Short Story Adaptation

Plot

If I was adapting "The Lottery" into a full-length film, I would add a few conflicts before Tessie's murder. The movie would begin with the end of the previous stoning and would focus specifically on Tessie's reaction to the stoning. This would effectively emphasize her hypocritical reaction to her own stoning. I would also include scenes in the homes of several village families. This would set the stage for the lottery and the effect that it has on each different family. Other than that, a film version could be exactly the same as the short story and still be entertaining, so I would not change anything that has already been written.

Point of View

In an adaptation, I would keep the third person omniscient narrator, but I would make the narrator more of a spy or a nosy neighbor. The narrator would be able to take the audience into the homes of each family. This change would allow the audience to feel closer to the villagers and identify with their families. By doing so, the audience would be more engaged in the movie. The ultimate goal is to make the movie exciting and interesting for an audience, and giving the narrator more of a free reign would create that excitement and evoke a stronger response from the audience.

Characterization

The way that the narrator has characterized Tessie and all the other characters is a combination for direct and indirect characterization. I would definitely keep that, but I would focus more on characterizing Tessie indirectly. Adding a relationship with the daughter she attempts to throw under the bus would be a good way to emphasize the desperation which accompanies the lottery. It would highlight the aspect of Tessie which allows her to try to betray her daughter. I would keep the same style of characterization, but I would expand on it and give the audience a better insight into the villagers', specifically Tessie's, lives. Just like the point of view, an expansion of the characterization would make Tessie's stoning more emotional for the audience.

Setting

I would keep the setting the same. A small village seems to be an appropriate setting for a story like "The Lottery." I would have the story set in the early 1900s. An audience seeing the movie today would find a story such as this unbelievable if it was set in the present day, so it needs to be set in a somewhat distant time period. That would also make a relative lack of technology more sensible. It would make it easier to set a potentially barbaric story without making it completely, obviously barbaric.

Theme

I'd keep the same theme in a movie as in the short story. The theme in the short story is that a bad occurrence is okay, even necessary, until it hits close to home. For this story to become an exciting movie, keeping this theme would be the best choice. It's crazy enough that an audience would be almost uncomfortable, but it would become somewhat believable. Tessie would be seen at the previous stoning seeming almost sad but not quite regretful. Tessie at the next lottery, however, would still lose it when she finds out that she has to die. Showing both would effectively support the theme and make the audience walk away from the film wondering how and why a society would have a lottery.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: The Longest Movie Ever Made

Plot

The movie was disappointingly different from the story. The entire plot is wrong besides Benjamin's reverse aging. In the movie, the events are drawn out so that the viewer can see every part of Benjamin's life and get a better sense of who he is and how certain events have affected him. The reversal of his aging issue puts a new spin on the story by making him more conscious of his reversed aging. Hildegarde has a problem with Benjamin getting younger in the story, but here it is Benjamin who sees a problem although he has a child in both cases. That reversal makes Benjamin a more believable character because he is concerned about raising his daughter the way any father would be. Personally, I hate it when movies differ from the storyline presented in the book, but the differences in plot here gives the movie more substance and made it more entertaining than the story.

Point of View

The movie has a few different points of view. Caroline reads the story, but it's Benjamin's story, so it's a first person point of view. Caroline serves the same purpose that Tim O'Brien's daughter served in The Things They Carried. They both clarify and interpret information for the audience so that the story is more credible. The fact that the story is Benjamin's first-hand account makes him more real to the audience and evokes feelings of empathy. When Daisy takes over the story, it is as if Benjamin's story continues, but the helplessness which grows in him becomes apparent because he can no longer tell his own story. The first-person account of the movie is much more appealing than the story because hearing a story first-hand is more reliable and more exciting.

Characterization

Benjamin is indirectly characterized, but he is also directly characterized. He has many relationships throughout the movie, but the most important ones are those with Queenie, Daisy and his father. Benjamin's relationship with Queenie makes him look like an obedient son who just wants to please his mother and occasionally messes up. This relationship is endearing, and it makes the audience start to like Benjamin. His relationship with Daisy characterizes him as caring but also as a typical guy. He makes mistakes, but everyone does that. What truly matters to her is that he cares. Benjamin's relationship with his father characterizes him as forgiving and understanding. His father reveals his identity, and Benjamin accepts him even though he has a right to be angry. Each of these qualities is endearing and provides plenty of character for Benjamin, but he also characterizes himself and directly tells us that he doesn't mind being different. All of this evidence makes Benjamin seem like a real, complex person who could really exist.

Setting

The movie is set several years later than the story, and that brings new conflicts like WWII into the picture. Really nothing about the setting is the same between the story and the movie, so everything except the most basic plot line is different. The Louisiana location makes me think of the Creole culture in New Orleans and the popularity of cultural practices and "hocus pocus," for lack of a better term. That makes Benjamin's condition seem more reasonable, as does the clock that ticks backwards. The primary reason for the change in setting is to create more conflict in Benjamin's life because that's just more interesting. He wouldn't have conflicts with women the way that he does if the movie was set in the late 1800s like the story is.

Theme

There are multiple major themes in the movie. Queenie presents the idea that being different is okay. Benjamin frequently tells people when he's only a few years old that he's different, but he knows it's not a bad thing because Queenie makes sure he knows that. Benjamin presents the strongest theme which is the idea that nothing lasts forever. He watches so many people come and go in the nursing home, and every single one of his relationships ends at some point. He knows that every aspect of his life will change or fade, so he makes the most of it while he can.

You're Ugly, Too

Zoe is a humorous character for sure. She's incredibly eccentric, and her oddities make her seem nerdy beyond belief. It's ironic that she "wondered how she looked" at the end because she doesn't seem to care before then. She doesn't really react to Earl until she nearly pushes him off a roof. Is it weird for him to be freaked out? Of course not, but Zoe seems to think it's weird. She's just a weird person. Personally, I don't like her as a character. She doesn't make sense to me, and I hate that. I just don't understand her.

"The Drunkard"

This story is in the humor and irony category which is more than fitting. I mean, how entertaining would it be to see a kid walking/staggering down a street in a drunken stupor with his father? When he starts yelling obscenities, the humor of the piece is apparent. My favorite part of the story is the end when his mother calls him her "brave little man." It's funny and ironic because most mothers wouldn't be proud of their young sons for finishing off their father's beer. His mother has a good reason, though. Having an alcoholic husband/father makes the boy's act heroic in the eyes of his mother. I think it's strange that she fails to see the potential for her son to become a drunkard like his father. The fact that he's finishing a beer at a young age should be disturbing if nothing else for his mother.

"The Lottery"

I think I'll go for the fourth question on this one too. The original box used for the ritual has been replaced, but it supposedly contains pieces of the original box. The replacement of the box represents the loss of the rituals meaning for the community. They don't do it because they believe it makes a difference anymore. They do it because that's what they've always done. The pieces of the original box and leftover pieces of the ritual represent the little meaning that the ritual actually has for the people. Old Man Warner is really the only person in the community who cares about the ritual for what it's supposed to be. He demonstrates the knowledge of the true meaning when he says "Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon." He seems frustrated because no one else realizes the importance of the lottery. He seems to think it's a noble cause for which Tessie dies.

"Popular Mechanics"

I'll go with question four for this one. The reader never learns in the story why the couple is splitting up, but I assume that he cheated on her. When she says "You can't even look me in the face, can you?" it seems like he should be feeling guilt. It really doesn't matter why he's leaving, though, because the focus of the story is on the way the couple treats the baby. The reason for the split has no impact on the treatment of their child. They act like little kids fighting over a toy. It's like they're too concerned with being angry with each other to notice that they're fighting over a human being that they could easily injure if they're not careful. Based on their reactions, it wouldn't matter if the problem or reason was different. They'd still be fighting over the baby because they're irresponsible parents.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Sadly, Without Brad Pitt.

