The Writer's Persona

I don't know if we can still post but I'll give it a shot. In another English class we did a close analysis of "The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock" from a different perspective as in this class. We looked at how the writer's motives and personality comes out in his/her work. It was from a psychoanalytic standpoint, but I kind of threw that out the window and adopted my own interpretation because I'm not a big fan of it.
Anyway, the class began with a short documentary on Eliot... and having read the poem before, I paid close attention to the man behind the words. It was like watching a film adaptation of Prufrock in many aspects. Eliot was contemplative, analytic, but most importantly vicarious. When you read a good poem or book, or even find an appreciation for a specific character in literature, I think there is almost always a piece of the writer that you're reading about. Shakespeare's work has a comical, intellectual and thoughtful air about it; Hemingway is blunt, to the point, and masculine... and I can't help but associate these traits with the writers' own characteristics. Thelonius Monk said "A man's a genius just to play himself." I believe that to be true, that letting yourself into your own work is the basis for a successful piece. Just my thoughts, though :)

Passing

Because of my final paper is focused on Nella Larsen's book Quicksand, I've been thinking a lot more about the depth in the book Passing. What is truly striking about it is that I had never observed so many levels to the title. How does the word passing connect to the book? Well, there is the most obvious answer: the book is about black women who pass as white. But writers are generally not that straight-forward when they title a novel. So what else could passing mean? It is an adjective describing satisfactory performance (often found in this form when describing a test). The book, leaving Irene's actions so vague that she is passing in this way (passing meaning free). Or perhaps she has destroyed the unification of the white and black race, Clare, and thus, in her mind, she is doing satisfactory work. Passing is also a verb, meaning to go by. How often did the white people simply go by the white people and vice versa, the blacks go by the whites without intermixing. Perhaps this is what is meant by passing and that is the way things (in the mind of society) should remain. Therefore, Clare was ultimately doomed as a character because she never just passed one race or another. She didn't conform in either category being a mulatto. Passing can also mean to spread something, such as passing a cold. Therefore, the interaction between the races could be compared to a disease- leading to Clare's destruction. And though I'm sure its not the only other perscription to the word "passing", there is the fact that Clare dies and Clare is therefore on the verge of passing from life to death. There are so many levels to the word passing.

The Big Forces

A lot of the focus in this class has been on what was the change that occurred and who were the people who provoked change. But I think there is a dimension that we often overlook when looking at modernism, or at least I do: the opposition of change. These were not JUST judgemental people. These were eugenicists, masses of people believing in "cleansing" the world of genetic inferiorities, such as the Nazis and the KKK, which was at full-force in the 1920's. Families were torn as tradition was provoked. The nuclear family began to bend and break as gender roles were questioned. Revivalists began to preach of the impurity of the world as others claimed God died. Fear struck the world with wartime hysteria creating such things as internment camps. It seems like a lot was going on, and that's because there was, not just for A minority, but many groups catalyzing each other to change.

Ignorance

It is strange to think that 120,000 Japanese-Americans were placed into internment camps, but the camps could still be kept secret and Americans through fear became hateful (perhaps like citizens after 9/11). There were articles that I read from old newspapers that had the "sensored" versions of relocating Japanese-Americans. There were a multitude of stories suggesting that the temporary confinement of the Japanese-Americans were few. They suggested alternative stories such as new housing displaced Japanese-Americans. Politicians gave their opinions of the federal government interfering with systems outside of their limitations. Its so strange to think what really is being sensored? How much do we know of what is going on in our own country?

Japanese Internment Camps

I researched more about the concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII, and I found some alternative writing that came out of it. There is a poem called "That Damned Fence" and it is arranged in quatrains with the first two lines and last two lines rhyming with one another. It is a poem that describes the feeling of being trapped inside, with repetition of "That Damned Fence" throughout the poem.

After reading this poem, I found that in comparison to the haiku, which we read in class, the haiku is much more effective. The ideas in the haiku are not convoluted because the word choice is limited in this style of poetry. The alternative poem that I found on the internet is written by one author, where the haiku is by several authors; and while this would usually make the poem harder to follow because of different writing styles, I think it is good because it offers different perspectives in a chronologically manner. As far as expression of emotion, I think that the haiku does a better job. The emotion is not expressed as clearly to the reader in "That Damned Fence" and I think it is because of the freedom the author had to choose in words and stanzas that a haiku does not offer.

Though both poems were written in the Japanese concentration camps, I think that the haiku produced a better result, and those who did not experience the time can get a better idea of what went on inside.

Artichoke

In "The Pangolin," Marianne Moore's substitution of words for other words or her use of metonymy, is evident throughout the entire poem. Despite her intelligent phrases, I found some of her other lines fairly humorous though they may not have been meant to be.

For example, the word artichoke seemed at first to be out of place in her poem,

"...This near artichoke with head and legs and grit-equipped gizzard,"

It seems funny that it is put there, though I like the sound of it. The humor acts in two different ways at the same time, and the artichoke is in comparison to the pangolin. Moore's way of doing this is shocking because an artichoke is a stationary plant. However, the pattern on the leaves of artichokes and on the pangolin resemble one another. The pangolin is an animal that I had never seen or heard of before this poem, so it is a surprise that it can be similar to a plant that is fairly well-known. The humor in Moore's writing is the image that the reader gets after visualizing an artichoke paired with a pangolin, because the reader may think of a walking artichoke... which is in a sense, what Marianne Moore is referring to.

Moore's fascination with the pangolin allows her to describe the armored plates in a way that would otherwise be overlooked. Her humor adds richness to the poem by putting it into context with a scaly covering of an artichoke. Overall, if I understand the meaning of metonymy, I think Moore is successful in making artichoke and pangolin mean the same thing.

Freedom and the Japanese Internment Camps

Writers are often praised when they can take a phrase and incorporate into it a double meaning that gives insight into the heart of society. I noticed that the Japanese American Concentration Camp Haiku surpassed this practice, though, and was able to create double meaning not only with the language of the poem, but more importantly with the form of the poem as well.

For instance, haiku generally has a rigid pattern that must be followed to the tee. However, while the Concentration Camp Haiku takes the appearance of a haiku, it does not follow the exact measures set by the previous generation of haiku poets. There is freedom of expression within the style. The triplets can range from a 4-12-7 syllable sequence to a 6-5-7 sequence in the proceeding series, for example.

This breaking away of set rules for poetic forms becomes ironic when one realizes that these poetic liberties were being taken in a poem that depicts imprisonment. When freedom was at a premium for the haiku poets, they tried to gain a sense of freedom through their own art.

Pain Squared

Just to continue the theme of the Japanese haiku, I thought I'd throw in my two cents (and since it's a penny for one's thoughts, I suppose I get to express two).

On the one hand, I find it darkly amusing that America has chosen to try and quietly sweep the whole Japanese internment camp ordeal under the proverbial rug. Granted, I'm not as well-versed with the rationale behind the Executive Order which authorized it so I can't completely condemn the decision (although I do with the current amount of knowledge I possess on the subject). With that out of the way, I found each of the following haiku to have a certain resonance:

On certain days
heart is full of hypocrisy
flowers of gobo are purple

Black clouds instantly shroud
autumn sky
hail storming against us today also

I find the "heart full of hypocrisy" phrase to be quite pertinent. Here were a group of Japanese-Americans who understood that one of Americas great virtues (supposedly) was its acceptance of everyone (unless of course they were black; then they still were considered sub-human. Irony creeps up all the time...). Here the Japanese-Americans were denied the freedoms they probably came here to get in the first place. The insult to that injury was that the German-Americans did not suffer the same fate. Needless to say, this hypocrisy on the part of the American government did not escape the Japanese-Americans. It understandably caused them quite a bit of irritation.

With regard to the second haiku, it figuratively refers to the lives they used to have being swept away by a violent storm. What can one do against a storm? One cannot argue with a storm or any force of nature. In this case, the storm was the government and the Japanese-Americans could not argue with it either.

Not to play the moral equivalency game (although it is fun to do so sometimes), but the Japanese did far worse things to the Chinese in WWII. I'd advise people to check out a book called The Rape of Nanking to see what I'm talking about. It makes what the American government did to the Japanese-Americans look like royal treatment. I don't mean to say those actions by the Japanese excuse America's actions; I bring it up because it shows that human cruelty permeates every society in varying degrees.

P.S. I apologize if this is a bit disjointed. It's rather late and my brain is not working very well (although some would argue that is my normal state).

