1. I love the way he categorizes their "interest." We all know that they only do it to sell their product and make money but he made it seem as if they really cared about his body, which made it funny.
2. The serious theme is that spam emails asre very annoying and most of the time useless. This complicate's the poem's tone because it switches from annnoyed to humorous by making fun of the reandom advertisements but also making it eveident that no one likes to get them.
3. I completly understand what he means about the male enhancment advertisments along with slimming ideas and make-up. I myslef am a female but they still send me things like that everyday. I get some different things in my email box like a list of adoption agencies asking me if i wanted to take home a "bundle of joy" today, knowing that it takes a long time to adopt a child.
1. It may be considered a later-day version because of the "conversation" between him and the female.
2.Bob Hicok is just speaking on the impact of spam emailing on people's lives while Tony Hoagland speaks of America with it's stereotypes, money, lies, slander,and images is sufficating their people.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
pancake paper- Oedipus
What if you didn’t know exactly what was going on in your own life? What if the one person who couldn’t see could see more than you? What if you knew there was a possibility that your life was what everybody was trying to figure out, and you were the murderer?
Sophocles uses Plot, Metaphor, and Irony to explain just how much “in the dark” Oedipus and his people are. When speaking of plot Sophocles creates a speech given by Oedipus to show that he has no clue that he is the true murderer of Laios. Sophocles explaining the metaphor about him literally being in the dark (blind) but he knows the true prophecy, as compared to Oedipus who can see but has no idea what he has done in the past few years of his life. In the end Oedipus figures it out and says “damned in his birth, in his marriage damned, damned in the blood he shed with his own hands!”
Oedipus states in his speech in the beginning of the play “If any man knows by whose hand Laios, son of labdakos , met his death, I direct this man to tell me anything” making it obvious that he either doesn’t know or he is putting on some huge façade. Sophocles almost literally makes Oedipus a puppet or play thing of the gods. Even though the gods don’t openly state what they are going to do in the life of Oedipus it becomes very clear when the blind seer tells the prophecy. Some say that the gods not only did this for their own twisted pleasure but because of inherited guilt. “Oedipus falls due to the act of an ancestor (laios’ rape of Chrysippus)” [Taken from homepage.usask.ca/coursenotes/oed.html].
It is also looked upon that Oedipus’ fate was because of his own arrogance and rashness. He comes off very headstrong and foolish. His “people” after encourage the way he acts by giving him the power of a god, almost worshipping him. The priest stated “you are not one of the immortal gods, we know; yet we have come to you make our prayer as to the man surest in mortal ways and wisest in the ways of God.” Oedipus also seems to get very paranoid when he thinks that Kreon is trying to get rid of him and take his throne. Oedipus claims “if for this power Kreon desires in secret to destroy me,” and “and this is the man you think can destroy, that you may be close to Kreon when he’s king!” He literally jumps to conclusions by saying that Teiresias is helping Kreon destroy him so that he can become king.
Later on in the play we find out that he doesn’t know what is really going on. He uses metaphor when he speaks of being “in the dark” when the blind seer Teiresias tells him the prophecy about his life. Teiresias plainly states “I say that you are the murderer whom you seek”; revealing that he knows more than Oedipus does about his own life. This simple fact really upsets Oedipus because he was just completely thrown by what was said to him. What he had been looking for was in him. That fact alone would make me rethink my life and all the events in it. Teiresias explains that he will live in shame and that his fate lies within Apollo’s (the god) competence. “I say you live in hideous shame with those most dear to you. You can not see the evil,” “True: it is not from you my fate will come. That lies within Apollo’s competence, as it is his concern.”
Sophocles uses extended Metaphor very well as far as the phrase “in the dark” was concerned. There also was another metaphor that wasn’t plainly stated but often shown in the play. Oedipus’ wife Jokaste was said to be his mother in the end. If you didn’t know that she was his mother from the earlier plays then you might have not noticed the fact that she acts very motherly throughout her parts in the play. She’s always trying to sway his mind/ideas because of her own personal experiences, which is something a wife often does also. For example she always says how she doesn’t really believe in gods or the prophecies. She was always reassuring Oedipus trying to change his mind by telling him her opinions. In Act 1, Scene 2 Jokaste says “I tell you that you will find no man whose craft gives knowledge of the unknowable, Here is proof; an oracle was reported to Laios once… That his doom would be death at the hands of his own son.” Obviously she didn’t believe this prophecy because to her own personal knowledge this had not happened.
Irony begins to tie all of this together when Oedipus speaks to the shepherd and he reveals that he gave the child of Laios away to another shepherd. The shepherd says “If you must be told, then… They say it was Laios’ child; but it is your wife who can tell you about that;” ultimately saying that his wife knows what is going on and unraveling more who the child may be. Throughout the entire play Oedipus is trying to prove that the prophecy is wrong and that he is not the one who killed Laios. But instead it turns out that he was the killer and he married his own mother. He says that his children were damned and cursed because of his fate. He had a very long argument with the seer about him not being blind to the world outside of his own and trying to explain his paranoia about Kreon stealing his throne.