Plot

The plot of the story emphasizes the eccentricity of the storyline. The climax which takes place when he discovers "baby of threescore and ten" seems out of place because a climax typically occurs at the end. This odd strategy emphasizes the oddity of a seventy-year-old baby being born. Also, there is very little conflict during what would be Benjamin's teenage years. Normally, conflicts would be rampant in a story about a young adult, but his life seems to have very little conflict, especially with his parents. The typical rocky relationship between a parent and a young adult does not exist between Benjamin and his father; they're described as "companionable."

Point of View

The narrator is third person omniscient. The narrator explains in the beginning that Roger hopes the baby will be a boy so that he can go to Yale (chapter one, paragraph three). The reader is also informed of the fact that Benjamin feels "more at ease in his grandfather's presence than in his parents'" which could not be known by a limited narrator. This serves to create an emotional connection between the reader and Benjamin. By knowing his feelings, the reader feels the awkwardness of aging backwards and becomes more engaged in the story. It makes the story both more understandable and more interesting for the reader. Personally, once I started to understand Benjamin, I was much more interested in the story and finishing it than when I started.

Characterization

Fitzgerald uses direct characterization to give the reader an immediate sense of what each character is like. Roger Button is characterized as a coward from the beginning. When the doctor blows him off and implies that something is wrong with the baby, Roger loses "all desire to go into" the hospital because he doesn't want to face the circumstances. By presenting the reader with an immediate picture of each character, Fitzgerald is sure to evoke the reactions he wants. He doesn't give the reader the time or the reasons to doubt his evaluations of each character. The reader has almost no choice but to agree and see the characters as they're meant to be seen because there is no room for interpretation.

Setting

The narrator tells us on page 5 that the story is set in 1860. The setting makes the story somewhat more believable because a birth defect seems more likely. The time period also makes the family's disappointment more realistic. Roger Button would have hoped to pass his wholesale hardware business on to his son, but having a son with some sort of defect would ruin the possibility of that. Socially, the Buttons could be ruined by the fact that they had an odd son, and in the pre-Civil War era in the South, social status was important. Because of the setting, Benjamin's situation is exacerbated, and it becomes a huge issue in every aspect of his and his family's lives.

Theme

The theme of the story is that life is about perception. When Benjamin looks fifty, he's happy. He's not experiencing a mid-life crisis, and Hildegarde even says he's at "the romantic age." Most men at fifty perceive their lives as half over, and have a much less cheerful demeanor than Benjamin does at fifty. At the same time, he feels like he's missing out on the activities of a normal twenty-year-old's life. He perceives certain ages differently than everyone else does. He proves that a person's attitude about life is based mostly on his or her perception of life's events.

Once upon a Time

Once upon a Time is a satire of children's stories. The story begins "Someone has written to ask me to contribute to an anthology of stories for children." The setting of the story is not one of a typical children's story, which indicates satire, but the final paragraph is what solidifies the satirical tone. I mean, seriously? The kid hears a bedtime story and then gets shredded trying to reenact it? It's definitely a good satire. It's almost funny how ironic it is, in a weird, gruesome way. The narrator's point is that a children's story is usually pictured as a fantasy, but the true story of a child is never a fantasy.

A Worn Path

(Question 6) The child who wrote to the author questioned the grandson's death because Phoenix's grandson is still alive to her. She picks up medications for him because she is trying to keep him alive in her mind and in her reality. Phoenix tells a nurse "My little grandson, he sit up there in the house all wrapped up, waiting by himself." She believes that her grandson is still alive although the medicine she picks up is just a soothing medicine. A soothing medicine would not be necessary for that long. It seems that everyone else knows that her grandson is dead. Based on the way people regard her, she seems like the town crazy lady/everyone's grandma. Her grandson is alive in her mind, but that is the only place where he is alive.

Eveline

(Question 1) In the first short paragraph, Eveline sits by a window staring out at the twilight. The first sentence is in active voice, but the second and third are in passive voice. This represents Eveline's shift from a desire to leave her current life to her rejection of Frank and return to normalcy. Active voice is a stronger voice similar to the strength required to make the decision to leave one's family. It makes sense for Eveline to start out that way. The fact that there are two sentences in passive voice shows that Eveline is more comfortable there. It's as if she tries the active voice and then doesn't like it. It's the same with her life. She tries to escape and then prefers her comfort zone. The word "invade" is used to emphasize the discomfort which accompanies the active voice and the discomfort that affects Eveline's life.

Miss Brill

Miss Brill is an English woman living in France. She teaches English in a French school. In the story, Brill is portrayed as a naive character intent on observing others. The French setting sets her apart from those she observes. It distances her from everyone else and makes the reader sympathize with her. When the teenagers make fun of her on the bench and refer to her as "that stupid old thing," the reader can see that she is out of place, and her reaction shows that this feeling makes her feel ashamed and self-conscious. The contrast of the setting with Brill's nationality characterizes her as a vulnerable woman who copes by pretending she's an actress. She is convinced that she is an actress on a stage, so why wouldn't she believe that the people around her were just actors playing a role, not people who look down on her?

Maggie

I like Maggie's character a lot. She's quiet and shy and timid, but she seems strong to me. She's a million times more conscious of her heritage than Dee is, and she loves it. Although she wouldn't say she wanted the quilts, she got her opinion in too when she said "I can 'member Grandma Dee without the quilts." This was a sort of jab at Dee for her initial rejection of their heritage and then her need to have African things because that was the only reminder she had since she distanced herself from it. Maggie doesn't expect anything at all. She is almost a foil of Dee because she loves her heritage and is quiet and shy, and this makes her even more likable. She's content with a simple life and the fact that she's black. She sees no reason to be ashamed when she can embrace it and enjoy it.

Everyday Use

Dee is a jerk. She seems to despise everything she used to be which she makes obvious when she says "[Dee's] dead." By taking on a new name, she thought she could become the person she wants to be and leave her simple life behind. While she keeps trying to push her past away by rejecting her name and the house where she grew up, she also seems to be seeking her heritage. Her search for heritage seems fake. If she hated the quilts when she was offered one, why would she become so upset when she couldn't have them? She's trying to impress the man she's with by showing a love for African things like the quilts her grandmother made even though they hold no value for her. She has been ashamed of her heritage and race for her entire life, and her mother knows that. She made the right decision in not giving "Wangero" the quilts.

Bartleby the Scrivener

The other three workers in the Lawyer's office are introduced before Bartleby in this story. The author wants to set Bartleby apart from the rest of them. Turkey is a good worker in the morning, but he doesn't work well at all in the afternoon. The Lawyer must yell "[b]ut the blots, Turkey" because of Turkey's sloppiness. Nippers, the exact opposite of Turkey, is always the victim of both "ambition and indigestion." Nippers wants to be a good worker, but the indigestion which he endures in the mornings makes that impossible until the afternoon. Ginger Nut is twelve, so he doesn't count. The author contrasts Bartleby with each of these characters. He's a hard worker and produces more than the Lawyer could have imagined. By showing the reader the seemingly sub-par workers first, the author makes Bartleby seem like the ideal worker. This increases the reader's surprise when Bartleby refuses to review the copies he's made.

Hunters in the Snow

I'm going to answer the eighth question for this one. In the final two sentences of the story, the narrator confirms that Tub and Frank had no intention of helping Kenny. The narrator tells us that "[t]hey had taken a different turn a long way back" when Kenny believes he's being taken to the hospital. The use of the word "different" implies a kind of choice rather than an unintentional mistake. Tub and Frank don't want to save Kenny's life. If they wanted to save him, they wouldn't have stopped at a tavern on the way to the hospital or chosen a different turn. The stop at the tavern was a hint that Tub and Frank were not concerned about saving Kenny's life, but the last two sentences confirm that they truly were not. This final twist makes both characters seem like liars. When Tub shot Kenny, he seemed to want to help, but both Frank and Tub become less trustworthy as the story goes on.