Simple Yet Powerful

What seems to be a simple and short description when first glancing at the Japanese American Concentration Camp Haiku proves to be much different after reading. Even though a limited number of words were used, these haiku tell of the trying circumstances many people faced and express the pain and suffering the Japanese endured while imprisoned. The first poem takes readers on a telling journey through the first year at a concentration camp. A woman is taken in the spring for she writes "at home peony bud/ still firm. At this time she also informs readers that she's able to see her husband the day troops arrest her, but after this point she never mentions him again. Most likely this was the last time she saw her husband, and it's extremely difficult to think of never seeing a loved one again. The poet then takes readers through the summer months, into the winter with "Withered grass on ground," and finally stops again in the spring as "Dandelion has bloomed." Images of the grass and dandelions help the author explain her inner emotions and what she's thinking during this time of her imprisonment and how "On certain days/ heart is full of hypocrisy." In the haiku from the Anthology of Modern American Poetry I felt as if I sat in the concentration camp alongside this writer. I could feel the wind, hear the goat, and see the headless doll. It was if I too saw a victim fall to the ground before me. Even though the Japanese haiku appear choppy by jumping from thought to thought, short, and simple, the poets still express to the audience what they were feeling at the time, and they place readers in the same camp with their description.

Japanese American Concentration Camp Haiku

When reading the Haiku from the Japanese American Concentration Camp handout there were several stanzas that really jumped out at me, and I wanted to post them on here. These stanzas really place the reader in the anguish the writers were going through at the time they wrote them.

Black clouds instantly shroud
autumn sky
hail storming against us today also

Winter wind
relentlessly blasting shed
goat bleating

Doll without a head
lying on desk top
one evening

From The Pangolin:

"Fearful yet to be feared," the armored
ant-eater met by the driver-ant does not turn back, but
engulfs what he can

-These stanzas really capture the pain and the injustice of the imprisoned Japanese Americans and really affected me when I read them.

The Image of Mind

If there was ever an indirect description of something that came across so full and vivid, it is Moore's image of the mind in "The Mind Is an Enchanting Thing." She never addresses the mind specifically, but instead parallels it with very translucent and shining imagery. "...the glaze on a / katydid-wing," "the dove- / neck animated by / sun," "the / mist the heart wears," are all examples of the reflective, fresh, almost gem-like portrayal of the mind. This kind of imagery makes the mind seem contemplative, reflective of reality, yet reflexive and influential on the essence of reality, much like how I would view the mind. There is a lot of light included in this as it relates to the sun and the shining of mist and glazed wings. I think this is important because -- if we think about this allegorically -- the mind needs something to feed off of and analyze. Without a subject, the mind is blank. That is what struck me about Moore's image of the mind: it feels transparent to me, with the ability to refract its subject and warp it or purify it.

Moore's Eternity

Marianne Moore's "What Are Years?" is a pretty profound dialogue on growing older, death, and eternity. There were two passages that really made me think about the concept and kind of gave me solace.
The first is "He / sees the deep and is glad, who accedes to mortality / and in his imprisonment rises / upon himself." The meaning I got from this was that the bird (the supposed subject of the poem) was able to look upon eternity (the deep) and was glad that he was not forced to exist in it, that his existence was temporary. I can sympathize with this because I feel that having to exist forever would be very wearying and mentally overwhelming. Having a temporary existence, in a way, is motivation to make the best of life. If you live forever, there's always tomorrow.
The second passage reads: "Though he is captive, / his mighty singing / says, satisfaction is a lowly / thing, how pure a thing joy is." This correlates with the second half of the previous quote, but focuses more on the fulfillment and enjoyment of striving to extend your mortal impression as far as you can. In many ways this reminds me of "Ode to a Nightingale" where the speaker speaks admiringly and enviously of nature's immortality. He/she realizes, however, that the temporary quality--the mortality--of life is what makes it so invigorating and special. Having no end or beginning takes the momentary enthrallment out of life. In this way, the speaker of "Ode" realizes that his/her current peace and happiness is the apex of life and is finally willing to pass on.
The bird, and therefore the speaker, of "What Are Years?" is reaching the same conclusion: he/she is grateful for the passion of life that mortality brings, and ultimately prefers it over the vastness of eternity. The final lines, "This is mortality, / this is eternity" sums up the revelation: live for the moment and you can experience eternity in everyday life.

I found that "The Walls Do Not Fall" is a pretty unique interpretation of post-war reconstruction and resurrection, especially for how old it is. H.D. creates a religious mutt of a poem that includes mythology, Christianity, and Judaism among others to symbolize the rebirth of hope after the global schism of WW2. Instead of isolating belief, H.D. tries to model the sublime of each religion and fuse it into this one thematic poem. I like how she tries to match each religious persona with its parallels (ex: Amen-Ra and Christ) and presents them as spiritual allies. Especially with Amen-Ra and Christ, who are both resurrection figures of their respective beliefs, are portrayed as returning during the spring time when the desolation of the world is buried beneath new blooms.

Death in Larsen and Hemingway

Not that anyone needs to know this, but I'm playing a bit of catch up with my blog postings. That said, here we go...

After I finished reading Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms, I started thinking about the ending and its similarities and differences from Larsen's Passing. In each book, a major character whom we've come to know and and connect with dies. I found it particularly intriguing that in both books the other main character played a relatively large role in that death.

Starting with Passing, Irene indirectly/directly causes Clare's death. I referred to this slightly on a previous post and I will go into more depth here. The most obvious argument for Irene directly causing Clare's death stems from Irene putting her arm on Clare just prior to Clare falling to her death. Granted, Larsen deliberately leaves this ambiguous (like a "Lady and the Tiger" sort of vibe), but one could legitimately argue that Irene's hatred/resentment of Clare forced its way to the surface an manifested itself through a rage-induced homicide. Indirectly, Irene's behavior in front of Clare's husband causes Clare's husband to come to the party in a rage. Had Irene never made him suspicious, Clare would probably have lived (although one could argue that this sort of occurrence was inevitable). Regardless of the perspective, Irene's emotions inevitably caused the death of Clare. Of course her emotions were those of anger and resentment, emotions which are the converse of Henry's.

In A Farewell to Arms, Henry's physical and emotional actions eventually cause Catherine's death. From a physical perspective, had Henry not deserted the army, it is entirely possible that Catherine would have had a safe delivery. I say that only because lots of stress and travel while pregnant can't be good for one's health or for the baby. Granted, that's not the strongest argument I could muster, but it works for now. Henry's emotional aspects contribute more greatly to Catherine's death. I deliberately left sex out of the physical aspect of my analysis only because for my purposes, the sex is merely a physical expression of an emotional need. Without the emotion (namely, lust), Catherine never would have gotten pregnant. Neither Henry nor Catherine probably wanted a baby at that point (having a baby in the middle of a war in a foreign country can't be too high on anyone's list). So, had Henry not impregnated her, she never would have died. Henry did eventually come to love Catherine (as opposed to lust after her), but his lust and his love led to Catherine's death all the same.

Catherine's death and Clare's death had a large impact on Henry and Irene respectively. At the end of Passing, everything becomes dark to Irene. At the end of A Farewell to Arms, Henry walks out into the rain. Both the dark and the rain obscure one's ability to see clearly. Ironically, both Henry and Irene see life more clearly than they did before the deaths.

Hemingway and Minimalism

William Faulkner once said of Hemingway: "He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." Of course Hemingway's response to that was, "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?"

The amusing nature of that exchange aside, Hemingway does have a point. I will admit that I have quite the appreciation for Hemingway because of his approach to writing. His minimalist approach is arguably just as strong or stronger than the more descriptive approach as done by Faulkner or Steinbeck (I like Steinbeck, but hate Faulkner). From one angle, the minimalist approach does not bog the readers down with overly inflated language whose only purpose is to aggressively convince the reader that the author in question possesses a vast lexicon and can whimsically extract exquisitely worded phrases. Instead of all that, the minimalist leaves the description to the reader. Arguably, this causes the reader to become much more actively involved in the story as everything is not laid out.

A Farewell to Arms benefits greatly from this approach as it adds a visceral level to all the proceedings. For example, when Henry and his friends are shelled, Hemingway's description of the violence is very direct. When Hemingway describes Henry's kneecap as halfway down his calf, the reader can immediately visualize that and almost unconsciously adds all the graphic details.

In scenes with Henry and Catherine, this minimalist style causes the reader to actively contemplate what each character feels. It is up to the reader to read in between the lines and fill in the emotions as it were. If Hemingway explored all the minutia of their relationship, it may not have been bad, but it would have deprived the reader of some character speculation.

All of this hearkens back to the imagist poets from earlier in the semester. Take a poem like Wallace Steven's "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird". The poem arguably has more of an impact because of its cryptic nature. Hemingway takes that same idea and applies it to his novel. The result of both is the same: the reader is more actively involved and can potentially get more out of the material than if the authors had spelled everything out in excruciating detail.

Hemingway's mock Iliad

The back of our Scribner edition of Farewell to Arms starts out by calling the book, "The best American novel to emerge from World War I." I was thinking about what this quote meant in comparison to all the horror associated with the Great War.

