Explication of "My Number" and "I had heard it's a fight"

    Both “My Number” by Billy Collins and “I had heard it’s a fight”  by Edwin Denby share the idea of death but discuss the meaning of death differently. Collins’ poem shows a man paralyzed with when death will catch up with him. He constantly wonders when and where death will appear again and if it will be his turn. There is this sense of distinct paranoia when the narrator asks where death is lurking and it is interesting how both two lined stanzas are questioning when it is his turn or which “number” supposedly he is. He wonders if death is too busy to come to his doorstep because it is tending to other unfortunate people and their demises. He even asks who he is talking to if they needed to ask for directions to his home as if for security, then follows up that question with “I start talking my way out of this”.

Denby’s poem’s experience/meaning of death was not a man constantly waiting and worrying about death but is actually recalling what dying felt like or the attitude towards dying. He describes the act of dying almost like recalling a memory. He recalls each punch and each sting in every part of his body that was touched. He even uses imagery to describe what it feels like to fight for your life back from the hands of death, “in agony you clutch at a straw, you rattle, and that will fix you”. What is different in this poem than Collin’s poem is that Denby’s narrator sounds more intrigued by what has happened to him and what it really meant. Collin’s narrator focused on when death would come for him and who is dying at the moment and has a more apprehensive meaning of death, whereas Denby’s narrator is more accepting of death and dying and talks about the quick sensation of dying almost as if he never felt more alive in that moment. Though the idea is virtually the same, the meaning of death is different for the narrators which could symbolize that people will always have a different meaning of what death means to them and there is no wrong or right way necessarily to find whatever that meaning is.

"Heart of Darkness" and "Apocalypse Now"

    I noticed similarities right away when I started reading Heart of Darkness. I figured the character of Marlow was like Captain Willard, and Kurtz was, well, Kurtz. Something that was difficult for me was expecting Heart of Darkness to be the same storyline as Apocalypse Now, then I remembered it was only inspired by it. Similarities between Willard and Marlow were not as distinct as Kurtz’ were. Marlow sounded like a man that truly loved adventure, always having a “passion for maps” and would lose himself in “all the glories of exploration” (71). When I first saw Captain Willard, he has a nervous breakdown in his hotel room and punches a glass mirror. Marlow appears to be more infatuated with Kurtz than Willard is in terms of continually thinking he is this remarkable man whereas Willard is told before he is even sent to kill Kurtz that he is a dangerous and despicable person in charge of mass killings of natives in Cambodia.

    On the other hand, Kurtz in the novel is this allusive figure-the reader fully believes that he is as amazing as everyone says he is even though he mysteriously produces tons of ivory and is incredibly hard to reach. He also is seen as this amazing figure even after he dies. Willard learns first that Kurtz is a trader, but on his journey he learns that Kurtz was one of the best soldiers and captains of the U.S. army and almost became a general until he went crazy.  Both Kurtz’s are regarded as miraculous in their fields and regarded with high esteem at some point.

    While Marlow sails to the inner station to find Kurtz he encounters a cannibal tribe as well as pilgrims who wish to take over his ship. Willard also has people take over his boat including natives and people who shoot from the trees killing his fellow crew members. Both Willard and Marlow also remark on people who have had the task of finding Kurtz and not succeeding. Captain Colby in Apocalypse Now and Fresleven in Heart of Darkness. It is interesting how both are subtly mentioned in each work but are still nonetheless important to the story.

    When Willard and Marlow finally make it to where Kurtz has been hiding/staying, the description in the novella and the motion picture both show a land filled with decapitated bodies and heads on sticks. Kurtz is also seen and portrayed as incredibly ill and weak, which juxtaposes the demeanor he was presented with in both Conrad and Coppola’s stories. When Marlow finally hears Kurtz speak he describes it as “grave, profound, vibrating, while the man did not seem capable of a whisper” (141). Conrad gives these detailed descriptions of who Kurtz really was that Marlon Brando portrayed so impeccably. He writes, “I saw the inconceivable mystery of a soul that knew no restraint, no faith, and no fear, and yet struggling blindly with itself” (150) and “His was an impenetrable darkness. I looked at him as you peer down at a man who is lying at the bottom of a precipice where the sun never shines” (153). When Marlon Brando is onscreen he is practically in darkness the entire time, barely being able to see his face. He is known for his dark and fervent voice that leaves a lasting impression on people so adding it to this altogether ambiguous character made viewers completely entranced along with Captain Willard. When both Kurtz’s die, they say the same last words-”the horror! the horror!” (154). In the novella, Kurtz quickly becomes more and more ill and Marlow runs out not wanting to see him die. Willard takes a much different approach and slowly walks up behind Kurtz as he is talking to himself and slashes him multiple times with a machete (he is provoked more in the film in my opinion due to the murder of one of his crew members). The similarities in the novella and the adaptation both share the journey of a young seaman and the journey of an experienced general who both are searching for the same adventure and for the truth.