Jokaste also serves a large part in the dramatic irony because she is determined to prove the god or the prophecy wrong. She continues to tell Oedipus that the seer was not correct in his prediction and that there was no way that it could have been true. She even gives an example where the prophecy failed. Ironically this is the same prophecy that will be proven correct at the conclusion of the play. What makes the irony so dramatic is the fact that Jokast kills herself and Oedipus blinds himself which brings back the extended metaphor. He blinds himself when he finally finds out the truth. Now he is in a way like the seer: blind and all knowing.
In the end you do see that Oedipus, Jokaste, and their people were all in the dark and suffer the horror of finally finding out what has really happened in their lives. It seems that in this play you have to literally be blind or dead to know the truth or once you know the truth you take your life or sight. The seer was physically blind but he knew everything. When Oedipus found out what he did he took his sight away and suffered with the truth for the rest of his life. Jokaste found out everything and eventually killed herself because of the realization of what she had let happen. This entire plays reminds me of a famous quote “you can’t handle the truth,” which is true for the main character in this play.
Sophocles uses Plot, Metaphor, and Irony to explain just how much “in the dark” Oedipus and his people are. When speaking of plot Sophocles creates a speech given by Oedipus to show that he has no clue that he is the true murderer of Laios. Sophocles explaining the metaphor about him literally being in the dark (blind) but he knows the true prophecy, as compared to Oedipus who can see but has no idea what he has done in the past few years of his life. In the end Oedipus figures it out and says “damned in his birth, in his marriage damned, damned in the blood he shed with his own hands!”
Oedipus states in his speech in the beginning of the play “If any man knows by whose hand Laios, son of labdakos , met his death, I direct this man to tell me anything” making it obvious that he either doesn’t know or he is putting on some huge façade. Sophocles almost literally makes Oedipus a puppet or play thing of the gods. Even though the gods don’t openly state what they are going to do in the life of Oedipus it becomes very clear when the blind seer tells the prophecy. Some say that the gods not only did this for their own twisted pleasure but because of inherited guilt. “Oedipus falls due to the act of an ancestor (laios’ rape of Chrysippus)” [Taken from homepage.usask.ca/coursenotes/oed.html].
It is also looked upon that Oedipus’ fate was because of his own arrogance and rashness. He comes off very headstrong and foolish. His “people” after encourage the way he acts by giving him the power of a god, almost worshipping him. The priest stated “you are not one of the immortal gods, we know; yet we have come to you make our prayer as to the man surest in mortal ways and wisest in the ways of God.” Oedipus also seems to get very paranoid when he thinks that Kreon is trying to get rid of him and take his throne. Oedipus claims “if for this power Kreon desires in secret to destroy me,” and “and this is the man you think can destroy, that you may be close to Kreon when he’s king!” He literally jumps to conclusions by saying that Teiresias is helping Kreon destroy him so that he can become king.
Later on in the play we find out that he doesn’t know what is really going on. He uses metaphor when he speaks of being “in the dark” when the blind seer Teiresias tells him the prophecy about his life. Teiresias plainly states “I say that you are the murderer whom you seek”; revealing that he knows more than Oedipus does about his own life. This simple fact really upsets Oedipus because he was just completely thrown by what was said to him. What he had been looking for was in him. That fact alone would make me rethink my life and all the events in it. Teiresias explains that he will live in shame and that his fate lies within Apollo’s (the god) competence. “I say you live in hideous shame with those most dear to you. You can not see the evil,” “True: it is not from you my fate will come. That lies within Apollo’s competence, as it is his concern.”
Sophocles uses extended Metaphor very well as far as the phrase “in the dark” was concerned. There also was another metaphor that wasn’t plainly stated but often shown in the play. Oedipus’ wife Jokaste was said to be his mother in the end. If you didn’t know that she was his mother from the earlier plays then you might have not noticed the fact that she acts very motherly throughout her parts in the play. She’s always trying to sway his mind/ideas because of her own personal experiences, which is something a wife often does also. For example she always says how she doesn’t really believe in gods or the prophecies. She was always reassuring Oedipus trying to change his mind by telling him her opinions. In Act 1, Scene 2 Jokaste says “I tell you that you will find no man whose craft gives knowledge of the unknowable, Here is proof; an oracle was reported to Laios once… That his doom would be death at the hands of his own son.” Obviously she didn’t believe this prophecy because to her own personal knowledge this had not happened.
