Final AP Lit Blog.......Ever!

Oh, blogging. How I won't miss you. It's not that blogging this year was the absolute worst thing that could have ever happened to me, cause it wasn't. Blogging more so wasn't my favorite thing due to the fact tha it was so tedious! Sitting, and thinking, and waiting, and thinking......it literally felt like forever until I finally was able to come up with something I wanted to say. Maybe, in the future, I'll turn into the blogging type; however, at the moment I've come to the conclusion that blogging simply isn't for me and I'm ready to have it off my back! This year has been filled with various blogs; blogs on summer reading, blogs on the books we've read in class, blogs on movies......the options were endless. Yet, through all of the topics one could have gone through in an attempt to make sure they'd completed the assignment by the last day of the month, one type of blog that always seemed to stay constant were the blogs that revolved around poems. One thing I've appreciated about blogging is the fact that I was able to find myself a favorite poet; if you can't tell by now, I happen to really fancy the poems written by Langston Hughes. I'm not specifically sure why, but something about his poetry is truly lyrical and makes me feel as if I'm listening to spoken word at a jazz club or something (nerdy, I know). So, I thought to myself, what better way then to end off the AP Lit blogs than with a poem by none other than Langston himself! My final selection was the poem "Harlem"; it goes like this:

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up

Like a raisin in the sun?

Or fester like a sore-

And then run?

Does it stink like rotten meat?

Or crust and sugar over-

Like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags

like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

I like this poem a lot due to the fact that it seems to currently reflect on our lives as we're leaving for college. A lot of us may not be going to the college of our choice due to lurking reasons (finances, not getting accepted, never actually applied, etc) and may begin to feel as if our dreams are becoming deferred or will never come true. This poem asks the questions I think most of us wonder when our dreams are actually deferred. Do our dreams shrink up like a raisin? or doe they simply become sweeter over time? No one knows. This poem addresses the idea of the feared unknown that is honestly one's life. No one knows how they're life will turn out, and when things don't happen at the exact moment that we want them to, people tend to freak out and stress over their beloved dreams. Within this poem Langston makes it clear that humans, regardless of their background story, want to accomplish the same things in life. When people feel as if their out of control of their own destiny they begin to feel as if they're dreams will never come true and fear of what their life will actually become. Ya feel me?

Scholarly Novels vs. Non Scholarly Novels: Can One Really Tell the Difference?

Soooo this school year has been filled with novels that one would consider "scholarly"; from Frankenstein, to Grendel, to the more commercially accepted novels like A Visit from the Goon Squad, it seems as if every pick of literature I've debriefed this past year has made more more aware of what one should consider scholarly and what one should consider mediocre. When the year first began, I can't lie, I didn't see what the big deal was about these so called "scholarly" novels. They're boring, too wordy, and dry.....right? What makes them so much better than a typical Gossip Girl book? After much practice (thanks to AP Lit) of coming into contact with novels that people would consider sophisticated, I feel as if I can finally tell the difference between a novel filled with literary merit and one that isn't. Recently, I read the novel Palo Alto by, non other than the Hollywood star, James Franco. Franco is known to be a celebrity who appreciates education; he's attended Columbia University, teaches English and acting classes at schools like UCLA and the University of Southern California, and even once stated that he refused to come to set one day because he didn't want to miss class. Seeing how the man is so into education, his novel was sure to be one to go down in history, right? Wrong. So wrong. I was excited to read the novel once I first started; it's an indie based book that follows different characters within each chapter, yet, they all intertwine as the novel unfolds. MY FAVORITE. Books with separate stories are what I absolutely love, and after seeing the preview for the movie (which comes out on Friday) along with getting a preview of the soundtrack (the soundtrack is pretty good......it fits the whole "distressed" teenager vibe the book gives off perfectly) I just knew this book was going to be something I would instantly fall in love with. Yah.......not so much. Let's just say that I never really plan on reading the book for a second time; once was enough. It's not that the book wasn't good or interesting, because it was, but more so the novel just lacked substance. You can tell that Franco really tried to give the book a deeper meaning than it actually has. He added curse words, sexual content, and even the intense moments where a character decides whether or not they should kill themselves or someone else. Super deep, right? Sadly, Franco failed to create a novel with literary merit, in my opinion, and after reading so many this year I feel as if I can easily state why. First of all, the novel lacks a central theme that it's attempting to convey. There was nothing that I can honestly and truly say that I learned from the book, other than the fact that I'm glad I'm not a teenager living in his depiction of Palo Alto, California. One thing I've learned throughout the entirety of this year is that if a novel truly has literary merit, one will be able to think of a central theme the novel is trying to teach it's readers. Secondly, the grammatical style of his novel was very simple.......literally the whole book was filled with simple sentences. It sounded like something a third grader could have written (aside from the curse words). How does Franco expect anyone to really think while reading his novel if his sentences lack any further interpretation? Lastly, the characters in the novel lacked depth. Sure, each one had it's own personal struggles and problems, yet, none of them we're actually developed characters with solid back stories. They were kind of just there. They simply existed. Not enough Franco. Once the movie comes out, I'm sure the novel will be depicted nicely on screen as some sort of hardcore indie story, however, as an actual novel it lacked any type of scholarly development. Ya feel me?

A Visit from the Goon Squad: Review

Nothing excited me more when we were told that we were allowed to choose our own novel for the first time ever this year in AP Lit. Don't get me wrong, the scholarly choices of Winesburg, Ohio and Frankenstein we're interesting in the sense that they were novels associated with literary merit, but most of the time the books put me to sleep or made my head hurt (when I'm not interested in a novel I actually get literal headaches.......it's so sad). Finally being able to pick the book I wanted to read for class was what I was looking forward to all year! First things first, the choice selections made it so hard to choose what exactly I wanted to read; I’m that person who walks around with at least 20 books at Barnes and Noble. Choosing just one book is literally impossible, so deciding which book to read as my final novel drove me insane. Secondly, the incorporation of a “self chosen" novel truly made me happy due to the fact that I was introduced to so many novels that I may have never ended up coming across on my own. Knowing about the books we talked about in class as options left me with future reading selections, which I always look forward too. The book I finally decided to read (after around 20 minutes of me debating back and forth with myself) was the novel A Visit from the Goon Squad, by Jennifer Egan, and I have to say that I'm very happy with the choice that I made. The novel revolves around an array of characters, some that know each other and some that don't, that are each facing various challenges in their lives and only seem to be connected through the concept of time. From the start I knew that I was going to enjoy the novel; I love it when books are more so a collection of short stories that intertwine together rather than one short and simple story line that get's the point across; this novel was no different from my usual preference due to the fact that it allowed each and every character to tell what was happening in their lives from their own point of view while also showing how they connected to the larger idea at whole. I specifically enjoyed this book over others that I've read in the past due to the fact that Egan wrote out each character's story in such a way that you truly felt connected to them while reading. From Lou's problem with women, to Bennie's feelings after Stephanie left him or Rob's internal conflict due to him denying the fact that he was gay, each story honestly through you into the life of that specific character in way that made you truly see how time was something that they longed for. This book made it clear that time is in fact a "goon" in everyone's life; no one is completely aware of what the future holds; only time will eventually tell. Yet, time may not end up giving you what you wanted in life, which is why the goon that is time may end up visiting you when you least expect it. It's for that reason and that reason alone, that I think Egan allowed her characters to connect in the sense that they each weren't ready for time to continue evolving. Every character longed for a moment in their lives where they were truly happy and had little worries, in an attempt to have control over the situations that were currently going on around them. Ya feel me?