Short Stories So Far

So far, I like the short stories unit. The works we've read (I know it's only five, but still) are more interesting than poems were. Edward was creepy, but Emily Grierson won that battle when she kept a corpse in a bed in her house because Colonel Sartoris was a control freak. He made his own daughter crazy by driving away all suitors. I guess her way of keeping a man in her life was killing him while he was surrounded by items she bought for him (page 289). It makes sense that she would want him to have a part of her since he was the only man she ever had any relationship. The fact that she could lay next to a corpse and feel like she had company is disturbing even though it seems almost logical in a crazy kind of way. Was she actually crazy, or did she just have daddy issues?

Interpreter of Maladies

I guess I should have expected that Mrs. Das wasn't faithful to her husband. I kind of feel like an idiot for missing that. Anyway, she is emotionally almost completely separated from her family. I can't imagine how a mother could become that way. Based on Lahiri's description of Mrs. Das, her life isn't bad at all. I think that the Das family represents the idea of the typical family trying to appear to be perfect at the beginning of the story. At the end, the family sounds absolutely crazy. Bobby's incident with the monkeys and the parents' reactions and physical descriptions create a disheveled image. The story is about the change in Mr. Kapasi's attitude toward Mrs. Das from admiring her physical features (page 158) to surprised (page 163). He didn't really know her at all, and as her attitude changes, his infatuation loses intensity.

How I Met My Husband

I think I'll take number seven for this one. Firstly, I don't like Alice Kelling, and I think that Munro created her that way on purpose. Alice is definitely an antagonist once she enters the story. She seems to create an immediate threat for Edie when she arrives and picks up the relationship Edie wants with Chris Watters. Alice's presence also seems to give Chris a strong desire to leave as quickly as possible. It's almost ironic that Alice becomes so upset when she believes that Edie has been with Chris (she calls Edie a "filthy little rag" and a convenience of society on page 144) because Alice is just like Edie except for the fact that she follows him. Alice truly believes that she and Chris have a real relationship. Wouldn't he tell her where he was going if he wanted to be with her? Alice sped up the plot of the story and also foiled Edie. Edie was able to give up on Chris eventually, but Alice follows him like a sad puppy looking for love.

A Rose For Emily

First of all, I doubted that this story would be as creepy as it sounded. I was wrong. Way, way wrong. I'm gonna go with the third question from the assignment sheet for this one. The conclusion of the story was definitely foreshadowed. It seemed to me that Emily would still have her father's body in the house based on the way she talked about him. When she said "See Colonel Sartoris," I thought before I finished the story that she had easy access to his body. That coupled with the horrible smell which came from her house led me to believe that she had kept her father's body in the house until Barron was introduced. When the narrator said that Barron was last seen at Emily's house, I still thought that her father's body was in the house too. The fact that Barron was never seen leaving was a huge clue that his body had to be in the house. The fact that she had never had much of a relationship with a man before Barron makes her actions slightly more understandable and predictable but still incredibly creepy.

Delight in Disorder

I like this poem too. The speaker compares the two sides of his lover. It seems from the poem that the messy, chaotic side of her is by far his favorite. He compares her to a messy, abstract work of art. He basically tells her that her appearance doesn't matter to him at all. He prefers a mess to a put-together, ironed-out girl. Honestly, the poem seems a little cliche, but I like it. At first, I thought the poem was referring to the speaker's attitude toward chaos in general, but after the small group discussion, I see the specific reference to his lover. I really do like the small group discussions. They clear up a lot for me, and I think I'm starting to understand more on my own by thinking about the poems from another person's perspective.

Death, be not proud

I really like this poem a lot. The speaker is basically telling death that it's not as big and strong as people make it out to be. In the poem, death is compared to sleep. The speaker says that death is even better than sleep or rest because it is extended which makes it almost pleasurable. The speaker weakens death by comparing it to all the other things that can make a person sleep. The speaker ends the poem by finally saying that death's power can and will be broken. Death is referred to as a "short sleep" which passes, implying that death is not permanent. It is defeated in eternal life where it can have no place or victory.

#7

The central theme of "Lonely Hearts" is that everyone wants a companion. Some of the ads are shallow like the business man's. He's looking for "something new." The biker, however, wants to find someone with whom he has something in common. He wants something real. Each ad places emphasis on a different trait in which the person is interested. All of the examples have the same format, and this helps them convey the same ideas although they have different meanings. Every person, no matter who they are, what they like or how they live, wants a companion.

#17

The form in "Edward" creates several small conversations between Edward and his mother within one conversation. In each stanza, the first and third and the fifth and seventh lines are identical. In each case, Edward's mother asks why his sword is so bloody, the first and third lines. Edward follows this with an excuse as to why his sword would be covered in blood, the fifth and seventh lines. This continues for the first two stanzas, but after Edward confesses in the third, he becomes the accuser. He accuses his mother of planting the idea of killing his father, and his accusation continues the pattern. His condemnation of his mother, the end of the poem, finishes the pattern with statements from both speakers rather than just from Edward. The repetition of the lines emphasizes the importance each point has to the speaker.

The Apparition

Okay, so creepy stalker boy is overdoing it just a bit in this one. Boys, don't try threatening girls to scare them into not rejecting you. It won't work, and we might hit you. Anyway, the tone in this one is definitely threatening and possibly vengeful even though she hasn't done anything to him yet. The crazy dude is in denial, and he's not even in a relationship with the girl. He feels like she's cheating on him because she's with another man even though she can't possibly cheat. She can't have murdered his heart if she never knew she had it. He's like one of those psychopaths from the crime shows. Overall, a creepy poem. Makes me think twice about the already-creepy people I meet at work.

My Mistress' Eyes

I really like how Shakespeare satirizes other poems and literature in the first half of the poem. I didn't quite see it until we talked about it in class, but it makes sense now that that was his point. He's not saying that his girlfriend is ugly and that he loves her anyway. What he's saying is that he loves her so much that he's not going to lie to her. He wants to tell her what he truly thinks of her rather than comparing her to something which she doesn't resemble. He makes fun of all the other poets for finding cheesy metaphors for women because there is no way for the comparisons to be true. No woman's lips are as red as coral unless it's cold and windy and she needs some Chapstick. He doesn't need to imply that her lips are chapped to compliment her when he can just say her lips are pretty. Thank you, Shakespeare, for your honesty and simplicity.

#7

The theme of "Getting Out" is coming to a new realization. That's primarily what takes place in the poem. The couple seems not to want a divorce. They've tried to work out their differences, and they really do want to be together. He packs up his things to leave many times, but he can't because he doesn't want to give up yet. The end of the poem brings about a new side of the divorce. The couple cries when the divorce is finalized. They both obviously regret the divorce and don't want to go through with it, but they know that they can't work things out. They realize that the divorce is something they have to do in order to be happy, and that realization gets them both through it and helps at least him to move on.

#8

The tone in "Crossing the Bar" is accepting and almost hopeful. The speaker is clearly about to die. He uses the sandbar as a metaphor for death. Once he's past the sandbar, he cannot turn back. When one describes death, a sad tone would be expected, but the speaker seems to be telling the people he's close to not to mourn. He tells them that he's going to meet God, and he's accepted that. Everything beyond the sandbar, I think, is heaven, so the speaker isn't sad that that's where he's headed. He doesn't use ominous or dark words to describe death, so his tone must be at least accepting if not hopeful.

Batter my heart...

