Once upon a Time: The Movie

Plot:
The main change that I would make to the plot would to eliminate the opening scene. The structure of a frame story does not really fit. I think that the story would be more effective if it stood on its own. Also, the author never returns to the opening scene. I think it would confuse an audience if the story was unresolved, as it is. The first scene is not necessary.
Point of View:
I think I would leave the point of view the same. The third person omniscient narrator was the best choice for a story such as this. I think it is best to have a third party telling the story. It is a delicate and morbid story. The reader is not really supposed to feel pity for the family I don't think. If it was told by one of the characters in the story, it would evoke pity.
Characterization:
I think I would focus on the family members' lives a little more. To create a full length movie, you would really have to go more in depth into their lives. You would need to establish details such as what the parents careers were. I think I would make the father a doctor. This would be ironic because he would have devoted his life to helping and aiding others. However, he refuses to help the impoverished that are right on his doorstep.
Setting:
We discussed in class that the author lived in South Africa. Because of this, I viewed it in that environment. I think I would definitely specify that as the setting. It would point out that racism, hate, and fear are universal issues. We recognize them in our own communities and even communities similar to ours. However, I don't think we always know that other cultures have similar issues. Many Americans are probably ignorant to the violent acts that take place around the world such as the genocide in Darfur. A setting such as this would bring awareness to current social concerns.
Theme:
The theme of fear to the point of destruction is present in the short story. I would build on that and emphasize that fear of different people and practices can lead to disaster. It would encourage an idea of openness to others and their opinions. I would again bring the universality of fear and racism to the forefront. It is not an American problem, it is a human problem. This theme would again call awareness to social justice issues in today's world.

Movie Blog: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Plot:
The plot of the movie was completely different than the plot of the short story. The sole similarity was that Benjamin aged backwards. The story jumps around a lot and major developments are different. First of all, Benjamin's mother is not supposed to die. And his father is not supposed to give Benjamin up. These details change Benjamin's life completely. The other main difference is the existence of his childhood sweetheart Daisy. His life completely revolves around her. In contrast, Benjamin never really comes close to anyone in the short story. He has a wife and family but never truly gains a life long companion. The existence of Daisy changes the entire story.
Point of View:
The point of view used in the movie is very interesting. It is told by Benjamin himself, or at least his diary which is read by his daughter. I found it interesting that in the movie, Benjamin's life is told as a frame story. This structure seemed strange to me. I thought it was much more affective in the story to use the third person point of view so the reader got the feeling that it was told by the townspeople. The audience is not supposed to get so much insight into Benjamin's thoughts and life.
Characterization:
The short story focused the most on the men in Benjamin's life. However, the movie mainly focuses on Daisy. This starts in the very beginning when the story is being told to Daisy. I feel as though the movie focuses on Daisy even more than Benjamin himself. For a character that did not even exist in the original story, I think she receives too much attention. Benjamin's father gets very little attention, and Benjamin never has a son as he does in the story.
Setting:
The setting is also completely different. This is mainly because Benjamin's father abandons him. The house he grows up in, an old folks home, has a big impact on who he turns into. It's where his adoptive mother lives and it is where he meets Daisy. It is a place he can call home. He never really has this in the original story. He also never spends time in the sea in the story. This was another big difference the writers of the movie made.
Theme:
I had a lot of trouble picking a theme for the movie. I think the main theme is the impact Benjamin had on Daisy and on the other people in his life. It did not have the same sense of lonliness as the short story did. Daisy was almost always loyal to him, his mother was there for him, and his dad develops a relationship with him. I think it also touched on the fragility of life. As well as valuing the loved ones in life before they leave you.

Popular Mechanics

I hated this ambiguous ending!!!!!!!!!! Now that I've got that out of my system, I can move on.

The first thing I noticed while reading this story was the similarity between the end of the story and a popular bible story. In this story, two women fought over a baby so King Solomon suggested that they cut the baby in half. One of the women cared enough about the baby that she gave him up to save the child's life. That is the one difference that this short story presents. The parents were too stubborn to do what was best for the child. The argument wasn't even fought because of the child. The couple continued it because they wanted to be the one to 'win'.

The Drunkard

I thought it was really weird that people went out to hang out at a bar after a funeral. Maybe it was just me, but it seemed odd. It obviously wasn't in this society though. In fact, Larry knows that one of the warnings of his father's alcoholism returning are funerals and other gatherings. For him to say that obviously shows that it was not uncommon for men to go get drunk after a funeral. This all just seemed odd to me. I've always viewed funerals as solemn services so this particular short story seemed strange to me.

Your Ugly, Too Question # 1

I believe that Zoe's eccentricities were pointed out to show how she was different from other people her age. She is very unique and different from her contemporaries. This is also shown in her interaction with Earl. He seems to be a hopeless romantic and she is the opposite. I think she wants to experience love. However, she never gives anyone a chance because she assumes it will end badly. At times like this, I feel sympathetic the her. However, I don't think I can truly show sympathy for someone that kids around by trying to through a man off of a roof.

The Lottery: Question #4

I think the fact that many aspects of the ritual are forgotten is vital to this story. I believe that the original lottery was created on the basis of superstition and sacrifice. I get this from the line on page 268 that says,
"Used to be a saying about 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.' "
The lottery was meant to bring good luck for the approaching harvest.

Along with the loss of some rituals, the purpose of the lottery is also disappearing. They now seem to simply participate because it is tradition and there has always been a lottery. That's why this story kind of frustrated me. These towns people were committing murder because it was the accepted norm. I felt as though they had no other reason for it.

Short Story Blog: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Plot:
The plot structure of this story is very unique for short stories. It is split up into chapters. I saw each chapter as representing a different part of Benjamin's life. The structure and order of his life is obviously very odd seeing as it is backwards. For this reason, it seemed interesting to me that the author, F. Scott Fitzgerald, chose to write the story in such a structured form. I came to the conclusion that he did this to contrast the chaos of Benjamin's life and also to keep the reader strait on the events of his life. The idea of the story is confusing so the organized structure made it an easier read.
Point of View:
I found it interesting that the author chose to write this story from an omniscient third person point of view. I first felt as though it would have been more interesting to see the story from the point of view of a towns person, maybe someone close in age to Benjamin. However, I think the author made a smart choice. This way, the narrator could show all sides of the story. He could show the family members' thoughts as well as Benjamin's. Also, a towns person would not work because at times in the story, Benjamin's true identity was kept a secret.
Characterization:
I found the author's method of characterization the most interesting element of the story. It seemed logical to me that the author would focus in on Benjamin's mother at some point. However, she is barely ever mentioned, if at all. I was interested in how exactly she gave birth to a full grown man (this issue may have been the reason that the author didn't focus on her). At first I thought she might be dead, but on page 21 the author states that "Mr. and Mrs. Roger Button were not pleased" with the fact that people were saying their son resembled his grandfather. That is really the only mention of her I could find after Benjamin's birth. I was also surprised that his wife did not get more attention. She is only in a short portion of the story. I believe both of these individuals were paid the least attention to because they were women. I'm not saying that the author was sexist, it was simply a way of developing Benjamin as a character. Fitzgerald instead focused on the men in Benjamin's life. He did this in order to compare him to these men. Benjamin is compared to his Grandfather, father, and son primarily when his physical age matches them. All of them reject him in some way or another. Fitzgerald uses this to show Benjamin's complete aloneness among his peers.
Setting:
The time period this takes place in is very important. This is primarily because of the wars that take place during Benjamin's life. War is a big part of who he is. He was finally admired and respected when he was a leader in the army. But in the last few years of his life, even the army rejects him. It is also important to note that a good portion of the story takes place in his home or the home of his son. His abnormality is hidden away from the world for a good chunk of the story. He is only allowed out in society if he agrees to blend in with his environment.
Theme:
I had a lot of trouble coming up with a theme for this story. I eventually decided on a theme of aloneness. In a way I think this story is similar to "Metamorphasis". In both stories, the main character is physically embarrassing or burdensome to be around and so their family rejects them. Benjamin never has a lasting friendship. His wife might come close, but he tires of her and 'outgrows' her (in a backwards kind of confusing way). He is never accepted and he never finds his place. He never quite belongs.