Jazzonia

  The novel, Invisible Man, is based during a time period that was full of life, jazz, and culture in one of the most widely recognized cities during that time period, Harlem. It seems as if I personally enjoy things that have come out of the "Harlem" area of New York (jazz music, the rap group A Tribe Called Quest, etc.) and the novel goes on to highlight some of its most prominent stars in all sorts of allusions and references throughout the novel. One person who seems to constantly be relevant, whether it be in the novel or simply the mentioning of the city of Harlem in everyday conversation, is the beloved Langston Hughes. Langston Hughes may as well be known as Harlem's shining star; his way with words and heartfelt sounds seem to repeatedly speak to people in the modern world, and will more than likely leave some sort of influence on future generations as well. I know, I know......most of my poem selections for these blogs come from Langston Hughes. But who can blame me? His words can almost be sung as if to a tune, plus, the majority of his poems actual have some sort of relevance to the situations going on in the novel Invisible Man; for instance, the poem "Jazzonia" relates to the novel in various ways, and it goes a little something like this"

Oh, silver tree!

Oh, shining rivers of the soul!

In a Harlem cabaret

Six long headed jazzers play.

A dancing girl whos eyes are bold

Lifts high a dress of silken gold.

Oh, singing tree!

Oh, shining rivers of the soul!

Were Eve's eyes

In the first garden

Just a bit too bold?

Was Cleopatra gorgeous

In a gown of gold?

Oh, shining tree!

Oh silver rivers of the soul!

In a whirling cabaret

Six long headed jazzers play.

In my opinion, this poem is describing the innocence of a person who is finally seeing the wonders that Harlem has to offer for the first time, similar to that of the invisible man. The first thing that the speaker of this poem talks about is a "silver tree" that's shining constantly throughout each stanza. For the tree he first sees to be silver indicates that he feels the actions around him as being pure and rare, seeing how silver is a form of pure metal. However, the next line referencing the jazz players "as six headed" makes it seem as if the speaker is completely unaware of the dangerous temptations that are around him. The jazz players being six headed makes me think of something serpent like such as Medusa's hair or the ancient three headed dog, as if the situation around the speaker is actually no good. The speaker even mentions a woman who lifts up her silk dress which is similar to the temptation the invisible man feels when he sees the naked woman during the battle royal. Though everything that’s being mentioned in this poem seems as if it’s filled with happiness and clarity, like the man who sells yams in Invisible Man said, “….everything that looks good aint necessarily good” (264). Ya feel me?

Invisible Man: A Dream or Reality?

As we've gone through all the topics of our Invisible Man seminars over the past few days, the idea that really seemed to stick out in my head was the idea of the invisible man not actually being awake, or within reality throughout the second half (or entire, who knows) novel. The invisible man seems to encounter lots of shifts throughout his journey, some minor and some major, however, a major shift was seen during his episode in the hospital. During this scene, the invisible man is approached by a man that he describes as "a long haired fellow, whose piercing eyes looked down upon [him] out of an intense and friendly face" (239) which almost leads to the allusion of the invisible man being visited by some sort of Christ like figure, such as Jesus. Is this all real? Is the invisible man actually being approached by a holy spirit or is he simply envisioning that he is? If the shift in the hospital is actually seen as a "rebirth" or interaction with Christ, then why was it needed? As the episode goes on the long haired fellow continues to talk to the invisible man, it seems as if some of these questions appear to be answered. When the Jesus type figure continues to ask the invisible man questions, and the invisible man fails to remember anything about himself, the man says to our narrator "you MUST remember" (241) almost as if he is trying to get the invisible man to recognize his role in life and/or go out and fulfill his destiny. Is the invisible man some sort of disciple? Was this dream like experience needed to help guide the invisible man to where he was actually meant to be at the end of the novel? In my opinion, that's exactly what happened: the invisible man needed to fall into his own subconscious, almost as if he was the creator of his own parallel reality, in order to fulfill his destiny in the end. The narrator is asked "who is buckeye the rabbit?" (241) in his limbo like trance and later on replies to the question by saying to himself "somehow I was buckeye the rabbit....." (241), which relates to the movies "Donnie Darko" and "Alice in Wonderland". In the movie "Donnie Darko" the main character is visited by a man in a rabbit suit who helps guide Donnie towards his destiny, similar to Alice in wonderland who is approached by a rabbit with a clock before she falls deep down into the rabbit hole. If the invisible man "is buckeye the rabbit", then is he subconsciously leading himself to his own destiny? Does he allow himself to fall into this parallel trance for a specific reason? It seems as if "the rabbit" concept does actually lead to a journey through a parallel universe/rebirth stage for our protagonist. After the "rebirth" during the hospital scene, the invisible man becomes more enlightened towards what’s actually occurring around him. During the eviction episode involving the old black couple, the invisible man observes the situation around him and says "It was startling: The crowd watching silently, the two white men lugging the chair and trying to dodge the blows and the old woman's face streaming with angry tears as she thrashed her fists at them. I couldn’t believe it" (267); his description of what's going on in Harlem seems to differ from his first impression when he says ".....there were white drivers in traffic who obeyed his [a black man] signals as though it was the most natural thing in the world. Sure I had heard of it, but this was real" (159). The new observation, or way of viewing the true situations around him, shows that the invisible man has now become enlightened, possibly as a result of his "rebirth". Think about it, before the invisible man was so blinded by the idea of Harlem being this sort of fairy tale like environment that he would've never fully stopped to take a glance at what was actually going on around him. So was it the rebirth/parallel universe that helped him become enlightened? Or did that happen all on its own? Who knows.....SO MANY QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED. Ya feel me?

 