Irony begins to tie all of this together when Oedipus speaks to the shepherd and he reveals that he gave the child of Laios away to another shepherd. The shepherd says “If you must be told, then… They say it was Laios’ child; but it is your wife who can tell you about that;” ultimately saying that his wife knows what is going on and unraveling more who the child may be. Throughout the entire play Oedipus is trying to prove that the prophecy is wrong and that he is not the one who killed Laios. But instead it turns out that he was the killer and he married his own mother. He says that his children were damned and cursed because of his fate. He had a very long argument with the seer about him not being blind to the world outside of his own and trying to explain his paranoia about Kreon stealing his throne.
Jokaste also serves a large part in the dramatic irony because she is determined to prove the god or the prophecy wrong. She continues to tell Oedipus that the seer was not correct in his prediction and that there was no way that it could have been true. She even gives an example where the prophecy failed. Ironically this is the same prophecy that will be proven correct at the conclusion of the play. What makes the irony so dramatic is the fact that Jokast kills herself and Oedipus blinds himself which brings back the extended metaphor. He blinds himself when he finally finds out the truth. Now he is in a way like the seer: blind and all knowing.
In the end you do see that Oedipus, Jokaste, and their people were all in the dark and suffer the horror of finally finding out what has really happened in their lives. It seems that in this play you have to literally be blind or dead to know the truth or once you know the truth you take your life or sight. The seer was physically blind but he knew everything. When Oedipus found out what he did he took his sight away and suffered with the truth for the rest of his life. Jokaste found out everything and eventually killed herself because of the realization of what she had let happen. This entire plays reminds me of a famous quote “you can’t handle the truth,” which is true for the main character in this play.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
reflection
My favorite blog homework was the first blog that we had to do. We were new to blogging for homework purposes and the new experience was great and an interesting way to learn. Also reading other people's blogs was the most fun. I got to express how i felt and what i learned about the books i read over the summer. I was intensely excited to do so. I read Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte, a Gothic love novel. The story was so well written i couldn't take my eyes off of it and finished it along with a few other books from the list. In addition to a new experience it gave me a chance to get back on my feet with writing formally. Because it was my first time doing so I won't forget it explaining why its my favorite. I feel as though the study of literature is so important because it is your language and can improve the way you speak and write which can determine how successful you are in the future. Honestly I just can't get enough of reading. My weakness is reading everything along with what I'm supposed to read which slows me down on my school reading. I also need to learn to read and comprehend beyond the literal and also learn to write beyond the literal. My strengths would be finishing the reading ahead of time and passing the test on them. My reading goal for next quarter is to start and finish The Iliad by Homer and fully comprehend it to its full ability. I was shocked at the things that we were reading about this year. There was a lot of sex, killing, depression, and shocking endings to short stories.
Friday, October 24, 2008
short story paper- Popular Mechanics
What if you made a decision you actually didn't want because you were going against someone who wanted the complete opposite? What if the decision made wasn't for either one of you? How would feel if the "compromise" wasn't even a compromise. you both lost what you wanted and could never get it back?
Style in the poem Popular Mechanics is very interesting. The "setting" in normal but as well as dim in a way that know something dreadful is going to happen. The author states that it was getting dark outside and on the inside also when he said "But it was getting dark on the inside too." This was set up to produce a tone of sorrow and calamity and confusion. The diction wasn't low but not too high either. You can tell someone intelligent wrote it. Both sides are agitated and frustrated with each other. The language is also contemporary. The story is actually a more modern short story.
The style of the poem already revealed that the tone was fairly enraged but changes to somber later on in the story. The setting already told us this even by saying "the snow was melting into dirty water. Streaks of it ran down from the little shoulder-high window..." The couple was also yelling in the story. This proves the anger and desperation between the couple to get what they want. And eventually they got something that neither of them wanted. As soon as the decision was made the entire poem's tone changed.
The irony in this short story was quite shocking. It ended up being that the baby was either killed or very badly injured. By the way the story was structured you would believe that either the mother would get the baby because of the way she protected it. She hovered over the child and also turned to the wall. At first I didn't even think that the father would try to physically take the baby away from the mother. But then you might predict that the father might actually get the baby because of the furious grip on the child's shoulder. The baby begins to cry and the mother yells that he is hurting the child. The father just simply yells back that he's not. Then they both eventually grab a wrist and pull back hard as if they are playing some game of tug-of-war. Then their decision was made in a rather brutal way.
Raymond Carver blended style, tone, and irony in a very unexpected way. In this story were domestic issues take place and take a life. The end leaves you with a heavy heart and a shocked expression. Everything about the ending (though very short) was startling. Even though the parents definitely got a bit violent towards the end it didn't seem as though something that disturbing would happen to the child. You would have never concluded by yourself that something that disturbing would happen before you read the line "she caught the baby around the wrist and leaned back." The only thing you could have concluded was that the ending was going to be bad because of the way Carver created the style which set up the sorrowful/incensed tone.