I really didn't like this poem at all until we talked about it in class, honestly. Speaking of such, I'm glad we finally have a poem that's actually about God because I feel like our class attempts to relate things to God during discussions which are completely unrelated to God...just sayin'. Anyway, the paradox in the poem is that the speaker wants God to take away his freedom so that he can be free from sin. By forcing the speaker to stay close to Him, God would keep the speaker from Satan's grasp. The word "ravish" sort of killed the whole poem for me, though. That word makes me think of Candide and how Cunegonde (what an ugly name) was "ravished" by the Bulgarian soldiers. Contrasting "ravish" and "chaste" didn't help either as far as the comparison goes. Other than that, I like the poem a lot, and I especially like the words used in the first quatrain to represent God, the Spirit and Jesus. It made sense as soon as I saw the words on the board, and I think it gave me some insight on how better to interpret poetry in general.

Ozymandias

This poem seemed pretty straightforward to me which is refreshing. The speaker is criticizing government and rulers. When people reflect on history, a ruler's reputation is more easily remembered than the government as a whole. Ozymandias' reputation, from the speaker's description, wasn't the greatest, and he's remembered that way. The theme of that portion of the poem is that we should be cautious in regards to our actions because no one can control the way in which he or she is remembered. The part of the poem which talks about the legs and head in the sand is referring to a weak, powerless government. The most important part, the trunk, is missing, and the rest is separated. The separate pieces create weak spots in a government and leave it open to enemies' attacks. It's a recipe for disaster.

#6

"APO 96225" reminded me a lot of TTTC, but it wasn't just because of the Vietnam thing. It seems like the two works have a similar purpose. In TTTC when Kiowa's sister doesn't wrote back to Rat, the reader sees civilians' stance on the war. The purpose of "APO 96225" is the same. The poem shows that civilians cared about soldiers and the war, but they preferred that the truth about the war stay separate from their perception of it. The boy's mother wants to know about the war throughout the entire poem. She even worries when her son doesn't tell her about everything that's happening, but when he tells her the truth, she can't handle it. The mother represents the average civilian in America during the war. They wanted their own ideas of Vietnam to cover the truth about what happened to soldiers so that they wouldn't have to deal with the accompanying pain.

#13

In "Barbie Doll," society is paradoxical. Society will only accept the girl in the poem once her true self is dead. In society, her life begins when the person she truly is dies and a new personality and character takes over. This paradoxical view is used as a criticism of society. The speaker uses the seemingly contradictory values of society to make society appear backwards and nonsensical. To the reader, though, the paradox makes sense after some thought. How often are we told indirectly that there is a certain image which is defined as "pretty"? It allows the reader to relate more fully to the feelings of the girl in the poem because the reader has likely experienced a similar occurrence.

Bright Star

I definitely didn't interpret this correctly the first time I read it. I got the wanting to be like a star part, but it took a little conversing to find some better meaning for me. The lover part didn't make sense before either, but that's all good now too. I like the speaker's idea of the star. The star is strong and still and unchanging. It's comforting and safe just like being with a loved one. The star's loneliness seems peaceful to me. Loneliness isn't all that appealing, sure, but the star seems to be comfortable there. As a human, I wouldn't be, but the star's separation from everything else places it in its own little world just like the "world" the lovers have created for themselves. All this class discussion is awesome, by the way. I really like hearing other people's ideas and having a chance to gain a better understanding for myself through another person's interpretation.

Toads

This poem was weird. I understand that he is unhappy with his job. Good for him. Why does he want to be a bum, though? I mean, he says that money isn't important, but he knows that he needs money to support his family. How does he expected to make money based on just his wits like he wants to? The negative feeling that his job creates is inside him. The job is not the toad. The feelings created by the job are the toad. To be happy, he needs to get rid of the toad. He seems to just complain about his job a lot. Is there any real message there?

#11

In "I taste a liquor never brewed," Emily Dickinson uses a metaphor to compare nature to liquor. This poem, to me, made Dickinson sounds sort of "high on life," if you will. In the second stanza, just the air is making her feel drunk. She "taste[s] a liquor never brewed" because what she "taste[s]" isn't actually liquor. She's taking in the beauty of nature, and to her, it's intoxicating just like alcohol would be. She doesn't seem overly drunk, so nature isn't making her senseless. It's giving her an exhilarating sense of peace that she carelessly enjoys. By comparing nature to something with which people in her time period could identify, she ensured that others would understand what she was trying to say about nature and the relaxation that it brings to her.

#6

The central theme of "Dream Deferred" is annoyance with the circumstances of the time period (1930s and '40s) in relation to civil rights. The dream to which the poets is most likely referring is the dream of racial equality. The metaphors he uses in the poems describe different ways that the issue of civil rights could be handled by the country. He begins with several scenarios which could result from waiting to act on people's feelings about civil rights, all of which are bad, but they're not the worst. The second to last stanza describes the current situation with civil rights. It's weighing on the people like a heavy load. The last line describes the worst case scenario by relating it to an explosion. Violence is this worst case scenario.

#8

Okay so the chick from February is seriously unhappy, and that's what sets the theme. She actually really bugs me. The way she speaks to the cat makes her sound angry after the first few lines of the poem. At the end, she evens yells "Off my face!" at it. She just seems bitter about everything, and this attitude gives the poem a bitter, harsh feel. I understand why she's all angry, but she needs a chill pill. Anyway, the author creates the tone of the poem through her harsh diction and the punctuation she uses throughout the poem. Without those two, the point of the poem would be lost to the reader. How would we know she's bitter because she's all alone in the month of love?

In Regards to All the Poems

All of the poems seemed to have something in common in my opinion. Every poem had a depressing theme and a somber tone. The poems about spring gave the season of life a pessimistic spin. Emily Dickinson needs some Prozac or some Excedrin Migraine because she was potentially the most depressing. I really don't like that every poem has a negative twist to it. I understand that similarity between the poems is a part of what makes them a unit, but why do they have to be so depressing? No one wants to read about spring becoming a widow's reminder of death. That's taking a happy time and making it sound terrible. Honestly, there have to be happier poems to read, so why did we read all the depressing ones? I like poetry and all, but these are enough to make anyone feel sad after reading them.

I felt a Funeral, in my Brain

This poem is really depressing, but I actually liked it a lot. The first time I read it, two interpretations came to mind. One: she's going crazy, or two: she has a migraine. I personally prefer the second explanation because I can relate to it better. The steps of the mourners as the "tread" is like the beginning of the migraine. There is a steady pain which slowly grows stronger. I attribute the lack of visual details to the half-vision which is common with migraines or the focus of the pain behind one or both of the eyes. The drum beat is like the throbbing of the headache. The numbness is like the moments when the pain feels like it's beginning to subside. The lifting and moving of the box is the revival of the pain and the motion of the pain slowly moving around the head. The lead boots are the throbbing once again. The bells are like the sounds to which the sufferer of a migraine is so sensitive. The sense of being alone is like laying in bed in a dark room so that no light or sound can worsen the pain. Finally, the migraine ends, and the sufferer drifts off to sleep just as the poem drifts off at the end.

#12

In the poem "Spring," the symbolism brings about the true point of the poem. At first glance, the poem seems to be about a spring day. The symbols, however, reveal a deeper meaning. The beauty of spring is a symbol of the innocence of childhood. The springtime is a time of new growth and new life and pure beauty. Everything is alive and vibrant during spring just as everything is in childhood. A child is innocent and unblemished by the trials and tribulations of everyday life. The poem is saying that innocence has an end just as spring does, but the innocence should be appreciated and enjoyed while it's still there. As a loss of innocence spoiled the Garden of Eden, so too does it spoil the life of a child.

#7

The central theme of "Those Winter Sundays" is regret. Throughout the poem, the speaker recalls things that his father did for him and his family for which he was never thanked. The father made fires in the morning with hands tired for labor, but his kindness went unnoticed. When the author says "No one ever thanked him", it seems as though he feels regret for not thanking his father. The questions at the end of the poem reinforce the theme of regret. The questions seem to me like the uncertainty which loved ones experience after a relative's death. The speaker is asking himself why he never thanked his father for all of the things he did because he feels guilt and regret. Because his father has just died, he lost the chance to thank his father and change things, so his guilt is growing.

