetry, as we'll probably be encountering quite a bit of that during our exam. When I came across this poem, it was rather soothing to imagine, and I was automatically calmed down. SO now I'm rather excited to continue on with this blog! 

Here is the poem: 

THIS is thy hour O Soul, thy free flight into the wordless
Away from books, away from art, the day erased, the lesson done, 
Thee fully forth emerging, silent, gazing, pondering the themes thou lovest best.
Night, sleep, death, and the stars. 

In this poem, Walt Whitman treats his Soul as an individual; a being within himself. His soul seems to serve as a metaphor for his inner desires and longings. The speaker of this poem years to get away from "books" and "away from art." This gives the sense of separating oneself from the world, perhaps into a state of peace and contentment. I interpreted this idea of separating oneself as a period of deep reflection or thought, perhaps sleep, or even death. The inner part of the speaker years to spend time doing nothing but being silent, spending time "gazing" and "pondering" about the themes that he desires. Yet the poem has a bittersweet tone to it - perhaps the speaker is unable to do the things he desires due to his external world. "Books" and "art" can serve as metaphors for pursuing knowledge within the outer world. The speaker's life has become all about continuing his studies, pursuing knowledge, and learning "lessons" day after day - but these lessons only go to a certain depth. After a certain point, the speaker's internal self wants nothing more than to reflect on what is inside him. This whole idea of the dual nature of man is a big theme in this poem, both an intimate and personal theme, the duality in the nature of the individual is one I myself can relate to very much. Perhaps Whitman is urging the individual to find time to look within their artistic self - the part of them that is not present in their typical daily lives. 

At the same time, this poem seemed to be a very interesting metaphor in which Whitman paints a portrait of death itself. Unlike the usual picture of death being painful, sudden, sad, and cruel, Whitman depicts death as a silent parting in which the individual is at peace and fully aware of his situation. When he says "This is thy hour O Soul," the speaker makes apparent that he is at peace with this transition into death. He claims that death is a time in which his Soul can fly "free" into the "wordless." The "wordless" can describe a place where there are no such things as words, or perhaps a place words could never describe. Whatever this place may be, the speaker is at peace and content with the idea of going there. Death is not a painful parting in this short poem, but rather a time in which the individual is most himself - his artistic self. Death is a time in which the individual accepts the role of Time within his life, accepts his fate, and accepts the concept of leaving his external world, and embracing his internal self. 

Memoirs of a Geisha: First Half 

Choosing to read Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden for my lit circle this past week has been one of the best decisions I have ever made. Oftentimes, I'm accustomed to reading literature concerning America or Europe, and it's usually not very difficult to visualize what is taking place in the story. Unlike most of the literature I have experienced before, this novel put me in Japan within an exotic culture - a culture clouded by wide misconceptions. I admire the author of this novel greatly because he is able to not only help me understand the customs of a completely different world, but also write in the point of view of a girl flawlessly. While reading, the main question that came up in the novel regards the nature of pursuing the path towards becoming a geisha. Is it good or is it bad? Does it help Chiyo to become Sayuri or will it simply lead to her objectification? 

In her path towards becoming a geisha, it seems that Sayuri often undergoes many moments of self reflection - obviously, that would seem like a good thing. Pursuing her path towards becoming a geisha allows Sayuri to think about her place within the world, the nature of her own destiny and fate within the grand realm of the world. Yet, there is one quote I found extremely significant in the novel. When Sayuri first gets her name change she says, "It was as if the little girl named Chiyo, running barefoot from the pond to her tipsy house, no longer existed. I felt that this new girl, Sayuri, with her gleaming white face and her red lips, had destroyed her" (Golden 167). This is one of the first descriptions that we encounter after Sayuri takes a big step towards becoming a geisha. When reading this, I thought of the whole "mask" and "veil" idea that is prevalent throughout the novel. Oftentimes, a "gleaming white face" and "red lips" are features that are prominent in a doll. A doll never changes her face and outer appearance - similar to a mask, which hides inner feelings by sticking to one outer appearance. Could pursuing this path actually be beneficial and morally sound if it strips Chiyo of her ability to express herself? Furthermore, the quote uses the word "destroyed" in it, which leads to the idea of death and loss - a negative connotation. I interpreted this as a metaphorical death of Chiyo and the birth of Sayuri - but should we be happy that Chiyo has been replaced? Not only does the transition mimic a sort of loss of innocence, but it is also presented and described in a very negative way. 

Apart from this quote, I could not help but notice the life of geisha in general. There is a quote in which Sayuri says, "I was finding it difficult to believe that these men - who has paid so considerably to be there, among women wrapped in expensive, beautiful robes - really wanted to hear the same sorts of stories children back in the pond in Yoroido might have told" (Golden 174). What really are the perks of being a geisha? Although you may be admired by the community in general, unveiling a first impression exposes the objectification that takes place. Geisha are not perceived by men to be human - they are a representation of men's wealth and power. Chiyo was always so clever - I can't imagine her truly letting this happen to herself. Are geisha ever happy? I haven't seen any geisha that are happy in this novel so far...could this be the "wrong kind of living" as Chiyo once thought of Granny's life? 