War used to be romanticized in novels, such as the Homer's Iliad and Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage. However, WWI shattered many of the idealized perceptions of heroism and courage. Looking at FTA's text, there are many instances in which Hemingway uses images to create somewhat of a mock epic. For example, Hemingway pens in Chapter 1, "The trunks of the trees too were dusty and the leaves fell early that year and we saw the troops marching along the road and the dust rising and leaves, stirred by the breeze, falling and the soldiers marching and afterward the road bare and white except for the leaves." In what appears to be a run-on sentence, Hemingway's use of the the conjunction "and" creates a bond between the leaves and the soldiers. Not only does this paint a picture of the large quantity of soldiers, but it ties these troops to the landscape as well. In other words, one could say that the number of troops was as great as the number of leaves in the countryside. This is actually one technique Hemingway copies from Homer's Iliad. Homer, too, compares troop masses to leaves. However, the backdrop of the bloody World War I gives the image a new sarcastic meaning. Whereas Homer intended to create a beautiful image with this juxtaposition, Hemingway creates an ironic image that foreshadows the pointless waste of life in the novel.

A Lack of Description

When I first started A Farewell to Arms I didn't like the lack of description. When reading the work of descriptive authors the scene they explain comes to life for me. But that wasn't the case for Hemingway's novel. He expressed thoughts and scenes that didn't seem out of the ordinary. For example, after Henry arrives to the front after his leave he says "The fields were green and there were small green shoots on the vines, the trees along the road had small leaves and a breeze came from the sea." We as readers already know that the grass in fields is green. We also understand that in the beginning of spring all natural life sprouts green. Because I wasn't experiencing that moment with Henry I want to be given details that I don't know already. But after listening to Mike's presentation last week I changed my mind. He explained how Hemingway's work lacked description on purpose so that readers can use their imagination. I had never thought about it that way. A lack of description puts the reader to work. Instead of being handed a picturesque scene without doing any thinking at all, Hemingway's audience must fill in the blanks, create their own picture. Now that I understand Hemingway's motive for a lack of description in A Farewell to Arms, I learned to appreciate his work more.

Women's Dependency

While reading A Farewell to Arms, I noticed women in the book are completely dependent upon men, but men cannot be dependent on women. For instance, the nurses are all under command of the doctors. They cannot properly do a task (such as when Frederic first arrives at the new British hospital, but must wait for the doctor to get back before anything can be done to him). The two girls picked-up along the road seen when Frederic and the troops are retreating are completely dependent on the soldiers for safety and for food. Catherine often expresses her desire to be a "good girl". She wants so much to please Frederic, as if she fears that she will be rejected if she does not properly fulfill her womanly duty. However, the statement that men can depend on women is proven false twice in the end. Henry falls in love with Catherine, and yet she dies. He fought so hard for her (and not that she can help it) but she died. He couldn't depend on her. The baby, a boy, was dependent on his mother, the woman, to deliver him safely. Yet he died. Men are clearly given a privileged role throughout the book.

Farewell To Arms

First of all, A Farewell to Arms was horribly depressing. The entire time the two main characters, Henry and Catherine are on this quest to have this beautiful life together, but the obstacles in their life deter them from ever finding this “happy” place in their lives where they can just relax and enjoy each other. Henry, the protagonist of the novel, has no passion in his life until he meets Catherine. Although she at first is just playing this flirty game with Henry, and is just trying to seduce him because of her grief for her dead fiancé, I don’t think she intended to fall in love with him. By the end of the novel, she was pregnant, and I truly think that even though she didn’t mean to truly have feelings for Henry, I do believe by the end of the novel she was completely in love with him. By the end of the novel, it seemed almost too good to be true for the two to finally just have each other. I kind of expected her death and problematic pregnancy to be her demise. I think the plot, and the overall “romantic tragedy” is very stereotypical to the time period. I think people very typically associate these exaggerated romances with war, especially during World War I and this novel fit perfectly into this category.

Nella Larsen

My presentation on Nella Larsen was very informative in helping me to understand the time period. It gave me a first hand perspective of how black women felt during the Harlem Renaissance. Since the Harlem Renaissance impacted urban culture throughout the United States including literature, drama, music, visual art, and dance, it gave blacks a new way to explore “Black America.” Nella Larsen was a “mulatto” woman, and she used this physical aspect of her life throughout her literature. In her two books Quicksand and Passing, she told tales of the mulatto woman, and their struggle to lead fulfilling lives despite the stereotype of the “tragic mulatto.” The mulatto woman also inspired paintings such as “The Octoroon Girl” by Archibald Motley, which featured a light-skinned, dark-haired, dark-eyed woman. Art and literature featuring the mulatto woman gave her a new “role” in society. The mulatto woman was now the new representative of the “New Negro Woman.” She was seen as a heroine, and emphasized roles of “self-sacrifice,” taking jobs such as teachers, nurses, and librarians. These popular images of the “New Negro Woman” enforced a standard of behavior, appearance, and vocation for all black women at the time. Overall, Larsen and Motley were icon’s throughout the Harlem Renaissance because they made the “New Negro Woman” more modern, independent, and extreme. They defined the “mulatto” as a public icon, and gave the “New Negro Woman” a new outlook and defined her expectations.

Nella Larsen

My presentation on Nella Larsen was very informative in helping me to understand the time period. It gave me a first hand perspective of how black women felt during the Harlem Renaissance. Since the Harlem Renaissance impacted urban culture throughout the United States including literature, drama, music, visual art, and dance, it gave blacks a new way to explore “Black America.” Nella Larsen was a “mulatto” woman, and she used this physical aspect of her life throughout her literature. In her two books Quicksand and Passing, she told tales of the mulatto woman, and their struggle to lead fulfilling lives despite the stereotype of the “tragic mulatto.” The mulatto woman also inspired paintings such as “The Octoroon Girl” by Archibald Motley, which featured a light-skinned, dark-haired, dark-eyed woman. Art and literature featuring the mulatto woman gave her a new “role” in society. The mulatto woman was now the new representative of the “New Negro Woman.” She was seen as a heroine, and emphasized roles of “self-sacrifice,” taking jobs such as teachers, nurses, and librarians. These popular images of the “New Negro Woman” enforced a standard of behavior, appearance, and vocation for all black women at the time. Overall, Larsen and Motley were icon’s throughout the Harlem Renaissance because they made the “New Negro Woman” more modern, independent, and extreme. They defined the “mulatto” as a public icon, and gave the “New Negro Woman” a new outlook and defined her expectations.

Sex in Modernism

As we have read the selected texts from the Modernism period, it becomes clearer to me the presence of sex. Especially in Hemingway, the societal views of sex are reflected upon his novel. First of all, sex is presented as an objectified function. In the beginning of the novel the reader is introduced to Rinaldi and immediately we get this sense of his reduction of women based on sexual adequacy. Also, most of the times that Catherine discusses her sexual experiences with Frederic, she feels like a whore. That seems like a terrible way to remember such a special moment - however, society has pushed the notion on her that "sex is bad" and that she should really view it in no other way.

For Frederic, sex ruins everything because of the huge changes it brings. Because of his sexual relations with Catherine, she dies. Instead of sex being a good thing (a healthy part of their relationship) it resulted in Catherine's death and the loss of his son. I feel as if Hemingway wrote this way because he internalized society's view of sex as unclean or immoral. After all, free sexual expression was unheard of.

Ultimately, it makes sense to me why the Modernist authors present sex in a negative way. In all of the novels that we have read, sex was not something to be talked about outright. For females especially, they were to be not sexual beings, and there is an evident struggle to define the good that results from sex in the Modernist time.

it's been a while...

Hello Classmates! It has been a while; no other excuse but the truth: I forgot about you lovely people. My apologies. on to more important matters.
I will not comment from previous things such as Journey of the Magi, but I will briefly say that I loved that very much.
Now A Farewell to arms. I can absolutely see why it is a Modernist book. As Dana said previously, all the characters are coping with their problems, but not really in casual ways. In fact they are coping in a very modernist fashion, no emotions, but merely drowning themselves in alcohol, or in promiscuous sex. The only character who deserves any credit is the preacher who is using God as his scapegoat, as he should be anyway. But what really bothers me is how Henry and Catherine use love as their escape, especially Catherine who is also coping from the death of her fiancee. I think Henry should be outraged by this, because clearly he is just her rebound. She has transferred all her feelings to Henry, and since Henry is coping with the war, he is accepting them and reciprocating the same thing. If perhaps in another time, Henry would realize that she is merely using him to get over her fiancee.
I believe that it is well deserved that the book should end and it is raining and Henry is left all alone. This type of scene is very common in movies, and rain would symbolize the state of sadness; not just for Henry but for everyone. I also have to criticize Catherine, as a female, I am aware of heartache and this "transfer" of feelings, and the result just ends up hurting the rebound. I feel that even though it is "modernist" literature, she should have some feelings, and not be cruel to him. Suppose Henry is okay with this, and they are just using each other to get over their sadness, then okay. It sounds like today's relationships. Crazy, friends-with-benefits sort of fashion.

