11
May
2009
Drugs are a recurring motif in Ginsberg’s Howl. They are important to Ginsberg because many of the “best minds” happen to take drugs. Over the course of the poem, the motif takes on different meanings and becomes infused into various, at times conflicting, circumstances and images. Ginsberg associates the use of drugs, sometimes referred to as “hallucinating,” with dreamy, supernatural visions. He also links the use of drugs with modes of transportation. Though Ginsberg develops this kind of Romantic impression of drug use, he also juxtaposes it with harsh, heartbreaking reality. As Howl progresses, Ginsberg transforms drugs from a positive stimulation of the imagination into suppression of the body and mind, reducing the self to nothing, which is reflected through the absence of the motif towards the end of the poem.
-dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
looking for an angry fix
Ginsberg explains that the “best minds” are those in search for an “angry fix,” aggressively seeking out for drugs, desperately wanting to immerse themselves in its effects. Conventionally, society condemns drugs, and we are taught that drugs are bad and will ruin your life. However, Ginsberg would disagree and rank drug-users among the very best of minds. To Ginsberg, drug-users have certain insights that “regular” people don’t have. They see the world in a different light. Many of them are driven to take drugs because of their dissatisfaction of their situations, whether they are bored of it or want to escape their harsh reality. They’ve seen the extremes, the best and the worst, of what the world has to offer, but they want more than what’s presented in front of them. Ginsberg extols drug-users because they’re not complacent with society at hand, they question it. They’re experimental and willing to try new things, unconventional things, things that society deems as “bad.”
-who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat
Up smoking the in the supernatural darkness…
-who passes through universities with radiant cool eyes
hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-like tragedy…
-with dreams, with drugs, with waking nightmares, al-
cohol and cock and endless balls
-who copulated ecstatic and insatiate with a bottle of
beer a sweetheart a package of cigarettes….
on the wall with a vision of ultimate cunt
Ginsberg romanticizes drug-use by interfusing it with a supernatural, dream-like world and fantastical visions. Drugs seem to provide a portal into an alternate realm, one that goes beyond the presented world. They allow for the distortion of reality, making the world appear more than what it is. Getting high and smoking makes the dull, dreary night turn into one of “supernatural darkness.” Drugs allow for a certain state of body and mind, a certain kind of pleasure, or a “vision of ultimate cunt,” an extreme form of ecstasy, a fulfillment of desire. They open up the mind and let one tap into their imagination to create a world of their own-making, giving drug use a Romantic quality. Ginsberg even makes reference to the Romantic with his reference to the poet William Blake (Blake-like tragedy). Drugs and dreams seem to go hand-in-hand. Nonetheless, though drugs allow one to have these visions and dreams, they don’t wholly fulfill one’s dreams and desires because its effects are only temporary and ultimately one has to deal with reality.
-who chained themselves to subways for the endless
ride from Batter to holy Bronx on benzedrine
until the noise of wheels and children brought…
-who lit cigarettes in boxcars boxcars boxcars racketing
Through snow toward lonesome farms in grand-
Father night
-who walked all night with their shoes full of blood on
the snowbank docks waiting for a door in the
East River to open to a room full of steamheat and opium
In these instances, we see that Ginsberg relates drugs with various modes of transportation, such as taking the subway, riding on a boxcar, and walking. This makes sense because drugs are used as means to escape, to be transported into a different place. Though drugs can be used as a vehicle towards pleasure, eventually one has to deal with the cold and cruel world of reality. One can’t be forever high on Benzedrine because there is the “noise of wheels and children” to interrupt their blissful state. As one is lighting a cigarette for relief, they are passing by a lonesome farm. One is yearning for a room of warmth and opium, but has to walk “all night with their shoes full of blood” to get to that point. No matter the amount of drugs you take or how high you are, ultimately, you’ll have to be brought down to reality and have to deal it.