I'm definitely looking forward to completing the novel and hope to answer some of these questions in our next lit circle!

Invisible Man: Prologue and Epilogue

Because tomorrow we will be talking about the prologue and epilogue in Invisible Man, I figure it would be best to dish out my thoughts concerning the two sections, and their connection to meaning of the book as a whole. 

While reading both the prologue and epilogue, I came to realize that the narrator's story is much of a transition; almost a journey. The whole novel is basically a culmination of the narrator's journey - his attempt to escape the identity that people give him. I came to think of the idea that the narrator is perpetually running - both literally and metaphorically. This introduces the idea of a rabbit, both Brer the rabbit as a trickster archetype, but also actual rabbits that inhabit holes within the ground. Often, rabbits are actually considered prey to other animals - and this is why their holes in the ground are so vital to their survival. In the same way, the narrator is running all sorts of places and things that attempt to give him an identity. He runs from the coin bank that reminds him of the demeaning nature of the very roots he grew within. He runs from the Brotherhood when he realizes that it has indeed been using him for no greater reason than his race. This leads him to the man-hole - which interestingly is a place of darkness. I thought it very interesting that the narrator achieved true enlightenment ONLY when he reached first encountered true darkness. Through this, I think Ellison shows the need for one to be in true darkness before gaining enlightenment. 

Interestingly, I found a connection between the grandfather and the narrator as well. Earlier in the novel, the narrator tells us about his grandfather calling himself a traitor. Later in the novel, Ras the Exhorter calls the narrator a traitor as well. As I was reading, the question came into mind: Who are both these significant characters traitors to? Perhaps, these characters represent a challenge the simple system of society. The grandfather inwardly challenged his outer orders. In the same way, the narrator challenges the system - or perhaps we can say, the lack of system - present in the riots surrounding Harlem with Ras the Exhorter. When we think of Clifton's character in all of this context, I think Clifton represents a person that definitely recognized the predicament many blacks were in that time period. Clifton was intelligent enough to realize the demeaning nature of the sambo dolls - yet it seems as if Clifton recognized that the black individuals would never be able to rid of their roots, and the slavery that characterized their history. Thus he embraces the Sambo dolls almost as if he wants to sacrifice himself - as there is no other alternative. He does tell the audience that there is  a big show coming on - perhaps he serves as a Christ figure in the novel. 

I think that the prologue and epilogue are extremely important to tying the novel together - but it's interesting and significant to note that they spark as many questions as they may answer. Nevertheless, I look forward to our seminar tomorrow! 

Invisible Man: A Response 

After reading Invisible Man, I realized I never got the opportunity to discuss my reaction to the novel. Often, the "AP Lit" worthy novels that I read aren't almost six hundred pages long...this was quite the deviation from what I am accustomed to. Nevertheless, I admire Ellison for being able to write such a comprehensive novel that explores many themes and allows for the formation of many questions regarding these themes. Although it was written years ago, I still find it very applicable to today's society, and I thought it to be a very mind engaging read. I'd like to discuss the ideas concerning the narrator as an individual in the face of an oppressive society and some of the ideas that in connection to this.

The most obvious question that stands out throughout the novel concerns the narrator's name - of lack there of. What's the significance in the lack of the narrator's name? Obviously, we can relate the idea back to the title of the novel itself: Invisible Man. Because the novel never reveals the narrator's name, Ellison gives the narrator the persona of an "invisible" man. One way I interpreted this was the idea of the narrator as a part of a collective unit. Rather than being considered an individual that has unique opinions and thoughts, the narrator is simply considered as a part of the black community - a collective unit in which everyone thinks and acts the same exact way. Often times, the narrator is told to simply do something without thinking [examples include Kimbro and Brother Jack]. I feel as if this is an exemplification of how the narrator is often viewed as one that is simple there. He exists, but only as one that will provide for someone else. When he was in Liberty Paints, he existed as a worker that simply did his job without thinking. Even when he believes himself free in the Brotherhood, he was conditioned to give speeches a certain way by Hambro - he did not think. One possible interpretation for the definition of invisibility could be one who's existence goes no further than providing for someone else. 

I found it interesting that both the narrator and the Founder did not have names in the novel. When we speak of the narrator we call him "the narrator" and in the novel, everyone refers to the Founder as "the Founder." Uncanny similarity, but by no means an accident. I think these two characters in the novel almost serve as reflections for one another. The Founder's existence goes no further than his service to the black community, while the narrator's existence goes no further than his service to the black/white community. Neither of them are recognized for individuality - they are simply extensions of the race they belong to.  

The ideas of invisibility, sight/blindness, identity, and reality versus perception are all prominent throughout the book. I liked the way Ellison used colors, thematic motifs, and different characters to highlight the questions that surround out society, prevalent to this very day. Above are simply some thoughts in response to reading the novel, and I am looking forward to the discussions to come. 