Miss Brill

I honestly have no idea what the point of this story was. But with that being said, I hated the end. How could people be so heartless? I felt awful for Miss Brill. She had just come to the realization that she was part of the 'play' and someone would notice if she was gone. That is probably true to an extent. Her absence would be noticed but that does not necessarily mean that she would be missed. It seems as though she is viewed as an annoyance rather than an essential part of the 'play'.

Once upon a Time: Um morbid much?

The narrator's short story seemed morbid to me from the beginning. Very morbid. The whole idea of not helping others seemed a strange idea to promote in a children's' story. And of course the son getting injured in the security fence, very possibly leading to death, is a little ironic I think.
But I think the author was trying to make a point. First of all, the narrator says at the beginning that he was told that all writers should write at least one story for children. He then illustrated why this should not be true; some people just aren't cut out for it. I think the author was trying to show that all people have their weaknesses and we cannot be expected to be good at everything.

A Worn Path Question #6

I think that the student's suggestion of the grandson being dead could be accurate. I kind of wondered about him when she forgot the point of her journey. She seemed very confused. I also wondered about his existence when it was mentioned that she has made the journey on a regular basis for three years. It seems that an illness like the one described would not last three years and the symptoms would not appear like 'clock work' which was the schedule of her journeys.
I think the comment that 'Phoenix is alive' shows that whether the grandson was alive or not was irrelevant. It was his realness to Phoenix that was important. He gave her something to live for.

Eveline Question #6

I found the end of this story very peculiar. I don't think Eveline decides not to go with him. She never makes the choice really. I don't think she physically could bring herself to go. I found it interesting that she just froze. It seems that she didn't really think about the consequences of her decision or lack there of. I think she just was a little resistant to change and couldn't bring herself to do it.

Everyday Use

Dee confused me. She seemed to be trying to get in touch with the African part of her heritage. But here's the catch: she is African American, not African. She never lived in Africa. So why was she so obsessed with its culture? It seemed odd that she wanted to act African instead of American. At the time, racism was still part of society. The African culture I'm sure was affected as much as the African American culture, if not more. It's almost like she was shouting to the world that she was different.

Hunters in the Snow

This short story was my favorite of the week. I'm still not really sure why that is. Honestly, the end made me really irritated. Tub and Frank have no regard for the feelings or well being of Kenney. I thought this was very odd. I think part of the reason I liked the story was not because of the plot itself but that it seemed to draw me in. I actually found it to be interesting. It was suspenseful as well.

Hunters in the Snow Question #7

I found the scene in the tavern very interesting. It made an important point. Frank and Tub were selfish. They were so wrapped up in their own lives and issues that they ignore the fact that Kenney is seriously hurt. When they sat down for a cup of coffee, I was in shock. How could someone do that when their friend was dying in the truck. I found it weird also that they left the directions and instead of turning around, they just wung it. They risked their friend's life because they were so wrapped up in their own lives.

Bartleby the Scrivener Question #4

Bartleby's repetition of the phrase "I prefer not to" has an interesting affect on the other characters and their daily routines. One thing I noticed was that, the word prefer crept into the other characters' vocabulary the more Bartleby said it. I also found the narrator's response interesting. No matter how many times Bartleby would refuse to do something, the narrator would always ask him. I thought this was weird because I would think that one would give up eventually. I thought that the narrator weant too easy on him a lot of the time. He was disobedient and didn't deserve the favors that the narrator did for him.

Similarities

When I got half way or so through Interpreter of Maladies, I started to notice similarities between it and How I Met My Husband. First of all, both involve love that is not returned. More specifically, both main characters have the hope of writing to their 'loves'. Both 'loves' live quite a distance away. The one main difference however is that when Mrs. Das leaves, Mr. Kapasi knows he won't hear from her. Edie however is still under the impression that she will hear from Chris and she waits anxiously. The stories are overall very similar.

Interpreter of Maladies

This work also showed some irony. While Mr. Kapasi understands the language of English, I don't think he understands the culture. It really surprised me when he started to pay attention to Mrs. Das. She was so obnoxious! I was annoyed by her snobbishness. I assumed that was the view of Kapasi as well. Their lives were so opposite. He may have not been madly in love with his wife, but he seemed to show family values. Mrs. Das on the other hand doesn't seem to care at all for her children or for her husband. His love for her seemed ironic and illogical.

Irony in How I Met My Husband

The end of this story was ironic. First of all, the reader goes through the story thinking of Chris Watters as the romantic interest for Edie. Then he leaves her hanging. But the most ironic part was the fact that Carmichael assumed that Edie's daily smile was for him. This honestly cracked me up. He was so happy that she was excited to see him but in reality she was really just waiting for word from Chris. This was an interesting twist at the end and I loved it. I didn't really like Chris so I was hoping he would not be the husband.

A Rose for Emily: Question #3

The main detail that forshadows the conclusion is the buying of the arsenic. I saw the end coming once it was clear the Emily wasn't killing herself with it. She had to have had some purpose for it. I also saw it coming once Homer went into the home. He never came out but he was also never seen in the window as Emily was. Emily and her servant were the only two ever seen in the house. Emily also had motive for killing Homer in a way. She loved him but he obviously didn't care for her in the same way.

Elegy For My Father, Who is Not Dead

I liked this poem but it was a little confusing. I was trying to decide what the overall message was. The father is obviously ready for death. On the other hand, the son is obviously not. I was trying to decide if there was another meaning though. It almost seems like it could be talking about faith and religion. The father has faith that he will have some sort of after-life. However, the son does not share this belief. These differing beliefs could boil down to differing views on God and His existence.

Delight in Disorder: Oxymoron

This poem had a couple different oxymorons in it. The first was in the title itself: Delight in Disorder. Then in line one, 'sweet disorder'. Later it mentions 'wild civility'. These all convey the same message. Chaos, unusuallness, and disorder are presented positively. This is uncommon. The author is trying to encourage uniqueness. He is emphasizing the importantance of individuality.

Edward: Symbolism

The symbolism in the poem Edward was interesting. This poem itself seemed oddly structured to me. Some of the content was even more confusing. The speaker first says that he killed his hawk and steed before he finally admits to killing his father. This creates a connection between the animals and the boy's father. They are a symbol for him. A bird of prey and spirited horse are not very similar. However, they both allude to characteristics that perhaps the father had. I think that these symbols showed that he was strong and stubborn. He could be a bit frightening and overbearing. These symbols are very affective.