An Apathetic World

Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms has a slight tinge of Greek tragedy. I say that only because the relentlessly depressing tales from Greek mythology stemmed from the Greek's attempts to explain all the misery that befalls people who do not necessarily deserve it. Their rationale took the form of a variety of gods who toyed with humans in childish ways. Hemingway seems to see the world like that as well.

The world goes on regardless of what Henry and Catherine do. Throughout the book, the semi-distant war rages while they try to keep what they can under control. Neither of them has any real control of what happens during this time. All they can do is play damage control; quite convenient given that Henry drives and ambulance and Catherine is a nurse. In that sense, they literally represent humans' place in the grand scheme of things: we can indulge in love all we want, but in the end, love is only a way of distracting us from the inevitable tragedy of death. Indeed, the only certainty in this world is that we will die.

Building on that idea, the end of the book provides much food for thought. Catherine giving birth to a dead baby has meanings on many different levels. Babies, of course, symbolize new life/starting anew/innocence, etc. One could look at the baby's death as a literal representation of mankind's loss of innocence. We try to create new life in the hopes of making a better world, but it is all in vain.

Catherine's death adds to the theme of life's futility and man's inability to alter the inevitable. All of Henry's love for Catherine can do nothing to save her. Is it fair that he should lose both the baby and Catherine? Of course not. But that does not matter. The world does not concern itself with any of us; it just continues on apathetically. We could be good people or bad people, it does not matter. Henry's virtues and flaws had nothing to do with Catherine's and the baby's death. Yes, one could argue that had she not gotten pregnant until after the war she may have been safer, but that's mincing minutia.

In the end, an appropriate summary of this book would be Macbeth's famous words: "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then is heard no more. It is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing."

My thoughts

So, I know there is foreshadowing in the book, but like Dana, I figured it was foreshadowing war and not what happened when he wasn't at war. It turns out I was wrong. It could perhaps be speculated that the war scenes foreshadowed what happened when he wasn't at war, which isn't at all what I expected from this novel. There are a few things that bother me about this book though. First of all is the lack of depth in the characters. I suppose this has an explanation though. The only people in this novel that are described are the people that the narrator interacts with while not at war. This could possibly show the narrator's detachment from the war, both physically in some parts and mentally throughout the entire novel. The part that this bothered me the most was when Aymo was killed. He was one of the few characters in the novel that actually had a name, and yet his death, despite the physical detail of it was not very emotional. I felt little to nothing for his death and I have a strong feeling that the narrator did also. This shows the strong sense of detachment the narrator has.
Just to keep on going with the things that bother me and the sense of detachment, the narrator's actual name is only stated once in the novel, on page 84! Everyone simply refers to him as Lieutenant. This shows his strong detachment from the war and all horrible things.
The final irksome scene for me is his child. When he first sees his child, the one he and Catherine had been looking forward to so much. He compares the child to a skinned rabbit! This part bothered me a lot because of the extreme lack of detachment. After he realized his child had died he felt a little bad for it, like he had Aymo, but there was no real attachment or sense of loss. Come to think of it, it's the same way he treated Catherine's death. Which means that the narrator likes to run away from problems and death and horrible things. I know this was really scattered, sorry.

One thing that stuck out to me was how often Catherine's hair was described and praised by Henry. During one of her night shifts working at the hospital, Henry takes her hair down, pin by pin, and when she leans down, he describes her hair being all around them as "the feeling of inside a tent or behind a falls." I think that that statement represents their love as a whole; their love is private and behind closed doors. They are really only truly happy when they are alone together. The war is going on and their side is losing, yet when they are alone, nothing can upset them. They isolate themselves from everything and indulge in their own happiness.

Coping

I was very confused while reading this book as to why a war plot suddenly jumps into a happily ever after gone terribly wrong. I didn't understand how Hemingway was able to connect the dots. When this book opened, I saw the storm clouds in the distance and thought this is a foreshadowing of the events of the war. But the more I read, the more I found descriptions of major war events always seem to get glazed over. For example, when Frederick Henry jumps into the river to escape being shot, Hemingway mentions the guns shooting at Henry only as an after-thought. There had to be a reason for this, I thought. Further into the book, quotes like this began to pop as I read them:

"The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."- chapter XXXIV

All of the characters within the novel are coping with their worlds being broken, as this quote suggests will happen. It's like the characters are anesthecizing themselves. If you look, all major characters drink alcohol (and often). The preacher uses God as his way of coping with the war. Rinaldi uses sex. Henry and Catherine use love as an escape war and for Catherine, the death of her fiance. The major characters all seem to have a way of taking the focus off of the pain. Unfortunately, its only a matter of time before the storm catches up with them. The very good (the preacher), the very gentle (Catherine), and the very brave (the soldiers) are gone. Henry is left alone and its raining when the book ends.

When looking at it like that, this book seems to make more sense. It's not just a book about war. It's a book about being broken by the world.

Symbolism in Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms

There are many symbols I found throughout this novel, which added a lot of meaning to the novel. The most meaningful symbol I found was the color gray, he constantly comments on the gray cars, the gray streets, and the gray expressions. I also noticed that he uses white when talking about Catherine until the end he says "I thought Catherine was dead. She looked dead. Her face was gray, and it was the only part I could see." Gray symbolizes the pain, and death that Henry saw.
The second thing I saw as symbolism in the novel was the rain. During the retreat and the worst battles it is always raining. Catherine even brings up the fact that rain tends to ruin things, and after she dies Henry walks home in the rain. Rain symbolizes both unhappiness and death throughout the novel.
The third symbolic thing I found was Catherine's hair as Henry describes it as very delicate. It symbolizes the love between Catherine and Henry and drowns out the war that is surrounding them.
The river is also symbolic because it is his first escape from the war and it was his escape to Switzerland so that he could fulfill his dream of being with Catherine. I found the river to be a symbol of hope in the novel and a turning point in the novel.
These were just a few symbols I found throughout the novel that I really thought added a lot of meaning and made the novel more enjoyable to read.

Seeing Gertrude Stein in Hemingway

I was forced to remember Gertrude Stein as I read Hemingway. It becomes obvious through their friendship and their writing that Stein influenced Hemingway and his work. Stein's infamous run-on sentences and lack of punctuation show through in A Farewell to Arms. Sentences would continue for almost an entire paragraph. While reading that sentence, the audience wouldn't know where to pause or stop for it appears Hemingway enjoyed limiting the number of commas and periods he used. While reading the novel, I would sometimes forget the first half of the sentence and have to start over to refresh my memory. Or I would hit a road block because I didn't know when or if there should have been a break in the sentence. But Hemingway's grammar and sentence structure wasn't the most frustrating. It was very disappointing that in the beginning of the novel Henry seems so detached from everything in his life. He feels no connection to the war he is fighting, which explains why he doesn't care if he's on the front line or not. His detachment even follows him into the first stages of his relationship with Catherine. Henry compares this relationship to a game of bridge, admitting no true love for Catherine exists within himself at that point, which almost brings her to the level of a prostitute. To cope with the disinterest in his life, Henry turns to alcohol. He drinks everyday, no matter where he finds himself, whether it be in the hospital while he recovers from an injury or while on the train to Milan. At least Henry finally stops his destructive ways by connecting with Catherine through love and readers have a way to escape the likeness of Hemingway's writing style to Stein's.

I actually really liked all of the uncertainties that went along with the book. However, I appreciate how the book set up opposing viewpoints, mainly when Gertrude, Irene and Clare were all out for tea. Gertrude and Clare had this marvelous idea of "passing" and Irene thought it was absolutely horrible. I absolutely agree with what Irene though, I think to deny one's own heritage and race is to deny part of one's self. Which, I believe, is the role of the African-American in modernist society. They are starting to embrace who they are and collectively celebrate that, instead of trying to hide it.
I know this is all a bit sporadic and it probably is but there is one part that I really want to bring up. When Irene first catches Clare staring at her, her first thought is "There is no way she thinks I'm African-American", she then explains how she could always fit in with white society without them even knowing. This, I believe, shows that the thought of "passing" isn't something foreign to Irene and almost makes her seem a little hypocritical.
To wrap this up, I just want to point out how much of a jerk Irene's husband is. There is absolutely nothing about this character that I like. The fact that he refers to Irene as "Nig" and just his general outlook on the African-American race made me cringe every time his name came up or he ambled into the scene.

Uncertain

It's rather fitting that a book where the two main characters who cannot be clearly distinguished as either black or white should end with so many unclear answers. Clare "fell" out of a window, but the reader never entirely knows whether that fall was a jump or a push. The reader is also left guessing at the relationship Clare and Brian held. And yet, the uncertainties leave the reader wondering who is the victim? Is it Clare, the girl who was forced by her white aunts to hide her identity after her father passed away? Was it her fault that as the daughter of an unwealthy African-American janitor, she would want have a life comforted by money and better treatment if the key to that was severing her ties to her race- a race that really faced hardship day after day with the uncertainties of freedom (and the limitations of it)? Yet, after her young eyes were opend to the reality of the world she chose, she simply wanted to retreat back to the comfort of her race. Was she the victim of murder? Or is the victim Irene, whose life seemed to be unraveling all around her from the moment Clare produced a letter? Was Clare a leech taking from Irene all the things she had lost herself? Did Irene murder the one who rejected her own race, or did she simply try to stop her from jumping? It's all so unclear, yet it produces so much insight to the challenges of passing.