Thoughts on Liberty Paints 

After reading Invisible Man, there were several developments within the plots that were significant in developing major themes and ideas in the novel itself. Some of these themes include invisibility, sight/blindness, and identity. Often, I saw the theme of white verses black as both a literal and metaphorical concept. Of these different developments, I thought the Liberty Paints episode was significant in underscoring both the inequality and irony within society. As my seminar group is focusing on this part of the novel for an in depth study, I thought it would be natural for me to let some thoughts flow on the subject - specifically the factory episode in chapter ten. 

At Liberty Paints, the factory's gains most of its pride from it "Optic White" paint. It's interesting to note that this prize winning paint required "ten drops" of a "dead black" liquid put into a "white graduate." This not only came as a surprise to the narrator, but to me as well. After the narrator puts the black drops into the white graduate and mixes it, the paint turns bright and white. Kimbro then calls this paint "the purest white paint that can be found." I think this whole process was an intentional parallel to the customs of society in that time period. It shows that black people were necessary to make America thrive, but were often ignored and swallowed by the white people in the process. Although Kimbro calls "Optic White" the purest white paint around, white men normally considered blacks inferior and impure - as can be seen in the way the color white is typically associated with purity within the novel. This introduces a sense of irony in the whole paint mixing process. More so, it also goes to show the ignorance of the white community is recognizing the principle role of the black community within society. It is almost as if the whites and blacks complete each other - they need each other to thrive - in the same way that the white paint cannot be created without the black drops of liquid AND the white graduate. I thought that was an interesting interpretation of the scene, because although one may think that the author is disdainful and bitter towards whites for ignoring blacks, he may also be calling for the two to join together and acknowledge each other for the greater good. 

The episode with Lucius Brockway helps further the above arguments. Brockway tells the narrator, "Right down here is where the real paint is made. Without what I do they couldn't do nothing, they be making bricks without straw." It seems as if Brockway has a very necessary role in the paint making process at Liberty Paints, yet he always seems afraid that someone is trying to steal his job. He seems to live in a perpetual state of fear - it is strange, but very real, and I believe Ellison is intentionally illustrating the fear that gripped the lives of the African Americans that lived in America. Although Brockway has a legitimate society-building role, his efforts are often ignored. This brings in the irony of the name of the factory itself: "Liberty Paints." How much "Liberty" is truly present within this factory? This parallels the question: How much "Liberty" (an American democratic ideal) is truly present within American society? By bringing these fundamental questions into the text, Ellison calls for a true reflection on our respective societies. 

One of my favorite chapters in the whole novel, it was able to relate many of the common themes of liberty and freedom into the text. A very enjoyable read. 

I Died for Beauty but was Scarce
Emily Dickinson 

I died for beauty, but was scarce

Adjusted in the tomb, 

When one who died for truth was lain

In an adjoining room 

He questioned softly why I failed? 

"For beauty," I replied. 

"And I for truth, the two are one;

We brethen are," he said. 

And so, as kinsmen met a night, 

We talked between our rooms, 

Until the moss had reached out lips, 

And covered up our names 

When I read any type of literature, I often find that I prefer pieces that are able to convey complex messages while maintaining a smaller amount of words. Every word and every feeling becomes so much more powerful when there are fewer words to begin with. Emily Dickinson has always been a fan favorite when it comes to poetry and after reading more of her recently, I found this poem and was automatically attracted to its complexity. A few lines, and yet it left me in chills. I appreciate anything that can get me to feel through a few lines of writing. 

The speaker begins by explaining that she died for beauty - an idea that I feel many girls and women can easily relate too. When the speaker says this, I feel as if she means to emphasize the idea that she yearned to be thought of as beautiful - perhaps beauty gave significance to her existence. It is as if she died for beauty because she was loved for her beauty. She automatically transitions to being "adjusted" in a "tomb." This death can be interpreted as both a literal death and a metaphorical death. She claims that one "who died for truth was lain in the adjoining room." Immediately we see a contrast between beauty and truth - although both are very different [arguably contradictory] forces, their "followers" end up in the same place. Death.  

Oftentimes, beauty is judged by outer appearance. Similarly, outer appearances are very unreliable and often deceiving. One could argue that outer beauty is a stark contrast to the overarching idea of "truth." I think this contrast is extremely significant to point out, and was an intentional choice by Dickinson. The contrast between the two forces illuminates the strangeness of the two forces ending up in the same place. The next stanza asks has the speaker's neighbor asking her why she "failed" - it is important to note that death is viewed as failure here. Whether literal or metaphorical, death is a form of failure - and this stanza depicts two very different types of of people "failing" together. The neighbor says, "We brethen are," as a means of communicating how close these two are - not only because they are beside each other but also because they are both in a state of death and failure. 