#10

In "The Widow's Lament in Springtime," imagery is the source of meaning for the poem. At the beginning, the speaker describes the flowers of a plum tree. From this point on, flowers convey the idea of the poem better than anything else. At first, the flowers seem to simply represent the colors of spring. The yellow and red of the trees are the bright colors that the speaker used to love in the springtime. At the end of the poem, the speaker describes trees of white flowers and wanting to fall into them. To me, the flowers symbolize a funeral with flowers surrounding the casket. Falling into the flowers would be like laying in a casket which makes me think that the speaker does in fact want to commit suicide.

Perrine's Mistaken-ness

This "essay" or whatever it is really got on my nerves. There is no "correct" interpretation of poetry or any literary work for that matter. The author may intend a certain meaning, but that doesn't make it correct. That interpretation simply becomes one notion derived from a work. Interpretation is about the meaning a work has for the reader, and different readers may have different interpretations. Reading the article just made my view of poetry stronger: it's not meant to have one interpretation. In fact, the true genius of an author or poet is the ability to create multiple meanings in a work. By doing so, the author makes the work appealing to a larger audience.
My biggest problem is with Perrine's argument that a proof has to fit every detail in a poem. If a reader believes his or her explanation to be accurate, said reader will make the details fit the explanation for himself or herself. Perrine seems to believe that his explanation is always right. For him, it may be the best explanation, but I really think that The Sick Rose uses the rose as a symbol for a woman. His theory or parameters cannot tell me I'm wrong because many people would agree that I am correct. And even if others didn't agree, I interpreted the poem that way, so that's the correct interpretation for me. What if the woman was ugly and mean and didn't represent something "beautiful or desirable or good"? The secret lover which I believe the worm to be could love her anyway. Her beauty or desirability has nothing to do with it.

Rat Kiley and Linda

Rat Kiley just lost it like Mary Anne. Not exactly like she did, but pretty close. On page 212, Rat Kiley "took off his boots and socks, laid out his medical kit, doped himself up, and put a round through his foot." The war made everyone crazy, but it seems to have hit O'Brien's friends particularly hard. On another note, it's sad that Linda died so young, but I didn't understand at first why she was connected to Vietnam. It's the same as Ted Lavender. All the men talked about him and told stories after he died. They knew it wouldn't bring him back, but he lived on in a way through the stories. O'Brien wrote this book to pass on stories about Vietnam to younger generations and civilians of his own generation. The stories don't bring his comrades back to life, but they're all honored in the stories. Their experiences live on longer than their lifetimes and O'Brien's through the novel, and that the reason for the book.

The Ghost Soldiers

O'Brien got shot. It's Vietnam. Big whoop. I don't get why he gets so mad at Jorgenson the second time, though. It's not Jorgenson's fault that he flipped out. And the revenge thing is incredibly annoying. O'Brien says he "devoted a lot of time to figuring ways to get back at him" (181) which is pointless since it didn't help him heal at all. There is so much pointless blame/anger in this book. It's really getting on my nerves. I must admit, though, that this book is a million time better than The Sun Also Rises.

I Almost Forgot!

So I totally meant to talk about Mary Anne and her insanity. She's a good example of what the war can do to someone. She arrived in Vietnam as a naive seventeen-year-old whose boyfriend was a soldier. After a while, she started to learn about the war, and she liked it. She got sucked into it to the point that her boyfriend found her with the "Greenies" after a night raid, and "At the girl's neck was a necklace of human tongues" (105). This story was meant to show that the war can take an unlikely person and turn them into a battle-hungry warrior. Mary Anne and Mark never expected her to turn into that person when he arranged for her to live in Vietnam. Crazy things happen in unpredictable situations.

Field Trip

This chapter is proof that no one who has not experienced the war in Vietnam can understand it. Kathleen asks on page 175 "But why?". It's a good question that even soldiers had to answer. They had better answers than civilians, though. The soldiers fought because they had to, and that's what O'Brien tells his daughter. They didn't know why they had to. They just had to. Civilians, however, don't even understand that they had to. Civilians ask for reasons just like Kathleen did, and that's why O'Brien wrote the book.

Good Form

Well, now I'm confused. Did he kill someone, or didn't he? With the details he used earlier in "The Man I Killed," one would think that he truly did kill a man. On page 171, he says "I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him." Why would he make up a story like that? I get that he needs to convey a mood. That makes perfect sense. How does he just make up such a realistic story with so many details, though? I'll admit that it did create the proper mood and feeling, but it makes me mad that he lied. There are better ways to convey a mood than to make up a story in a book about men who actually did have stories to tell.

The Blame Game

On page 169, the last paragraph discusses blame. That paragraph really struck me because blame seems so sinmple, but It has some serious effects. Jimmy Cross' thoughts tell us that "When a man died, there had to be blame." That explains Norman Bowker's suicide. each person places the blame in a different place according to his or her own feelings. Norman blamed himself. Although he didn't deserve it, he blamed himself. Jimmy Cross contemplates the "blame game" because it's something that was on the mind of every soldier. Whose fault was it that they were fighting a war? Nobody knew, but this is another insight into the mind of a soldier.

Repetition

I can't tell if it's because these things are extra important or not. This is the second time O'Brien has repeated exact wording, and I don't know why he does it. The first time was with the guy that he killed. He repeated the details and description of the kid at least twice using the exact same words. This time, he repeats the description of an incident right before Kiowa's death. On page 163, Kiowa looks at a picture and says "Hey, she's cute." After that, the field "exploded all around them." On page 169, O'Brien repeats this phrase of Kiowa's and follows it up with a description of the field and the light. Why?!

This War Stuff Is Freakin' Me Out, Man

Okay so I get that war is traumatizing and all, but he seriously killed himself? On page 149, O'Brien says "Norman Bowker...hanged himself in the locker room of a YMCA in his hometown in central Iowa." That's a little extreme. I mean, he lost a comrade, and he should be upset. But Kiowa's death was not by any means his fault. Kiowa was shot, and he died because he was shot. The fact that he slipped into the muck had nothing to do with his death. Norman couldn't have saved him, so why did he feel so guilty? It's frustrating that he blamed himself when he didn't need to.

What the Men Are Carrying

So all the anecdotes in the novel are starting to make sense. The characters in the novel all have stories, right? And they're sharing their stories with O'Brien, so he's sharing all their emotional baggage stuff. I think I said in one of my first blogs that the weight of the soldiers' equipment represents the emotional burdens that the soldiers carry. By telling O'Brien their stories and feelings and reactions, they ask him to share their burdens. They also make it his resposibility to pass their stories on to the world. As an author, he has a larger audience than they do. This gives him the ability to make the world aware of their trials and battles and personal issues in Vietnam and after they returned like with O'Brien's own issues such as when his daughter asked him why he writes war stories and he answered "Of course not" on page 125.

Characterization

O'Brien's strategy for characterization in the novel is telling stories from different characters' points of view. In Norman Bowker's case, the story about how he "almost won the Silver Star" (135) shows his feelings about the war and what kind of man he is. He cares about honor, although that probably applies to most of the men in the war. The fact that the story concerns his father shows that he looks up to his father. His relationship with his father is important to him, and he cares what his father thinks. O'Brien does this with almost every soldier in the novel which gives them all a personality. By giving the men personalities, O'Brien makes their stories more believable. He also creates a bigger, better picture of life in Vietnam.