-who got busted in their pubic beards returning through
Laredo with a belt of marijuana for New York
-who burned cigarette holes in their arms protesting
The narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism
Ginsberg uses the motif of drugs to criticize some of our social institutions. He puts a humorous twist into smuggling drugs with the description of the “pubic beards.” He is parodying the law, and mocking law enforcement. Ginsberg uses drugs as a symbol and form of protest against the system, as protesters burn “cigarette holes in their arms,” creating the violent image of a scar. He also describes Capitalism as a “narcotic tobacco haze,” insinuating that it is not any better than a drug-induced dream, that it is an illusion, an idealistic vision. Here, we see that Ginsberg is taking his previously positive connotations of drugs and twisting it to show just how twisted the system can be. He takes society’s negative notions of drugs and infuses it into the establishments of that very society.
-and who were given instead the concrete void of insulin
Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psycho-
Therapy occupational therapy pingpoing &
amnesia
In the second part of the poem, we see that Ginsberg continues on with this negative implication of drugs. Initially, Ginsberg was building up the use of drugs, empowering it, establishing it as a kind liberation from the constraints of society. But here, Ginsberg turns everything around by conveying how society takes this form of escape and pleasure and turns it into measures of repression, implying just how cruel and unrelenting society can be. In Ginsberg’s mind, society dulls you down and forces you to conform, resorting to unconventional methods, the very methods that they condemn. Oh, the irony!
-…nothing but a hopeful little bit of
hallucination
-Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies!
gone down the American river!
Towards the end of the second part of Howl, we see the presence of the motif start to dwindle. The last mention of drugs are the hallucinations “gone down the American river!” From that point on, Ginsberg emphasizes the loss of drugs and ability to have these drug-induced dreams, these hallucinations, with the absence of any mention or reference of it in the rest of the poem. Moloch, or society’s conventions and restraints, have killed the best minds by taking away their drugs, their way of using their creativity and going into altered states.
In a way, druggies aren’t that much different from many of the great minds, such as the great Romantic poets. William Wordsworth used nature to change his state of mind. John Keats wanted to leave this horrid world with the nightingale. In a way, they’re the same. They recognize the fallacies, the depths, and the darkness of the world, and want to escape that, tapping into unexplored areas of the mind and hoping to catch sight of an otherworldly beyond.
Posted under Uncategorized Tags: drugs, Ginsberg, Howl, Romantic
6
May
2009
Loyalty is a crucial element in Arthur Miller’s A View from the Bridge.
From the get-go, we see the importance of loyalty and the troubles that arise if one does not abide by it. When Catherine questions how to explain the presence of the two submarines, Eddie and Beatrice enlighten her with story of Vinny Bolzano, the kid who snitched on his uncle to the Immigration. The purpose of this story is to show the consequences of disloyalty and breaking trust, and to foreshadow what happens with Eddie’s own situation. Because Vinnie betrayed his family’s trust, he is punished by members of his own family with a harsh beating. Eddie mentions, “You’ll never see him no more…” From that we can infer either that he was banished or he was left for dead, the only two results that can come out of disloyalty. Vinnie’s family feel disgraced because his actions don’t just affect the family, they affect the whole community.
In the blue-collar, ethnic community depicted in Miller’s play, loyalty means everything. Loyalty is what keeps the community together, it is what allows the community to survive. The community appears to rely on a system of favors, where one family could depend on another for assistance, whether it be offering shelter or providing a job. In order for the community to execute that system, there must be trust between the families within the community. In one of the pieces comes off, if a family or an individual from a family happens to break that trust, then the whole system falls, the whole community is affected. To uphold the system, the community must then get rid of those faulty pieces, those people who will snitch or don’t have loyalty for the community. Basically, it’s all for one, and one for all. An individual’s decisions of loyalty affect the community as a whole, so in Eddie’s community, one has to always keep that in mind.