Bonded by their mutual failure and death, the two individuals through the night until the "moss had reached out lips, 

And covered up our names." Dickinson's choice of diction is not only peculiar, but also rather chilling. Names define a person and give them individuality - without a name, an individual is nothing. This diction implies that the two individuals talked until they were decomposed completely, and left in a state of nothingness. It is as if they never existed. 

What was Dickinson trying to convey? Perhaps she was relaying the idea that no matter what one may hold on to in life, the end result is always death. Or she might have meant for this poem to illustrate the deception of worldly forces such as "beauty" and "truth," and that pursuing one as an absolute truth will only contribute to one's own demise [think Winesburg Ifrah!]. Dickinson also makes a comment on humanity itself, emphasizing the powerlessness of humans and their inability to succeed in the world. Orrrr maybe Dickinson wants to show that humans will never truly be effective forever - they will be forgotten once they meet death. 

Whatever Dickinson's idea may be, I think her simple language and elegant style gives off a powerful and cynical feeling. 

Poetry is feeling, and feeling is always beautiful in some way. 

Hamlet: The End

While reading Hamlet, our class discussed a variety of motifs, themes, and interpretations of the text. While discussing these varying topics, we came up with numerous questions and possible answers, yet one question remained the same throughout the play. What is the "so what" of this play? What is the underlying idea that Shakespeare was trying to relay through this play? While reading it, I was never able to answer the question. Now that we have finished, I have a possible theory that I have devised aided by the text and action that takes place in the final scene. 

The "to be or not to be" speech is one of the most popular and famous lines in Shakespearean literature today. In this speech, Hamlet poses a question that is extremely central to the development of his character and to the development of this play as a whole. Should he simply "be" and accept his fate and destiny that will come? Or should he "not be" and end his own life before facing the suffering and struggling that he will be afflicted with if he continues to "be" and simply live his life? Interestingly, this is a question that haunts humanity to this very day. What is the point of caring about our lives when they are filled with nothing but grief and despair? Is there really any meaning to our lives? 

I think the ending of this play is very important in showing us the answer to these questions. In Hamlet and Horatio's intimate conversation towards the end of the play, Hamlet tells Horatio, "Let be." And in essence, this answers everything. I think Hamlet is aware that he will be meeting his inevitable fate, whether it is simply pain or complete death he is not ware, but he is ready to accept it honorably. When Hamlet meets his death, it is interesting to note that his last words speak, "the rest is silence." Shakespeare almost seems to implying that the only real release is actually in accepting death - accepting that one will meet his downfall. "Silence," in my opinion, connotes peace and almost a sense of quiet acceptance. Perhaps one is only at "rest" when they have reached complete "silence" - meaning death. 

At the end, when all the characters - Hamlet, Ophelia, Gertrude, Claudius, Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern have met their deaths, Horatio remains to perhaps live on as Hamlet's spirit - to give truth to the world. It's interesting that all the truth comes out to the world AFTER all of these characters are dead. This goes to show that the truth only comes out after one reaches their death. It is only after death, that Denmark was able to become pure and new again with the reign of the new King, Fortinbras. I think Shakespeare was trying to show that as humans, it is inevitable that we accept our fates. These fates will inevitably be flawed and painful simply because that is the course of humanity. Shakespeare is trying to show that there will always be these sorts of ethical dilemmas that haunt humans in our lives and inflict pain and suffering upon us - but can it be any other way? 

Perhaps, death is indeed our true release. 

Hamlet as a Philosopher

Reading Hamlet, and identifying Hamlet as a character allows for a variety of interpretations. What is his role in the play? Is he good or evil? Sane or insane? Hero or villain? In our recent group discussions, my group discussed Hamlet as a philosopher. We definitely discussed some interesting ideas, helped by our classmates. 

There were some contrasting views in our class, as well as in our smaller group. One comment found on our big poster concerning Hamlet said: "His tendency to THINK keeps him from ACTING." This is a very clever point to make - often we witness Hamlet contemplating things in a very calculated and logical manner - but by doing so, he stalls the moment many of the readers are expecting or waiting for. This is evident in his idea to put on a play to verify whether Claudius is guilty, and is it also apparent in his decision to wait to kill Claudius at a time in which he is not "praying." This brings in the question: Is Hamlet's tendency to think an advantage or disadvantage to him in the play? 

Discussing this question with my group, we found that there were varying responses to this important question. Some of us agreed that Hamlet's tendency to think was a true advantage - he exists as a sort of moral judge in this play. His ability to stay precise and determined in the situation that he is put in speaks a lot about his character. There are moments of intimate weakness in the play - yet he continues to remain logical and pragmatic. In his famous "To be or not to be" I found this very evident. I saw this speech as Hamlet's contemplation of suicide - he was alone and he was weak. Yet he still has the mind to contemplate as a philosopher would saying, "...ay, there is the rub, for in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause." There is significance in this scene, and in my view, it only adds to the idea that Hamlet is not mad - he is sane and he is vigilant and alert of his surroundings. He knows how humans work and he recognizes their unpredictability, thus finding it necessary to remain calm, collected, and certain of Claudius' guilt. Additionally, Hamlet shows moments of both intellectual and philosophical brilliance throughout the novel. In another moment of despair, Hamlet claims, "...what is this quintessence of dust?" His words often serve as a sort of intellectual isolation, and this point of view shows existentialism before it even existed! Another such quote I liked very much was, "Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so." Hamlet recognizes the power of perception and illusion - his discoveries and knowledge portray him as a character of much higher intellect than those surrounding him in the play.