Lonely Hearts

I found this poem very intriguing. When I read the questions at the end of the work, I learned that the poem was based on adds in newspapers and magazines searching for love. When I first read the poem it reminded me of modern dating websites. It was an interesting connection. It shows that people haven't really changed much. They are still desperate for love and will even advertise for it. Technology may have evolved since this poem was written but the desperation of hopeful lovers will never change. There will always be 'Lonely Hearts'.

Aww, how sweet?

I found the poem My Mistress' Eyes very odd. I first thought that the poem was going to discuss love. However, instead of complimenting his mistress, he points out all of her faults. He takes every romantic attribute of a woman and says that his mistress is the opposite. This seemed weird to me. Poetic writing is usually romantic, whether it discusses love or not. I thought it was interesting that Shakespeare would purposefully do the exact opposite. The last couple lines confused me though. I couldn't really tell what he was saying. One of the interpretations I considered was that, even thought she had all these faults, their love was true and heaven-sent.

To His Coy Mistress

I enjoyed the poem To His Coy Mistress but there was one line in particular that kind of confused me. It is line 11:
"My vegetable love should grow".
The phrase vegetable love didn't make sense to me. I just couldn't find the meaning of it as I read. My first thought was actually of the vegetative state of some who don't have brain function. But that idea was contradicted by the word grow. When a person is vegetative, they are not moving forward or changing. They cannot grow. But the speaker is hoping for his love to grow. These opposing ideas confused me.

Figurative Language

The poem Getting Out really sparked my interest. I caught on very quickly that this was describing a divorced couple. I thought that the author's use of figurative language to convey this meaning was very effective. In just the first line, the speaker compares their relationship to that of inmates in jail. This simile shows how intensely unpleasant the relationship was. The couple was imprisioned without release from each other. At first that seemed dramatic and a bit drastic. But it makes sense when you look at it. They were kind of indifferent to each other, each tortured by the situation. They were trapped.

Symbolism

I found the poem Crossing the Bar very intriguing. My favorite aspect of it was the obvious symbolism. Crossing the bar is symbolic of death. There are many other important symbols throughout the work. For instance, my favorite symbol was in line 15 and 16:

"I hope to see my Pilot face to face
When I have crossed the bar."

The word Pilot is a reference to God. I thought that the author really emphasized this meaning my capitalizing Pilot. It was an interesting tactic. It also refers to being asleep in the second stanza. Sleep has been a recurring symbol of death in the poems we have studied thus far. The mention of it in this poem strengthens the overall symbolism of death.

Madness vs. Sense

When I first read this poem I was very excited because I thought that I finally understood a Dickinson poem. I was wrong.
My first assumption was that the poem was a reflection on insanity. The other works of hers that I'm familiar with are bizarre and some address insanity. It seemed like a logical explanation. I would have never guessed that she was discussing society and its approach to personal opinions. I actually appreciated it a lot more once I knew the meaning. I think her message is really important in today's society. Today's generation must move past pressure from the media and their peers and learn to think for themselves.

APO 96225

This poem reminded me a great deal of "The Things They Carried." The two works have very similar themes. Both discuss those left behind during a war and their response to it. Especially in APO 96225, those left behind are portrayed as extremely naive. The soldier's parents think that they can handle the cruelty and reality of war, but they can't (or refuse to) comprehend it. I think the author is trying to illustrate the differences in the realities faced by soldiers and by civilians. I don't think you can truly understand the terrors of war unless you have seen them.
These worlds are completely different and its hard for occupants of one to understand the realities of the other.

Sorting Laundry: Allusion

In line 27, Ritchie utilizes an interesting allusion. Lines 25-27 are:

"And what's shrunk
is tough to discard
even for Goodwill."

I found this line intriguing for a couple of reasons. First of all, this allusion shows what poor condition some of these clothes were in. They were even beneath Goodwill. The reference to this institution caught me off guard. I didn't know Goodwill had such a long history. I couldn't find the exact year that the poem was written, but Elisavietta Ritchie was born in 1932 so I would guess the mid 1900s. She approaches it as a familiar image and institution. This surprised me. I thought Goodwills were relatively new. It turns out that Goodwill was started in 1902 as an urban outreach ministry.

Central Theme in One Sentence

The central theme of Barbie Doll is to show the difference between inner and outer beauty and how society values the wrong one.

The girl that this poem discusses is presented in stanza two just as a simple ordinary girl, until the very last line. The last line clearly states that people simply see her outward appearance, which is not very attractive. She wants everyone to see who she really is and not judge her by her looks. Finally in the last stanza, it is said that "she cut off her nose and her legs and offer[s] them up." The nose and legs really represent all of the imperfections she saw in herself. I took this line to mean that she killed herself. The image of a coffin afterwards supports this. Society puts an unhealthy emphasis on outward beauty. The desire the fit is physically can drive people to desperate acts, even death.

Dream Deferred

I liked this poem, but not the first time I read through it. At first, some of the imagery was a little too gross for me. A running sore? Rotten Meat? These are not the images that I usually associate with my dreams and aspirations. However, the meanings we discussed in class helped me to understand the symbolism a lot better. I understand now that the poem describes not different kinds of dreams, but different ways that dreams are put off. They can be given up upon, drawn out too long, disguised as something positive, and much more. I thought the poem had an interesting approach. Instead of discussing hopes and dreams, it instead described reasons that they don't become reality.

Pink Dog = Prostitute?

I found the poem Pink Dog very intriguing. My first response to the poem was a kind of unusual one. Without really looking for symbolism, I thought that the dog seemed to represent a prostitute. I mainly found this in lines 7-9, and 19-24.
In lines 7-9, it first refers to rabies and scabies. I took these to represent STDs. Then it moves on to the topic of her children. She hides them while she goes on "living by [her] wits."
Then in lines 19-24, the speaker talks about the poor treatment showed to beggars. Then it implies that "sick, four-legged dogs" will get even worse treatment. What group is out casted more than beggars: prostitutes. Then it discusses how rare it is to be able to afford these 'dogs.' If these dogs are so sickly and out casted, why would they be so expensive? Because they offer 'special' services.

Imagery

I found the imagery in February a bit disturbing. The speaker would set things up by presenting a pleasant image for the reader. Then they would contradict this positive image with something negative (or gross). A perfect example of this is lines 7-9:

"He settles on my chest, breathing his breath of burped-up meat and musty sofas, purring like a washboard."

The cozy image of a cat curled up on an owners chest is presented first. This is a familiar and pleasant image. However, the speaker ruins the moment by describing in detail the cat's bad breath. This the first time that the speaker truly shows their pessimism. They have the winter blues and they are bitter about everything, even their cat.

Allusion

Bright Star had one allusion that sparked my interest. It is located in line four:

"Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite."

The book itself defines an eremite as a hermit. However, if that was all it meant, why was the word capitalized? So I did some research. An eremite is a hermit especially one under a religious vow. This added detail helped me understand the reference better. John Keats was not simply saying that the star was similar to a recluse. He was saying that it was devoted to its cause and had a reason behind its choices. At this point in the poem, the speaker is describing why he would not want to be like the star. I think that at this point he is saying that he does not want the responsibilities of sleepless vigilance and devotion. He wants to live a more care free life.