Invisible Man: Seminar Summary Thus Far

So, during last week we had a numerous amount of seminars on the novel Invisible Man, and it seemed as if each one opened my eyes more and more when it came to a new way to view what the novel was actually trying to say. The two seminars that interested me the most, however, were the seminars relating to the Battle Royal and the Liberty Paint scenes. The Battle Royal episode of the book not only said a lot about race and people’s views towards others during the time that this novel was written, but also about the invisible man himself. One part that stood out during this scene was the symbol of the arena; if one truly thinks about it the arena could almost be looked at as a comparison of society. The black men within the arena were almost trapped, and constantly confined to participate in the degrading, barbaric activity the white men had set out for them. The arena broadcasted the idea of these black men (and the white woman) almost simply being dolls for these white men to play with. If these men we're actually just seen as dolls than the whole scene is actually quite ironic. Ellison described the men viewing the barbaric battle as "bankers, lawyers, judges, doctors, fire chiefs, teachers, merchants" (18) which actually is quite surprising seeing how they were the one's acting foolishly and immaturely when it came towards the treatment of these human beings while the men within the arena, who were seen as boys, actually acted in a semi mature manner and resisted their sexual urges to give into the temptation of a naked woman. The arena also showed how those who were flung into the setting had no will power; seeing how they were blindfolded, the men were fighting for the sake of fighting, not because they wanted to. The blindfolds being white also showed contradiction seeing how the idea of something being white would make someone think they've found clarity, however, in this situation it lead to the men stumbling "around like [babies] or drunken [men]" (22). The Battle Royal thoroughly highlights the fact that throughout the novel the invisible man appears to be blind though he strives for clarity. The Liberty Paint episode is also one that seemed really important, to me. Irony seems to strike all throughout the factory scene, along with questions. One thing that’s ironic about the "Optic White" paint that's created is the fact that to make the white color as pure as it can be, a black substance needs to be added. What does that mean? How can something that's as pure as the color white become even more pure once something black has been added? I honestly have no idea, and still am curious as to what Ellison was trying to say by all this. Along with the ironic concept of something becoming more pure once something black has been added, the idea of the invisible man falling into hell comes about during this episode as well. Think about it: the mentor for the paint factory is named Lucius (Lucifer??) Brockway, the factory continues to go deeper and the invisible man searches for Lucius......it's all pretty hell like seeing how it completely mirrors the story of Dante's Inferno. When the invisible man and Lucius get into a fight, he states that "[his] fingers leapt to [his] shoulders, finding wet cloth but no blood. The old fool had bitten [him]" (227), it seems to make a direct reference to the idea of Dante's Inferno, seeing how the sinners were said to have gone around biting each other. What does all this mean? Is the concept of society actually hell? Why did the invisible man need to experience this episode? IT ALL MAKES NO SENSE. Yet, it still leads to one being curious. This novel is full of allusions that may lead to one thinking of hell, parallel worlds, etc. and as the series of seminars continues, we're sure to discover so much more. Ya feel me?

Archetype of the Trickster

Hamlet, Hamlet, Hamlet......this play continues to get weirder and weirder as each act passes by. One minute Hamlet is acting mature and isolating himself due to his awareness of being highly more intelligent than everyone else around him, and the next minute we find Hamlet running around like a spoiled teen, disrespecting his elders and throwing out secret jabs towards everyone around him. All of his randomness makes one wonder is Hamlet is actually "mad"; is Hamlet actually as crazy as he seems? or does he simply enjoy playing the fool all in the hopes of somehow secretly getting a rise out of everyone? After the class discussion we had today about the "Archetype of Trickster- Clown and the Fool" I couldn't help but envision various scenarios where numerous characters from within this play seemed to fit the archetype perfectly. For starters, the archetype of the fool doesn’t seem as if it would be the way it is described it the handout we received. When I personally think of a fool I think of someone who's naive, in a sense, or simply wreaking havoc just for the sake of wreaking havoc; however, the handout describes a fool as someone who "has the ability to either laugh at the ridiculousness of life, or to cut through the social shams and reveal hypocrisy in an acceptable way. This makes the fool or clown wise, because they can see through who we are and what people do". All of this being said, the fool archetype really relates back to Hamlet is various ways. I mainly see Hamlet fitting into this specific archetype whenever he is attempting to "play god" and act like the moral judge about every little thing around him. Think back to the scene in act III with the play; Hamlet begins to run around on stage making loud, obnoxious gestures and jokes towards everyone around him and though it makes him seem "mad" and foolish, in reality he reveals a lot of truth through the commentary he provides while the play is going on. For example, while the play is going on, and the murder scene is slowly revealed, Claudius asks Hamlet "what do you call the play?"(act III, scene II, line 252) to which Hamlet responds "The Mousetrap. Marry how? Tropically. This play in the image of a murder in done in Vienna. Gonzago is the duke's name, his wife Baptista. You shall see anon. Tis knavish piece of work, but what of that? Your majesty and we that have free souls, it touches us not" (act III, scene II, lines 253-258). Basically, Hamlet is revealing the truth between Claudius and his mother through the foolish ways of his play and his wit; Hamlet is stating that the situation between his mother and Claudius is very trap like, seeing how Claudius murdered hsi father to get where he is. The mentioning of "your majesty and we that have free souls, it touches us not" it used to reveal the actual truth of the play having an effect on Claudius's unclean soul since he has actually recently performed the act that was said to have occurred in Vienna. Hamlet also represents the fool in the actual dialogue of the play he has written; in the play, the player queen states that "a second time I kill my husband dead when second husband kisses me in bed" (act III, scene II, lines 199-200) as a way of Hamlet revealing to the crowd, and his mother, that she is basically shaming the position that was once his father's by allowing Claudius to sleep by her side every night. What does all this mean? Is Hamlet using his "foolish" ways for good or for bad? Though Hamlet is revealing the truth, just as the fool should, his attempt is done in a very sadistic way that doesn't make him the typical fool, but instead more sinister as if he lets his shadow take control. Ya feel me?

Hamlet As a Moral Judge

So, as the story of Hamlet has continued to progress, we've been able to see the young, distraught prince in various different lights. It seems as if Hamlet's array of emotions appear to be the cause of the many faces we've seen of him. When Hamlet's feeling a little bit over joyous, he fits the role of the fool; when he's feeling a little sneaky, he fits the role of the artist (let's be honest, Hamlet's directional role in the play was actually quite good........but he only uses his powers for evil. What's this guys deal?); when he's feeling all mighty and high, he seems to fit the role of not only the philosopher but also the moral judge. Hamlet attempting to "play god" as if he really is an all mighty being has occurred far often, and is beginning to reveal some hidden traits about him that are far from attractive. For starters, his abusive, judgmental ways towards his mother and Ophelia has begun to really make me question how he truly feels about women, mothers, etc. After Ophelia and Hamlet break up in Act III, it seems as if Hamlet genuinely is upset about the situation at hand and wishes that he could simply live out his life with his one true love without her actually being under her fathers command; however, as their interactions further on, and Ophelia attempts to make some sort of amends with the prince, Hamlet says to her "get thee to a nunnery" (act III, scene I, line 128). Sure, the mentioning of a nunnery can be looked at as Hamlet attempting to save Ophelia from the "wretched" ways that are man, however, as he continues to say things such as "ha, ha, are you honest?" (Act III, scene I, line 110) and "do you think I meant country matters?" (act III, scene II, line 117) it makes me believe that Hamlet is blatantly attempting to call Ophelia to a whore, and believes that she is destined to live out her life in a nunnery since he views her as some form of prostitute. Who is he really to judge (Hamlet's all talk......he can't really declare someone as being something they say they're not when he himself is basically fake)? Why does he suddenly feel the need to harshly lay his opinions upon others? His sudden attempt to tell Ophelia her fate brings fourth his madness, however, not in a sense of actually "crazy" ways but more so in a sense that he's allowing his anger to get the best of him. Hamlet, being as intelligent as he is, is fully aware that he himself isn't a moral judge; however, he uses his high level language as a weapon to make other's feel as if the actions of their lives relate to the fate that Hamlet has created for them. His previous actions are quite evil in a sense, and leads to one thinking how this man can be a "pure" moral judge when he speaks of drinking blood and attacking his mother with daggers...? All of his language is really quite dark and sadistic, and his attempt to morally decide Claudius's fate while he believes he's confessing is far from what one would think a moral judge would act like. Hamlet speaking of tripping Claudius so "that his heels may kick at heaven" (act III, scene III, line 97) is more so something of a demonic tendency rather than that of an angelic, moral judge and makes it quite clear that Hamlet is simply "seeming" when he's attempting to portray himself as someone full of wisdom on other's fait. Ya feel me?