As some of us found it an advantage, others found Hamlet's constant tendency to think a disadvantage. Not only does his thinking cause him delay in his purpose, but it also hurts many of those around him [Gertrude and Ophelia]. When Hamlet makes the decision to not kill Claudius at that particular time, he loses out on the opportunity we have all been waiting for. Some people thought that his ability to think did not make him a philosopher - he simply has random moments of strength and weakness and lets them guide his very actions. This can relate to the idea of another interpretation of Hamlet: Hamlet as a coward. Does Hamlet actually know he is doing? Is he simply a slave of his own constantly changing thoughts? A member of my group mentioned the significance of the ghost that comes to remind Hamlet of his true purpose while he is denouncing his mother. Is Hamlet truly the "good" and "moral" person here? One comment left on the poster read: "He actually killed Polonius, killed with a knife." I thought this was an extremely interesting take on Hamlet as a philosopher. Is he even a philosopher? Shouldn't someone that was is as logical and clear minded as Hamlet have waited long enough to confirm that Polonius was Claudius before killing him? 

Thinking of Hamlet as a philosopher brings in a lot of questions regarding his nature and character in the play. I think it's for this very reason Hamlet makes such a captivating read. 

Nunnery or Nunnery? 

Reading Hamlet thus far, the nunnery scene (Act III Scene I) definitely ranks high among my favorite scenes in the play. I thought it was extremely well crafted and it succeeded in drawing many solid connections to other areas of the play - emphasizing overarching themes in the play as a whole. I became very interested with this scene, and researched some key words in order to gain some insight and background on what I was reading - but also because I know Shakespeare is witty enough to use several meanings of a word in a single sentence! What struck me as extremely interesting and surprising was the word "nunnery." We most commonly associate a nunnery with a house of nuns, or a convent. Further research revealed that in the Elizabethan era, the word "nunnery" was slang for a brothel, and the word "nun" could possibly mean to describe a prostitute. Not only was this the complete opposite of what I could normally connote with the word "nunnery," but it could change the whole dynamic in the exchange between Hamlet and Ophelia...So really, being the Hamlet nerd I am, there's nothing I can do but dig deeper into the text. 

Reading the text with the commonly associated meaning of the word "nunnery," I thought that when Hamlet demanded Ophelia to "Get thee to a nunnery," he was simply telling her to do that so she would be able to purify herself and escape the evils Hamlet so commonly associates with the world around him. But this new (or perhaps old) meaning of "nunnery" changed the mood and inner meaning of the scene greatly. I noticed that Hamlet first asks Ophelia whether she is "honest" and "fair." Hamlet asks Ophelia these questions concerning her goodness and beauty, and then jumps to the conclusion that she should get herself to a nunnery. He then accuses women, saying "God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another. You jig and able, and you lisp..." He also claims that women make "monsters" of men. This can be interpreted as Hamlet's rage towards his mother coming out towards Ophelia - or even the idea that Hamlet is well aware of the "whore" Ophelia has become to her father (lying to Hamlet and simply acting as bait because of her father's orders). But if we take the alternate meaning of the word "nunnery," it no longer means that Hamlet is telling Ophelia to purify herself and stay away from evil. It means that Hamlet is demanding that Ophelia does not belong in a castle, in a place of such high esteem - rather than she belongs in a brothel, a house of prostitutes. If Hamlet is truly telling her to go to a brothel, the words become all the more vulgar, accusatory, and abusive. 

I think this use of the word "nunnery" also underscores the way Ophelia is often perceived as a very one dimensional character - and simply defined by her sexuality. Her beauty and her submissive nature define her. Her father uses her as bait to allure Hamlet, and Hamlet treats her as if she is no better that a whore. Her character is defined more so by those around her than the words she utters herself, not only highlighting the man-dominated society around her but also exposing the nature of society as a whole. For these connections, I thought it was quite significant that the word "nunnery" has two meanings. Through his word choice, Shakespeare does a wonderful job of relaying multiple ideas through one singular work. 

Mirrors

Sylvia Plath 

I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions.

Whatever I see I swallow immediately

Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike.

I am not cruel, only truthful --

The eye of a little god, four-cornered.

Most of the time I meditate on the opposite wall.

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

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

Faces and darkness separate us over and over.

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

Searching my reaches for what she really is.

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

I see her back, and reflect it faithfully.

She rewards me with tears and an agitation of hands.

I am important to her. She comes and goes.

Each morning it is her face that replaces the darkness.