Diction

O'Brien's diction gives the reader the sensory details and descriptions which are necessary to the story. On page 136, he describes the "deep, thick muck" which surrounded the soldiers, and the reader gets an idea of the muck. He continues, however, to use a simile to describe the muck saying that it was "Like quicksand, almost, except the stink was incredible." Because of the words he's chosen and the comparison he's made, the reader can picture the "shit field." The ability to create an image also inspires emotion, so the reader has a sense of what the soldiers in the field were feeling throughout their experience there. To add to this sense, O'Brien describes Norman Bowker's reactions to the occurrences. Because the reader hasn't experienced the stories told in the novel, the reactions of the characters are key in conveying the mood and feeling of the story. O'Brien's use of details creates the perfect picture of Vietnam in the reader's mind and makes the story a heck of a lot more interesting.

Conflict

Obviously there's some external conflict going on: the war. But the main conflicts of the novel seem to be internal. Jimmy Cross was separated from Martha, a woman he loves who does not love him back, but he still "carried letters from [her]" (1). Tim O'Brien almost swam away to Canada because he didn't want to leave his "mainstream life" (48) for a war in which he didn't believe. The book is mainly centered on how people deal with conflicts inside their own minds, especially when they're in high-pressure situations. The biggest conflict so far in the story is O'Brien's decision to go to war. He says that he "had taken a modest stand against the war" (39) and had even rung "a few doorbells for Gene McCarthy" (39). These aren't the actions of a guy who wants to go to war. His decision was like his own personal war between his mind and his heart.

Story Time, Kids.

Throughout the novel, O'Brien scatters several anecdotes which introduce the reader to new characters and also illustrate life in Vietnam of the soldiers. Chapter five is an anecdote which demonstrates the emotional fragility of a soldier in times of stress. When Dave Jensen and Lee Strunk try to beat the crap out of each other, it doesn't seem like an extraordinary occurrence. They're young guys. They like to show off and see who's stronger, and a battle over a stolen jackknife doesn't seem too crazy. The emotional stress had and impact on Jensen, though. He basically lost his mind and became paranoid about everything until he "borrowed a pistol, gripped it by the barrel, and used it like a hammer to break his own nose" (60). Lee finds humor in this, but it shows the different effects that a war can have on different people. Everyone reacts in his or her own way.

Elroy Berdahl

While O'Brien already had the guilt trip covered, Elroy sure did help out. He didn't even have to say anything or ask any questions; he just knew. Elroy is a flat character. He is not complex and does not change himself, but he acts as a catalyst and brings about a change in O'Brien, thus making O'Brien a dynamic character. O'Brien describes Berdahl as having a "willful, almost ferocious silence" on page 47. Although Elroy never questioned him about his stay at the Tip Top Lodge or his strange behavior, he found a way to make young Tim O'Brien realize that he had to go back home. He never said a word, but his silence was enough to convince Tim that he would be making a mistake which he would regret forever if he jumped out of that boat and swam for Canada. The old man changed O'Brien's life with just six days of silence and an aura of wisdom.

To Desert Or Not To Desert; That Is The Question

Personally, I think he's crazy for not swimming to Canada, but that's just me. That opinion could be partially rooted in the fact that, had he swum to Canada, I wouldn't be reading his book right now. The guilt got him. It's as simple as that. He was so close that he could have just backstroked to freedom, and he chose to stay in the stupid boat. I understand that he was and still is "feeling the shame" (37), but I can't imagine shame strong enough to make me go to war especially if I didn't believe in the cause. American culture was different then, and there was a bigger focus on honor, so I also understand that he felt more pressure than a draftee would today. It still stands to reason, though, that a quality soldier has to believe in the cause. He has to have strong feelings about the prize for which he's fighting. Why would someone who had participated in even minor anti-war demonstrations be drafted?

Past and Present

I really like how O'Brien describes the war but also his life after the war. On page 36, he says "...the war occurred half a lifetime ago, and yet the remembering makes it now." At the beginning, it seemed like the book was going to focus on the war and the experiences one would have in a war and the emotional trials of being away from home. Chapter three and part of chapter two, however, give it a new spin. O'Brien shows the reader how memories of the war can affect a person for years to come. There are certain things which are too painful to talk about or things that people wish they could forget, and when Jimmy Cross and O'Brien visit with each other after the war, this becomes apparent. They have a mutual understanding of this which the reader sees on page 29 when Cross says "And do me a favor. Don't mention anything about--" and O'Brien responds with "No...I won't." Based on O'Brien's descriptions, memories of the war never go away, and neither do the details.

I Guess I Was Wrong...

Okay, so on that point of view thing, I think I was wrong. In chapter 2, O'Brien says "Many years after the war, Jimmy Cross came to visit me at my home in Massachusetts..." This implies that the narrator was, in fact, in on the action of the war. So the narrator is using first person now. I can see how this might get confusing throughout the book, so I think I might be liking it a bit less. With a mix of third and first person narrations, it's hard to tell if he's omniscient or not. Is he making up the other men's emotions and thoughts, or did he ask them about their feelings? And is Jimmy Cross still the main character, or is this a story about Tim O'Brien?

Colloquialism

On page 19, the jargon of a soldier really comes into play, and O'Brien makes obvious the meaning of it all. He says "They used a hard vocabulary to contain the terrible softness. Greased they'd say. Offed, lit up, zapped while zipping." While these terms may not make sense in everyday life, to a soldier, they make perfect sense. When Ted Lavender was killed, he was "zapped while zipping." When the men carried all of their gear and ammunition, the "humped" it. Makes perfect sense to any man who was there or witnessed something of the sort. This language draws the reader into the soldiers' lives. By using the jargon which they used, he makes the reader feel a connection to the soldiers which is strengthened by all the other details of the war.

Point of View

The Things They Carried is told from a third person point of view. The narrator describes the love life of Jimmy Cross and on page 15 says that "Jimmy Cross led his men into the village of Than Khe." While the narrator is able to describe all these things, he never uses the pronoun "I" or indicates that he has taken part in any of the action. He also seems to be an omniscient third party. On the first page of the novel, he talks about Jimmy "imagine[ing] romantic camping trips" with Martha. A limited narrator could not know Jimmy's thoughts, so he must be omniscient. After finishing the first chapter, I really do like this book a lot better than TSAR. It's much easier to follow, and it's more entertaining.

Second First Blog Post. We're Carrying Things Now.

Firstly, I like this book way better than the first one. TSAR was awful, and The Things They Carried actually has a point. At the beginning, O'Brien lists the thing which were literally carried by soldiers in Vietnam such as "a compass, maps, code books, binoculars, and a .45-caliber pistol that weighed 2.9 pounds fully loaded" (page 5). O'Brien continues to list these literal burdens and then moves to emotional ones. At the end of the chapter, it seemed to me that the weights of the literal items connected somehow to the "weights" of the emotional ones. They seem to be a kind of indirect metaphor. "20 pounds of ammunition" (6) is equal to the emotional weight of a dead comrade or a girlfriend back home. It isn't said directly, but the heaviest equipment seems to correlate with the biggest emotional issues.

Theme

Well, now that I have officially finished one of the worst novels I've ever read, I think I can finally nail down a theme. Morality seems to play a huge part in the story. I think that Brett's problems all stem from her morality, or lack thereof. Had she stayed with one man, none of the conflicts in the story would have arisen, and all the men would have been happy. Instead, she stirred up trouble with every man she met. As a result, her life was far less enjoyable. I think that Jake said it best on page 46 when he suggested that Brett married men she didn't love (does paraphrasing count as a quote?). Because she didn't understand the meaning of love and slept around with everyone, her life was bitter, and, as she says on page 34, she's "paying for it now." It seems as though morality and karma teamed up to bite her.

Ambiguity

The end of the novel is ambiguous. Although Brett says on page 247 that she's "going back to Mike," she and Jake seem to be having a lot of fun together in the last few pages. I can't tell at the end if Jake and Brett are about to "hook up" or if they're just having another one of their flirting episodes. The fact that Brett had Jake travel to Madrid on a whim is really annoying. That part also contributes to the ambiguity. Did she really ask him top come to Madrid because she was in trouble? I don't think she did. I think that she is reconsidering her love for Jake, and she wanted to test his love for her. She truly has come full circle from "Don't touch me" to kissing him in her room.

