Poetry Assigment Questions 1-26

English O/L 1B Poetry Activity Q's 1-26
I chose Christina Georgina Rossetti (1830-1894) poem "The World". This poem reminded me of the Who song "Won't get fooled again", and also Dylan Thomas' famous poem: "Do not go gentle into that good night".

1. The speaker is the author or a younger version of the author. She is sensible and aware, probably a touch
jaded by some of the statements she makes about the world and how she feels it deceives her.
2. The author is addressing the audience. She is telling us how she sees through the world now, she is not fooled
by it or willing to accept its goodness as a balance to its horrors.
3. I liked what the author stated. I could identify with her synacism although probably not to the extent that
she expresses.
4. It is a general expression of what the world is like from day to night, day after day. She, paraphrasing,
states that the world tries to fool everyone with flowers and beauty, but at night it shows the monster that it is.
5. Reading it aloud gave it more power. It gives it greater passion, like an actor or actress giving a passionate
monologue to anyone who will listen that she will not be fooled anymore!
6. A perfect paraphrase would be to quote from the band, The Who, who stated: "Won't get fooled again!"
7. "The World", is a purposely ambiguous title. I think the author chose it to not give away the passion and
anger that she is going to reveal to the reader. And it is meant to be a revelation to some of the intended
audience, probably a younger audience, to not be so naive to miss the darkness of the world by the brightness of
some of its places, pictures, or actions.
8. She is direct, by the second line, the reader understands her view and what is most likely to come. It is a
fresh statement from the heart of the speaker. She has seen the world enough to know that she may not want to
participate anymore, not play the game that she feels she is tricked into playing or has been tricked into playing.
9. Her allusion at the end of the poem where she questions as to whether she is going to go along with life
anymore is interesting. It provokes the reader to consider her argument against the cruelty of life.
10. There is subtle ryme, and she begins three times with the opener: By day. This is not a gimicky poem, it is a
statement, a declaration.
11. By referring to the world as a monster in hiding, that one cannot see in day, but is revealed in night, could
be a figure of speech.
12. She refers to the world that: "wooes me to the outer air", saying that the world tricks her into participating
more and more against her will. She questions if the world is a friend. She is conveying that the way she has
been treated and seen people treated, that she doubts its honesty.
13. There is a subtle irony that she questions with her final lines when she asks: Is this a friend; that I should
sell My soul to her, give her my life and youth... She infers that she has a choice, that she had a choice to come
into the world in the first place? She infers that she can step out of this world and not participate, avoid the
world's tricks.
14. The tone is a declaration, a synical and passionate declaration. It is consistent in tone throughout, never
letting up in its frustration at the perceived darkness of the world.
15. In reviewing the terms, I did not think the author used any of these methods. To me it was a very straight
forward declaration with the only repetition being "By day" and this did not follow a form or method. There was
not specific spacing between the uses or pattern.
16. There are ryhmes, but they are clever and out of sequence. The second and third lines ryme, and the fourth and fifth lines ryme but they are different paragraphs but it has subtle intention. The sixth and seventh lines
ryhme and the ninth and eleventh lines ryhme. Finally she cleverly ryhmes the twelfth and final lines. The final
rhyme is the only to use the same vowel-consanant ending. All the others are words that sound similar and rely on
the reader to read with enunciation and drama!
17. The first two paragraphs seem to have the same meter of declarative statement and they end in a ryhme to
connect the two four line paragraphs together. The final paragraph breaks with the first two. Whereas the first
two kind of follow an ABAB music pattern, the final paragraph goes ABABA.
18. I think it has a pattern and works beautifully for the declarative nature of the poem.
19. I reread the poem 15-20 times and aloud just as many to make sure I caught the subtleties of speach the author
intended. Yes, a person would need to read this poem many times to catch its speed and emotion.
20. Greatly enjoyed and commiserated with the poem. I knew and recognized the frustration and rage of the author,
although not to the level of finality that the author ends on.
21. I think interpretation would be the best approach, taking all the symbolism of the world in the day and night.
How she refers to its different aspects and tricks.
22. It would have been interesting to know what the authors background was, how she lived. That the poem is
written by a woman in the 1800's, I imagine that a lot of her alliteration is to how she is treated in society as a
woman in the 1800's. The very personal and bubbling frustrations she must have had building inside, as she is
obviously an intelligent woman by the creativity of the writing.
23. Historical information on the writer and the times and location would be important and reinforce the
frustration of what this writer must have felt.
24. I understood how this author could see the world as a cruel place, that gives you a smile in the day and a
growl in the night. Life can be frustrating and for some people the frustration can begin to seem intentional,
planned, and therefore some paranoia, as the author may be to slipping towards, can begin to cloud ones view of the
world. I can identify with that, but we all must fight on and appreciate the victories life has to offer.
25. The last lines of the poem, where the author questions whether she will accept this lifes challenges any
further, confirm my interpretation of the authors intent to make a declaration of not being fooled anymore.
26. To take the words of the author as poetic declaration, a statement to the world that she will not take it
anymore.