Loyalty becomes a difficult value for Eddie once he starts to put his own interests and desires before those of the group, both his family and the community. Eddie’s jealousy and possessiveness of Catherine is what ultimately drives him towards betrayal. It consumes him to the point of irrationality, where he is willing to forfeit his name, his reputation, his family, in fact his whole life just to keep his grasp of Catherine. Like Vinnie, Eddie ends up committing the ultimate act of betrayal by calling the Immigration. By calling Immigration, Eddie is practically committing suicide because there is no way he can go back to living his normal life and be part of the community. Once you break that trust, break that bond, there is no coming back into the circle. It is Eddie’s egotism and selfish ways that pit his family and community against him, and eventually what leads to his death. In the end, he becomes responsible for his own death, both literally and figuratively.
Loyalty was an especially touchy subject in Arthur Miller’s time. The 1950s was the age of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Miller’s activity in leftist causes pitted him as a suspect. Also, during his court appearance, Elia Kazan happened to call out Miller. Loyalty to the country was of great importance. Once that came into question, one’s reputation, livelihood, and status as a citizen came into jeopardy.
I can’t recall a moment where my notion of loyalty has ever been tested to that extent. However, I can understand that kind of community depicted in the play. My family and I immigrated here to the bay area when I was three years old. We came here legally, though, since my parents both had their green cards. We started out living in the “in-law” space of my uncle’s house. I know many other Filipino families who started off the same way. There was this similar sense of community, where there was trust and reliance upon others for assistance. As incoming immigrants, it was crucial to be included in this community in order to survive and make it here in America.
Posted under Uncategorized
29
April
2009
I have a problem with the term “primitive.” For one, it seems to promote a sense of superiority, that one lifestyle is “better” than another. Also, the term implies a sort of proscribed antiquity, insinuating that all are supposed to conform to a certain way of life, particularly towards the modern lifestyle.
In “Indian Camp,” Hemmingway provides a seemingly typical depiction of Native Americans, as “primitive” nature-dwellers. The Native Americans are lodged deep within the wilderness, away from modern civilization. Nick, his father, and Uncle George must even travel by boat in order to reach their destination, emphasizing the separation between the physical locations, but also internal dispositions, as well. The reader immediately begins to associate the Native Americans with the natural world, as the narrator describes the way leading to the Indian Camp: “… into the woods and followed a trail that led to the logging road that ran back into the hills.” The narrator continues to describe their lodgings as “shanties.” When one thinks of shanties, usually, minimal, dilapidated shacks come into mind. Here, the reader is presented with an image of deterioration, a kind of regression.
Though, in the storry, the Native American lifestyle is represented as one that is simple and primitive, ultimately, the Native Americans are more authentic than their advanced counterparts. They are authentic, in terms of genuineness and unaffectedness.
The doctor is an interesting character. He seems to be a practical man of technicality and science. Usually, science is associated with authenticity because of its reliance on fact and visible evidence. The doctor uses his scientific knowledge to comprehend the world around him. The problem with this is that he becomes a detached observer, looking upon things in an experimental manner. He fails to recognize the sensations of an object or the feelings a person may have. Take for instance, the doctor’s comment on the wife’s screaming: “But her screams are not important. I don’t hear them because they are not important.” What Nick’s father is actually doing is that he’s pretending to not hear the screams, pretending that the pain doesn’t exist. He sacrifices the notion of real emotion in the name of science.
The husband’s views are directly opposed to that belonging to the doctor. The husband has been there longer to witness and endure his wife’s delivery. He has heard the loud, piercing screams for days on end. He can’t pretend to not hear it like the doctor. The husband identifies so much with the pain of his wife that he can no longer bear it himself, and decides to end his own life. In one way, suicide is an act that incites the questioning of logic and rationale. On the other hand, under these circumstances, the husband’s reaction makes sense, compared to the doctor’s response of artificial response towards emotion. Compared to the doctor, the husband seems to have more of a genuine reaction towards his wife because it is more sincere and real, as he recognizes that the emotion actually exists.
One can also gauge authenticity through the interactions between the characters. The interaction between Nick and his father seems to be quite contrived. The way in which the doctor communicates to Nick appears to follow a certain type of formality, being too aware of his words, and wanting to make a certain impression upon Nick. By talking like this, the doctor forfeits his personality and doesn’t get to truly express himself, his real self. Conversely, the Native American interactions are unaffected. They let it all out. From the young Indian laughing and smiling to the pregnant wife screaming her lungs out. Through their interactions, the Native Americans express themselves in a genuine fashion.