Again?!

As soon as Jake begins to relax and forget his troubles, Brett has to go and bother him again. Her telegram "Could you come Hotel Montana Madrid am rather in trouble Brett" on page 242 probably made his heart skip a beat, but I'm sure he rolled his eyes at the same time. She just can't let him be. I truly feel sorry for him since he cannot escape her. He wants to love her, but she won't allow it, and she keeps taunting him with it anyway. It's not fair to him, and, as the reader, it's frustrating for me. But he gives in and even signs his response with "love Jake." She's taunting him, but he's the one who keeps falling for it. I feel somewhat bad for him, but they're both contributing to their own problems. Jake's suggestion on page 34 of "stay[ing] away from each other" would have been better for both of them.

Denouement/Resolution

The beginning of chapter 19 is very clearly the beginning of the denouement (that word makes me think of Mrs. Miles). The fiesta and all the excitement which accompanied it are over, and it's time for everyone to leave. Signs are torn down, hotels begin to empty, and Jake, Bill and Mike load up a car and leave. When they get to Bayonne, they begin going their separate ways with a "So long, fella" on page 235, and it feels as though the story is coming to an end. It's almost like when the day becomes night. Everything becomes quiet, and everyone relaxes. Since Brett was the center of the all the conflicts, the conflicts have all been resolved by her running away with Romero. But still everything feels unfinished. She just left and dropped all the conflicts. Nothing really got resolved. It was just dropped.

Motivation

The motivation in the novel is clearly love. That seems to be Brett's reason for existence, or so she thinks, and it surrounds her and many of the men in the book. First, she loves Jake. They have their past, but she's tried to move on. So then there's Mike. She says she loves him, and they plan to get married after she is divorced from her current husband. Then Cohn comes along. Brett and Cohn have a little "fling" in San Sebastian which means nothing to her and everything to him. And then he knocks out half of their "friends" because he wants to be with her. And finally, Romero. On page 220, Jake narrates "...he [Romero] loved Brett. Everything of which he could control the locality he did in front of her all that afternoon." He wanted to show off for her and prove his love/worth to her. All of this begs the question "Does Brett really love anyone?" But I suppose that as long as the men think they're in love, it's all the same to her.

Chaspter 18, But Less Angry

The one cool thing about chapter 18 is that the reader gets a lot of information about Spanish bull-fighting. I really like that all the facts and traditions were mentioned. The Spanish words like "muletas" on page 215 make the reader feel like they have an understanding of what's going on with the bull-fight. Also, the description of Romero's movements really helps the reader envision what's happening in the bull-ring. This also contributes to Romero's characterization. I think in this case it would be direct characterization. Hemingway tells the reader outright that Romero seems determined and focused. He has his eye on the prize, and he's not giving up until he gets what he wants and gives the crowd what they want.

Chapter 18

Okay so this chapter has me really confused. Why did Brett leave with Romero when she's supposed to marry Mike? Did I miss the break-up, or did she just decide to leave? Her relationship issues really bug me a lot. Why can't she just stay with one guy? She doesn't have to be with every man on the face of the earth to be happy, and she doesn't seem to understand that all it's doing is making her life worse. She complains about her life with "British aristocracy" on page 207, but she's just blaming them for her own problems. It really becomes apparent in chapter 18 that she needs to take responsibility for herself. Sure, Romero might love her, but she probably doesn't love him. She might pretend to, but she doesn't. Chapter 18: definitely annoying.

An Idea Within an Idea! *voice of Guiness man* Genius!

In the middle of my last post, I realized that Hemingway used a cliche early in the novel! The cliche is more of a concept than a phrase because Hemingway doesn't say it directly; he hints at it. When Robert Cohn meets/sees Brett, he is immediately interested in her. On page 30, Jake narrates: "Dancing, I looked over Brett's shoulder and saw Cohn, standing at the bar, still watching her." And this after he asked her twice to dance. Creeper! But through Jake's eyes, we see the cliche: love at first sight. I think it still counts as a cliche even though it's a concept rather than a phrase, but I could be wrong. Anyway, the concept of "love at first sight" has been used over and over again throughout literary works and even in real life for years. It's so corny now that people laugh at it, but Hemingway cleverly disguised it so that readers would take the novel seriously.

Foil! But Not the Math Kind...Or the Kitchen Kind.

For hating Cohn so much, I sure do talk about him a lot, but all he's good for is being analyzed. He and Jake are foils, especially when it comes to Brett. Brett and Jake clearly have a past together. All their talk of "Don't you love me?...Isn't there anything we can do about it?" (p. 34) makes that very obvious for the reader. However, Cohn seems to fall in love with Brett immediately upon seeing her, and feels the need to know everything about her. Idiot makes the mistake of asking Jake, and that sets the jealousy ball rolling. As a side note, did Cohn's reaction to Jake's less-than-nice explanation of Brett make anyone else think "Hey! She's a nice lady!"? A Hangover quote is always necessary...lightens the mood. Kind of like "Why so serious?". Who can be serious after that? But seriously, both Jake and Cohn want Brett. They use different methods to show that, though. Jake is thoughtful and careful about the feelings of his and Brett's friends, so he's quiet about his "relationship" with Brett. Cohn, however, brags to everyone about San Sebastian, beats up a bull-fighter, and publicly worries/asks/talks about Brett. Jake's behavior makes Cohn seem incredibly annoying and overbearing while Cohn's actions make Jake seem too shy and soft-spoken.

Delicious Diction, But Only if You're Eating Your Words

Hemingway uses simple diction and sentence structure throughout the entire novel. I think the reason he does so is that he can get his point across easily and appeal to a wider range of readers. Some of his diction REALLY bugs me, though. When he uses "try and..." all through the novel, I have the urge to hit him. And the commas which, to me, seem terribly misplaced are highly annoying, especially for a grammar buff such as myself, but that's grammar, not diction. Anyway, the reader is able to infer that the novel is set in the early to mid 1900s because certain terms are used which have been replaced today. For instance, people don't "get sore" today; they "get pissed." That term has been around for a while, and Hemingway didn't seem to have enough restriction in his diction to avoid using it on purpose. Also, Bill refers on page 77 to a black boy fighting in Vienna as a "nigger." In the early to mid 1900s, that would have been an accepted term referring to African Americans.

Why Didn't I Think of This Before?!

Cohn and Brett are actually really similar! At first, it seemed as though Brett and Cohn weren't very similar at all. Brett liked to party with whomever she pleased, and Cohn was "whipped" and following Frances around like a duckling follows its mother. They really are alike, though! Okay, so both of them had failed marriages. Robert Cohn's wife left him "just as he had made up his mind to leave his wife" (p. 12), and on page 207, we learn that Brett's ex-husband "used to tell her he'd kill her." So that explains part of their messed-up-ness. Additionally, (check out that transition! it's pretty, right?) they've found new significant others with whom they appear to be happy. But at the beginning of the novel, Cohn and Frances fall apart, and towards the end, Brett and Mike begin to fall apart. While they come from similar pasts, they both act very different, but they still have serious issues when it comes to relationships.

Paris to Pamplona

As I stated in a previous blog, it seems like the characters in the novel don't even like Paris. They all talk about how dirty it is and how they get sick of the town itself. However, everything is good in Paris for everybody. They party and sleep around (cough cough...Brett...cough cough), and no one gets in fights or gets "sore" as they say in the book. Their descriptions of Spain make it sound as though the grass is greener there. (I wish that counted as another lit term blog for "cliche"...sad face.) They talk about how beautiful the countryside is when they're on the train, and places are described as "nice" and "very clean" like on page 96. But once they all arrive in Spain, things go downhill fast. Mike gets mad at Brett, everyone now publicly despises Cohn, and no one can stay sober for more than five minutes. I don't understand how a place that seems to be all-around better than Paris in the opinions of the characters can be the center of so much more turmoil.