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

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

I came across this poem while researching different poems for my poetry essay. It kind of struck me after a first read, simply because I didn't know what to think after I had read it. I couldn't pinpoint a particular emotion or imagine the speaker's voice...I actually had to reread the poem a couple of times to even throw out some theories regarding the actual. A little background information revealed that the time period this poem was written in is significant because it was a time of growing liberalism concerning the sphere of women. 

I suppose the speaker is the mirror - a typical mirror with nothing particularly unusual about it. I think that is significant in noting, the idea that the mirror is normal - because the mirror is then able to highlight the simplicity and elegance of itself. I think the first stanza is most unique in the emphasis it takes on the mirror's tendency to stick to the truth, because the mirror represents something virtuous and sincere. This speaker is unlike society, it has no preconceived notions, it is neither misted by "love" nor "dislike." The speaker is pure and honest, unlike humans in today's society. At the same time it is sort of ironic that the mirror is almost personified in some lines. It "swallows" whatever sights it sees and it "mediates" on the wall. The mirror seems to desire the "speckled" wall that it sits across, but faces and darkness inhibits this connection. This can be taken both literally and figuratively. Perhaps the people that look in the mirror and the darkness of the area the mirror is kept keeps the mirror from the pink speckled wall. If the mirror represented a person, these faces could be society and darkness could be the combined setbacks of both society and the speaker setting back himself.

The poem then takes a shift and the speaker is now a "lake." When one thinks of mirrors and lakes alike, they think of a reflection. Reflection connotes physical appearances, but oftentimes the act of "reflecting" connotes something stronger and more poignant - an emotional feeling of deeper connection with one's internal and external environment. The lake represents what the woman truly is, and the she searches feverishly for her true self - thus highlighting the individual's innate desire to find meaning for his or her self. The speaker calls the candles and moon liars - their light may be first perceived as enlightenment but they are nothing but shadows in the face of the lake. The last two lines are very pivotal as they mark the woman as one that has "drowned a young girl." Perhaps the woman has lost of childhood searching for meaning for herself, or perhaps she has wasted her years of youth looking at her own appearance in the lake. But the lake now relates that the reflection is slowly changing, morphing into an "old woman," rising towards the woman like a "terrible fish." This essence of this "terrible fish" could be the loss of childhood and meaning searching for one's position and meaning, or perhaps it could represent the wasting away of women in such a prison-like society.

Honestly, I have no clue what the poet's intention for this poem was, but it is beautifully crafted and touching. Poetry has charmed me, once again. 

Madness or madness? 

As we have been reading Hamlet in class and Invisible Man at home, I noticed an interesting connection between the two. Oftentimes, the idea of madness is present within a variety of literary works. Sometimes, the idea is directly present within the novel. Other times, the reader himself begins to question the mental state of a particular character or the reliability of a certain narrator. In both of these literary works, I was interested to find the ambiguity of madness as an overarching theme - particularly regarding the character of Hamlet in the end of Act 1 and the narrator in the prologue. 

What do you think of when you hear the word "madness?" It is most typically associated with feelings of mental stress and instability. But in today's world, "mad" can refer to a variety of feelings including anger, frustration, misunderstanding, disappointment, craziness, adoration, etc. All the meanings and connotations of the word "mad" create a word that may not always connote something negative - but it certainly does not always connote something positive. Though the idea of being "mad" is present in both Hamlet and Invisible Man, I think the two pieces approach the idea in very different manners, giving the two pieces two distinct personalities. 

In Hamlet, there is much direct talk of madness. When Hamlet sees his father's ghost beckoning towards him, his guards warn him that following such an apparition may lead to his own madness. This is supposed to have a negative connotation - implying that madness comes from the result of something evil and mysterious. After his father's ghost reveals to him the truth of Claudius' lies and deceit, Hamlet promises himself to dedicate himself to his father's cause, and tells himself he must "put an antic disposition on." This may mean he wants to appear fanatic and crazy to everyone else: something we hear about when Ophelia speaks of his behavior. His odd and fanatic behavior come across to Ophelia as scary, she even claims that she was frightened. Again, this gives more of a negative connotation to the idea of "madness." The only time "madness" is seen as somewhat positive is when Polonius claims that Hamlet must be madly in love with Ophelia (as a result of hearing about Hamlet's strange behavior in his last encounter with Ophelia). But even then, Hamlet's supposed madness comes across as frightening, and something that has come into being as a result of something evil. 

In Invisible Man, the idea of madness is not clearly stated - but I definitely got some sense instability from our narrator's introduction, particularly in the prologue. After I read the prologue, which is actually the narrator speaking in the present time I came to the conclusion that the narrator underwent some pretty dark and life changing things to appear so pompous, strange, and careful all at the same time. He came across to me as crazy in a different way - his room filled with over a thousand lightbulbs and his quickly changing discussion of topics definitely indicate something a little off about the narrator. He's mad and I don't think he even realizes. Although the prologue doesn't give a distinctly negative connotation to madness, it does not give a positive one either. This left me, and without a doubt, many others very confused - something I believe was intentional. I think this literary work played more on the confusion and mystery surrounding madness, whereas Hamlet plays more on the mental instability and the whole idea of seems vs. is when it comes to madness. 