Facades and the Like

After finishing Nella Larsen's Passing, I found the book fit nicely into the modernist idea of the identity search. In this particular instance, skin color acts as the determining factor with regards to how the characters see themselves.

The similarities between Irene and Clara intrigued me. Both characters base a great deal of their worldview (yes, I said it) on how their world perceives skin color. True, Irene embraces her African-American identity much more than Clara, but the issue of race plays an equally important part for each of them when it comes to their every day lives. For the sake of space, I'm only going to look at Irene for this post.

Irene is a bit of a paradox though. On the one hand, she criticizes Clara (albeit silently) for "passing" as a white woman as if that act usurps the entire African-American heritage. However, despite all of Irene's sourness at this aspect of Clara's behavior, Irene allows Clara to get away with it. Why? Some might say it's because Irene is a genuinely compassionate person who tries not to let the negative aspects of her personality control her. I say it's more complicated than that. Irene feels a certain bond to Clara if for no other reason than both of them can "pass" and both of them share an African-American heritage. Given the hostile environment in the United States towards blacks at that time, it is no wonder that Irene resists the urge to out Clara. Irene feels a certain bond with all of her race; her desire to defend that supersedes her desire to expose Clara. When Irene begins to suspect Clara of having an affair with Brian, complications ensue. We can assume that Irene's behavior in front of Clara's white husband in the street tipped him off as to Clara's real identity. But there, jealousy motivated Irene; she threw the concept of racial unity/identity out the proverbial window (unintentional, morbid pun there). Granted, we never know for certain if Irene killed Clara at that moment, but technically, we could argue that had Irene not acted the way she did when she encountered Clara's husband on the street, Clara never would have fallen to her death.

One could discuss the identity issues presented in this novel for quite a while (like, in an American Modernism class for example). Irene's inability to come to grips with her identity leads inevitably to tragedy. Irene struggles between her racial identity and her personal identity (which are intertwined) thus causing a maelstrom of confusion, jealousy, and regret.

The "passers" who loathe their own race

The obvious difference in the lives of Clare and Irene did not seem to be shocking to me at first. However, once I reached Chapter Three and read the encounter of Clare, Gertrude, Irene, and Clare's husband I was simply appalled. I almost felt bad reading it because it just seemed too outrageous the way that these people talked about race and to one another.

I do not understand how this way of "passing" could ever be permitted by African Americans. The African Americans that I know of are proud of their race; what would they think if they read this? The women speak of their children and Clare and Gertrude express that they were fearful that their children would be "too dark." I cannot imagine what would have happened if Clare's daughter would have been a dark child. I can imagine that her own mother would have resented her. And her father may have disowned them both. Clare's husband is the worst one to me. He is introduced to the reader by coming into the visit greeting his wife, "Hello, Nig" in a way that seems so disrespectful and must be hurtful to Clare because she actually is African American. No wonder she felt the need to pass, because it seems as if all of the people in her life hate being black. The husband goes on to say that he HATES negroes, and ironically, he is married to one. He also goes on to describe stereotypes of African Americans, and distastefully so.

Larsen did a fabulous job displaying the types of people in this time period who rejected their own race, she kept me glued to the text and provided shocking moments among the characters. Reading this novel definitely sparked some anger in me, I wonder if that is what she intended?

Nella Larsen's Amazing Description of Scenes

When reading this novel I was so amazed by Larsen's ability to describe certain events and scenes throughout the novel. One of the first scenes that created a vivid image in my mind was in the beginning of chapter 2: "Chicago. August. A brilliant day, hot, with a brutal staring sun pouring down rays that were like molten rain. A day on which the very outlines of the buildings shuddered as if in protest at the heat. Quivering lines sprang up from the baked pavements and wriggled along the shining car-tracks. The automobiles parked at the kerbs were a dancing blaze, and the glass of the shop-windows threw out a blinding radiance. Sharp particles of dust rose from the burning sidewalks, stinging the seared or drippings skins of wilting pedestrians" (12). I read this paragraph over and over again wondering how Larsen was able to describe this scene so perfectly.
Another description that took my breath away was the beginning of chapter 3 which states, "On Tuesday morning a dome of grey sky rose over the parched city, but stifling air was not relieved by the silvery mist that seemed to hold a promise of rain, which did not fall" (32). Once again this scene is described so perfectly and it as if I were actually there just by reading it. I also noticed that Larsen uses these descriptive scenes at the beginning of chapters to set the mood of the following events.
Later in the novel: "The year was getting on towards its end. October, November had gone. December ahd come and brought with it a little snow and then a freeze and after that a thaw and some soft pleasant days that had in them a feeling of spring" (85). Once again this description of scene takes place in the beginning of a chapter, sets the mood, and creates an image in the reader's mind.
I really like Larsen's writing and although this novel was short it was filled with beautiful images and descriptions which really made the novel meaningful and enjoyable to read.

That was a Shocker

Shocked and angry are the two best words to describe my state of mind after finishing Passing. Reading each chapter carefully, I thought I had guessed each move Irene or Clare would take. But I was wrong. Never would I have imagined that Irene would do something as irrational as killing Clare. However, Clare wasn't the nicest, sweetest character either. Actually, I developed a love-hate relationship with both characters. At times, I couldn't decide which one I liked or hated more. Irene, completely self-absorbed, keeps her husband from Brazil so she can continue to feed her materialistic desires. To her, everything revolves around appearance. On the other hand, though, Irene at least gave the impression that she was concerned with the well-being of her children and she somewhat attempted to form a genuine friendship with Clare. She didn't want to socialize with Clare at first, but then the two seemed to click, which is one reason why I then began to despise Clare. She, too, cared most about outward appearance. She even went as far to lie to her husband about her race just so she could experience everything at the level of the wealthy. She "passed" over to the white race so she wouldn't be mistreated for her "negro" background. When she came to the realization that she truly wasn't happy living in white society, Clare maliciously flirted with married men, and, I believe, had an affair with Irene's husband. Clare knew she was beautiful, and she flaunted it. Although, like stated before, this negative aspect cannot only be attributed to Clare. Both Irene and Clare cared too much about the way they looked and how other people may perceive them. Other than this personality trait, readers didn't know much about these characters. Larsen didn't describe Irene or Clare on a deeper level, which explains the limited personality of both women and why, at times, I couldn't stand either one.

My take on "Journey of the Magi"

I agree with most of what Dana is saying in her blog, but I think most of the power in the poem comes from the overall theme of the Magi trying to find himself after his expedition. My blog this week focuses mainly on that.

In truth, I think the birth of Jesus may not even be that important of an event in the context of the poem. Although it serves as the primary reason for the Magi to embark on their journey, it is not the final destination. In fact, the journey to find the new Savior only opens up more paths for the Magi to consider. While finding baby Jesus fulfilled their quest, it also left the Magi desiring more discovery for their own personal lives.

In Henley's poem "Invictus," the last two lines read: "I am the master of my fate \ The captain of my soul." The journey of the Magi reflects this spiritual journey as well, like when they first set out and say, "The ways deep and the weather sharp, \ The very dead of winter." I think these lines can be used to describe their spiritual states. The Magi, once reaching his destination, has a crisis of conscience when he realizes that there was more to his life than just seeing the newborn King. He thinks there is still more to his life that he has yet to live. At no point he asks, "Were we lead all that way for \ Birth or Death?" The Magi's journey gives them a shot at restarting their lives, a chance for immediate redemption, if only they choose to take it. They all see the future, but choose to return to their homelands. Once making that decision, they are stuck in a past of backwards cultures and traditions. The Magi sacrifices a chance to grow more in his life, but by the time he realizes he could have continued on a different path, he realizes he has stopped moving at the wrong time in his life.

My take on "Journey of the Magi"

In "The Plain Sense of Things," Wallace Stevens writes "It is difficult even to choose the adjective / For this blank cold, this sadness without cause." That first thing that popped into my mind from this line was 'depression.' You could say that the entire poem relates to depression, sometimes its a stretch. Looking at the first stanza, it can be describing autumn when the leaves fall. So after the leaves go away, all that's left is the trunk of the tree and the branches, the "bare bones." Leaves can represent life and energy and movement, and without that, life is unenergetic. Life becomes stagnant in the winter.
Second stanza: sadness without cause = depression. "The great structure has become a minor house." This is saying that what used to be grand and wondrous and exciting is now just minor, comparable to when you become depressed, everything you used to get happy and excited about is just one more plain old thing, very uninteresting. I have no idea what the last line in that stanza means.. maybe the line is supposed to be so out there and weird to say that creativity and imagination is dead? That's a stretch.
Next, the poem talks of things in disrepair, in a state of complaint, seeing everything as negative. It talks of failure and how everything is a repeat. When you're depressed you kind of go through normal life on autopilot and life just becomes a routine you have to go through.
Further in the poem, "the great pond and its waste of the lilies" : the lilies are a waste because beauty goes unappreciated during depression. And the last two lines convey the idea that creativity and imagination are required.