Extended Metaphor

I Taste a Liquor Never Brewed is a great example of an extended metaphor. Liquor is constantly compared to aspects of nature throughout the poem. The first reference I noticed was an allusion to the Rhine River in line three. Other aspects of nature discussed are air, dew, and the sky (Molten Blue). Many animals and insects are also mentioned. These include a bee, a fox, and butterflies. This reoccurring theme of nature kind of confused me. I'm not sure what the writer's purpose of it was. One theory I considered was that perhaps he was suggesting that drinking was a natural thing to do.

Figurative vs. Literal

After Apple-Picking was another poem that my original views differed with those in my small group. The other members of my group read this poem very literally. I on the other hand, looked at it completely figuratively. They imagined the scene of a man bored by apple-picking. I imagined a man who was bored and fed up with life.
Sleep is a recurring theme throughout the poem. He specifically mentions a 'long sleep'. I know some people saw this to mean hibernation but I once again disagree. I thought of death. The speaker is weary and is constantly thinking about sleep and rest. He was 'overtired'. These little details caused me to see the poem in a very different way.

No Light Bulb

The Convergence of the Twain kind of frustrated me. I understood that Hardy was talking about the Titanic, but I didn't always understand the meaning of what he was saying. I was especially confused by stanza IV. I spent a long time trying to figure out what "Jewels" stood for or represented. What was even more frustrating was the fact that my classmates did not struggle nearly as much. Many of them actually said they liked it because it was very understandable. It just didn't click with me.
The one part of the poem that I did understand and enjoy was the end. Hardy points out the shock and trauma that this collision caused. I felt as though this was important because it was such an important and tragic event of history.

Theme in One Sentence

The central theme of London by William Blake is a disdain for the city of London, especially its government.

Originally I thought that Blake was only criticizing the government of London. He refers to aspects of London that are controlled by government. One example of this is line one when he mentions a chartered street. He also speaks negatively about the Church. The Church of England is controlled by the government so he is again showing negative political thoughts. While he does focus on the government, he does in fact go much deeper. In the last stanza, he begins to criticize commoners. He refers the young. He speaks negatively of them in order to illustrate what little hope London has for the future.

Tone: "I Felt a Funeral, in my Brain"

This poem confused me a little but I found it very interesting. The tone of the poem was not completely clear to me but I did find an underlying tone: insanity. The author seems like she is on the verge of breaking down. I explored two possible meanings that could also connect to this tone. My first thought was that she was discussing her own funeral. So, the first time I read it, I felt that the tone was full of morbidness and insanity. The title itself made me question the writer's sanity. You can't "feel" a funeral in your brain. That just doesn't work.
Another meaning that my small group discussed was that she was remembering her deceased husband's funeral. This would also relate the tone. If that is a correct reading, then obviously she is caught up in the past and can't get beyond it. She can't move on and she is driving herself crazy by reliving the memories.

Symbol

I think my favorite poem out of the ones we read was The Widow's Lament in Springtime by William Carlos Williams. Originally it was my favorite because it seemed like an easy read compared to the others. I immediately understood that it seemed to be about a widow who was reminded of her deceased husband during Spring. However, when I studied it a little more, I realized it went deeper than that. Not only was she grieving for her husband but she also wanted to join him.
I primarily saw this in the last four lines of the poem:

"I feel that I would like
to go there
and fall into those flowers
and sink into the marsh near them."

I found this to be a symbol of death. A repeated theme throughout the poem is flowers. They are one of the biggest reminder of the speaker's deceased husband. I think they represent his death specifically. By saying she wants to fall into these flowers, she implies that she wants to die herself so she can be reunited with her husband.

Perrine's "The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry"

The aspect of this article that I found most interesting was the quote by E. A. Robinson. He stated that "A writer should not be his own interpreter." Yeats also said that "If an author interprets a poem of his own he limits its suggestibility." I think this is definitely a good way to approach poetry. When I wrote poetry, I always have some sort of story in my head. But the purpose of a poem is not to tell a story. Poetry should be different for each person, I think. Poetry starts as the thoughts of a poet but it is transformed into a readers own reflections.

Due to this opinion, I did not like Perrine's theory that there is an incorrect reading of a poem. I think there are a million different ways that a poem could be interpreted. It all depends on the person reading the poem. Like the quotes above state, an author does not write a poem with a specific interpretation in mind. Therefore, who has the right to say whether a reading of a poem is correct or incorrect? The only person I would give this power to is the author and the quotes contradict that. So I definitely disagree with Perrine. Poetry is personal and different for each individual.

Why?

" 'Oh, Jake,' Brett said, 'we could have had such a damned good time together.'
Ahead was a mounted policeman in khaki directing traffic. He raised his baton. The car slowed suddenly pressing Brett against me.
'Yes,' I said, 'Isn't it pretty to think so?' " Page 251

When I read this, my thought was 'Are you serious? Really?!'
Honestly, I was confused during most of this book. I didn't understand the point or where the plot was heading. Also, Brett's relationship with Jake was never fully explained and so I was constantly waiting for some information on it to be revealed. They both seemed to care about each other so why weren't they together?
So obviously this ending was not appreciated at all. Hemingway once again left me confused. Brett and Jake admit that they would be good together but they act as though a relationship is impossible. But why??? I think I may have disliked this ending even more than 'The Things They Carried'. What was the point?

First tongues, now ears?

"Romero took the ear from his brother and held it up toward the President. The President bowed and Romero, running to get ahead of the crowd, came toward us. He leaned up against the barrera and gave the ear to Brett. He nodded his head and smiled. The crowd were all about him. Brett held down the cape." Page 224

This passage wasn't quite as bad as the tongue necklace in 'The Things They Carried' but it was close. I do not understand at all what would cause a person to consider a bull ear as a good gift. It's just gross!!! I'll admit that I'm not a fan of the idea of bull fighting in general. However, keeping body parts as a souvenir just seems morbid to me. I know that to an extent it's just a cultural difference, but it's just too gross for me. If I was Brett, I don't think I would have even been able to take it. I don't know if Romero thought he was being romantic but he was not. Not at all.

Hyperbole

" 'I'm a tremendous bankrupt," Mike said. "I owe money to everybody. Don't you owe any money?'

'Tons.'

'I owe everybody money,' Mike said.' " Page 196

Sometimes I'm not sure whether to take what Mike says seriously. He exaggerates often, especially, it seems, when he has been drinking. But he is also very blunt and honest. He is the only one to say how annoying Robert is. Everyone else was thinking it anyway. He was a little harsh but he spoke honestly. However, I he was definitely exaggerating here.

He states twice that he owes everybody money. Now, he is obviously using hyperbole when he says everybody. I also think that he is exaggerating the intensity of his financial problems. If his bankruptcy was as awful as he says, then I don't think he would be in Spain. He would not be vacationing and spending so much money on drinks and nice hotels.

Conflict

" 'I say, you were cold,' Mike said.
'Where the hell were you?'
'Oh, I was around.'
'You didn't want to mix in it?'
'He knocked Mike down, too,' Edna said.
'He didn't knock me out,' Mike said. 'I just lay there.'
'Does this happen every night at your fiestas?' Edna asked. 'Wasn't that Mr. Cohn?' " Page 195

Robert is very conflicted. It seems to me that he actually shows both internal and external conflict in the scene that caused the dialogue in this passage. The external conflict is obvious: he punches both Mike and Jake. This surprised me because it is very uncharacteristic of him. Up until this point i saw him as timid and spineless.
His internal conflict however fits him a little bit better. He just can't get over Brett. I think that part of him realizes she's moved on and is in love with Pedro. However, part of him is so in love and naive that he can't accept it. I think this actually explains his violence in this chapter. He is frustrated with the situation but he won't approach Brett. Like Frances, I think she intimidates him a little. So he takes it out on the other guys who, especially Mike, are enjoying his suffering and naivete.