Eat, Pray, Love: Is Julia Roberts Grendel?

So I just finished watching the movie Eat, Pray, Love for the first time (no literally......like five minutes ago) and I'm happy to say that I believe I've found a new favorite movie, or really a new favorite story that clearly highlights a person's transition from innocence to experience. If I was to watch the movie as a basic viewer, I would've gawked at the beautiful scenery, array of languages, and overall world experience Julia Robert's character engaged into. However, being the AP Lit student that I am *hair flip* I couldn't help but watch the movie through a lens that connected the numerous transition periods that occur throughout the movie to a much deeper meaning, or a novel that goes by the name of Grendel. At the beginning of this movie, Julia Robert's appears as if she is stuck in a stage that is caught in between innocence and experience; she's experienced numerous downfalls in her life that have led to her becoming dreary and lost in her own world, while at the same time is so vulnerable to her emotions that she acts frantically and decides to embark on a year long journey the hopes of finding herself. To me this was all too similar to Grendel; sure, when the novel starts off Grendel isn't as experienced as Julia Robert's character is, however, once he gains experience and knowledge of the truth of the reality of the world that’s around him, it's as if he becomes vulnerable to everything that could possibly influence his decisions, actions, and emotions. That's exactly what goes on in this movie: experience drives the main character into a state of innocence. She's lost, vulnerable, and unable to make decisions for herself in order to find what's best in the end all due to the fact that the knowledge she has gained about the world around her has led to her crashing all together. All of this leads to the question of why? Is too much experience actually the problem? Should people hold onto their state of innocence for as long as they can? Or were the downfalls these characters experienced as a result to the over abundance of experience they gained throughout their lifetimes just a coincidence? Think about it, before Grendel became experienced he was happy and hopeful, which is similar to how Julia Robert's character was after she took herself out of her overly experienced situation in an attempt to empty her mind and start all over, almost as if she was trying to revert back to a period in her life where the knowledge of the harsh realities of the world wasn't something she was burdened with. Is experience a bad thing? According to the stories of these two characters the answer would appear to be yes; experience broke them down to a point of no return, to a point where they craved for the days or feelings they once had when they were naïve and blind. The stories of these two characters makes me wonder, is the shift from innocence to experience simply a cycle? Are we supposed to blossom from an innocent state to an experienced state only to empty our minds of heavy amounts of knowledge to become innocent again? Is that balance needed? Who knows. What’s seen in these stories makes one believe that experience isn’t the best thing for one in life, and that living in a state where one is filled with young hope and untainted realities is what’s best for everyone. But then again, little experience could lead to problems in the end. So which is better: being innocent or being experienced? Maybe one day the universe will figure it out. Ya feel me?

I, Too.

So, when I first found out "blogging" was a part of AP lit one could say I was.........mortified. Yep, that's right. MORTIFIED. What would I blog about? Would I ever be creative enough to come up with anything insightful to say? Most importantly, would I ever be able to focus on one of these for more than around five minutes (focusing on the computer is not something I'd say I'm the best at.....once night fall hits my attention falls entirely on Netflix/Pinterest)? At first I was completely defeated (kind of dramatic, I know) but after the days went on, and the blogs continued I realized these are actually kind of entertaining once you sit down and just start typing (I actually feel like a crazy person doing these because I'm basically having a well thought out conversation with myself......it is what it is). Anyways, it's safe to say that blogging turned out to actually be ok, and one thing I didn't realize I'd actually enjoy about blogging was blogging about poems. Before this, I barely knew anything about poetry, let alone could I name anyone besides Robert Frost or Dr. Seuss. But as the months have gone by, and the poem blogs have continued, I've realized that I've actually found a particular interest in poetry; I can even now say that I might actually have a favorite poet (Langston Hughes, probably). Poetry isn't as bland as I thought it was going to be, and once one finds a certain genre of poetry that they particularly like, it's almost as if one is simply reading a relatable/interesting/song like story. On that note, one thing I believe I really tend to enjoy about Langston Hughe's poetry is the fact that the way his words are layed out truly allows one to create a perfect scenario of the story he's telling in their heads. The language may not be extremely deep or profound, however, his simple placement of common words really gets the job done and evokes emotions from readers (that's just my opinion). So, while roaming the internet for another poem to blog about, I happened to come across one titled "I, Too" by none other than Langston Hughes; the poem goes like this:

I, too, sing America.

I am the darker brother.

They send me to eat in the kitchen

When company comes,

But I laugh,

And eat well,

And grow strong.

Tomorrow,

I'll be at the table,

When company comes.

Nobody'll dare

Say to me,

"Eat in the kitchen",

Then.

Besides,

They'll see how beautiful I am,

And be ashamed-

I, too, am America.

The first stanza in this poem represents the reality of what's going on during this time period. The speaker states that "I, too, sing America/ I am the darker brother" as a way of making it clear to those around him that he is also an American; America is his home, his place where he can prosper, where is pride is, and the speaker feels that just because he's the "darker brother" doesn’t mean that he's so much different from anyone other American. The first stanza finishes off with the speaker stating that "They send me to eat in the kitchen/When company comes/But I laugh/And eat well/ And grow strong" as a way that allows the reader to know that the narrator is highly aware of his position in society; the speaker knows that he cannot be seen "when company comes" due to him more than likely being some form of house help, yet, he finds it to be unfair because he "eats well and grows strong" just like others around him. He is no different than his fellow peers as a whole, yet, cannot participate in events equally simply due to the color of his skin. The second stanza of this poem appears to represent the fantasy the speaker hopes will come true; the first line simply saying "tomorrow" goes far beyond the day after the current day, seeing how tomorrow can mean "at some future time". At some future time, the speaker imagines he'll finally be able to "be at the table/ When company comes" as if it's completely normal while he is no longer looked down upon and forced to eat in the kitchen alone. As the lines go on, the narrator expresses that those around him will become ashamed of themselves once they "see how beautiful [he is]"; the narrator simply wants his companions to realize his beauty on the inside for who he is instead of on the outside which simply dictates his skin tone. He is aware that he doesn’t deserve such treatment and hopes for a better day when everyone becomes ashamed for how they've looked down upon him when he knows that he "too, am America". Ya feel me?