Going back to my first point, for the most part, the term “primitive” is used in a derogatory manner. Rather than perceiving or describing a lifestyle as “primitive,” perhaps one can see it, instead, as just another type of lifestyle among the variety.
Posted under Uncategorized
29
April
2009
Dear Friend,
Today, I have witnessed the most exquisite spectacle at the 69th Regiment Armory on Lexington Avenue. I found this exhibition to be quite stirring because it features art that is unprecedented. Surely, this is the sign of the times. I feel like this show is on the cusp of something new, something great, a movement towards modernity. You may ask, “What makes this stuff modern?” Well, my friend, let me elucidate.
First of all, “modernists are interested in how our perception and consciousness work, rather than how the world works.” A fine example of this would be Gallery O, featuring French Paintings, presenting the movement called Impressionism. These paintings seem to be more concerned with the overall effects rather than details or an accurate portrayal. These artists take a realistic, everyday occurrence of modern life and place it under a different spectrum. Take for instance, Seurat’s Les Poseuses, where the artist depicts a scene of women in the process of removing and/or changing their clothes. The picture isn’t crisp and clear, in fact, it’s quite vague and fuzzy. This is due to Seurat’s utilization of the technique called Pointillism, where small distinct points create an impression of a larger picture. In order to discern the picture, one must rely on their perceptive ability to mix the spots together. With this picture, Seurat challenges our eyes and our mind. His focus is, not to recreate a scene, but rather, recreate a certain perception of the scene.
Oh, friend, let me tell you about Gallery I! It was quite the popular exhibit. Many packed inside just to get a glimpse of the “Chamber of Horrors.” One painting in particular caught the eye of the audience. It was Duchamp’s Nude Descending Stair case. I guess I can understand why many might find it so scandalous. Based on the title alone, one would expect an illustration of the human form, but this portrayal was anything but that. Duchamp takes the idea of the body, but deconstructs it into various shapes, making it an indiscernible entity. The artist takes a familiar concept, the body, and warps and distorts it into something completely different. In general, people are afraid of what they don’t know, so I can see why many might be so appalled by the painting. But, I actually find this piece intriguing. One can contrast this to Henri’s Figure in Motion in Gallery N, another painting about the human body, and see the disparity between the two conceptualizations.
Another important idea about modern art is its trickiness, requiring the audience to do work of interpretation. In Gallery H, one can find Brancusi’s Sleeping Muse. When I came to this piece, I had no idea what to make out of it, considering that I wasn’t given much to work with. This sculpture is quite minimalistic, consisting of a plain, white rectangular block and a head with the vague carvings of a face on top of it. From the white color to the simple shapes, the artist provides us with a nearly blank template. We, as the interpreter, must try to fill in the gaps ourselves and bestow our own meaning upon it.
Posted under Uncategorized
13
April
2009
(Sorry for the tardiness of this entry. Better late than never.)
This is to Drouet, that silly little drummer. Did you actually think that you would’ve been able to hold onto Carrie in the way you proceeded? All those times you were away for business, while surreptitiously wooing and rendezvousing with other naïve members of the opposite sex, did you actually think that Carrie would stay at home idly, like a dog, obediently waiting for its master? No.
It’s somewhat a shame that you had to find out about the affair with Hurstwood like this. However, it’s partly your own fault. Your dishonest, shallow, and conceited ways have landed you in this position. That pathetic promise of marriage was nothing more than a fallacy. Sure, you might’ve helped her out a lot, but Carrie is a lot smarter than you take her for.
Your affection has only rekindled because of her role in “Under the Gaslight.” Your desire was spurred only because the crowd loved her. You’ve see her in a different light only because others have began to take notice. You should’ve appreciated what you had all along.