Montoya

"Just then Montoya came into the room. He started to smile at me, then he saw Pedro Romero with a big glass of cognac in his hand, sitting laughing between me and a woman with bare shoulders, at a table full of drunks. He did not even nod." Pages 180 and 181

This passage about Montoya intrigued me a lot. He seems to me to be very judgemental and old fashioned. I think you have to do a lot to earn his approval. He has a great deal of respect for Jake simply because of his true love for bull fighting. However, when Jake claims that Bill has the same love Montoya is slow to believe this. He seems very close-minded. It surprised me that an incident as simple as this could completely break down all the respect he had for Jake. I don't think it is far for him to judge so quickly. After all, Jake is from a very different culture. Montoya should be more open and not so conservative.

Dynamic Character

" 'Oh, don't stand up and act as though you were going to hit me. That won't make an difference to me. Tell me, Robert. Why do you follow Brett around like a poor bloody steer? Don't you know you're not wanted? I know when I'm not wanted. Why don't you know when you're not wanted? You came down to San Sebastian where you weren't wanted, and followed Brett around like a bloody steer. Do you think that's right?' " Page 146

In my opinion, Robert Cohn is a very dynamic character. In the first few pages of the novel, Jake describes him and his past. He explains that when he was first with Frances, he never even looked at another woman. New York changed that a little. As a result, Frances became over protective and Robert became afraid even talking about spending any amount of time with another woman. And now all of a sudden he is following Brett around like a puppy dog. He also had short fling with her in San Sebastian. This seems very different from the scared man Jake introduces at the beginning of the novel.

However, one thing has not changed. He is extremely naive. He is even getting on my nerves with his obsession with Brett. He became so sure that she loved him too and he still can't see the truth.

Foreshadowing

" 'Your friends are here,' he said.
'Mr. Campbell?'
'Yes. Mr. Cohn and Mr. Campbell and Lady Ashely.'
He smiled as though there were something I would hear about." Page 135

This passage is a great example of foreshadowing. It foreshadows the scene that occurs on pages 138 and 139. Bill and Jake are reunited with Brett, Mike, and Robert. It is a very tense situation. Robert is again being annoying. His over helpfulness that he shows towards Brett is not well received. The above passage foreshadows this very well. Montoya's knowing smile shows Jake that while everyone has arrived there's more going on than what Jake knows and is prepared for. It prepares him and the reader for the drama going on between Robert and Brett.

Vernacular

" 'Where you go now?'

'Up to Burguete to fish.'

'Well,' he said, 'I hope you catch something.'

He shook hands and turned around to the back seat again. The other Basques had been impressed. He sat back comfortably and smiled at me when I turned around to look at the country. But the effort of talking American seemed to have tired him. He did not say anything after that." Page 113

I found this passage interesting because it showed me two very important points. First of all, it pointed out the vernacular of the area. These peasants probably either spoke Spanish or Basque, not French which is the main language that the characters speak even though it is translated for the readers. And they certainly did not normally speak English. This was an important passage because it introduced the setting. Bill and Jake were in a very foreign land and they could not speak the language well, if at all.

This passage also showed an important aspect of the Basques and their culture. They seemed friendly and welcoming, but they were not educated in areas such as English. I found it very interesting that the Basques were so impressed that one could speak the American language. This showed how uncommon it was. In France, many knew English but in this remote area it was much less common.

Friends??

"I have never seen a man in civil life as nervous as Robert Cohn-nor as eager. I was envying it. It was lousy to enjoy it, but I felt lousy. Cohn had a wonderful quality of bringing out the worst in anybody." Page 104

I found this passage very interesting. In the first few pages of the novel, Jake states that he is one of Robert's two friends in Paris. I figured then that he obviously wasn't a popular guy. However, I assumed that at least Jake liked him. But in this passage, Jake is ammused by his naivete and enjoys his suffering. I don't usually do this to my friends. However, I will admit that Robert was getting extremely annoying.
His naivete intrigued me. How could this guy be so oblivious? Jake told him that Brett was going to marry Mike and Robert still acts like he has a chance. Why is he putting himself through this?

Allusion

" 'It's enough to make a man join the Klan,' Bill said. The priest looked back at him." Page 93

Originally I was going to blog about how Hemingway alluded to the Catholic Church and aspects of it. But I decided that the Ku Klux Klan reference would be better to discuss. First of all, he alludes to it by using its shorter name of simply the 'Klan' instead of coming out and saying it. This makes the allusion fit better in a casual conversation. Also, the Catholic Church is mentioned many times while this is the first time the Klan is discussed.
I think this allusion is important because it is something that the novel's American audience could identify with. The rest of the novel is set in foreign countries and there are not many American connections. This was something they were familiar with and informed about.

No more French please!

" After the coffee and a fine we got the bill, chalked up the same as ever on a slate, that was doubtless one of the 'quaint' features, paid it, shook hands, and went out." Page 82

I do not speak French. So Hemingway's habit of randomly throwing a French word or two into a paragraph is not appreciated. In fact, I find it quite frustrating. I constantly have to either guess using context clues or look it up. For instance fine is a type of liqueur. I had originally guessed that it maybe meant dessert. I'm sure many who read this novel don't necessarily look the words up. The random French words could potentially make parts of this novel extremely confusing. I think they are extremely unnecessary.

Book 2 ?

"I did not see Brett again until she came back from San Sebastian. One card came from her from there. It had a picture of the Concha, and said: 'Darling. Very quiet and healthy. Love to all the chaps. Brett.' " Page 75

I am thoroughly confused (again). When I got this book a few weeks ago, I flipped through it to see how many chapters were in it. At this time I saw that there were three 'books'. I was very curious as to why an author would split his novel into different books. I assumed that maybe the different books included different characters or something like that. So I was very confused when he was still going on about Brett. Then he starts talking about Robert. So basically, nothing has changed. So what's the point??

Brett

" 'She's a drunk,' I said. 'She's in love with Mike Campbell, and she's going to marry him.' " Page 46

Brett continues to confuse me more and more. Jake claims she is in love with Mike but on page 41 she herself says differently. She claims that she truthfully is in love with Jake. I'm thoroughly confused. Okay, so she's married to some Lord but she's getting a divorce. Then she says she's in love with Jake who she obviously has some short of history with. Now she's engaged to this Mike guy?! What?! And the author has still revealed basically nothing about her past. This confusing love triangle centering around Brett is too much for me.

Oxymoron

" 'The Englishmen all have Saturday off,' Woolsey said.
'Lucky beggars,' said Krum." Page 44

Originally I found the characters' contempt for the English very interesting. However then I remembered a passage on page 39 where Jake states that all foreigners were called Englishmen by some. This made the oxymoron 'lucky beggars' a little less confusing. They were lucky for the obvious reasons: they got Saturdays off. But Woolsey calls them beggars to show his contempt for them. He uses it as a derogatory term. I found this oxymoron very interesting. Woolsey felt contempt for them but at the same time he envied them.
However, I was confused as to why Woolsey made this statement while in Jake's presence. Jake himself is a foreigner or an 'Englishman'. Would that not in a way be an insult to him? It seemed odd to me.