Time is relative...

What is reality? So Eliot asks us in "Burnt Norton," the first of the four quartets. Some would say that reality is what we perceive through our five senses. If that's the case, then anyone who hasn't been to China can't confidently claim that China exists. Some would say reality is whatever one makes it (an existentialist approach). If that's the case, does any concrete reality exist, or is it all just a series of delusions?

The bird in the poem states, "human kind/cannot stand very much reality." One could interpret that multiple ways (for simplicity's sake, I'll look at it from two angles). First, one could see that line as an indication of humankind's inability to fully comprehend the natural world (and the spiritual one for that matter). Nothing on this planet is simple. Take this blog for example. On the surface, I'm merely typing a blog post and subsequently posting it. But if one delves into the reality of this action, one will never get to the bottom of it. I'm working on a computer which is composed of multiple parts, each of which serve a specific function. Each of those parts is made from elements found on the earth which means that someone had to discover the element and then find a use for said element. It goes on and on...Our minds simply buckle under the weight of reality's vast multitude of facets.

Looking at that quote from an emotional standpoint, a whole series of issues emerge. Human emotion jades our various perspectives on life. My emotional reaction to a set of stimuli may be the converse of someone else's. In a sense, everyone has his own emotional reality. As humans, we select how much of each emotion we choose to invest in reality. The quintessential "I don't care" concept permeates our lives as if to prove time and again that we need to ration our emotions so they don't overwhelm us. Eliot is saying that we are incapable of fully caring about everything.

As a final note to that idea, Eliot writes that "What might have been is an abstraction/Remaining a perpetual possibility/Only in a world of speculation." All of our "what ifs" serve no purpose as they will never manifest themselves in reality. It almost seems as though Eliot criticizes us for dwelling on the past so much given our inability to change it. Practically speaking, that makes logical sense. But, from an emotional standpoint, we often cannot let go our abstract desires to alter the past.

Steven's Sunday Morning

Upon my first read through of this poem, I immediately liked it. I love the word choice, and the images as well as the descriptive colors. In the beginning, the woman sounds relaxed as she is just lolling around. I found that idea quite fulfilling, especially because life is stressful at times. But as I read on, I realized that the poem was more than simply a woman enjoying a relaxing Sunday morning. The woman seems to be contemplating the spiritual world, when Stevens uses words like "Paradise," "Ancient Sacrifice," and "Divinity:" the poem begins to feel holy. As she is taking in the beauty of the natural world she is searching for spiritual completion.

The existence of the beauty of the natural world is interesting, because it seems as if the speaker of the poem is making her choose between devotedness to her religion and the natural world. The irony of this is the God did create the natural world, and she is also his creation: which therefore means that the speaker's idea for her to have one or the other is a total contradiction.

One of my favorite images is that of the bird. There are many birds mentioned in the poem and for good reason. Birds represent freedom - they can be wherever they want to be. The cockatoo that is mentioned is a domestic bird, that is bright and exotic, which could represent luxury. The woman is struggling between the luxury of leisure and the notion of devoting herself to her faith.

Eliot, Orwell... Swerdlow

Eliot's "Four Quartets" accentuated two lessons that I learned recently. The first came from Dr. Swerdlow in a poetry workshop. We discussed the length of poems and how, if you are true to what you are writing about, a poem is almost never short. This is a testament to that class; if you told me to take the cliche "there's no time like the present" and write about it in a new way, I might be able to solidify a few stanzas at best. But the way Eliot writes about the insubstantiality of the past and the future and how neither are redeemable, it really made me admire him for his devotion to the subject. It felt fresh, not forced, and insightful--that is always hard to do with such a dissected, common subject.
The imagery in the "Four Quartets" was also impressive. There were birds in trees responding to unsung music, scars that served as testaments to a war that--as far as the present is concerned--never happened. There is the door we never opened, the bowl of rose-leaves we never knew. It is all parable for how unrealistic "what ifs" are.
The second lesson, which is more of a continuing path of reasoning, was enforced in Eliot's poetry. I recently read Orwell's 1984, and without giving much away, the novel raises serious questions about the (ir)relevance of the past as well as the basis of solopsistic reasoning, a mode that Eliot adopts to some extent in this poem. I just found it interesting that such a conundrum has become a parallel theme in several Modernist works.

Stevens and Divinity

Reading Wallace Stevens' "Sunday Morning" reminded me of a question I asked Dr. Hicok in class a few weeks ago, if Modernists were wantonly blasphemic or if the poetic process was simply leading them down the road of raw, inescapable questioning of divinity.
I think I got my answer in this poem. There is much biblical and mythological imagery here, both of which are condemned and discarded by Stevens. But he does not do so in a way that is offensive or violent. Instead he gives his own definition of the meaning of life and beauty.
From the get-go, I knew this was going to be a type of religious debate from the line in the first stanza: "...the green freedom of a cockatoo / Upon a rug mingle to dissipate / The holy hush of ancient sacrifice" (lines 3-5). This line establishes the tension in the poem and sets contrast between the vibrance of nature and the "hushed" feeling of religious tradition.
Stevens sets his argument up in stanza two with "Divinity must live within herself: / Passions of rain, or moods in falling snow... These are the measures destined for her soul" (lines 23-4, 30). He is saying that we cannot measure or attach ourselves to something so incredibly distant and incomprehensible as easily as we can the simple miracles of everyday life. It reminds me of the play RENT. I didn't care too much for the play itself, but the one thing I feel that they got right was the song "Seasons of Love." Specifically the line about measuring time in cups of coffee, I think parallels Stevens' message in "Sunday Morning." Why put stock and standard in something that you can't measure, something that has only a vague and existential kind of worth to you?
Another assertion of Stevens is in stanza five when he writes, "Death is the mother of beauty" (line 63). He expands on that idea throughout the rest of the poem, but that trigger phrase, I think, carries more weight than any other line. In general experience, there is always an extra sense of immersion and urgency when we know things won't last forever. While the phrase "live for the moment" is cliche, it gets Stevens' point across. Natural, ephermeral beauty is so highly regarded because it will inevitably fade. There is a climax, a pinnacle of beauty in mortality that we do not see in divinity. This might account for the distance we feel for heavenly, unending, omnipresent things; it also accounts for our questioning the existence of divinity.
I won't say whether I agree or disagree with Stevens' position on the subject, but he raises the issue in a very realist way that, regardless of personal standing, allows the reader to ponder Stevens' argument without feeling insulted.

Okay, I've been meaning to post for a while about Gatsby so here goes.
The two first in-depth experiences I've had in studying Modernism were The House of Mirth and Gatsby. I feel like in many ways they are oppositions of each other. The end and the means of Gatsby and Lily Bart are switched; Gatsby uses money to achieve love and Lily uses love to acquire money. Both of their motives and tactics are treasonous to the romantic concept of love, but there is much more than that to be said in contrasting the two main characters.
Jay Gatsby is new money. His goal is to woo Daisy and win her affection, to win back his past. He spends his entire life becoming the financial tycoon that he imagines would sweep Daisy off her feet. While the tactics are flawed, the cause is noble. Gatsby even dies protecting her, literally and metaphorically taking a bullet for the love of his life.
Lily Bart is old money, and she is invested in a social ring of old money. These are the type of people that throw money to the wind and have a very lilted concept of reality; they see everything in a shade of green. If Lily can be placed above her socialites morally, it is not far above. She attempts to use her looks and charm, the most superficial and unstable qualities of romantic affection to secure herself financially. In doing so, she wounds herself and sinks into depression. Her death is a polar opposite to Gatsby's: she gives in whereas he fights until the end.
I'm glad that I had the opportunity to look at Modernist society from two young personas that, while on the surface seem quite similar, are actually diametrically opposed. It gave me a much deeper understanding of the era, at least on a social level.

