"Anthem for Doomed Youth" explication

Wilfred Owen uses alliteration and a mixture of euphony and cacophony in his poem “Anthem for Doomed Youth”. Wilfred Owen was an English poet who was also a young soldier in World War I. In this particular poem there is a direct relation to the soldiers, especially the young, who died in war. The first line in the sonnet describes asks a rather disturbing question, “What passing bells for these who die as cattle?” A passing bell was a bell rung after a death to signal prayers, an already unfathomable concept made even more depressing because of the young corpses. Following that question, Owen uses alliteration in many of his lines such as “stuttering rifles’ rapid rattle/The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells; and bugles calling for them from sad shires/ holy glimmers of good-byes/ The pallor of girls’ brows shall be thier pall/ dusk a drawing down of blinds” In accordance with the alliteration, Owen simultaneously infuses both cacophony and euphony when describing the events of the funerals. He describes the sounds of the guns going off in respect for the fallen soldiers and how the sound of the rifles cannot ignore the sound of the orisons, or prayers. Though the sounds of rifles or mourning choirs are not pleasing, Wilfred Owen makes them sound pleasing in description. The sounds of the consonants in the vocabulary of the poem makes it more appealing in terms of auditory senses, yet when making connections to what the poet is actually talking about, the somber effect of what the poem is actually about starts to take effect.The poem itself is almost a paradox in terms of language when describing the eeriness of the event. The story behind the poem is not beautiful, but the words Owen uses to describe the story and illustrate what is happening, makes it almost pleasing to hear about. It really is, in that way, an anthem, in terms of being a choral composition or a hymn-like poem, but in no way is it uplifting, which makes sense since it is an anthem for doomed youth.

had i the choice

“Had I the Choice” by Walt Whitman discusses the speaker’s choice to exchange a writer’s greatest merits to the “undulation of one wave”. He gives various examples of works from William Shakespeare to Homer as well as the intricate characters and the meter or clever wit of the words on the page. The speaker desires to master the rhythmic patterns the waves possess and apply it to their verses. At first glance, it is easy to say that the poem is free verse. The metric patterns are completely different when reading the poem casually, however when read closely it does have a show a meter. It is hard to decipher and figure out because not all feet are the same nor do each line follow the same pattern or rhythm. There are some lines with iambic structure and such as lines one, eight and nine. I think I understand this because even though it does not follow a pattern and it is all over the place, it is kind of like the waves he mentions in the poem. The waves flow in the same motion, yet they do not singularly do the same pattern every time-just line the lines and stanzas in Walt Whitman’s poem. It is also a little ironic because he claims to want to trade any of the great bard’s merits to be like the waves when he is being like them as he writes this poem. It shows that poetry and art can resemble the beauty found in nature and the fact that great poems can have different types of meter and rhythm.

"Traveling through the dark" explication

    The speaker in “Traveling through the dark” by William Stafford has a dilemma that is very heartbreaking. They have to make a moral decision to the events that happen to them as well as the readers reflect on their feelings towards what he/she does. The speaker finds a dead deer on the side of the road and decides to roll the body into the canyon so people don’t “swerve” and hit it, for Stafford writes, “to swerve might make more dead”. The speaker soon discovers that it is a doe who has just recently been killed and also pregnant. Her fawn was still barely alive and thus the speaker’s problem arises. Eventually, after silently deliberating, they decide to push both deer into the river. In hindsight, there really was nothing he/she could have done, especially in a setting where the stakes are high. The second to last line is particularly unnerving. Stafford writes, “I thought hard for us all-my only swerving-” When the word “swerve” was mentioned before, it was not emphasized at all. After finishing the poem, readers realize that Stafford was foreshadowing a kind of fatal occurrence using the word in that particular phrase. In the last pair of lines, the meaning behind “swerve” still relates to the theme of hesitation and being so close to an awful demise. Though the poem is rather grotesque in subject, the imagery in the poem is beautiful. Stafford describes the woods and road around him as well as how the dead deer was cold but the side of her belly where the fawn was warm-symbolizing life and death. There are other symbols such as the overwhelming darkness that is apparent throughout the poem (and obviously in the title) as well as the presence of the river symbolizing his change in character. As for the rhyme scheme and musical devices, it was difficult at first to spot the pattern and variations in the poem. With help from the questions, I was able to see that in the first stanza, the  last words of the first and fourth line were assonance. Same in the third and fourth stanza. In the third stanza it appears again but this time in the first and third lines.  In the last couplet, the ending words have a consonance. I find it interesting how the quatrains all have assonance-which is repetition at the beginning of the word and how the last couplet had consonance which is repetition on the final consonant sounds. I also wonder if the word “canyon” is important because it does not really pair with another word in the scheme. It is also peculiar because the puts the deer in the river instead of the canyon as if to hide what they have done. The poem altogether makes one reflect on actions and morals in times of darkness in this creep poem about life and death in a single moment.