More than just coffee

"I said goodnight to Brett at the bar. The count was buying champagne.

'Will you take a glass of wine with us, sir?' he asked." Page 36

This short passage led me to an important realization. And then it led to a great feeling of stupidity.

It seems like the characters spend half of their time in cafes. Up until this point, I was thinking American cafes. So basically I was envisions a 1920s version of Starbucks. Then later Jake talks about ordering a beer. So one might understand why I was just a tad confused. And then BAM! As I was reading this passage I suddenly flash backed to my sophomore year Spanish class when my teacher explained an important cultural difference between America and Europe. In Europe, cafes are in a way similar to our bars. Yes, they sell coffee but they have alcoholic beverages at well. This is an important cultural difference and is key to understanding the novel. I'm just glad I realized it...eventually.

Exposition

"I told the driver to go to the Parc Montsouris, and got in, and slammed the door. Brett was leaning back in the corner, her eyes closed. I sat beside her. The cab started with a jerk.
'Oh, darling. I've been so miserable,' Brett said." Page 32

I find Hemingway's execution of exposition very interesting. He approaches the introduction of each character differently. He is straightforward when discussing Robert and fills the reader in on basically his whole life and background. On the other hand, he never reveals much about the narrator, Jake. I'm assuming more is revealed as the story progresses. And then there's Brett. In a way, the author leaves the reader confused when it comes to her. He gives a limited amount of information about her but never fully explains. At the end of this passage, I assumed that the next chapter would explain her former (or present) relationship with Jake. But I was wrong. I am extremely confused. Obviously they had/have some short of romantic relationship but have no commitment to each other. I believe Hemingway leaves the reader guessing to strengthen Brett's character. He wants her character, I think, to be in a shroud of mystery. He wants her to be seen as unpredictable.

Opposing Views

" 'Have you been in Paris long? Do you like it here? You love Paris, do you not?'...

'No, I don't like Paris. It's expensive and dirty.'

'Really? I find it so extraordinarily clean.' " Page 26

This passage stood out to me for a couple reasons. First of all, this was the second time in the novel that someone showed a dislike of Paris. It was first Robert who expressed this view and his dislike was so strong that he wanted to leave and visit South America. Georgette repeats this view. I found this interesting because neither of them are originally from Paris. Hemingway never reveals where Georgette is from but he implies that her home is not Paris. So, it is obviously their choice to live in Paris. Why would they choose a city that they dislike?

I also found it interesting that Frances loved Paris when the others disliked it so much. I found it intriguing that Hemingway chose to illustrate two completely opposite views. I found myself wondering which view Hemingway himself possessed. I believe that Hemingway's opinion of Paris is closer to Robert's and Georgette's. First of all, he expressed this view twice through two different characters. Also, during this scene the author states that Frances is a little drunk. Therefore, I believe that Hemingway is suggesting that her opinion is not as trustworthy as Georgette's.

Motivation

"I had picked her up because of a vague sentimental idea that it would be nice to eat with some one. It was a long time since I had dined with a poule, and I had forgotten how dull it could be." Page 24



Jake's motivation for asking Georgette to dinner interested me. To be blunt, in my opinion, when a guy picks up a harlot it isn't usually just for dinner. I was very curious about the fact that he just wanted some company for dinner. It made me ask a lot of questions about him. Did he just get out of a relationship and he was having trouble adjusting to being alone? Why didn't he just go eat with one of his other friends like Robert? It seemed weird that when he was solely looking for a bit of company, he chose a complete stranger.
I think Hemingway was trying to show some of Jake's personality traits. Jake, like most people wants company and companionship. Although, he does not seem to care too much about the quality. I kind of thought this while he was describing Robert. For a guy that he thought of as a close friend, he didn't seem to think very highly of him.

I wonder...

" 'I can't do it,' he said, and put his head deeper into his arms. 'I can't do it. Nothing will make me do it.' " Page 20

I'm curious about Hemingway's purpose for this scene. When sleeping, a person in a way enters their subconscious. The frustration Robert shows during his sleep-talking episode interested me. I honestly really want to know what he was dreaming about. Was he reliving persecution he faced at Princeton? I want to know the meaning of it! I think in a way this was Hemingway's purpose, he wanted to spark the reader's interest.

However, I think he also used this passage to show the readers a couple more of Robert's characteristics. It shows that he is timid. The physical motion of putting his head deeper into his arms made me picture him cowering in fear. I believe he feels inferior. But he is also stubborn. On page 18, Jake refers to his Jewish stubbornness. Hemingway uses this passage to illustrate this. It seems to me that Robert is being threatened in his dream, thus the cowering. However, he shows stubbornness by refusing what he is being ordered to do.

Direct Characterization

"Robert Cohn was once middleweight boxing champion of Princeton. Do not think that I am very much impressed by that as a boxing title, but it meant a lot to Cohn. He cared nothing for boxing, in fact he disliked it, but he learned it painfully and thoroughly to counteract the feeling of inferiority and shyness he had felt on being treated as a Jew at Princeton." Page 11

I found this passage as a very intriguing way to start the book. It begins with the direct characterization of a character without introducing the character in any other way. It shows many things about Robert that the reader may not have observed if Hemingway had used indirect characterization. Just on the first page, the reader learns that Robert is part of a minority that is often discriminated against: Jews. The novel was published in 1926. This was only a couple decades before the Holocaust. The prejudices experienced in this period were already forming in the 1920s and therefore readers would understand the persecution Robert faced immediately. His strive to find self worth because of his inferior place in society tells the reader a great deal about his character. He is timid and relies heavily on others' approval of him.

I also found it interesting that this direct characterization was from another character in the story. I thought it was a little odd that Jake describes his friend before he describes himself. I'm still a little confused by it. Through the whole first chapter Jake never really describes himself. All that he really reveals is that he is one of Robert's two friends in Paris. I thought this was extremely odd.

What?

"She died, of course. Nine years old and she died. It was a brain tumor. She lived through the summer and into the first part of September and then she was dead." Page 223 and 224

This chapter was honestly my least favorite part of the book. It even beat the buffalo torture. It just didn't make sense. War story after war story and then he reflects on the death of his childhood sweetheart. It just didn't fit. He had a few mentions of his family but it always connected somehow to the war. This story was too random. I know O'Brien was simply trying to reflect on death in general and end with a sentimental story, but for me it didn't click. It was a great story and it was very well written. If I read it in another collection of short stories I'm sure I would have liked it. However, I don't think it belongs in a collection of war stories.

Anthroporphism

"Talking about bugs, for instance: how the worst thing in Nam was the goddamn bugs. Big giant killer bugs, he'd say, mutant bugs...Whispering his name, he said-his actual name-all night long-it was driving him crazy." Page 209 and 210

Anthropomorphism, or personification, is a great literary term. However, when people start legitimately treating animals or objects as if they have human traits, their sanity should be examined. As I mentioned before, Rat was one of my favorite characters. But first he tortured a poof buffalo. Then he basically goes insane. But he makes an interesting point. In the face of war, sometimes everything can be the enemy. Bugs and insects can bite and make you uncomfortable during battle. They are a handicap. Those bugs may have not been after Rat, but they weren't helping the soldiers' situation. This use of personification was quite effective in showing the difficulties faced by soldiers.