The Meaning of Color in Stevens' Disillusionment of Ten O' Clock

Upon first reading this poem my initial reaction was huh? It appeared to me that Stevens placed random thoughts upon a piece of paper. However, this poem really caught my interest, and I decided to analyze it.
The poem itself is filled with many colors. The opening line of the poem creates an eerie feeling, as if it is Halloween with haunted houses filled with ghosts in white night-gowns. But then as the poem continues it becomes sillier and the eerie feeling vanishes. “None are green, /Or purple with green rings, /Or green with yellow rings, /Or yellow with blue rings” (lines 3-6). The first color mentioned is green. Green symbolizes harmony, freshness, rest, growth, and safety. Therefore, the houses are not haunted with safety and rest. The poem then states that the night-gowns are not purple with green wings. Purple represents power, luxury, mystery, and ambition. When placing this color with green there is an image of restfulness as the purple and green are luxurious and safe. The next line places green and yellow together. Yellow symbolizes joy, intellect, and happiness. When combining this with green there is an image of growth and joy. The following line combines yellow and blue. Blue represents trust, wisdom, faith, and calmness. The image of yellow with blue creates a happy and faith filled image. All of these mentioned color combinations are positive and create a calming and restful image in the reader’s mind.
The poem continues by stating, “none of them are strange, / With socks of lace/ And beaded ceintures (lines 7-9). These lines specify that the night-gowns are simple and ordinary. The speaker then states that “People are not going/ To dream of baboons and periwinkles” (lines 10-11). Both the baboons and periwinkles create an image of the color blue as the Mandrill Baboon has a blue face, and the perwinkles are associated with a blue flower. Once again, blue represents calmness and faith. However, the people in this poem are not dreaming of these pleasant things: “Only, here and there, an old sailor, / Drunk and asleep in his boots, / Catches tigers/ In red weather” (lines 12-15). These last few lines are so direct and straightforward leaving both the positive imagery and the imaginative world of ghosts and haunted houses behind. The truth is revealed here as there is a drunk sailor asleep, dreaming of catching tigers surrounded in red weather. The sailor represents the color white, which stands for innocence and purity. It is ironic then that the sailor would be drunk and dreaming of a tiger and the color red. Red symbolizes passion, blood, danger, and power and the tiger is a fierce and powerful animal. This red imagery abandons all of the positive calmness the other colors represented. It seems as if the speaker of the poem were listing positive and calming images to show the major contrast of what is actually happening as the sailor is dreaming of ferocity. The poem is simply about a house that is haunted by a drunk sailor who is dreaming of a powerful dangerous life but the way it’s presented is very interesting. I really like this poem!

Journey of the Magi

T.S. Eliot does a strange thing with the story of Jesus' birth. It is more about the magi's spiritual journey and the transition he makes after the birth of Jesus. In the beginning stanza, we, the readers, are given illusions detailed with the corrupt life seen throughout the journey. We are given images of drunkenness, lust, greed, cursing, hostile, and unfriendly characters in the first stanza mixed with elements of the harsh cold. Lines 19-20 read: "With the voices singing in our ears, saying/ That this was all folly." The magi are seeing these hostile cities and they aren't just told that they're wrong in following to watch the birth- the people of the cities are singing- proclaiming in loud, possibly jovial, mocking voices- that it is all folly- foolish. The hard-ships of this journey only add to the tension for the narrator, yet the reader knows what is going to happen and has to wonder what will happen to the narrator when the baby is born?

The scene quickly changes in the second stanza as the narrator reaches a valley (an environment safely tucked away between two mountains), where below the snow line there is vegetation and a running stream (new life), and the environment changes from the city to natural. Strategically placed for the readers, the narrator sees three trees on a low sky (perhaps a symbol of the crucifixion). Yet still the baby has not been born and again at the next tavern we see 6 (the number of the beast) greedy hands at and open door dicing for silver next to empty wine-skins. That's still not the right place for this baby to be born so they continue until they find the most humble setting at the very last minute. Then the narrator continues that this birth was like death. It was "Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death." Why is this birth like death? Why is it so hard for the magi? Perhaps it is because it is the birth of the Son of God. It is a separation in the life of the magi because when he returns to his Kingdom, he no longer felt comfortable. All the people are seen as pagens, worshipping their false Gods. The magi died (in his ways of sin) at the birth of Jesus. The scene of this world in comparison to what he now knows only makes him look all the more forward to his actual death. Then he can be in Heaven and away from this world.

The perspective of this poem is quite unique and untraditional and I like it for that reason.

Stevens' Imagery

Stevens and Eliot are very good at confusing their readers, but both employ a type of imagery that draws an audience in. Also, both authors, especially Stevens, use repetition to reinforce the importance of a particular subject. For example, Stevens mentions autumn, and specifically leaves, in most of his work. In "The Death of a Soldier" these subjects help to tell a story. Stevens began the poem by explaining that "death is expected/ As in a season of autumn." In the fall, a leaf seems to come to life as the original green turns to a vibrant yellow, orange, or red. Then, as the winter approaches, the leaf falls from the tree and dies. The same hold true for a soldier, and Stevens uses a season to express this thought. Soldiers also seems to come to life as they set out on a journey to fight for their country. As the war drags and winter stands around the corner, the chance of survival becomes slim. Also during the autumn months, as Stevens says, the wind stops and the clouds part, all going unnoticed. The death of a soldier occurs in the same manner. In the poem Stevens states "Death is absolute and without memorial." In this line he tries to explain that just as the characteristics of fall are unobserved, so the death of a soldier is ignored.

Stevens also makes mention of the sky and objects found in the sky such as clouds, the sun, and birds. I think, to Stevens, the sky and everything found in it are free. Birds, clouds, and the sun do not have worries to face and are not caged by the industrializing world. This industrialization caused people to become dependent on money and materialistic items. I found this idea to show through in "Anecdote of the Jar." I took the jar to stand for the machine. Once the machine was placed in Tennessee, everything flocked to that area, and no longer was anything wild. The "jar" that stands tall takes power everywhere, never again allowing freedom. Even though at times Stevens may be difficult to comprehend, he puts his imagery to excellent use in order to tell a story.

Gatsby's Dream

I was talking to one of my fraternity brothers before break about Gatsby, and he said, "Gatsby's the American dream." I was thinking about what exactly he meant by this, and this is what I came up with:

Gatsby is a man who climbed his way up the social ladder for the sake of having a worry-free, comfortable lifestyle. It's true that he had to bootleg to get there, but often in people's minds, they feel that they are innocent until they're caught. In a sense, people could possibly forgive Gatsby for what he does then.

The whole idea of Gatsby representing the American dream, though, is depressing when one looks at the way things play out in the novel. Gatsby wanted the perfect relationship with a woman. To him that woman was Daisy, the girl he was willing to wait for, even take the fall for. Also, Gatsby dreams that by creating an appearance of a luxurious life, he will be able to woo Daisy. However, Gatsby's life of luxury and social standing are shown to be fake. For example, hardly anyone attends his funeral.

Gatsby also plays into the "American dream" theory with the whole idea that anyone in America can change their fortunes at any time, all they need is a driving passion to do so. In the case of Gatsby, he believes changing his name will change his fortunes. However, as is evident in the novel, just because someone can change certain characteristics about themselves doesn't mean they can necessarily change their fate.

Haha, I hope nobody feels down because of that, it's just what I was mulling over recently. In a sense, if Gatsby truly is the American dream, then the thought of someone rising up that fast in society WITHOUT being hurt is and will remain just that: only a dream.

What is in a name

Just a few quick thoughts on names throughout The Great Gatsby...
Daisy- white flower (beauty); perfection or excellence
Fay (Daisy's maiden name)- fairy; obsolete; to fit closely
Gatsby- "gat" a gun- Gatsby was shot with a pistol so a bit of a pun
Buchanan (Tom's last name)- 15th US president who struggled with slavery issues
Tom- male of various animal types (such as a turkey)
Jordan Baker- two types of cars of the time; Jordan is also a unisex name- fitting for a golf pro
Myrtle- shrub with white flowers and berries used as an emblem of love
Wilson- common last name
There are several more names that allude to more images based on there names.. see if you can pick them out

Gatsby

While researching F. Scott Fitzgerald, I ran across some information about his life that I found pretty interesting in relationship to The Great Gatsby. For a while, Fitzgerald worked in advertising. Nothing would give a person a clearer picture of the culture of the time than advertising- think about it, if you do understand what's appealing to the culture, you'll do well in advertising as well as writing. He was, however, dismayed and repulsed at the job. His experience in advertising may have inspired The Great Gatsby. After spending great lengths of time really understanding "the image" people desired, he was able to easily tie the fulfillment of that image into the upper class. So as an writer, how do you work with this theme? You find the man who has it all, but wants none of it. You have the man who lives in this false life, perhaps obsessively seeking this girl, but living on the hopes of this one brilliant light. And while he is perhaps creepy in his quest for her, have you ever met a person and thought, "Wow- she/he is perfect." But then when you really got to know them, the person let you down. I don't blame Gatsby for keeping distance, for admiring Daisy from afar. He was so happy in his unreal state. But the tragedy is that Gatsby wasted five years of his life dreaming rather than living. And even more tragic, when society woke from his dream, he saw even more that everything around him was fake.

gatsby....ultimate creeper.