"The Legacy" by Virginia Woolf

    In “The Legacy” Woolf writes about a man figuring out his wife after she has passed away. Gilbert Clandon begins the story by giving away his wife, Angela’s, tokens that she left for her friends and acquaintances. It is apparent that Angela’s death may have been suicide. Gilbert mentions that Angela left all the tokens in a particular order like it was “as if she had foreseen her death”(132). The way her death is described is also very interesting. The text never said her actions were intentional. She steps off the kerb and gets hit by a car. It also states that ever since they got married she wrote in a diary. By the end of her life she had fifteen of them filled and she was very secretive about what was written in them. Woolf writes, “When he came in and found her writing, she always shut it or put her hand over it. ‘No, no, no,’ he could hear her say, ‘After I’m dead-perhaps’”. The first page of the story already says so much about their relationship. Their marriage was great, despite the diaries she kept from him. It could be argued that he was being a supportive husband and abiding by his wife’s wishes and keeping something she valued private, after all, “It was the only thing had not shared when she was alive”. It could also be argued that it was suspicious that he could brush it off so easily and he never was aggravated or curious enough to investigate or question her about it. Gilbert sees Angela’s secretary, Sissy Miller, come by the house and he gives her a pearl brooch that used to belong to his wife with the message, “For Sissy Miller, with my love.” Ms. Miller is clearly mourning still and is even on tears upon seeing Gilbert. He remembers that Sissy has also lost her brother recently, two weeks before Angela’s death. Before she leaves, Sissy Miller tells Gilbert that if he needed anything, he could come get her. Her exact words were, “‘If at any time, there’s anything I can do to help you, remember, I shall feel it, for you, for your wife’s sake, a pleasure…” (134).  There is a sexual undertone that makes one wonder what exactly she means by her statement. After she leaves Gilbert begins to read Angela’s diaries because he has decided that reading them must be his legacy. In the beginning he reads about days they spent together-all the trips he took her own and the things he would buy her and how she was so happy to be with him. He enjoys reading how fond she was of him and it is interesting that all he is reading in her diaries is about him, as if she spent every waking moment with him. Something else that is interesting is that she writes, “But it seemed selfish to bother him with my own affairs, when he has so much to think about. And we so seldom have an evening alone”. She continues writing about other people she meets, especially one character whom she refers to only as B.M. As soon as she starts writing about other people and not Gilbert, he begins to read less and less details. As B.M. appears more and more, he starts to become intrigued again. He eventually finds out that they were having a secret affair while he was working and wanted Angela to run away with him. She could not make up her mind, which infuriated Gilbert. The last sentences in her diary that she ever wrote were, “‘He has done what he threatened’ ‘Have I the courage to do it too?’” (137). He had to know why she stepped off the kerb and he had to know who B.M. was. He called Sissy Miller who told him that B.M. was her brother. That was when Gilbert realized his legacy. She did not step off the kerb to die, not really, she stepped off to escape. I mentioned in my last blog post, about “Solid Objects”, that the similarities between the male protagonists being in parliament and how that affects their lives. I also noticed the parallels in relationships, obsessions, and the ability to escape from the world around them. Both John in “Solid Objects” and Angela were infatuated with this escape from reality as well as how John and Gilbert were both ruined by their jobs in parliament, or in a high class respected profession that ultimately did not bring them happiness. “The Legacy” really does make one think about what people leave behind and why they leave in the first place.