Brett and Mike

Brett and Mike have a peculiar relationship. Brett sleeps with every man she meets and is in love with Jake and possibly Pedro Romero. A real classy woman, right? Anyway, her attitude toward men doesn't appear to have an adverse effect on Mike at the beginning of the novel. He seems almost oblivious, and I think he truly was oblivious to Brett and Jake's relationship. However, later in the novel, Mike becomes sensitive to Brett's promiscuous habits, and an external conflict develops. On page 210, a drunken Mike makes the distasteful comment "How's your boy friend?...Brett's got a bull-fighter...She had a Jew named Cohn, but he turned out badly." Mike's relationship with Brett appears to be falling apart toward the end of the novel, and Brett's attitude doesn't help anything. She doesn't seem like the type to get married. She'd be cheating like crazy. She can't control herself at all as she says on page 187: "I can't help it. I'm a goner now anyway...I've got to do something I really want to do. I've lost my self-respect."

External Conflicts

Robert Cohn seems to be the focal point of all external conflicts in the novel. I mentioned in a previous post that he had conflicts with Jake and Pedro Romero, but he also has conflicts with Mike and Brett. Cohn's conflicts with Jake and Romero differ from those with Mike and Brett. Jake and Romero had physical conflicts with Cohn. On page 195, Jake says "He [Cohn] hit me and I sat down on the pavement. As I started to get on my feet he hit me twice. I went down backward under a table...," and Cohn beat Romero to a pulp in Romero's hotel room. Cohn's conflicts with Mike and Brett were more emotional. Mike resents Cohn because Cohn pursues Brett relentlessly. Being Brett's fiance, Mike has a tough time dealing with the annoying attitude which Cohn shows him in regard to Brett. Brett's conflict with Cohn focuses on his pursuit of her just like his conflict with Mike. At first, Brett seems flattered by Cohn's interest, but he quickly becomes possessive of her, and she has a difficult time getting him to understand that she's had enough and that their "fling" in San Sebastian meant nothing.

Motif #1: Alcohol

Throughout the entire novel, every character drinks quite a bit of alcohol. The statement the count makes on page 65 is accurate not just for Brett but for everyone: "You're always drinking..." It's a key element in the development of relationships between the characters and the lifestyle of the time period. Wine accompanies every meal as well as the night life. It's also an integral part of Mike's character since he's almost constantly drunk, especially in Spain. By the end of the novel, one would think that every character should be a wine aficionado. It seems almost as though being drunk is acceptable at any time of the day. Hemingway uses this motif to emphasize the party-all-the-time mentality of the post-WWI era. It provides a greater understanding for the reader of the time period and lifestyle of both the author (who was quite the drunkard from what I understand) and the young people living in it.

First Person Point of View

Hemingway authors the novel from the point of view of Jake Barnes. This is made apparent by the use of the pronoun "I" such as on page 43: "In the morning I walked down the Boulevard to the Rue Soufflot for coffee and brioche." In a novel like this, first person seems to me to be the best strategy for conveying the mood of the time period (post WWI) and setting up indirect characterization. Seeing through Jake's eyes allows the reader to relate better to the situations presented in the novel. Jake is directly involved in the occurrences of the story, so he has the authority to speak about it and tell the story. He can be trusted by the reader to present an accurate account of what happened because of his direct involvement. Also, Jake is the reader's best source of information, so his opinions become the reader's opinions. Hemingway can ensure that the reader has the image and opinion of a character that he intends. First person also makes a story more entertaining. The ability to relate to the narrator helps the reader feel closer to the storyline and allows for an easier and more enjoyable read.

Lady Brett Ashley

Firstly, isn't Brett a guy's name? I'm just saying... Okay, so Brett is another one of those characters that really gets on my nerves. Her constant flirting is annoying, and her attitude toward relationships makes no sense to me, specifically her relationship with Jake. In chapter three, as cited in my last post, Brett turns Cohn down to dance with Jake. However, in chapter four, the true nature of Brett and Jake's relationship is revealed, and Brett seems to want to put a great distance between herself and Jake as she demonstrates in the cab on page 33: "...and then she turned away and pressed against the corner of the seat, as far away as she could get." Jake is almost like Brett's kryptonite. A masochistic Brett keeps coming back to him because she feels she has to see Jake, but she still refuses to settle for being in love with him although she freely admits that she is. She's almost bipolar. In one cab ride, she goes from "Don't touch me" (33) to "Kiss me just once more before we get there" (35). If she loves him so much, why can't she just be with him and try to be happy? Flirting and sleeping with every man she meets can't be truly satisfying if she's really experienced love with Jake. To me, it seems that Brett's idea of love is skewed. She appears to be confusing love with any sense of attraction.

At the End of Chapter Three...

Why does no one in the novel actually like Paris? They all talk about how dirty it is and how much they dislike it, so why do they live there? I don't understand that at all. Also, Hemingway introduces Brett who is basically a whore, pardon my French (hahaha...that was punny). She also annoys me, but not as much as Cohn does. She flirts with everyone. She leads Cohn on first and then turns him down for Jake on page 30 when she says "I've promised to dance this with Jacob." And Jake bounces from Georgette to Brett who he clearly has a history with in the same night. Hemingway seems to use the third chapter to emphasize the promiscuity which was not uncommon in the time period among young adults.

And The Sun Is Still Rising...

Ahh, the wonders of summer reading...at the beach. It's not as cool as it sounds. I promise. I figured I ought to focus on a literary term for blog numero dos and try my hand at a different kind of analysis, so here goes nothing. Hemingway chooses to teach the reader about Robert Cohn through indirect characterization. Throughout the entire novel, other characters' thoughts and conversations about Cohn lead the reader to believe that he is an annoyance to his companions. Cohn's interactions with Brett show that he is relentless and oblivious. He clearly is not wanted and refuses to accept that fact which almost makes him seem oblivious to it. He also seems very impulsive, and he has quite the temper. When he hits Jake and attacks Pedro Romero, he immediately apologizes and wants to shake hands like on page 205 when Mike tells Jake "Then Cohn broke down and cried, and wanted to shake hands with the bull-fighter fellow. He wanted to shake hands with Brett too." This leads the reader to believe that he often acts upon his anger without thinking. He seems desperate for affection and acceptance, and both evade him. I can't tell if Hemingway wants the reader to pity Cohn or be annoyed with him. I'm definitely going the annoyed route. He bugs the living daylights out of me, and I don't feel any pity for him. He creates his own problems and then whines about it to everyone when he can't fix/deal with them. And so ends blog two.

My First AP Lit Blog Post! and Chapter One

I started reading early June-ish, so I've had some time to think about the majority of the book for a while, and the first chapter still confuses me. The way the novel begins, the reader is made to believe that the main character is Robert Cohn. By the way, I don't like him at all. If that bias shows through in my blog posts, I sincerely apologize, but I simply do not like him. Anyway, the first sentence on page 1, "Robert Cohn was once middleweight boxing champion of Princeton", implies that the novel is about Cohn, a former boxing champion. As I read further in the chapter and the book, I realized that this fact is a reference to his personality. He seems to enjoy picking fights with the other characters, and the statement which begins the novel is meant to be a hint for the reader, almost a forewarning of the mayhem he attempts to cause. His relationship with Frances is also confusing. At one point, it seems as though he is, for lack of a better term, "whipped," and I find it odd that he, who enjoys disagreements, strives to be agreeable with her. And after all that confusion, I was/am further confused by the fact that he really doesn't even like her that much. Sounds to me like he's trying to be a ladies' man, and it really isn't working out for him.