You are standing there, confronting Carrie, finally giving her attention. Now, it is too late. She is moving on to better things. This is what happens you are idle and rest on your laurels. You are going to lose her. If only you had showed this amount of passion earlier. You had a wonderful woman in your grasp. In this relationship, both of you have wandered about, there really was no aim to it. But now, Carrie is drifting away for good.
Posted under Uncategorized
13
March
2009
The ending of “The Yellow Wallpaper” poses as a bittersweet moment for our female narrator, as the scene represents both victory and defeat. On one hand, she can claim victory because she has beat the system. Coming from a world of empirical rules and Victorian tradition, the narrator has found a way to escape from the suppressive domination. She uses her creativity and imagination to break free from the imposed confinements by creating an alternative condition, one of her own making, fulfilling her own desires. She’s in control, not her husband, authorities, or society at large. However, the scene also represents defeat because her wild imagination has taken her too far off the deep end. Her mind has wandered so far off, that it would be difficult to take any kind of part in her world of origin. It’s fine to use creativity to a certain extent, but one must be able to stay grounded, and still be connected to humanity. One might delve so deep into their own alternative world to the point that they won’t be able to relate to anybody. Yes, art is a form of personal release and escapism, but what good can it do if not shared with others. In the end, the narrator loses because she does get a little crazy, but, I believe, to a greater extent, she loses also because she was unable to generate a connection or share her art with others. Though she is liberated from her oppressive world, her art is still kept in captivity.
Posted under Uncategorized
9
March
2009
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant –
Immediately, the reader gets a good sense of what the poem is about with this first line. “Tell” and “Truth” are capitalized, signifying their pertinence. In what sense is ED using the word “all?” The word “all” can be taken as either a noun or an adjective. If taken as a noun, “all” is referring to a collective, telling everyone. If taken as an adjective, “all” means telling the truth in its entirety, the whole extent of it. I’m also wondering, in what sense is ED using “slant?” Basically, a slant is a slope; however that can imply a number of things. In one sense, slope can be thought of as a quantity, an incremental gradation. On the other hand, slope can also denote an inclination towards a certain direction, and if taken in a figurative sense, imply the possession of a certain bias. Using the former meaning of slant, ED is advising to tell the truth in quantities. Using the latter meaning, the reader is presented with a paradox. Truth is universally accepted fact, reality, actuality. Slant, as pertaining to bias, is personal, an individual opinion, not representative of the whole. Therefore, Truth is unparallel with slant. The language here is very ambivalent, so it’s hard to say what ED is exactly suggesting.
Success in Circuit lies
In this line, yet again, we see that ED capitalizes two words, Success and Circuit. Also, ED’s language, again, is ambiguous. In what sense is ED using “lies?” Is she using lies as an object, as a type of falsehood, with Circuit being its adjective? Or is she using lies as a verb, meaning resting upon or existing? In what sense is ED using “Circuit?” The obvious literal sense is circuit as a circumference, containing a line of limit. Circuit could also be referring to the court circuit. In court, we are supposed to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Could this be a criticism of the justice system? Or perhaps the court circuit is used as a metaphor? Going back to the literal sense, of circuit as limit, we can interpret the meaning as one is successful through the telling of limited or contained lies.
Too bright for our infirm Delight
ED reaches out to the senses of the body, particularly our sense of vision, using light as a metaphor for truth. Telling all the truth would be an overextension of the senses, it would be “too bright”. It’s interesting how ED juxtaposes “infirm” with the capitalized “Delight.” Here, ED emphasizes the fragility of the state of our “Delight,” or happiness. Our “Delight” is very vulnerable; the smallest nudge can throw the balance into disarray. Telling the whole truth has the power to knock off the balance of our “Delight.”
The Truth’s superb surprise
Here, Truth is capitalized, again. What is this “surprise” of which ED speaks? I wonder why ED uses “superb” as the adjective to describe this “surprise?” The word “superb” usually has positive connotations. His word choice in this line confuses me because it seems that ED has been portraying “Truth” as a potentially harmful entity, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. ED rhymes surprise with lies, from one of the previous lines. There is some sort of relationship between these lies (or the act of lying) and the mentioned surprise.