"Solid Objects" by Virginia Woolf

     “Solid Objects” by Virginia Woolf tells the story of a man slowly losing his mind or actually finding real purpose and happiness in his life. The story centers on two young men named Charles and John. John has a prestigious career in the British Parliament who has a very busy life, “many papers to keep in order-addresses to constituents, declarations of policy, appeals for subscription, invitations to dinner, and so on” (206). It is clear that he detests his job because in the beginning of the story when he is walking with his friend Charles, he yells “Politics be damned!” (202). His friend is supportive of his career until John begins to develop a new passion. While they are at the beach, John finds a piece of glass in the sand and takes a particular liking to it. It was not a special piece of glass as Woolf writes, “the smoothing of the sea had completely worn off any edge or shape, so it was impossible to say whether it had been a bottle, tumbler or window pane; it was nothing but glass” (203). John soon fantasizes about the story behind the glass and creates these detailed imaginative possibilities such as being “worn by a dark Princess trailing her finger in the water as she sat in the stern of the boat” or being on the “oak sides of a sunk Elizabethan treasure-chest”. Over the course of the novel he begins to develop a collection of small, round solid objects made from either glass, china, amber, rock, or marble. He becomes so obsessed and infatuated with these little solid objects that he misses a train to address his constituents for re-election because he eyes a piece of broken china and eagerly pursues to posses it. It feels as though this all happens in a short amount of time, but actually this happens over many years. In the beginning, John is described as young and towards the end of the story he begins to look old and was “too silent to be asked to dinner” (208). People stopped visiting him and his political career was over. Instead of travelling to fancy events and obligations regarding his upper class status, he was going to the decrepit and broken places of London. He found that the most beautiful and luxuriant objects were “pieces of waste land between railway lines, sites of demolished houses, and commons in the neighbourhoood” (207). When his friend comes back at the end of the story, he asks John why he has given up and John replies to him saying that he hasn’t. This is a prolific statement because it shows that John is not embarrassed or upset at how his life has changed. He thinks it is a new beginning for him instead of ruining his life as Charles sees it. It makes readers reflect on whether or not John really did make a self discovery and find joy in his life or if he is going insane. One parallel that I noticed with the second short story I read by Woolf (“The Legacy”) which was that both male protagonists were members of Parliament. In “The Legacy”, Gilbert Clandon is proud of his position, however he is also seen as self absorbed, even in the wake of his wife’s death. It is an interesting parallel because it shows how one life in Parliament is versus another and that maybe this prominent and rewarding job does not guarantee happiness.

Dover Beach Explication

Matthew Arnold creates a tone of despair and melancholy through the serenity of the coastal French beach. He introduces Dover Beach with lovely imagery of the sea and the moon-visualizing this alludes to a soft and relaxing tone as he continually describes the atmosphere . The poet describes the sounds of the sea along the cliffs of England’s shore and the “grating roar of the pebbles” as they glide back and forth from the water. These images as well as delicate syntax create a beautiful environment but hint to an increasingly more depressing tone, especially when he ends the stanza with, “With tremulous cadence slow, and bring the eternal note of sadness in”. He then begins this connection with the playwright Sophocles, who is known for writing infamous tragedies, and how he looked upon the Aegean Sea and watched the waves as Arnold has done and how they brought him the same sort of sadness. Arnold writes, “ the turbid ebb and flow of human misery”. Water is known in literature to signify change; in this poem the water is described so beautifully, but there is also this emptiness like nothing is being gained from it because the water recedes back into the ocean. The writer mentions a body of water called “The Sea of Faith” that he describes as being once full, but now all he feels are the waves “retreating, to the breath of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear and naked shingles of the world”. Arnold could be talking about how people are slowly separating themselves from religious faith and like the water becoming empty and only flowing back and forth barely touching the shore with melancholy and withdrawal. The last stanza in particular is especially potent due to it’s effective language. It is almost like a prayer; he asks to let people be actually true to one another amidst the world, which seems to be “like a land of dreams”. However the way in which people start to lose their faith in it turn the world into a place devoid of peace, love, joy, light, certitude, and help for pain. He mentions in the very last line of the poem the “ ignorant armies” which could symbolize people quarreling over things such as rights to land or property or human beings and not really seeing the various beauty and wonder the world has to offer them. The overall tone would be a juxtaposition of both sadness and beauty. The delicate imagery creates a sense and feeling of beauty, while the syntax and figurative language suggest a hint of melancholy because people do not really notice the beauty in the world.  