Hamlet: First Impression

We've finally arrived at the time during the year in which we must engage into the readings of ole ancient Shakespeare. Yawn.....or at least that's what I thought the story of Hamlet was going to be before we actually started getting into what was going on (along with deciphering every line of every paragraph.....help us out Shakespeare). Like other pieces of Shakespeare’s work that I've read (Romeo and Juliet, A Mid Summer's Night's Dream, Macbeth), the language of the text makes one feel as if there is absolutely nothing interesting going on within these classic tales, however, once one takes the time to break down what is said and interpret the stories for themselves, the enjoyment that comes along with these tales finally can finally arrive. I was completely surprised when I not only realized how interesting Hamlet really was but also when I was able to personally draw similarities from Hamlet to other stories that I've read in the past. In a way, the story of Prince Hamlet reminds me of that of Harry Potter; sure, Hamlet isn't a British orphan who has recently discovered that he's this almighty sorcerer, however, the themes and situations that have occurred within the first act have led to me believing that subtle hints have already been placed to allow readers to know what exactly might occur as the story goes on. During Hamlet's encounter with his father's ghost, I couldn't help but feel as if the ghost of King Hamlet was speaking to his son in what sounded similar to that of "parseltongue"(as seen in the video). His father's words were very serpent-like, seeing how they left a certain taste in the air after they were spoken. The tone of the man's voice was similar to that of Lord Voldemort's whenever he would attempt to incept Harry Potter's thoughts like the snake he was, which left me wondering if this ghost was here for good reasons or for bad ones. Hamlet's past belief that his father was "so excellent a king, that was to this Hyperion...."(act one, lines 141-142) is leading him to completely feed into what this questionable ghost is saying to him instead of recognizing the facts that though this being may appear to be his father, its intentions may be far different than what his father's would have been. The text states that the ghost "speaks from underneath", and "died unaneiled" which means that it not only was uncleansed of its sins before it left the earth but also is rising from some hell like state rather than one from heaven; Hamlet prides himself in being a moral judge, almost as if it's his duty, yet is failing to truly analyze what is happening right before him just for the sake of the ghost appearing to be his father. The "parseltongue" like conversation the ghost has with Hamlet also relates to Harry Potter in such a way that it's almost used as a form of manipulation, or mind control. When Voldemort would use his serpent like voice to penetrate Harry Potter's mind he would plant seeds of thought that would occasionally leave Harry feeling as if he needed to prove something or forget his moral judgment all together. In my opinion, that is exactly what is happening between Hamlet and this ghost. The ghost says "list, list, o list! If thoudidst ever love thy dear father"(page 31) as a way of guilt tripping Hamlet into instantly feeling like his emotions towards his father weren’t pure if he doesn’t agree to do what the ghost is saying, while also stating "I find thee apt; and duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed" (page 31) as a way of making him feel unworthy of his father's past approval if he fails the with the task at hand. The manipulation, serepent-esque way of thinking, and rising from underneath all related to Harry Potter, in my opinion, which leads to me believing that this ghost is simply something that will lead to Hamlet's doom; however, the things that were said could've been some true form of motivation so that Hamlet could finally feel as if he had his father's approval to make things right. Which is it? Is the ghost good or bad? Will the “parseltongue” continue? Who knows. As Hamlet's adventure goes on, only time will tell. Ya feel me?

Invisible Man: First Impression

Ok, so Invisible Man is......weird. The novel itself is quite interesting, however, the dialogue makes the comprehension of some parts of the novel almost unbearable. When I first started reading this, I expected the book to be similar to the Warmth of Other Suns; a nicely written novel that evoked emotions of empathy towards the main character of the novel due to the unfortunate time period he was born into. The novel has similar themes, and the actual story itself makes one feel empathy for the characters in this novel after seeing the situations they've been forced into (the fight scene in chapter one reminded me on the Mandingo fighting from Django Unchained.....just the thought of it was making my skin itch. SO VIOLENT), however, the set up of the novel is, well, driving me crazy. A main problem with this book is the rambling stories the characters seem to engage in; similar to A Catcher in the Rye, the characters, in my opinion, go off into rants that actually take away from the meaning of what they're saying. It's ridiculous. I find myself actually becoming interested in the stories, yet, after around a page or so of reading I'm confused to the point where my head actually starts hurting (someone save me). For instance, Jim Trueblood’s long (and at times off topic) explanation of his life story/ current situation started off really interesting; when he tells Mr. Norton that "it was cold so all of us had to sleep together; me, the ole lady, and the gal" (page 53) I was suddenly hooked! The story seemed as if it was going to be scandalous or none the less leave some sort of an emotional impact, which it did in a way, however, when he starts mentioning waking up from dreams and his daughter reaching for him as if she is comforted by him in a fathering way after he previously stating that she "wants to tease and please a man" (page 56), I couldn't help but find myself suddenly lost and full of questions. Was his situation actually a dream? Why would his wife attempt to shoot him with a gun if the vivid situation he was describing was actually a figment of his imagination? Is Jim Trueblood a child molester or no? So many questions, so little answers!! At times, I've began to wonder if the ramble like dialogue was something that was done on purpose; Ralph Ellison more than likely knew what he was doing when he created pages filled with the dialogue of one person, right? Maybe Jim Trueblood's rant was something needed to help highlight just how "invisible" the main character truly is? Mr. Norton does "wave his hand in annoyance" (page 61) when the narrator attempts to even interrupt the very "visible" Jim Trueblood while he’s speaking....was that just by coincidence? Or is there a deeper meaning? Who knows. As the novel continues, I’m excited to see just how the narrator being invisible affects him in life, while at the same time hopefully discovering some sort of secret message in all of the ramble-esuqe rants these characters just love. Ya feel me?

Insomniac

Everyday people go through obstacles that help make up the structure of their individual lives, and whether people like it or not, these obstacles may be filled with struggles and disappointment. Sometimes these obstacles may not be obstacles that we particularly planned out for ourselves in the hopes of succeeding; however, certain things must be faced due to them being completely out of one's control. After a long hard day of school, I find myself ready to wind down and forget about the 7 hours of laborious learning I've faced throughout the day. Sure, saying that learning is laborious may seem a little dramatic, but who can blame me? Day in and day out, I come to school and learn about things that I may never end up using again for the rest of my life. Certain subjects I don't mind (anatomy, psych, and stat...........science and math are my thing ya know) while there are others I don’t exactly care for; yet there’s nothing I can do about it. As a student, I come in and learn what I'm told I need to know in order to function for the rest of my life, whether I want to engage in that particular subject or not. With the overabundance of information I take in from day to day, the idea of sleeping always seems to put a smile on my face. Sleeping is where I can rest and take my mind off things. Sleeping is where I can forget the worries and stress that arise due to my day to day activities and simply let my mind wander. Sleeping is where I can simply let my imagination take over and fill my head with vibrant dreams. Sleeping is a necessity for my sanity. If I couldn't sleep, if I couldn't fully unwind and relax after a day of hard work, I'd more than likely lose my mind. It fascinates me when others connect to one another through forms or art or literature, and one piece of poetry, by Maya Angelou, that really seems to connect with me and my deep desire/love towards the act of sleeping is called "Insomniac". The poem goes a little like this:

There are some nights when

Sleep plays coy,

Aloof and disdainful.

And all the wiles

That I employ to win

Its service to my side

Are useless as wounded pride,

And much more painful.

 

When I first read this poem, I felt an instant connection; it was as if all the feelings that were arising from this speaker due their sudden attack of insomnia were the feelings that I’ve once faced before on one of those rough nights where there is constant turning and discomfort within my own bed. Dealing with sleeping is almost as if you really are dealing with something “coy”; some nights, sleep comes instantly, almost too quickly, while others it seems as if sleep while never come about. The idea of sleep almost represents something that has a mind of its own, and there seems to be a never ending battle where you as the sleeper are playing a constant game of cat and mouse. When sleep doesn’t arise, and we’re forced to engage in a night full of insomnia, it seems as if “all the wiles” do arise and we are left to deal with the thoughts that revolve around our daily struggles. When these struggles are all we can think about, they do become “much more painful” seeing how without sleep, without that break in the day, we’d never have the chance to rest and forget about everything that’s going on around us for a couple of hours. As children, when we were given the chance to nap at school yet constantly refused and loathed the idea of going engaging slumber, we failed to realize how important sleep really is for a healthy human mind. Without sleep, people would never be able to brush their worries away and participate in the outer body experience of dreaming. Without sleep, unsettled emotions and actions driven from adrenaline would never have time to settle and hidden conflicts would arise between those all around us. Without sleep, people wouldn’t fully be able to be who they are. We need sleep, more than we’ll ever know. Ya feel me?