NRJ#2 Heart of Darkness: Madness/ Insanity

First off, I enjoyed Heart of Darkness, and equally all the historical records that are included in the Norton Edition. The obvious theme other than exposure of the abuses of colonialism and imperialism was insanity or madness. Conrad, gives us many examples of it in the book. First we have Kurtz who has broken from reality and done unspeakable things in the jungle. We also have the Russian who actually idealizes Kurtz even though Kurtz attempted to kill him. We have the manager and the accountant who are only interested in the their self interests/ greed and unconcerned with the carnage around them. Lastly we have the natives who attempt to stop Marlow from taking Kurtz from the jungle. Also we have Kurtz's intended who thinks him a genius.

The first example of absolute insanity or madness that I got the greatest laugh from was a statement at the end of the book by Kurtz's intended:

'And his example,' she whispered to herself. 'Men looked up to him--his goodness shone in every act. His example...(Conrad, 76)'

It is an amazing statement. She is obviously week of the mind and unwilling to accept what Kurtz was and capable of. Secondly, the Harlequin or the Russian who works for Kurtz and is kind of a fool for Kurtz. The Russian was nearly killed by Kurtz, yet he idolizes him and tells Marlow the following:

'You don't know how such a life tries a man like Kurtz,' cried Kurtz's last disciple. 'Well, and you?' (says Marlow) 'I! I! I am a simple man. I have no great thoughts. I want nothing from anybody. How can you compare me to...(58)?'

The Russian probably from the stress of his situation has lost his bearings. He is unable to see that Kurtz has harmed him, has killed and robbed the jungle.

With these characters and Marlow himself, I think Conrad was trying to say that even when people commit unspeakable acts or see the unspeakable they somehow or someway justify these events. The Russian by thinking that he himself is a small man and Kurtz a great man. Kurtz's intended justifies it by seeing his actions as genius as well. Both completely ignore the real result of the Genius. It could probably be argued that both suffered post traumatic stress and in order to deal with it they condoned it out of a need for survival. They may have even blocked some of it from their mind at least in the context of how it actually happened. I believe this is what Conrad states many times with how all the people seem to miss what has been done or at least look past the unholy to get at what they need.

DRJ #4 Hamlet Act V

My initial reaction to this final act is: Wow. There is so much pain, irony, and loss. The King, in the book and in the Brannagh movie, displays the greatest grief when he watches his wife lift the cup and drink. He has lost everything when he watches her drink the poison. It was a very powerful moment and probably the most powerful lesson in the novel. Shakespeare shows us that if we covet something and then gain it by nefarious means, eventually, sooner rather than later, we will pay a price. Laertes learns this lesson as well, with his desire for revenge, on Hamlet, ultimately getting nothing for his efforts. Fortinbras, the most patient and cunning in the end gets everything.

Horatio, Hamlet's best friend, really does seem to me to be a genuine and honest human being. He tells Hamlet in the beginning of the ghost and helps him at every step along the way toward revenge. In reality, Horatio's blind loyalty is Hamlet's biggest blindspot. Perhaps if Horatio had been the greater kind of friend who could tell Hamlet that revenge may not be the best choice. If Horatio had refused to participate in the revenge plot, and instead counseled his best friend to choose the more magnanimous position of forgiveness, no one would die in the end. I don't think Horatio a sycophant, but, he was too loyal to Hamlet, and Hamlet needed someone to stand up to him. Hamlet needed someone to be the voice of reason, pointing out the long term rather than the shortness and futility of revenge.