As Lightning to the Children eased
ED continues the conceit of truth as light, by using the image of lightning. Interesting choice. Lightning is a powerful thing, with the capitalization signifying its power. In this poem, the word “Lightning” has the effect of actual lightning; it appears abruptly and strikes the reader in a flashing manner. Also, in this line, we see the ambiguous language. The order of the words, “Children eased,” is perplexing. If one switches the words around, “eased” becomes an adjective to describe the “Children.” Or is ED using “eased” as a verb, to say that the ”Lightning” functions to ease the “Children?” I think the former interpretation would probably make more sense. The act of telling the whole truth is like a flash of lightning to the “Children,” implying a sort of overwhelmed and stricken state of being for the entity which is receiving the truth.
With explanation kind
This line is the shortest of the poem, containing the fewest number of words. Also “With” is the only capitalized word, however it doesn’t seem to have any importance. The first word of every line is capitalized, so most likely ED capitalized “With” for the sake of keeping up with the pattern. This line seems to be sort of passive, as one to be glossed over. There has to be a gentleness and care that goes into the explanation. One has to be extra sensitive to the disposition of the other. This line is prelude to the next.
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Other than the first word, “The”, the only other capitalized words is “Truth,” yet again. Continuing on with the metaphor of truth as light, ED uses the world “dazzle,” meaning to cause someone to lose clear vision, especially from intense light. This is strange, saying that “Truth must dazzle,” implying that truth actually has license to dazzle. Dazzle still implies that sense of intensity. ED could’ve used a less intense word, such as shine. Putting the word “gradually” in whole mix, allows the line to make more sense. The truth must be appropriated, little by little.
Or every man be blind –
This last line makes a huge impact on the reader. Again, here we see the continuation with truth as light, working to affect, or in this case paralyze, the sense of vision. Ultimately, this is the consequence, or rather danger, for being unwarranted with the truth. I wonder how intense and extensive this blindness is supposed to be? Is this a temporary blindness, or a permanent one? ED emphasizes the sheer power of truth, how it has the ability to “blind” and overwhelm others, which is why we should take heed when using/expressing it.
Observations
-“Truth” is capitalized in every occurrence
-Somewhat of a rhyme scheme is present
-The poem ends like it begins: both the first and last line end with two dashes
-The language throughout the entire poem is ambiguous, as the words are interchangeable and can take on multiple functions/word forms.
I think the ambiguity of the language gives rise to a dichotomy of double meanings, which is suggestive about the implications and nature of truth. There are two sides of truth. In one sense, truth can be beneficial and liberating, because, as they say, “the truth shall set you free.” On the other hand, there’s another saying that goes “the truth hurts,” entailing damage and pain. So, taken from that standpoint, I can see as to why ED might caution the reader on how to utilize and express the truth, to tell it in small doses.
Posted under Uncategorized
25
February
2009
In “Song of Myself,” Whitman places emphasis on “the merge,” insinuating a unity between himself and others, making the point that he completely knows you (referring to anyone), both inside and out. “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry,” however, sets itself in opposition to this assertion. The differences of I vs. tide and I vs. crowd pose a problem for Whitman because it reveals the separation and unfamiliarity between himself and the mentioned entity. He is a curious observer, rather than an active participant. He is on the outskirts, looking in. His curiosity is stimulated by the fact that he can’t identify with or understand what’s before him, but he wants to know. Whitman recognizes this division, and isn’t quite sure himself what to make out of it, as he states, “What is it, then, between us?” Throughout the poem, he tries to get to the bottom of it.
Whitman uses the difference between him and nature, as a means to find a commonality between him and the crowd. He thoroughly looks upon the environment, (the sky, the clouds, the tide, etc.), and discerns an amalgam of moments and images. He ties himself with the crowd by acknowledging that they are looking and experiencing the same environment, as well. He takes it even further, transcending time, as he says crowds of the past and the future will, too, have this common bond of experience.