Foil Characters

"I was shot twice. The first time, out by Tri Binh, it knocked me against the pagoda wall, and I bounced and spun around and ended up on Rat Kiley's lap. A lucky think, because Rat was the medic. He tied on a compress and told me to ease back, then he ran off toward the fighting... I kept waiting for the pain to hit, but in fact I didn't feel much. A throb, that's all. Even in the hospital it wasn't bad... Jorgenson was no Rat Kiley. He was green and incompetent and scared. So when I got shot the second time, in the butt, along the Song Tra Bong, it took the son of a bitch almost ten minutes to work up the nerve to crawl over to me. By then I was gone with the pain. Later I found out I'd almost died of shock. Bobby Jorgenson didn't know about shock, or if he did, the fear made him forget. To make it worse, he bungled the patch job, and a couple of weeks later my ass started to rot away. You could actually peel off fillets of meat with your fingernail." Page 180 and 181

Rat and Bobby are definitely foil characters. Rat is prompt, efficient, confident, and a great medic. On the other hand, Bobby is scared, unsure, and still unused to the environment of war. I have no doubt that he grew to become a great medic. He simply did not have the same experience as Rat. This passage again shows how the war changed people. The soldiers began as boys who were naive and scared like Bobby. They eventually grew to be confident and skilled soldiers as Rat did. They simply had to settle in and the rest would follow.

A Distant World

"'Billie's picture. I had it all wrapped up, I had it in plastic, so it'll be okay if I can... Last night we were looking at it, me and Kiowa. Right here. I know for sure it's right here somewhere.' Jimmy Cross smiled at the boy. 'You can ask her for another one. A better one.' 'She won't send another one. She's not even my girl anymore, she won't... Man, I got to find it.'" Page 165

I think this passage really shows the desperate morale of the men. This young soldier was extremely desperate to find this picture of his old girlfriend. It surprised me at first. I wondered why he couldn't just let her go. But then I realized it wasn't a picture he was desperate to find. He was really searching for his connection to the outside world. He could not let go of that world and who he was in it. The war may have seemed distant to those left at home, but those fighting felt even more out of touch.

Unexperienced

"Jimmy Cross did not want the responsibility of leading these men. He had never wanted it. In his sophomore year at Mount Sebastian College he had signed up for the Reserve Officer Training Corps without much thought. An automatic thing: because his friends had joined, and because it was worth a few credits, and because it seemed preferable to letting the draft take him. He was unprepared. Twenty-four years old and his heart wasn't in it." Page 160 and 161

I was shocked by one thing in this passage. Jimmy Cross was twenty-four. A twenty-four year old was in charge of an entire platoon of men. He had no experience and no military ambition. He had this huge responsibility on his shoulders. This responsibility that he had never wanted. He was just as naive as the rest of them. He didn't think he was worthy of this job and neither did his men. So, how did he end up in charge?

Local Color

"To provide a dramatic frame, I collapsed events into a single time and place, a car circling a lake on a quiet afternoon in midsummer, using the lade as a nucleus around which the story would orbit...For the scenery I borrowed heavily from my hometown. Wholesale thievery, in fact." Page 152

This passage references the previous chapter 'Speaking of Courage'. It specifically talks about the local color used in the chapter. He used this strategy very effectively. He states that the purpose was to provide a dramatic frame. I think he definitely succeeded. 'Speaking of Courage' was actually one of my favorite chapters. It was intriguing and suspenseful. I don't think I would have liked it as much if he had not written it as a single event at a specific place. The scenery kept me questioning. For a while, I was just trying to find out the purpose of the lake and scenery. With the use of local color, O'Brien really drew the reader in and made the story dramatic.

Third Person Point of View

"The war was over and there was no place in particular to go. Norman Bowker followed the tar road on its seven-mile loop around the lake..."

I found this passage interesting especially when I compared it to the second chapter entitled 'Love'. In both chapters O'Brien is telling the story of one of his fellow soldiers. Both soldiers told him the story and then gave him permission to write about it. Very similar circumstances but the final stories are written very differently. The biggest difference I noticed was that 'Speaking of Courage' is written in third person while 'Love' is written in first person. Third person was a very good choice for Norman's story. It made it more dramatic and interesting. It seemed more suspenseful. I wondered about his choice. Jimmy was living when his story was written, but Norman was deceased. I don't know if this is connected at all, but I think it is an interesting detail.

Flashback

"He was a short, slender young man of about twenty. I was afraid of him-afraid of something-and as he passed me on the trail I threw a grenade that exploded at his feet and killed him. Or to go back: Shortly after midnight..." Page 125

This passage seemed kind of weird to me. Basically the whole book is a series of flashbacks. O'Brien constantly flashes back to his life during the war. These memories are not necessarily in chronological order. But this passage is different. The chapter starts as a flashback of O'Brien talking to his daughter, but it switches to a flashback of the war. He even sets up the flashback with the phrase 'Or to go back'. This seemed odd to me. During the rest of the book, his stories had no intro. The reader was immediately engulfed in the memory. However, this memory was perhaps more sensitive and needed an intro. It still seems odd to me.

Gross!

"But the story did not end there. If you believed the Greenies, Rat said, Mary Anne was still somewhere out there in the dark...She had crossed to the other side. She was part of the land. She was wearing her culottes, her pink sweater, and a necklace of human tongues. She was dangerous. She was ready for the kill." Page 110

I thought this passage, and really the whole chapter, was in a way symbolic. I think it symbolized the transformation that all young people involved in the war experienced, to an extent. I doubt they all ended up with tongue necklaces (eww! why tongues??), but they all changed drastically. They all began as young and naive individuals. However, by the end they were permanently changed. The change could be positive or negative. The writer simply chose to illustrate the insanity the war could cause. He gave the reader a negative example. Or at least, it's negative in my opinion. But who knows, tongue necklaces could be all the rage this year.

Torture

"He stepped back and shot [the buffalo] through the right front knee. The animal did not make a sound. It went down hard, then got up again, and Rat took careful aim and shot off an ear. He shot it in the hindquarters and in the little hump at its back. He shot it twice in the flanks. It wasn't to kill; it was to hurt. He put the rifle muzzle up against the mouth and shot the mouth away. Nobody said much. The whole platoon stood there watching, feeling all kinds of things, but there wasn't a great deal of pity for the baby water buffalo. Curt Lemon was dead. Rat Kiley had lost his best friend in the world. Later in the week he would write a long personal letter to the guy's sister, who would not write back, but for now it was a question of pain. He shot off the tail. He shot away chunks of meat below the ribs...Rat went on automatic. He shot randomly, almost casually...All the while the baby buffalo was silent, or almost silent, just a light bubbling sound where the nose had been." Page 75 and 76

I found this passage extremely disturbing. Before this passage, I actually really like Rat. He was one of my favorite characters, but I just didn't get this passage. I didn't understand why he was doing it. Yes, he had lost his best friend but how does torturing an innocent baby buffalo help or bring comfort? And it almost seems that the other soldiers understood. They just watched with no pity for the poor animal. They condoned this outrageous behavior because of his recent loss. I just don't understand how anyone could watch that.