Nutcracker vs. Doll's House

Ahh the holiday season, isn't it simply just the best time of year? From the egg nog to the Christmas movies, from the cold air to the holiday lights, and the jolly feelings to the growing excitement towards the new year, the holiday season brings us all together while at the same time allows us to happily reflect on what this year has had to offer. Out of all the things one can love about this beloved time of year (*cough* Oscar movie's come out during this time.....WHAT WHAT), one thing I've always found myself drawn to is the Ballets that are put on downtown at the Fox Theatre. Something about Ballets repeatedly pull me in with a desire for more (along with the desire to suddenly pick up a pair of pointe shoes and become a ballerina) due to the fact that they constantly make everything seem as if it is effortless and beautiful. This previous weekend, I went to a Nutcracker performance that was by my friend's dance company, and everything about it was simply divine. From the music (I've been listening to the song that went with the "Arabian" dance nonstop for the past two days) to the beautiful costumes, everything about The Nutcracker made these dancers appear as if they were dolls that had come to life just for that one night, just for that one show. Aside from the beautiful dancing, one thing that really struck me as interesting was the fact that within this performance all of the characters finally came to life once the lights were off and the family members had gone to sleep; the doll like dancers almost represented secrets that only came about when they were protected by the shadows of the dark. Being the AP Literature student that I am *wink*, I of course began to connect these dancers, and the theme of The Nutcracker, to our most previously read story, A Doll's House. When the toys, mice, and most importantly, the Nutcracker, finally came to life and began to dance, battle, and interact with one another, I suddenly found myself recalling scenes within A Doll's House in which characters true intentions we're brought to life. Krogstad and Nora shadowed the battle of the Nutcracker and the Mouse King; both characters revealed their past doings, along with their present doings, all in an attempt to get the point across that they were fighting for their lives and were willing to battle it out to the death in order to protect the one's they loved, along with their reputation. However, once other members of the household came into room and the duo were no longer in darkness or some form of shadow to protect their secrets, the characters true intentions we're pushed aside and the two began to "put on an act"; this instantly reminded me of the doings of the Nutcracker and the Mouse King while they were in the midst of their battle: while the lights were off and the family was asleep, the characters true intentions were brought to life, yet, once morning came and people began to rise around them, the characters began to "play a role" and soon appeared to be their normal doll like/ mouse like selves again. With all this being said, I've began to wonder exactly why the idea of darkness being a safety zone for one to reveal their secrets plays such a significant role within these two stories. Why is it that these characters seemed to put on a facade in the light, yet, showed everyone their true intentions once the lights were out? Was it because they were afraid of what the light could do to them once others saw what they really were doing behind their backs? Or is the meaning something that can never fully be understood? When people have secrets, they tend to keep them in the dark, due to the fact that some are afraid of the idea of being judged or letting down those who enjoyed them as they previously were, playing the role that they previously played. These two stories significantly connect to one another because they raise the question of why some people tend to be afraid of the light, yet, feel safe in the dark. What is it about the darkness that keeps people feeling safe? Isn’t that kind of ironic? Who knows. As time goes on, maybe someday someone will discover the answer to these questions, but at the moment all one can really do is sit back and enjoy the stories that are The Nutcracker and A Doll's House. Ya feel me?

Nora vs. Newland

So, I think it's safe to say that both The Age of Innocence and A Doll's House aren’t exactly what I expected them to be. First things first, The Age of Innocence is nothing like gossip girl *sigh*! I was expecting this book to be about the scandalous lives of New York's upper East Siders with a side of sassy expeditions and nonstop privileged drama......the reality of the novel is far from that. The book not only centers around a young man who tends to be overly hypocritical of the world he comes from but also around a society in which women couldn’t do much for themselves and were afraid of being judged for going after what they truly wanted in life (Blair Waldorf aka the queen bee of Gossip Girl's Upper East Side would most definitely not approve of the weak minded ways of these women). As if the boring, slow paced plot wasn’t enough, the main character, Newland Archer, acts like a girl more than he should! Sure, he makes it clear what the role of men was supposed to be during this time period, however, he always falls back on what he says, therefore, making him fall less and less into the roll that he describes and more and more into the position of a woman. Newland is whiny, judgmental, and indecisive, yet, he continues to judge women and others around him almost as if he is so much better than them and everyone else around him. Who is he to judge? If he's aware that these are the only life values these people have ever truly known why does he feel the need to be so harsh? It's pretty clear that Newland knows what his place in society is supposed to be/ what is expected of him, however, he doesn’t know how to use his position to the best of his abilities, thus, making him unable to actually go for what he wants in life. On the other end of the novel spectrum, there’s Nora from A Doll's House. Nora is a woman who is fully aware of her place in society, as well her husband's and everyone else around her, that not only utilizes her position to help get what she wants but also attempts to take care of those that she loves, whether her methods be immoral or not. Nora makes it very clear to her audience that she is her very pleased with the basic day to day tasks that she partakes in (hence her repeatedly telling Kristine how happy she is.......we get it) and that she wants to make sure her family is happy as they enjoy the moments of the upcoming holidays, however, Nora seems to relate to Archer in the sense that she doesn't fit into all aspects of the typical gender role. Women during Nora's time period weren’t allowed to handle money in any way, shape, or form, yet Nora borrows money behind her husband’s back in order to save his life and keep her family together. Sure, she embraces her gender role when it comes to squeezing excess money out of her husband or flirting with Dr. Rank, however, her intentions seem to be more selfless seeing how her desire for money is driven by her wanting for her family to stay out of debt and live happy lives. I'm not saying Nora isn’t selfish (she is.....her encounter with Kristine was actually super annoying. Where's your sympathy Nora??) But it seems as if she, the person who more so resembles a child like doll, has more mature wants in life than Newland, the person who is seen as this adult like New York man whose desires really reflect his own selfish wants and needs. These two puzzle me because they help show the way America has always seemed to value someone’s ability based off gender while also making it clear that sometimes not fitting ones typical role can either making them stronger (Nora, in a sense) or weaker (NEWLAND). Ya feel me?