Critcal Article Review-Binyavanga Wainaina's "How to Write About Africa"

    I read “How to Write About Africa” by Binyavanga Wainaina. The entire article was a satirical instruction guide for writing a book about Africa. The author’s words were crude and almost making fun of how people view Africa and how they need to help the continent and somehow revigorate their lives in the process. Though their words are harsh-they are also humorous and provide this image of what we typically see in books, advertisements, films etc about the nation, which is usually the same thing done over and over again. I think the author makes a very good point at how people not only picture Africa but also what they write about it. Everything about the culture from its geography, food, domesticity, tribal living, the people, and the myriad of problems associated and plaguing the society as a whole is included, but pretty much only what people want to hear/what they already know. It talks about including certain characteristics that are crucial to “your book’s success” supposedly such as talking about how much you love Africa and how your amazing liberalist ideals and outlook on life helped save the savaged nation from doom-as if your actions alone changed the continent and it’s people forever. It also mentions to write about Africa as if it were a country instead of fifty-four individual countries and not to mention all the beautiful landscapes and geography because all readers care about are the dying, warring, starring, and abused lives of Africa but at least that way, as Wainaina puts it,is-because you care. The writer must have the good guy have traits such as being poor or having a complex domestic life, the bad guy must have his/her own certain qualities, the woman must have disfigured genitialia and sagging faces that made you want to write a book about them and show them as if every woman in Africa looks like that. The best part about Binyavanga Wainaina’s article is that it makes you reflect on stories that other writers and artists have told about Africa and everything the author writes about in this piece is inherently true in all of the New York Times Bestsellers and Hollywood blockbusters. I tried to think of stories that broke his assumptions or judgements on what people write about when they visit or are inspired by Africa (besides Heart of Darkness) and it was very difficult. There might be stories out there that differ from what the author believes to be evident in every anecdote about Africa ever, but the majority seems to be all the same. In terms of Heart of Darkness, I think Conrad did differ away from this a little bit by showing just one Westerners adventure through the continent and how it did not focus on the poverty or the starvation or disease. It is interesting to hear today all the backlash about how racist or insensitive Conrad was being but it also causes people to see something different. Conrad had a clear story he wanted to tell and though it wasn’t strictly about Africa, he still managed to show the brutality and the honest cruelty the nation was facing. People can have different opinions on the matter but it does not change the fact that Wainaina makes an exceptional point. In the end, it is all about what we care.

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.

The Unknown Citizen Explication

               W.H. Auden creates an overall image of societal culture in his poem The Unknown Citizen. Auden’s poem is caked with subtle irony in every line that makes the reader almost miss the fact that the government is proud of this individual that they practically molded themselves. Throughout the poem there are lines like “He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be….” and “our Social Psychology workers found…” or “Our researchers into Public Opinion are content”. It reminds me a little bit of 1984 in terms of the Ministries that control different facets of life like war, media etc. The man that is described as the “unknown citizen” seems to be a perfect individual. It even states that he has everything that makes him the “Modern Man”. There are no complaints against him, everything he did was for the Greater Community (whatever that means), and always paid his dues. If he is so unknown, how, why is it that these Eugenicists and psychologists and things like Producers Research and High-Grade Living know all about this man? They talk of him in high regards because he does everything right according to their standards. The first time I read this poem through, I too thought this person seemed great and that nothing was wrong with him. However, the last line of the poem is particularly startling as well as disturbing. The last line is “Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard”. I picture this man to be Winston in my mind (except the part that says the man has 5 children) because it is this person that followed the rules but you cannot tell if he really is happy or free. To answer the poem’s questions I do not really think he is because even though it is never said, I think this man is just going through life blindly. In modern society you do not really here of the guy who supports his children’s education or the man who does well at his job-you only hear of the people who make horrible decisions and corrupt their society. At first I thought that was what this poem was doing, focusing on the good people who do not get noticed, but it is actually more of the fact that there are so many things that watch what we do and define us as people when it is up to ourselves to define who we are.