Metaphor

"For example: War is hell. As a moral declaration the old truism seems perfectly true, and yet because it abstracts, because it generalizes, I can't believe it with my stomach." Page 74

The metaphor 'War is hell' is affective but the writer actually uses it in a negative way. I thought it was an interesting way to explain what he found to be untrue and unbelievable. He says it is simply a generalization and you can't always believe a generalization. I thought it was an interesting way to prove his point. He chooses a specific example and explains why it is abstract and not factual. In a way, all metaphors can be viewed in an abstract way. It was an interesting strategy. He also says that it comes down to gut instinct. I think that he was in a way talking about the whole war. A soldier couldn't stop and think. They just had to act on their first instinct.

An Unanswered Letter

"And then the letter gets very sad and serious. Rat pours his heart out. He says he loved the guy. He says the guy was his best friend in the world. They were like soul mates, he says, like twins or something, they had a whole lot in common. He tells the guy's sister he'll look her up when the war's over. So what happens? Rat mails the letter. He waits two months. The dumb cooze never writes back." Page 65

This part was pretty depressing. I think the writer was showing that the tragedies of the war hit those involved much harder than the ones back home. I was really surprised that the sister never responded to Rat's letter. Not only was he a connection to her brother but he was also desperate. He wanted a connection to his best friend. He was reaching out and he got no response at all. These kind of situations probably did nothing to help the soldiers' morale. This distant war was only a reality to those called to serve.

Internal Conflict

"...Dave Jensen started to worry. It was mostly in his head. There were no threats, no vows of revenge, just a silent tension..." Page 59 and 60

In contrast to the previous external conflict, O'Brien next describes an internal conflict of one of the previously mentioned characters. Dave Jensen became paranoid. The writer states that it was mainly in his head. This is a perfect example of an internal conflict. I'm sure an argument was constantly raging in Dave's head. Lee was his fellow soldier and duty came first. He wouldn't try anything. But then again, Dave hurt him so badly that he had to be choppered away for medical attention. The circumstances were split. I doubt that Dave was in any danger from Lee, but he convinced himself that an attack was possible. He didn't know who he could trust. O'Brien utilizes this to show that war made people insane at points. It messed with their heads.

An External Conflict

"... Lee Strunk and Dave Jensen got into a fistfight. It was about something stupid-a missing jackknife-but even so the fight was vicious." Page 59

This passage is a perfect example of external conflict. Two characters have an altercation. In this case, it is a violent and physical fistfight. I found it interesting that the fight was so violent when it was over something so minor and 'stupid'. The soldiers must have been tense. Tension can cause anger and overreactions. I think that was definitely the case in this instance. The war was stressful and it caused this external conflict within the troops. I believe that the writer was trying to show the reader that violence and hardship wasn't always directly connected to the war but war was the cause just the same.

A Different Set of Shoes

"And I want you to feel it-the wind coming off the river, the waves, the silence, the wooded frontier. You're at the bow of a boat on the Rainy River. You're twenty-one years old, you're scared, and there's a hard squeezing pressure in your chest. What would you do? Would you jump? Would you feel pity for yourself? Would you think about your family and your childhood and your dreams and all you're leaving behind? Would it hurt? Would it feel like dying? Would you cry as I did?" Page 54

This passage intrigued me. At the beginning of the chapter, the writer says he has never told this specific story before. I think this excerpt explains why. O'Brien was obviously very embarrassed of his cowardice. He was scared and tried to run away from the responsibility to serve his country. In this passage, he is calling out to the reader with the hope that someone will understand. He asks the reader to step into his shoes. All he wants is to have someone understand that young man's point of view before judging his actions.

Ignorance

"I felt no personal danger; I felt no sense of an impending crisis in my life. Stupidly, with a kind of smug removal that I can't begin to fathom, I assumed that the problems of killing and dying did not fall within my special province." Page 39

This passage really stuck out to me. I feel as though young people today have a similar attitude to that which O'Brien demonstrates in this section. I feel as though many young Americans think about our current war as a distant problem that doesn't affect them. This is of course, if they think about the war at all. I know that personally I am not as interested and informed about the war as I should be. We support our troops but I doubt that many teens rush home from school to watch the news for recent updates. I do wonder how a draft would affect this ignorance. The war might seem more real and close if young people were faced with the possibility of being chosen to fight it.

Checkers

"I remember Norman Bowker and Henry Dobbins playing checkers every evening before dark. It was a ritual...The rest of us would sometimes stop by to watch. There was something restful about it, something orderly and reassuring. There were red checkers and black checkers. The playing field was laid out in a strict grid, no tunnels or mountains or jungles. You knew where you stood. You knew the score. The pieces were out on the board, the enemy was visible, you could watch the tactics unfolding into larger strategies. There was a winner and a loser. There were rules." Page 31

I found this paragraph very insightful. It showed, without directly saying it, what the soldiers' feelings towards the war were. This passage discusses the structured game of checkers. Honestly, the game is not very interesting. However, the men watched because the game was comforting. The description O'Brien gives seems to highlight certain details because of their opposition to the structure of the war. There are no sneak attacks or lurking enemies. These soldiers were living in an unfamiliar world and they had no idea what to expect from their opponents. This classic game was a small escape from reality.

First Person Point of View

"Many years after the war Jimmy Cross came to visit me at my home in Massachusetts, and for a full day we drank coffee and smoked cigarettes and talked about everything we had seen and done so long ago, all the things we still carried through our lives." Page 26

This passage, and really the whole chapter, was an important shift in the novel. In the first chapter the writer was simply a third party observer who reflected on the feelings and actions of the soldiers. In contrast, chapter two is written from the writer's perspective in the first person. This was an effective strategy. It identified the writer as not just an observer but a soldier himself. He shows this especially in the phrase "...everything we had seen and done..." The 'we' shows that the author had taken part in the action of the story. By revealing this part way in, O'Brien sparks the reader's interest. These stories that he has already begun to tell are seen as personal because of this shift.

A Pointless Flame

"...Jimmy Cross crouched at the bottom of his foxhole and burned Martha's letters. Then he burned the two photographs...it was only a gesture...the letters were in his head." Page 22

I thought this passage was very interesting. I was surprised when Jimmy started burning the letters and photos. They were his only physical connection the the world outside of the war. The whole passage still confuses me a little. The gesture seemed pointless to me. He admits it was only a gesture but I don't understand the importance of the gesture. It didn't change anything which he did admit but it also didn't seem to fit the situation to me. It seemed a gesture to show rejection and disregard of the outside world not necessarily a commitment to the world of the war and his men which was his intended purpose. It was supposed to symbolize a renewed effort to protect his men and their best interests but it didn't seem to connect at all.

Simile

"...Kiowa kept explaining how you had to be there, how fast it was, how the poor guy just dropped like so much concrete. Boom-down, he said. Like cement." Page 6

I think O'Brien utilizes this simile very well. He compares death to both concrete and cement. He emphasizes the comparison to cement by separating the phrase 'Like cement' into a distinct sentence. I think the purpose of this simile was to illustrate the finality and abruptness of death. He shows this in a couple of ways. The first is the comparison to the hard, heavy, and harsh objects concrete and cement. Cement and concrete are difficult to remove or destroy just as death is irreversible. The syntax also illustrates the abruptness of death. The last two sentences are short and sharp. They end the passage harshly just as death ends a life quickly and sharply. These details help to show the shock experienced by these soldiers. Of these details, I believe the use of a simile is the most important and effective.