Explication of "Miniver Cheevy" by Edwin Arlington Robinson

    Edwin Arlington Robinson uses many examples of allusion to describe who Miniver Cheevy is and it helps illustrate what his inner desire is. In the first stanza, Miniver is described as “a child of scorn [...] He wept that he was ever born”. Though this does not involve allusion, this syntax makes the reader aware of how Cheevy already sees himself. Robinson writes that Miniver “loved the days of old” and “dreamed and rested from his labors; He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot, and Priam’s neighbors”. This is the first example of allusion in the poem. The places he dreamed of all have similarities associated with both potency and tragedy. Thebes is known for stories such as Cadmus, Oedipus, and Dionysus. Cadmus was known as the founder of Thebes and a soldier in the Trojan War, while Oedipus is an infamous character in a three-story play by Sophocles. The story centers on a man who learns that his fate is his to kill his father and marry his mother and the horrific journey that unravels. Dionysus is known as the god of wine and winemaking as well as theatre. Something that is also interesting about Dionysus was that he was known as a “dying god”. Camelot is the castle and court associated with the legendary King Arthur. It was said to be a perfect inspiration for romance writers. Priam was the king of Troy during the Trojan War and his name means “exceptionally courageous”. There is so much information in these two short lines inform readers about Miniver Cheevy-how he is a dreamer and nostalgic of the past though he was not there to necessarily experience it. He also “loved the Medici” which was a political dynasty belonging to a banking family and later became a royal house. It is evident that Cheevy longed for this romanticized and illustrious lifestyle that cease to exist in hs current time period. In the sixth stanza he says he “eyed a khaki suit with loathing” and “missed the medieval grace of iron clothing”. An interesting and provocative use of syntax that Robinson uses is when Cheevy is describing how much contempt he has for the gold he attains but knows that he could not live without it, “Miniver scorned the gold he sought, But sore annoyed was he without it”. The last line of the poem was extremely thought provoking especially after reading up on Thebes, Camelot, and Priam. The last two lines are “Minver coughed and called it fate, And kept on drinking”. These allusions all associate with drinking in a certain aspect of their story are culture so Robinson incorporating that in his last line creates a powerful impact not only on the character but the audience listening to the poem. It is powerful because Miniver Cheevy in a way, is living out what he misses from the past in the current time; it is the only thing he can do and the only thing he can hold onto.

The narrator's journey in The Secret Sharer

                The narrator becomes more bold and certain as a leader of the ship. I think he also becomes a little more vulnerable. In the beginning of the novella, he seems very apprehensive with his new role as Captain of the ship. He really does not have a lot of confidence in himself nor does he really make an effort to get to know his crew. However when he meets Leggatt, his whole demeanor starts to change. In a way, Leggatt is like the catalyst of the story. He is so bizarre; everything he says is completely odd yet the narrator hangs on every word he says. When he allows Leggatt to stay in his room, it shows that he is taking a risk. When his steward asks him close his port, the narrator lies to him as his face is "redening" (35). It is interesting that so quickly he is willing to trust Leggatt and protect him after meeting him a few minutes ago and barely opens up to his crew who he has been at sea with for a long time. He also starts to become more secretive, especially when he meets the skipper of the Sephora and he explicitly yells where he is going to take him on the ship so that Leggatt knows not to move. He announces every room they are about to go into like, "Nice little saloon, isn't it?" and "This is my bathroom" (42) and "And now we'll have a look at my stateroom"(43).  He is taking a lot of chances with hiding Leggatt and in a way these are making him more vulnerable as well. He lets Leggatt sleep with him in his bed and they would whisper to each other as they fall asleep. He would bring him food and let him have preserves that were kept in his stateroom. When Leggatt finally departs, with the help of the narrator, he gives him his white sailor hat. It is almost like Leggatt has literally become the other captain once he is given the hat. The narrator makes a substantial change of character both in terms of being a leader, but also being human and sharing your life and living with another person.