The theme for this ending chapter is the futility of revenge. Both Laertes and Hamlet who wanted revenge end up dead along with all of their families, and the dethronement of the Danish crown to Fortinbras. Fortinbras the only of the three who had the long term vision to see what could be gained by not seeking direct revenge. Instead he entered into treaty with the King and gained the time and ability to move his armies into Denmark untouched. Fortinbras saw the bigger picture, is the big winner and yet has the smallest part in the play. Again he is the only person who did not seek direct revenge against an individual and yet ends up with the state.

What would the play have been like if Horatio had been a better friend to Hamlet? What would the play have been like if Fortinbras had had a greater part in the story; more background? Finally what if the story had divided into three parts, each about the three different sons?

DRJ #3 Hamlet Act 3

This was a great chapter, some very rich monologues by Hamlet and some very clever plays on words by him as well. He is intentionally harsh but sly of tongue to his mother, Ophelia, and especially to the King and Polonius. I love the use of the play, The Mouse Trap, to put in the face of the King his own actions. The play is really a mirror for the King to see himself and feel his guilt of breaking up a marriage, of killing his brother and King. Most of all the play is Hamlet's chance for certain confirmation of the King's guilt and therefore his greenlight to seek revenge. This moment is where the play slopes downward into blood and tragedy; the body count begins in this act with the murder of Polonius.

Hamlet is a sharp youth, and depending on the information available in the Mish-Mash, he is probably about 20 years old. He is very astute for that age. His plan to use a play to Catch the consience of a king, is worthy of a chess master. It is many moves ahead of his enemies. He follows this with his own knowledge that they will send him away. He decides that he will play along and do as the King wishes. He also convinces his Mother to defer the wishes of the King after he gives her a viscious monologue about the previous king's regal nature and the current kings commoner stature. He also kills Polonius, the one person the king leans on for everything and his only advisor. In doing this he isolates the king.

I think Act 3 is about conscience. Hamlet has finally decided to seek revenge and thus abandons his conscience, which he had considered to be cowardly. Hamlet also brings the King to his conscience as well as his mother to hers. He uses the play to shine the light of truth in the face of the king. He uses a powerful speech to bring his mother to her conscience. Lastly he kills Polonius and in turn destroys the woman he loves, Ophelia. This action will eventually bring Hamlet back to his conscience when later he sees the burial of Ophelia. In this third act, however, Hamlet has decided that revenge is greater and more important than conscience, than doing right.

What do you think the ghost means when he says to Hamlet: O! step between her and her fighting soul; Conceit in weekest bodies strongest works: Speak to her, Hamlet. What is it he means to tell Hamlet?

DRJ #2 Hamlet Act 2

This was a fun chapter to read. We see Hamlet frustrated and wandering aimlessly, or so it seems to everyone around. He is really planning in his head. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arrive, at the behest of the king, and tell Hamlet of the coming actors group, he seems to immediately spring forth with a plan. A pretty ingenius plan at that; put in the face of the murderer king his own actions using the actors. We earlier see in the chapter that the noble Polonius is not such a nice guy afterall when he sends Reynoldo to follow his son and try to get him into mischief and therefore back home. Most of the characters are plotting in this chapter all motivated by self interest.

Ophelia, is one character who really does not seek to plot against anyone, however, she agrees to help her father in trying to determine what is at the heart of Hamlet's perceived madness. Shakespeare really makes her such a week character. This job is not something she is ready for or capable of doing. Conspiring is just not in her, she loves Hamlet, and does not seem to be able to get from him what others want to know, chiefly the King. She also cannot stand up to her father and tell her that she loves Hamlet and that he loves her back. Her father does not even think her worthy of a Prince as he states to Ophelia: Lord Hamlet is a prince, out of thy star.