The different ideas of madness that were portrayed in Hamlet and Invisible Man brought about the question of what truly defines madness. Could Hamlet and the narrator really be mad? Are they aware of their behavior? Or are they simply not mad at all? Questions I will definitely be keeping in mind as I continue reading.

Hamlet: Polonius, Laertes, and Ophelia 

Much to my surprise, I have thoroughly enjoyed our class readings and discussions concerning Hamlet. I have never been a very big fan of Shakespeare, but this play definitely changes that opinion - I mean I don't even mind the crazy language. One Act into Hamlet and I am already able to pinpoint some of the overarching themes and motifs, and the characters have already taught me a lot about the setting and lifestyle in that time. I thought the third scene in the first Act was extremely intriguing, as it deviated attention from Hamlet onto the family of Polonius, and his children Laertes and Ophelia. This Act not only opened doorways into their family, but also served to illuminate the central character of Hamlet and the plotline itself. 

In this Act, we get an outside view of the central character we just encountered: Hamlet. When I was first introduced to Hamlet, I developed a liking for his character right away - he not only seemed to have wit and intellect, but genuine love for his father. He was a very easy character to sympathize for, but I also felt as if he had a strength within him to keep him going. In this Act, we encountered Laertes speaking to Ophelia about Hamlet. When speaking of their love, Laertes claims, "Perhaps he loves you now..." and "...his will is not his own. For he himself is subject to his birth" (Act 1 Scene 3). I think these phrases are very noteworthy, because they indicate Laertes' lack of trust for Hamlet - yet they do not imply any sort of lack of respect. It seems that Laertes values Hamlet as a man and a Prince, but recognizes the fragility in Ophelia's relationship with a Prince. When Polonius denounces Ophelia for her relationship with Hamlet, he claims she is the common and vulgar one, and that she is the one at fault for pursuing a relationship with a man like Hamlet. Not once does he condemn Hamlet, even though he believes Hamlet is simply playing Ophelia and has no true attachment to her. In this way, Polonius shows a form of respect for Hamlet as well. Furthermore, the way in which both the male characters speak to Ophelia as if she is the only person at fault illustrates the expected role of women versus men. Ophelia is expected to be a proper young woman for both the reputation of her brother and her father, while Hamlet has the freedom to pursue this "fling" with Ophelia if he pleases to do so.

Another interesting part of this scene was the whole idea of the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet. Does Hamlet love Ophelia? How far has their relationship gotten? I want to believe that Hamlet does have a true attachment to Ophelia, I really do. But it's also necessary to consider his position and state of mind, making it a big possibility he is simply playing her. I thought that his relationship with Ophelia served to illuminate the Queen's new relationship with Hamlet's uncle, King Claudius. While Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia seems free of structure, and very emotional as Hamlet has sworn the vows of heaven. I perceive both the King and Queen as very fake people. Claudius tells his people that everything is okay when it truly isn't (seems vs. is) while the Queen barely mourns her own husband's death. The combination of these two yields a very dolled up and polished relationship that serves as a big contrast to Hamlet and Ophelia's supposed relationship. I'm looking forward to hear more about what this relationship truly is. 

I thought this whole interaction between this particular family was very significant for the plot itself - it's amazing how the smallest of interactions have such a level of depth. It reminds me that one can never rule out anything when it comes to fine literature. 

The Disillusionment of Ten O'Clock 
Wallace Stevens

The houses are haunted
By white night gowns. 
None are green, 
Or purple with green rings, 
Or green with yellow rings, 
Or yellow with blue rings. 
None of them are strange, 
With socks of lace
And beaded ceintures. 
People are not going
To dream of baboons and periwinkles. 
Only, here and there, and old sailor, 
Drunk and asleep in his boots, 
Catches Tigers
In red weather. 

I was first introduced to Wallace Stevens through this poem, and I still think that this poem is a great representation of Stevens' writing style, as well as his personality (although I suppose I'd have to travel back in time to truly learn about that). Throughout school, particularly high school, I have always felt that students are not given enough time to think. Thinking has always been a fundamental aspect of my life because I believe it is an outlet for the development of thoughts - whether it be creatively or analytically. Instead, ideas are drilled in our heads, and we are conditioned to perform tasks in a particular fashion, talk in a distinct way, and present ourselves in a uniform manner. It becomes increasingly difficult to stand out among the mass, and the majority of people opt to take the easy way out and succumb to the expectations of those around them - although their own beliefs may not align with those that surround them. 

So, what's the point? Why begin the discussion of this poem in such an odd way? Well - let's ask Wallace Stevens what he has to say about it. 