Julia in 1984

I have mixed feelings about Julia. Obviously in Book One you have this speculation about her and you are not sure you can trust her. Winston would be terrified to make eye contact with her for too long, not to mention her dedication to the Junior Anti-Sex League and her seemingly obsessive adoration for the Party. In the first chapter of Book Two, we learn that she is actually in love with Winston. All of the trepidation and uneasiness felt towards her is now suddenly vanquished with the words “I love you”.

                Winston is not stupid and knows that this could be a trap. He ultimately goes through with it and meets her in this secret location surrounded by vacant meadows and lush bushes and trees. We learn that this girl, Julia, is the exact opposite of what Winston believed she was. She even tore off her Junior Anti-Sex League sash and through it to the side. They eventually have sex in the country and she tells him that she has done this with many Party members, but not the inner Party members whom she refers to as “swine”. Winston is thrilled that she has had sex with a score of members and wishes that it had been hundreds or thousands of members. He believes that the more times she has, the greater the emphasis of rebellion. Julia is seen as this reckless and savvy and sexy character that is cunning but also incredibly smart at dodging the cameras of the Party and undermining their authority. At first I was just in complete awe of her and her courage and her ability to laugh at the society she lives in even though it is the only thing she has ever known. She is significantly younger than Winston and could have virtually been sucked in to the Party’s views easily. However even though she is able to outsmart the Party and still have all of these mature and youthful emotions inside of her, I found her to be a little cruel as well. There is a part where she mentions her first sexual affair with a 60 year old man at only 16 which she almost boasts about. The man eventually kills himself to avoid being executed by the Party, in which she feels no guilt or anger for, but only feels lucky and happy that he did not end up confessing her name. It is quickly mentioned and then she throws it away like it is some old memory from her youth. It just rubbed me the wrong way. I do not hate her knowing that, but it shows another side of her that makes you think twice about her. I definitely see her and Winston rebelling already with their affair, and they could possibly make the rebellion even bigger and beyond just sex.

H. Ingsoc Sum

H ungood/good? Kill P. Hurt mom. O selfdie. Hor friend 1. R+G exdie by H trick. H father = H too. Hdad poisendie. H kill L With swords. Hdad ghost. Talk to Hson. H sworddie. Hor storyteller. Fort. kingOceania.

Predictions for Winston

               At the end of Book One, Winston is sort of crippled against his own inhibitions. Once he gets back to his apartment, he contemplates suicide so the Party will not capture him and kill him themselves. Before he succumbs to the thought of ending his life, he remembers what O’Brien whispered to him, “We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness”. Those words are what keep Winston from going through with suicide but still makes him terrified of what could happen to him. He stares at a coin in his pocket of Big Brother and reflects on the slogan associated with him-WAR IS PEACE- FREEDOM IS SLAVERY-IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

               My predictions for Winston are that he will go through with trying to take down the Party with O’Brien and that he will do it through the Proles. Though Book One ends with an uninspiring tone, I do think that Winston has a lot of anger and oppression inside of him and holding it in will kill him, but doing something about it may bring a result of justice…and also probably kill him, though he will have changed the lives of all the people in Oceania, Eastaisa and Eurasia and the generations for years to come.  He presents himself to other characters in the book with this almost shy and cooperative demeanor but we see the world through Winston’s eyes and can tell that there is a lot more to him than how he appears to the outside world. In chapter eight, Winston takes a little walk though the Prole district and we can see his amusement and curiosity with the culture and mysteriousness of this place that seems to live under the Party’s nose. He craves information about the truth and the Revolution and keeps coming back to the place where he bought his journal. I believe that that shop will be very significant to Winston and his journey to bringing justice back to the world and possibly be his place of hiding. The last few chapters of the first book mention that having sex is frowned upon and the activity should not even be used in creating other human beings because future parents could just use artsem-artificial insemination. Winston views sexual intercourse as the ultimate act of rebellion and I think that will also come into play with his plan, especially since he desires an affair and thinks might help him escape and possibly help other people escape.