American Horror Story aka FRANKENSTEIN (round 2)

Soooo it appears as if the current season of the phenomenal show American Horror Story (honestly everyone should watch......it may have some twisted themes but overall the show is a bon a fide thriller) just cannot seem to stay away from the underlying themes and messages that were once exploited throughout Mary Shelley's wondrous novel, Frankenstein. As the season continues to move on and various characters begin to develop internally and externally, situations keep popping up that are all too similar to the various escapades that happen within Frankenstein. An episode that vividly shows a similar relationship to the story of Victor Frankenstein's creature interaction with Mr. Delacey during one of his attempts to communicate with those around him is an episode named "The Axeman Cometh". During this episode, one of the witches of the coven, the "house mother", to be exact, becomes the victim of an act of violence and has acid thrown in her face, thus leading her to become blind. This tragic incident leads to her ironically gaining true sight; things she couldn’t see before about people’s true motives and previous actions suddenly become clear whenever she touches them in even the slightest way. For instance, this particular witches’ husband has been performing acts of adultery and murder behind his naive wife back; her mother is not one to become blind to his shady motives, however, the witch herself doesn't see past his lying exterior and goes on loving him without knowing of the unfair treatment she is actually receiving. Once the witch loses her literal sight and her husband attempts to interact with her while she is in the hospital, she gains true insight into the murderous/adulterous acts he has been engaging in and finally is able to grasp onto the characters true motives. As the episode continues, the witch begins to encounter various truths she couldn't acquire for herself before; the reasoning for a young witches suffering, the previous actions of the infamous "Axeman", and the revealing of her mother's previous murderous actions towards one of the Coven's young witches are finally brought to the characters attention. With all this being said, it's clear of the ways that those who are "lacking" sight are the ones who actually can see who a person truly is compared to others around them. In Frankenstein, Victor's creature has a brief encounter with Mr. DeLacey, a blind man who is the father of a kind, unwealthy family. Though his children and others in his community previously acted unkindly or fearful towards the lost, innocent creature, Mr. DeLacey, who is unable to actually catch a glimpse of this monstrous appearance, actually takes the time to listen to what the creature has to say and get to know him for who he is on the inside. The blind witch and Mr. DeLacey represent the harsh realities that have always appeared throughout society, and still do, in relation to the way people to tend to connect those who appear to be outsiders to this type of fearful unknown. The unknown can be scary, confusing even, and when someone doesn’t have full grasp on what’s going on around them or who they're interacting with, judgment tends to rise and emotions tends to overcome people and their coping abilities. The witch refused to accept what was right in front of her when she had sight because it was an unknown she feared and didn’t wish to see; her and Mr. DeLacey's blindness to the appearance of the unknown and first instinct of simply getting a feel for this new being or truth simply for what it was shows just how lacking sight can give someone the power to see what they need to see to accomplish greater things for themselves and others around them. Will society ever stop fearing the unknown? Or is the only way someone can really find a new truth to the life around them by losing their literal sight? Who knows. Times are changing, unknowns are continuing to rise, and if people want to survive and surround themselves with those with good intentions the negative first insight people have towards the world needs to be thrown aside so that the judgment free, motive catching form of sight we all need can be attained. Ya feel me?

Innocent Grendel vs. Experienced Grendel

So, the novel Grendel, by John Gardiner, was not what I expected it to be whatsoever. Grendel, the infamous brute like creature of the epic story Beowulf, was not only surprisingly human in the way he thought, functioned, and interacted with other animal like creatures around him but also miraculously influential when it came to the idea of how one's experience can impact their mental well being into becoming something completely different from their once completely innocent self; Grendel gains experience throughout this novel, and a lot of his internal shifts from a childlike, angsty being to a matured sinister, critical, and hopeless soul can be related to the poems "The Divine Image (Songs of Innocence)" and "The Human Abstract (Songs of Experience)", by William Blake. When we first meet Grendel he seems to be completely weighed down by his past experiences, even stating that "childhood feels great at first, before one happens to notice the terrible sameness, age after age" (Gardiner 9); Grendel stating this makes is very clear that he wasn’t always this way, and leads into the idea of him suddenly shifting inside "after his fall". Grendel's "fall" was enlightenment, and the burdens that came along with being completely aware of the world around him turned him into someone who criticized those who weren't aware not because he saw them as foolish and lost, but more so because he loathed the hope and positive outlook they had for the world. Grendel is almost sorrowful for his lacking of innocence, stating that "[he] used to take pride in that- the caution of owls when [his] shape loomed in, the alarm [he] stirred in the giant northern wolves. [He] was younger then. Still playing cat and mouse with the universe" (Gardiner 10). Grendel's playing of cat and mouse with the world around him was his time of innocence; his child like encounters that allowed him to explore the world around him while also hoping to one day become one with the society around him. Blake states in "The Divine Image", "to mercy, pity, peace, and love, all pray in their distress; an to these virtues of delight return their thankfulness" to describe the lacking of awareness those who haven't been through experiences process the world around them; everything is seen as whole, and nothing is seen as a root cause to problems that lie in every corner of society. The emotions of "mercy, pity, peace, and love" being stated as one whole personified being shows how when one lives a life of innocence they, they live a life of constant optimism; these separate factors that go into creating the whole that is society are not seen as different structures but instead as something that is one being that can be used for something to grow and prosper from. The outlook of those personified emotions being one related to Grendel before his enlightenment; before his experience his fall, Grendel saw the world as a whole factor into the future meaning of the universe. His strong faith in his innocent beliefs is what eventually lead to his harsh fall into reality after his enlightenment, and shows how one attempting to be the same free spirited soul after their fall is almost impossible to accomplish. Once Grendel becomes aware, he almost becomes one with "The Human Abstract"; Blake states within this specific poem “the raven his nest had made in its thickest shade" which correlates to Grendel's transition into his experienced self. Ravens symbolize shift, metamorphosis, and transitions which happen to be exactly the things people experience once they've experienced the world. Ravens are black, mysterious creatures that tend to lurk within the world around them, and once Grendel becomes experienced he does just that. Lurks around the common people. Mopes around with what seems to be a constant black cloud of unhappiness hovering around him. Criticizes the world he once loved. With all this being said, I ask you what does it all mean? Are these two works of literature attempting to tell readers that experience/enlightenment are bad and that the innocent stages in one’s life are what's needed if one wants happiness? Or that the experience one gains through life is positive becomes it allows them to become aware of the world around them in an attempt to make themselves stronger? Who knows, really? No one really does, and it’s for that reason alone that one must prepare themselves for what’s to come after their personal "fall". Ya feel me?

Juke Box Love Song

So on a day to day basis people can sometimes tend to feel constricted within their own lives, doings, and surroundings. The pressure to exceed everyone else's expectations in order to make a name for themselves, or stand out in a crowd, can drive people to a point of insanity in which they have completely lost themselves. People fail to realize that sometimes it easiest to become one with their surroundings and embrace the community in which they come from; if a person decides to find light for their life out of their usual surroundings, there is no limit to what they can accomplish. In certain periods during American history, communities and economies have suffered harsh downfalls that eventually led to depressions unemployment. Some chose to let the downward spiral of America to defeat them down to the core, while others chose other wise and made the best out of what they had. One little area of history that has always fascinated me is the Harlem renaissance; the ability for people to create mind boggling poems, speeches, pieces of music and so on during a time of economic turmoil and international war continues to amaze me. Out of all of the poetic pieces written within this period of history (so so so so many to choose from), one that I feel really characterizes the spirit of the Harlem Renaissance is "Juke Box Love Song" by Langston Hughes; this majestic little poem goes like this:

I could take the Harlem night

and wrap around you,

Take the neon lights and make a crown,

Take the Lenox Avenue busses,

Taxis, subways,

And for your love song tune their rumble down.

Take Harlem's heartbeat,

Make a drumbeat,

Put it on a record, let it whirl,

And while we listen to it play,

Dance with you till day--

Dance with you, my sweet brown Harlem girl.