This chapter was definately the setup for what is to come. Hamlet is now decided that he will pursue the King and make sure the ghost of his father was not the devil in his mind toying with him. The King has now begun to bring in people, Rosencrantz and Gulderstern, to try to find the root of Hamlet's madness. Polonius is manipulating his daughter to find out what is going on with Hamlet and also sending Reynoldo to watch and lure his own son into mischief. The most significant thing that occurs is this: the King agrees to allow Fortinbras to move his armies through Denmark for war against the Polak. Obviously the whole Hamlet issue has blinded the King to the foolishness of the above agreement. No country ever allows their potential enemy to move his armies into his land unopposed. So in essence while everyone intrigues against everyone else the house of Denmark is on its way to being overun without a fight.

Had Shakespeare made Ophelia a stronger character, one who could have stood up to her father and up to Hamlet, might Hamlet have come out of his funk and been able to see the foolishness of the revenge he sought. Second question, is the King almost a comical but profound prophecy of what Neville Chamberlain did when making an agreement with Hitler just before the outbreak of World War 2?

DRJ #1: Hamlet, Act 1

I found Polonius to be like my grandfather. He was always trying to impart his experiences in life to us. Polonius' speech to Laertes really reinforced some of the statements I remember hearing when I was younger: Neither a borrower, nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry... He, Polonius, was caring of his children, and especially in trying to impart what he knew of their nature that they themselves did not quite understand. Of course we learn later that some of Polonius actions are for his own benefit, but next DRJ for that...

I thought Act 1 was all about setting. We are given Hamlet and his suffering, his frustration and rage, with his monologue in the hall after all have left him. We are given Polonius and his caring for his children; his warnings to Laertes and his warnings to Ophelia of her involvement of Hamlet. We also see Hamlet's reaction to his father's ghost and the setting of the desire for revenge in Hamlet. All these give us the hint that something bad is coming, it is brewing, and Hamlet is going to set it loose.

Why do you think Claudius actually wants to see Hamlet stay rather than go back to school at Wittenburg. With the grief surrounding Hamlet, and not seeming to subside, would it not have been a better move to send him back to school and get him away from the scene of the crime?

SSRJ #3 I Am The Grass by Daly Walker

The graphic descriptions of Daly Walker's own actions in Vietnam stunned me. It really kept me from being able to focus on the rest of the story during my first reading of it. The book Vietnam: A History, by Stanley Karnow had many stories of horrific events but none were first hand accounts or confessionals like the brief descriptions Walker gives. I think Walker, needed to give his accounting of his actions to free himself however the actions he described make me wonder if he had to seek legal council to confess his actions.

The setting in this story, the country of Vietnam, is Walker's antagonist. He acknowledges how his shocking actions and experiences upon returning from Vietnam kept him from accomplishing much in the first couple of years after his time in Vietnam: "After I was discharged from the Army, I went home to Chicago and hung around there for a couple of years, haunted by memories and nameless faces. Devoid of hope or expectations, smoking dope and dreaming dreams of torment, I drifted from one meaningless endeavor to the next"

(D. Walker, paragraph 3). Later on in the story, after repairing the cleft-lipped children successfully, Walker is feeling a little atonement and goodwill. This goodwill and atonement will be short lived when he cannot repair the thumbless hands of his trips sponsor Dihn. The failure to graft toes onto Dihn's hand, so he might help his own countrymen again brings Walker back to his antagonist when he states: "God damn this dirty little Job of a country. Nothing turns out right here" (D. Walker, paragraph 140). There is also an unstated or indirect irony that Dihn brings up about Americans versus Vietnamese. Walker states: "Dihn believes that our lives move in circles, repeating themselves endlessly like the four seasons" (D. Walker, paragraph 135). Walker does not believe this, he sees his life on a straight path with a finality at the end of the path. The irony of the beliefs is that after Walker's experience in Vietnam he was completely unmotivated and angry about what he had done and what he felt Vietnam had done to him. He let those feelings control him and in turn wasted significant time. Later on though, Vietnam became a motivator for him. His desire to atone for his actions and to end his pity for himself led him to become a surgeon and begin helping people. This is the great irony of Walker's life. Vietnam was traumatic and devastating for himself and because of himself. In the end it becomes an endless reminder of the good he is capable of and must continue to do.