BIG BROTHER-1984 and 2013

               Orwell’s 1984 emphasizes the importance of privacy by showing how detrimental it is to have it taken away from society. Privacy is definitely viewed as a privilege in the novel, especially among the protagonist, Winston Smith. On almost every surface of every building are posters marked with the slogan “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” as a constant reminder that the Party, or government, is always monitoring what you do. The slogan is a bit sarcastic with its connotation. “BIG BROTHER” normally conjures up an image of protection or of a guardian. Using the verb “WATCH” has a kind of negative association and seeing them in all caps also gives it a harsher tone. What is particularly intrusive as well as disturbing are the telescreens. The telescreens are basically televisions that only show propaganda and are also used to have the Thought Police constantly watch and look after its citizens. The name “Thought Police” particularly troubles me because it sounds like they are not only monitoring your actions but your mind, so not even your thoughts are safe. Winston cannot even write in a diary and have anything private to him, which is not only degrading his self protection but his self as a human being.

             It makes me very weary of how the government is possibly watching us as citizens. Obviously there are no telescreens or Thought Police but I still feel as though the government wants to keep tabs on people to avoid threat or takeover or anything that could demolish their appearance as a superior. The National Security Agency is constantly discussed in the media for increasing their surveillance programs on the internet and on cell phones. People such as Edward Snowden and Julian Assange consider themselves whistleblowers and heroes to the American people for exploiting these corruptions of the government. However some people view them as criminals and traitors so it makes it confusing and hard to decipher who to root for. I understand that the government aims to protect and keep the people from harm, especially after 9/11, but many people could argue that the patriot act took it too far. The patriot act pretty much allows the government to interfere with anyone’s belongings if they deem to be a threat to the United States. The bill was even extended to include wiretaps, searching through business records, and heightened surveillance. It seems as though this is meant to keep the people safe, but it’s hard to do that if the government does not know who to look out for. Sooner or later, maybe America could be like 1984, which is a little scary to think about. Is Big Brother Really watching us?

"To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time" Explication

               Before I start explicating this poem, I must make a disclaimer. I am not sure if this is important but I read the very first line of “To the Virgins” and knew that I had to write about it. This poem by Robert Herrick was the first poem that Professor John Keating teaches his students in Peter Weir’s film Dead Poets Society. That film is monumental to me to say the least and to see the poem in this chapter made me very motivated to explicate. Now that I got that probably useless information out there, I will actually start the assignment.

To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time is a poem filled with symbolism, metaphors, and imagery all pertaining to acting on impulses in the moment. The speaker is explaining how “Old Time is still a-flying” and we must “Gather ye rosebuds while ye may”. The rosebuds create a symbol of youth and love while his statement about time could be a metaphor, stating that life will not go on forever. The two go hand in hand and one could also say the youth and love may not last forever.  He concludes the first stanza with “And this same flower that smiles today tomorrow will be dying”. It seems like Herrick is pertaining to a female in his poem because of the flower imagery. He ends the stanza almost on a depressing tone, saying that even though we keep living day by day, we are also getting closer to death and old age.

The next stanza continues with nature symbolism but this time among males. Herrick describes men as the sun getting higher and higher and then eventually setting. “The sooner will his race be run, and nearer he’s to setting”. Eventually men will pass on as well and it contributes to his point that men and women should just spend the time having sex and being adventurous before it is too late.

Age is very much emphasized, especially when the narrator talks about the impending tomorrow. He also emphasizes youth and the importances of discovering these pivotal ecstasies of life while men and women are still agile and carefree. “The age is best which is the first, when youth and blood are warmer” is how he begins his stanza and then quickly switches to a more almost ominous tone by concluding it with “Time still succeed the former”. He justifies his previous claim that even if you spend your life and adolescence doing other activities time will still be inevitable.

The last stanza sums up and reiterates what he has been trying to achieve all along in this poem. The last two lines are especially profound, “For having lost but once your prime, you may forever tarry”. These words of wisdom or perhaps a warning signal instructs to “virgins” that one must be aware of their time alive and not dwell or inhabit coy reservations. As John Keating in Dead Poets Society states, “We are food for worms, lads”. That is the overarching argument that Herrick makes and he makes it very well known among his first couple of lines. We might as well live as we want to. Carpe Diem.