Annotation from "The Metamorphosis"

Part II page 34 first paragraph at top of page. (On hearing these words…)

    Gregor’s life before he has become a new organism is utterly explained through the actions of his mother and sister emptying out his room. They do this to try and help Gregor, but he feels as though they have given up on him.The author uses distinct word choice when describing how he could make his mother believe that he did not want his possessions any longer. Gregor claims that a lack of direct communication and the monotonous life amidst the family has made his mind “confused” over the past two months. It is interesting how the lack of talking with his family and boring life style would blind him of what his family thinks of him. Gregor always just assumed that his family never changed and would never change even though he physically is not himself anymore.

    Kafka also brings up an interesting theme of feeling human. Though Gregor is a giant insect, he has only taken over this new life form for a few days and already his family is adjusting to his new possible needs. Even Gregor himself agrees that it would be nicer to live in a space where he could crawl around and not be obstructed, yet he does not know if it is worth aiding the complete erasing of his human existence. It also is related to Kafka’s word choices when Gregor describes his life using words like “monotonous” and “lacking human connection”. It is as if Gregor is finally realizing that this is a problem. The fact that people are getting used to it and that he is getting used to it. He realizes this the first time he actually hears his mother’s voice in a long time. Gregor now wants all of his possessions back and starts to shift his character. He becomes more direct-saying he wants his possessions and not creating excuses or taking his time. He describes having the furniture as “no disadvantage, but a great asset”. Gregor may not be physically human anymore, but he is still mentally human and determined to stay that way.

1984 Reflection

I think it is safe to say that the ending of 1984 was not the most uplifting. I, myself, believed and wished for Winston to rebel and actually make some sort of change or difference in his country. I also tend to enjoy works of literature or films or music or anything artistic that tends to be authentic; it probably does not have the happiest themes or outcomes but it is honest and it does not sugarcoat anything. I think that is what I like the most about this story. Even though it takes place in a fictitious society I do find genuine themes and realistic demonstrations of society, especially for Orwell’s era in the 40s and 50s. Obviously I am not happy or content with how things played out in the end. I could almost feel the torture being put upon Winston and feel true shame on myself believing in O’Brien from the beginning. I too was mesmerized by O’Brien and was genuinely shocked to see him working for the Ministry of Love. I am a little curious as to why he waited so long to arrest Winston if he has been watching him for seven years. I understand him wanting to gather enough evidence but it never really seemed like that was how the Party handled these kinds of events especially ones dealing with thoughtcrime or hating the Party. I think a good word to summarize part three would be disturbing. From the torture, to hearing about how Parsons was arrested, to the women in his cell, the rats, comparing the Party to past totalitarian regimes, and the massive paradox of love and power. O’Brien kept saying that Winston must love Big Brother without really giving him a reason why. People need reasoning to trust something-we are not robots. It seems like that was what O’Brien was trying to say the Party was doing but making it sound like it actually benefits the people. I wish Winston could have hated Big Brother until the end. But I think I would not hold on long enough either. After all that has happened to him, Big Brother was the only thing that did not betray him, and he does not even know him.

Goldstein's Book

Goldstein’s book was very dense in terms of the amount of material but it was very interesting at the same time. While trying to decipher all of the information, I realized that the Party is doing exactly what Winston, Julia, and Goldstein thinks they are doing- manipulating the citizens. In the chapter that Winston reads titled WAR IS PEACE, Goldstein details how each of the three superpowers came to be. He also describes the theory of the lower, middle, and high classes that distinguish and categorize people based on wealth and status. The goal of the fighting was to merely distract the lower and middle classes in order to maintain power in the high classes. No two countries could take down another country or vice versa. The ongoing and never ending war is also used to keep the populations of each nation ignorant to other populations. Basically, Goldstein is describing the political themes that we know of today such as capitalism, socialism, classism etc. I also find it funny and ironic that the first few chapters that Winston reads are titled after the Party’s slogan. I do think that it was intentional for Goldstein to do that; in a way it is like he is poking fun at this slogan by then explaining each phrase and what they really mean. It is very clear that Winston is excited about obtaining the book and feels as though the rebellion is actually beginning but it seemed as though after reading one chapter he felt like it was all a little underwhelming. Goldstein was just writing facts about the past that many people do not remember given that the past is virtually destroyed. I think that information being printed and recorded is vital, but it is not anything new according to Winston. He still does not know what to do in terms of actually acting on rebelling. I still feel the same way about the Party, in terms of being very opposed to what they believe in and how they run society but, like Winston, I am unsure what Goldstein is trying to get across in his book. Luckily, there are more than just three chapters.