Two questions for everyone: Do you think Walker spoke to legal counsel before he wrote this story with his confessed actions? How do you think Walker's family felt upon reading his story?

SSRJ #2: Mines by Susan Straight

Susan Straight's short story, Mines, reminded me of my own mother and how tough and tiring it must have been being a single Mother of two boys. Like Straight's main character, Clarette, my mother also had to work a paying job and then work some more when she got home. In Mines, Clarette narrates what she sees and thinks during a short period of a couple days. She is tired at work and even more exhausted at home. In one passage referring to doing laundry she states: "Sometimes they take so long to dry I just sit down on the floor in front of the dryer and read the paper, cause I'm too tired to go back out to the couch. If I sit down on something soft I'll fall asleep, and the jeans wil be all wrinkled in the morning" ( Straight, paragraph: 102). I can recall how my brother and I would give my Mother a hassle if she asked us, politely, to get our laundry out of the dryer and fold it. Clarette, never asks the children to do the laundry she just does it. She takes on all the challenges of her life, including watching her nephew in the Youth Authority where she works, and does not complain. She just accepts her place with a resigned, silent, cynacism.

Clarette works in the Youth Authority as a guard. She describes in cool terms the tatoo's of all the different ethnic gangs. She is very resigned to their fate, referring to them as fools. I do not think she means it in a hateful way, I think Clarette sees them as confused, a product of their enviroment, but also as individuals who need to wake up and see the reality around them. Clarette is just tired, and she just can't bring herself to get too involved but in an ironic twist she will get hurt and cut, stopping a fight at the end of the story. Immediately after this event she goes back into her monitoring station, sits down and begins looking for a Upright piano for her son. This is a perfect snapshot of Clarette, she does not dwell on what has just happened to her, or how she might have gotten hurt, she just continues working. If Clarette were like most people she probably would have quit, sought some sympathy which would certainly be reasonable, and get some rest. This is the irony of her life, she is tired, but she cannot stop.

My Mother struggled with trying to be a Mom and also trying to have her own life, more specifically, she could not find someone else to share her life with on a romantic level. Clarette's story makes me wonder if she could ever find someone to spend her life with on a personal level. Can someone like Clarette who obviously loves her children more than herself, who watches the results of failed homes on a daily basis, ever loosen her grip on her personal responsibilities and have her own life?

SSRJ#1 The Story of an Hour, by Kate Chopin (Don Wallin)

I laughed at the end of the story by Kate Chopin, not at the irony of the husband coming home alive and therefore causing the heart attack of Mrs. Mallard, but that it kind of seemed predictable. I found it predictable by two clues: first the title, The Story of an Hour, obviously tells the reader that this is a snapshot of time, especially when looking at someones life. Secondly, the details that are given about Chopin being in the room alone are a setup to the only ending the story could have: "the tops of trees were all aquiver with the new spring life", and "There were patches of blue sky showing here and there...Chopin wants us to understand that this lady finally feels alive, possibly for the first time in her life, and of course feels, "free, free, free", now that she is a widow. The story is kind of a joke, one that has a much larger setup in the beginning to get you to the punchline in the end, which is Mrs. Mallard dying on the stairs upon seeing her repressor arrive home alive. The second part of the joke being that everyone assumes she died of, "the joy that kills". The story could not end any other way than with a satirical irony.

Overall, I liked the reading. I enjoy irony especially when set in a historical setting, although we really do not know what year this takes place in, it would seem to be set in the late 1800's privledged society.

To my fellow critical thinkers: What if we had been give detail from Mr. Mallard's side? Details of his ride home on the train, possibly dreading arrival home to Mrs. Mallrd, maybe he feels just as trapped in their victorian society or marriage as Mrs. Mallard? Or what if the story had gone on and now we hear his thoughts and relief that his wife has passed on and he is "free, free, free", while everyone attempts to console him?

Hello fellow critical thinkers of English 1B O/L

Hello to all, this is my first blog so short but sweet. I love to read and write; my favorite authors are Jack Kerouac, Tom Clancy, and John Steinbeck. I am looking forward to reading Hearts of Darkness, if we are required to read it(?) and looking forward to the challenge of this class.