It reminds me of a biblical story that spoke of two women; one had a live baby and the other's baby died. The woman with the dead baby switched the babies but the real mother knew it wasn't her baby. They both went to king Solomon and plead their cases. So he suggested that they split the baby in half. The real mother spoke up and told Solomon that the other woman should take the baby. So he knew who the real mother was. It ended happy because the real mother got her child. In this story "Popular Mechanics," ended badly because the couple couldn't make a decision. The two women had Solomon to help them make a decision. They had no one so therefore the child was either killed or very badly injured.
Style in the poem Popular Mechanics is very interesting. The "setting" in normal but as well as dim in a way that know something dreadful is going to happen. The author states that it was getting dark outside and on the inside also when he said "But it was getting dark on the inside too." This was set up to produce a tone of sorrow and calamity and confusion. The diction wasn't low but not too high either. You can tell someone intelligent wrote it. Both sides are agitated and frustrated with each other. The language is also contemporary. The story is actually a more modern short story.
The style of the poem already revealed that the tone was fairly enraged but changes to somber later on in the story. The setting already told us this even by saying "the snow was melting into dirty water. Streaks of it ran down from the little shoulder-high window..." The couple was also yelling in the story. This proves the anger and desperation between the couple to get what they want. And eventually they got something that neither of them wanted. As soon as the decision was made the entire poem's tone changed.
The irony in this short story was quite shocking. It ended up being that the baby was either killed or very badly injured. By the way the story was structured you would believe that either the mother would get the baby because of the way she protected it. She hovered over the child and also turned to the wall. At first I didn't even think that the father would try to physically take the baby away from the mother. But then you might predict that the father might actually get the baby because of the furious grip on the child's shoulder. The baby begins to cry and the mother yells that he is hurting the child. The father just simply yells back that he's not. Then they both eventually grab a wrist and pull back hard as if they are playing some game of tug-of-war. Then their decision was made in a rather brutal way.
Raymond Carver blended style, tone, and irony in a very unexpected way. In this story were domestic issues take place and take a life. The end leaves you with a heavy heart and a shocked expression. Everything about the ending (though very short) was startling. Even though the parents definitely got a bit violent towards the end it didn't seem as though something that disturbing would happen to the child. You would have never concluded by yourself that something that disturbing would happen before you read the line "she caught the baby around the wrist and leaned back." The only thing you could have concluded was that the ending was going to be bad because of the way Carver created the style which set up the sorrowful/incensed tone.
It reminds me of a biblical story that spoke of two women; one had a live baby and the other's baby died. The woman with the dead baby switched the babies but the real mother knew it wasn't her baby. They both went to king Solomon and plead their cases. So he suggested that they split the baby in half. The real mother spoke up and told Solomon that the other woman should take the baby. So he knew who the real mother was. It ended happy because the real mother got her child. In this story "Popular Mechanics," ended badly because the couple couldn't make a decision. The two women had Solomon to help them make a decision. They had no one so therefore the child was either killed or very badly injured.
Poetry Paper- Greenhouse
The narrator did not state who he was just his family members. It can quite possibly be the poet himself. The poem is in second person. The language used is simple but at the same time figurative. There is nothing harsh about the way he speaks. You mostly just imagine the greenhouse. The form was open and informal. He repeats a lot of colors such as green, orange, and black. The meaning of the poem is at first is that the family is shut inside of a green colored house (not a greenhouse with plants) and also inside of their own naive minds.
The daughter wants to go out and live alone. Apparently they migrated from Germany and were stuck in their simple mindedness. They call her a delicate non-indigenous plant (making another reference to the greenhouse even though it wasn't that type of greenhouse) who fell in love with a black man. When she married him her father mourned for her as if she were dead (she was dead to him), even though she wasn't far away (orange-second color-not for but just outside of the home).
She had two daughters and they never met their grandfather. Then he died and the daughter and her family came to the house to see the grandmother. They opened all the window (a symbol of accepting her daughter and her family) because it was a beautiful spring day. They also brought out the delicate china from Germany (indicating that they were immigrants, and further welcomed the new family) that was locked up for years.
The daughter wants to go out and live alone. Apparently they migrated from Germany and were stuck in their simple mindedness. They call her a delicate non-indigenous plant (making another reference to the greenhouse even though it wasn't that type of greenhouse) who fell in love with a black man. When she married him her father mourned for her as if she were dead (she was dead to him), even though she wasn't far away (orange-second color-not for but just outside of the home).
She had two daughters and they never met their grandfather. Then he died and the daughter and her family came to the house to see the grandmother. They opened all the window (a symbol of accepting her daughter and her family) because it was a beautiful spring day. They also brought out the delicate china from Germany (indicating that they were immigrants, and further welcomed the new family) that was locked up for years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