Reading through this poem for the first time, one may think it is silly or childish. Ironically, the poem is actually almost mocking the silly idea of conforming to what is around one's self. The speaker begins by talking about houses that are haunted by white night gowns. Note that house is plural, the poet is referring to more than one house, many for that matter, that are haunted by white night gowns. The use of the word haunted is meant to have a metaphorical effect and brings about a negative connotation to the word idea of a white nightgown. The poem then goes on to talk about how these houses are haunted by white nightgowns as OPPOSED to those of different colors (green, purple with green rings, green with yellow rings, etc.). Many lines of the poem are dedicated to describing the different colors that the nightgowns COULD be. With the use of bold and vibrant imagery, the poet highlights the way the current state of these houses appears by describing what it is not. These houses are not bright, colorful, and happy - they are dreary, dull, and sad. 

The speaker then claims that none of the white nightgowns that "haunt" the houses are strange in any way with odd lace or beads. They are simply white, no different from one another, with no remarkable quality that makes them special from the others. And because of this dullness in their clothing choice, the people will not be dreaming of the wild and creative, such as baboons periwinkles - perhaps they will not dream at all. The speaker claims that the only people that do dream of the imaginative (catching tigers in red weather) are sailors that are intoxicated. It is interesting to note that because sailors are out at sea very often, they are more isolated from the rest of the human world. Perhaps the speaker means that this isolation from the rest of society gives the individual a chance to be imaginative and creative - to think for one's own self. It is also interesting to note that this sailor is said to be "drunk," indicating that when a human is not in his typical state of mind, he becomes capable of great thoughts and dreams. Maybe the speaker is trying to tell us that we need to be more open-minded - or perhaps he means to say that we are most ourselves when we believe ourselves farthest from what we think we are. 

This poem that seemed so odd and childish at first glance can be read from so many different perspectives. It may simply be seen as a poem that wants to rekindle the child inside every individual. It may simply be seen as a poem that years humans to take time to be more creative and add color and mystery to their lives. It may even be viewed as a social commentary, discussing the idea that society (and its institutions) take away from the individuality and freedom of expression of individuals. With so many different meanings, this poem can apply to a wide audience. 

This poem definitely ranks high among my all time favorites, and serves a reminder that tough language and long words aren't always the best way of communicating an idea - the simplest of ways may be the best after all. 

The Invisible Man: Prologue 

Honestly, society is a confusing thing isn't it? 

Ever since the beginning of this class, one thing has been clear. It's the whole idea that the individual - humanity in retrospect - is embedded into the fabrics of society in such a way that categorizing a singular person becomes increasingly unclear. It becomes an incessant battle, pinpointing whether someone symbolizes a victim or a victimizer - I mean, who truly is morally correct - what defines morally ethical? What makes a whistleblower right? It's these questions that gripped me while reading the prologue to what seems like a peculiarly interesting novel, Invisible Man. 

I'd like to think that all individuals have a small bundle of goodness deep within the depths of their being - of their composition. These bundles shine brighter than any other part of the individual - these bundles make them human. It makes a novel so exciting when this small bundle is apparent in the midst of pretentiousness, temptations, and violence. That's how I view the narrator of the novel thus far. Needless to say, this by no means makes the narrator morally sound. It becomes more difficult to feel sympathetic towards this man (as most novels usually have me feeling towards such passive aggressive characters) as the prologue progressed. He almost kills a man that bumps into him and insults him, he lives in a way that allows him to evade his rent and bills - and all as a means of embracing his invisibility? 

He claims that his "awareness" of his invisibility is what causes him to behave in this way. He claims that he did not become "alive" until he "discovered" his invisibility. But for some reason I can't help but imagine the narrator in a state of self-deception. Do his actions manifest those of enlightenment and awareness or those of succumbing to the level society has defined him as? It's just something that really got me thinking, very Grendel-like narrator if we're going to draw some comparisons here. Much like Grendel, I find it very hard to draw some distinct conclusions about his character. The narrator's encounter with the man that insults him is most significant, because it reminded me very much of Grendel's encounter with Wealtheow - both characters hovered between the decision of murdering someone - but an inner epiphany stopped the two of them. The narrator here claims he was both "disgusted and ashamed" (Ellison 5). These peculiar similarities strike me as significant, there must be something more to this narrator - something greater to this confusion that consumed me. 

Another thing that I found very interesting was the Louis Armstrong music that the narrator focused on, and I love this quote that the narrator uses to describe his sense of self: "Invisibility, let me explain, gives one a slightly different sense of time, you're never quite on the beat. Sometimes you're ahead and sometime behind." It was a brilliant piece of writing on the author's part and a perfect way to describe the narrator's position, also making me be better able to understand the narrator's feelings. I see the tinges of racism and society that are prevalent within the prologue, but I still remain slightly confused, hopefully my confusion is clarifies as I progress - but then again, this will probably allow for a plethora of new questions. 

Definitely looking forward to this novel, and I'll definitely be posting more as I progress through. Feel free to comment, I'd genuinely interested in seeing some of your thoughts!