Whitman’s focus not only lies on the creation of unity by nature as environment, but also shines a light on shared experiences and emotions of human nature, of humanity as a whole. In one part of the poem, Whitman delves into a darker side, going over the concept of what it is to be evil. Evil is the darker side of mankind. It is something that is usually secretive because it demonstrates the weakness and failure within ourselves. Usually, we like to keep our evilness a secret because it is something that is supposedly shameful. In spite of this, Whitman tries to reassure the crowd and/or the reader, expressing that he too has known evil, reminding you/them that everyone has that side to them. By admitting that he too has faults and is vulnerable to evil, Whitman creates an intimacy between him and the crowd, closing in on the distance between the two.
In the end, Whitman resolves the problem by underlining the importance of nature as unifier, as he declares, “We realize the soul only by you, you faithful solids and fluids…” Nature creates unity between people, as we all look upon and experience it. However, it also creates unity between body and soul, giving us an even greater understanding of mankind as a whole.
Posted under Uncategorized
20
February
2009
I really liked the intentions behind this assignment, with being able to actually interact with the poem and participate in “creative reading.” Not only did it give me better understanding of the poem, but it also gave me allowed me to become better acquainted with the Emersonian concept of creative reading. It was interesting to see the different kinds of pictures my fellow classmates chose to represent the various parts of the poem.
One aspect I disliked about this assignment was the act of having to find an image that represented our understanding. It’s not that the I didn’t like the act itself, I was just a little frustrated that it was a bit difficult to find the perfect image to represent our understanding. I had created an image in my mind, corresponding to the term/phrase. As I tried to search for a picture on google, I realized that none of the results even came close to what I had envisioned. So, I had to settle with what I had found. Instead of demonstrating the ideal vision I had in mind, I had to let the results of images sort of dictate my ideas. However, it wasn’t totally horrible, as I was somewhat intrigued with the image that I found. I was just a little disappointed that I to compromise my initial vision.
By participating in the Wiki, I got a better sense of where Whitman was coming from, when it comes to the natural world and self-awareness. Overall, the images did enhance my understanding of the poem.
An addition I would make to this assignment would be to allow people to reference songs. As I was reading Whitman’s poem, I was thinking of some of the most perfect songs that would correspond to the terms/phrases. I thought it would’ve been cool to be able to add a link to the song or something. I guess another step further would be to allow the use of video clips. Then again, it might be too complicated with all the web dealing codes and such. However, it would be pretty darn awesome, though.
Posted under Uncategorized
16
February
2009
“But they are not the Me myself”
This image is Alice (of Alice in Wonderland) through the looking glass (or otherwise, a mirror). Mirrors are supposed to be a direct reflection of whatever is positioned in front of it. However, instead of seeing her reflection, Alice sees a different shape, though vaguely similar to hers, a sort of distorted image.
In “Song of Myself,” before Whitman comes to the line I have chosen, he describes the different aspects of life: “People I meet,” “The latest news,” “My dinner, dress, associates,” etc. He is saying that all these various elements, though are a part of one’s life, they can’t be a permanent indicator. A lot of this also relates with Emerson’s ideas about man “the thinker” vs. man THINKING. People can’t be perceived as one all-encompassing label. Labels are temporal, frozen, and static. Instead, our lives must be seen as a verb, where it is ongoing, full of action, and always changing.
This connects to the contemporary experience, as life for all people is ever-changing, moment by moment. I would know. One year, I am a college student; the next, I’ll be a college graduate. One week, I have a cold; the next, I’m healthy. One day, I’m a failure at life; the next, I’m on the road to reaching success. One moment, I feel like I’m alone in the world; the next, I feel overcome with the love of family and friends. Life is a process. A person can never be given one certain label, because it will surely change. The fact that life is constantly shifting and changing is both promising and frightening, that you can be one thing at one point, and be something entirely different the next. I guess it’s that thrill and mystery that makes life worth living.
Posted under Uncategorized