Ok first things first, this poem just embodies jazz in my opinion; the smooth transitions and clever personification Langston Hughes uses in order to make the city around him and his "brown Harlem girl" come alive is mesmerizing. But more importantly, Hughes puts forth a message that allows one to really get a feel for what the spirit of the Harlem Renaissance was all about. Hughes and his counterpart are becoming one with the city; the duo "[taking] the neon lights and [making] a crown" makes a statement that’s pretty clear: they're the king and queen. The king and queen of the night. The king and queen of the moment. Harlem is their kingdom and in that particular instant their letting their worries drift away and simply becoming one with their city. From the making of a love song out of normal city rumbles to channeling in on the heartbeat of the city, the words written by Hughes shows that the Harlem Renaissance was a time of inspiration, innovation, and the bringing together or a community. As Hughes claims he simply wants to “dance with you till day” to his Harlem girl, a moment of enlightenment arises. They dance until the next day because nothing can bring their kingdom down. They dance until the next day because the surroundings of loved ones is the main source of drive that they need. They dance until the next day because with their city by their side, there’s nothing they can’t accomplish. Ya feel me?

 

American Horror Story aka FRANKENSTEIN

Ok, so it's definitely safe to say that fall is my favorite season. Perfect temperatures, non stop sunny days, and the fresh smell of lavender in the air.....what’s not to love? Oh that's right, nothing. On top of the perfect day to day weather that gives one a warm, fuzzy feeling on the inside, the season of fall marks the period for the return of various TV shows (all of which are kind of addicting). From the Vampire Diaries (obsessed) to Grey's Anatomy (obsessssssed), to Scandal (OBSESSED) to Modern Family (you guessed it......obsessed), it seems as if every day of the week is filled with TV shows that send one's emotions onto a high speed roller coaster that seems to be never ending. Out of all of the shows that return on the air during this season, the absolute most addicting one of all is American Horror Story; this show is not only filled with dark, mysterious, and sinister story lines that make one's skin crawl (perfect show for October *cough* Halloween) but also revolves around various topics that in a way- through the twisted writings of each episode- can make one question themselves, or even their "truth", if they were put into these insane situations. The current season revolves around a coven of witches, and while watching this previous week’s episode, named "Boy Parts", I couldn’t help but recognize the similarities the doings of these witches had in relation to the novel Frankenstein. During this specific episode, two of the witches within the coven attempt to create the “perfect boyfriend” out of various body parts that once belonged to several young men that one of the witches killed. They are warned not to engage in such a task, seeing how the form of magic they’d be using would be dark magic due to the fact that they would be cheating Mother Nature and tampering with the idea of life/death. As the witches began to cast on spell on their newly sown “boyfriend”, I instantly began to see the face of Victor Frankenstein; it was as if this episode was an exact replica of the events and outcomes that happened within Frankenstein which soon led to me wondering what the significance of tampering with Mother Nature and attempting to play god really means. The young witches create their “boyfriend” and his response to his unnatural creation is similar to that of Victor’s creature; the young male is unable to speak, appears monstrous due to his new profound uneven body proportions, and even becomes violent at times due to the isolation he now faces from the rest of society. Along with this monstrous “boyfriend” suffering from the unnatural creation he did not choose to have, the witches that created him instantly flee once they realize that they’re attempt to bring someone back from the dead/create a new being failed. As all this was going on, the images of Victor Frankenstein treating his creation like some demonic monster and leaving him alone to fend for himself popped right back into my head. The relationship between American Horror Story and Frankenstein highlights the dangers that can come along with untested knowledge and the desire to play god. In both situations, the creators selfishly give “birth” to some unnatural human-esque being, without actually considering how the outcomes could affect not only society and themselves but also the creature that they actually created. So now I can’t help but wonder, why is the desire to play god so unapproved by Mother Nature? What do these similar situations tell us about the different roles humans have in relation to the functioning of the universe? Sure each of these characters engaged into the creation of these “monsters” for selfish reasons, but if they had actually succeeded would the “crime” of cheating Mother Nature actually be looked down upon? Or in the end would they actually be viewed as gods? Who knows. In the end, only more episodes of American Horror Story and other Frankenstein like stories will truly tell. Ya feel me?

Love Song vs. Winesburg, Ohio

Reality.......some of us love to embrace it while others fear of what it really means. Taking hold of one's reality can be scary; it can be full of unknowns, regrets, and unwanted uncertainty. Our pasts have helped to mold us into the beings that we are today, however, previous actions may not make some as excited to grip reality by the hands as others. The poem "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", by T.S. Elliot, and the novel Winesburg, Ohio, by Sherwood Anderson, intertwine with one another more than one may think based on the fact that they both shed light on a central theme: reality is the universal fear. Some fear reality to the point where they’re afraid to wake up (allusions of that can be found in T.S. Elliot’s poem) while others simply hide behind their "truth" in life due to the fact that its actual meaning may not be one that they were expecting. Whatever the reason, these pieces of literature help shed light on the idea that one's reality can haunt them if they don’t accept it for what it is and push to move past it.

So these two pieces of literature are obviously similar in there theme, but the way they portray this certain idea is what makes them so special. In T.S. Elliot's poem, the speaker is an old man, and alas, the same goes for Sherwood Anderson's modern novel. The speaker of Elliot's poem even describes himself as someone "with a bald spot in the middle of [his] hair", similar to Winesburg, Ohio, where the very first line of the novel describes the main character as "an old man, with a white mustache" (Anderson 3). The idea of these old men being the speaker of these works gives the writings a nostalgic feeling; their introductions set the tone for the rest of the novel and make one feel as if everything they’re saying/talking about is meant to be heard as some sort of a reflection about the many years of their existence. The writings also both make allusions to women being some form of beauty that they cannot blame for any of the doings that may have been previously done onto them; Elliot's speaker asks the question "is it perfume from a dress that makes me so digress?" while Anderson's speaker states that "the grotesques were not all horrible. Some were amusing, some almost beautiful, and one, a woman all drawn out of shape, hurt the old man by her grotesqueness" (Anderson 5). The reference to woman within these two writings sheds light on the idea of women being the central root of their internal struggles; the battle to decide whether women are a distraction keeping them from what they hope to accomplish or if they're what may have helped guide them throughout their life time is apparent and makes one question the nature of women. Each piece of writing also gives various descriptions of imagery that help make their reflections clear and analytical. Elliot's speaker begins to turn to the allusions of sirens and "human voices [waking him], and he drowns" making one question whether or not he himself is in nightmare (or maybe even lucid dreaming, there's so many different scenarios that fit....) and the idea of waking up to the less than satisfactory reality he's created for himself makes him fearful. Anderson's old man finds some form of pleasure in looking out the windows of his bedroom, and when his bed breaks, leaving him unable to participate in this activity, he becomes upset; his passion for looking out his window almost relates to him looking out into the life that was in front of him, allowing the imagery and citizens down below to help him feel as if he's regained his youth for that moment so that he can reflect on everything he's accomplished once more.

"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" and Winesburg, Ohio relate to one another in sense that focus on the idea of internal reflection and internal shifts, whether they be positive or negative. The fear of the reality these old men have come to face makes clear of the idea that sometimes the life we are living is not the one we had always wanted and that eventually it may be easier to live out our deepest desires through dreams or strong moments of lucid reflection. Ya feel me?