Well while i can admire Gatsby for truely loving Daisey, and "waiting all night if necessary" (i'm a romantic person, so i love that.) i can't also help but wonder...if Gatsby were to live right here at westminster college...would he infact...be the ultimate Facebook creeper? i mean, he watches Daisy non stop. and watches over her. and there is quite a fine line between loving someone and being obsessed with someone. so if he were on facebook, or on AIM, he would have alerts sent to him when she is online, or availiable for chatting. he would write on her wall and creep her all the time. i like to think of him this way, it makes the novel more fun, and when he's waiting outside, i like to think of him on Twitter, making his latest tweet "waiting outside in my very dramatic way, for Miss daisey.." then two minutes later... "still waiting, i'll wait all night if necesary." oh how i wish gatsby were my facebook friend....

Tragic Fall?

When I first saw Molly's latest blog title, I tried to answer the question before reading further. I thought: usually heroism is reserved for men of great importance, and in tragedies they typically have a flaw that leads to their downfall.

However, Gatsby lived life in the fast lane, ignoring the laws and social taboos as he rambled towards his grim end. Carraway tried to make his fortune in the bonds market, a field where the best can make quick money. However, Gatsby's lust for Daisy caused him to try bootlegging in order for him to accumulate his wealth. Once he came into money, Gatsby threw lavish parties meant to impress Daisy. He wanted to become a wealthy socialite.

However, the means Gatsby used to reach his status were crooked. Although Gatsby successfully manages to buy his social standing, it seems that only Tom Buchanan - though not perfectly moral himself - is one of the few people who realizes that Gatsby is living a gilded life. Although it appears as if Gatsby has everything, he's corrupt. In fact, early on in the novel Tom said Gatsby was a bootlegger.

Which brings me back to my point. With Gatsby climbing the social ladder so fast, of course he would gain opponenets whose jealousy would cause them to try to find the skeletons in his closet. Gatsby's flaw is that he wanted too much prestige too fast. When I think about the outcome of The Great Gatsby, it's clear that Gatsby would fall the way he did.

Great Gatsby Week 2

After finishing the book, I again found many more similarities in Gatsby and Key's life that I found very interesting. I think that the Great Gatsby was a reflection in many ways of aspects that Key was not proud of in his life. Although Gatsby was born to rise from his mediocre childhood status into becoming very wealthy, he did it in a way that was not as straight edge or the "right" way to go about doing things. He obtained his wealth by crime, stealing, and distributing alcohol. He did these things because he yearned for wealth and a high status in society. This reflects on Key's personal life because he was born into an upper middle class family who acted with the traditions of the wealthy but didn't have the money to support that lifestyle. Key constantly yearned for wealth because of this lesser status, and continued to try to obtain it to try to support the love of his life, Zelda. In the book Gatsby's main reason for obtaining wealthy was to gain the attention of his "lover" Daisy, just like key's main reason for obtaining wealth was to earn the affections of his lover "Zelda". Just like this one many other situations reflect Key's life in a direct fashion, and reflect on the struggles he went through throughout his life.

Great Gatsby Week 1

After doing research on Francis Scott Key, I found it interesting the specific similarities that arose in Key's life and in The Great Gatsby, specifically in the areas of love. In Key's early personal life he was in love with a woman named Zelda Sayre, but she refused to marry him if he couldn't financially support her. After finally having success after many trials in his writing career with The Side of Paradise, Zelda finally agreed to marry him. This was very similar in The Great Gatsby with the main character Gatsby falls in love with Daisy and throws large parties to impress her. Despite Daisy's marriage to Tom, Gatsby continues to fall madly in love with her outraging Tom. Although in the end Gatsby's intrigue with Daisy is ruined by the factors of dishonesty and money, the larger picture is focused around the American dream of which was ruined as well as Gatsby's greatness in the end.
This is similar to Key's life because Zelda has an affair with a French naval aviator, and eventually becomes insane and must be sent to a mental institution, ruining Key's overall outlook on his "American dream" and greatness, and despite his efforts he died unsuccessful by a heart attack.

Blog #2 (ROBERT FROST early poems)

Robert Frost was obviously intrigued by nature and transcendentalism. In the first poem “Mowing” Frost’s personification of objects is made obvious, as well as his enjoyment of solitude and loneliness. In each of his poems, a single character is presented with an aspect of nature that he is forced to think about in a deeper way. In “After Apple-Picking” Frost presents a character who had a long day’s work who is tired of his apple picking job. He is sleepy, but believes this sleep has a deeper meaning than just a regular potential night sleep. He seems to have a sense of incompleteness, maybe due to a failure of apple harvesting, and is upset about this. Although you could look at this poem literally, apples often represent knowledge and could be a symbol of a deeper meaning. In the “Wood Pile” again there is a single character presented with a dilemma in nature causing him to consider a deeper meaning. The character is walking through a frozen swamp and considers going back to his home, but becomes immersed into the idea of wandering far from home by following a bird. In each poem the characters are presented with dilemmas in nature, and are alone. Frost surrounds his poetry within these confinements and presents new human decisions concerning the new nature situations.

blog#1 Mina Loy

I thought it was very interesting that Mina Loy was never published during her lifetime. She seemed to be a very independent woman, and even though many women weren’t published during her years (1886-1966) I would have expected her to be due to her outgoing personality. Loy seemed to be all about free expression and life choices. In her “Feminist Manifesto” she has a direct audience of women. Her language was independent, and brutally in your face. In this “conversational” journal-like piece, Loy dismisses the government suffrage movement, and blames women for not doing enough for their own goals. In stating, “Seek within yourselves to find out what you are,” she explains that if you try to conform to already established society it won’t work because you can’t look to others to define yourself. I found it interesting she saw women’s choices to be parasitism, prostitution, and negation. She made it clear women were not considered equal, only parasites on men despite what they tried to become, setting up women and men to be only enemies. Defining women as only mistresses and mothers. Mina Loy expresses herself bluntly by defining masculine and feminine aspects, and her main opinion she wanted to state was that women should grant themselves their own choices beyond marriage and childbearing.

Obsession

Gatsby has a thing for Daisy. The main character in House of Mirth is Lily. Two women whose names are flowers. Coincidence?? Probably.

Now that I've gotten that levity out of my system, on to more serious things...

At first glance, Gatsby and Lily seem quite different. Gatsby behaves almost as a polar opposite to Lily Bart. Lily spends all of her life trying to squeeze herself into the higher realm of social status at the expense of her humanity. Gatsby, on the other hand, is already in high society yet utilizes his social position as a means to fulfill his humanity (namely, winning Daisy back). The irony here lies in the idea that Gatsby's emotional shallowness is about on par with Lily's. Gatsby has an almost childish obsession with Daisy much in the same way Lily has an obsession about being "one of the group." With each character, this emotional shallowness dictates the majority of their actions and ultimately leads to each character's end (in both cases, death).

While both characters know what they want, they both fail to recognize that what they want isn't necessarily what they need. Obsession consumes them both and warps their perception of reality.

Is Gatsby Heroic?

Throughout the novel Gatsby's mind is very far from reality as he thinks about his dreams and aspirations. As Megan mentioned, Gatsby never sees Daisy's faults and her shallow nature. However, I cannot help but admire Gatsby even though he is so distant from what is happening.
Towards the end of the novel Gatsby's true heroic nature comes to light when he is waiting outside of the Buchanan's home right after Daisy had hit Myrtle Wilson with his car. While Gatsby and Nick are talking, Nick asks "Was Daisy driving" to which Gatsby replies "Yes...but of course I'll say I was" (143). Gatsby would do anything for Daisy and he proves this again and again throughout the novel. In this same scene Gatsby waits outside to make sure that Tom will not harm Daisy. Nick asks "How long are you going to wait?" and Gatsby replies "All night, if necessary" (144). Despite the fact that Gatsby is essentially "watching over nothing" the reader cannot help but admire Gatsby's unfailing love.

Daisy and Self Worth

I have been thinking a lot about self worth lately - and it is interesting to me the many ways that self worth can be measured. Today among women (almost entirely because of the media) a woman's self worth is measured by the size pants she is wearing. In the time period of Gatsby, it seems to be all about money (money is still important to the mass majority of people today, but I especially see it in Gatsby). Before Gatsby goes to war, in order to get Daisy, he lies about his family background and tells her that he is very wealthy so that she believes him to be "good enough" for her. Despite their love for one another, Daisy marries Tom. Essentially, Tom is a very rich man that can support Daisy's lifestyle.

Gatsby clearly wants her back and aims for wealth solely to get her back. Interestingly, the way that Gatsby views Daisy is in a fabulous way to be admired. He looks at her as if she is charming, refined, beautiful, and poised. When in reality we can all see that she is very shallow, sardonic, and erratic. She loves money more than any other thing in life, and it shows blatantly in the novel. I usually always sympathize with the woman character in almost every novel that I read, however I cannot bring myself to like Daisy.

I read somewhere that Daisy is a representation of Fitzgerald's own wife. Fitzgerald's wife must have been a lover of material things, and incapable of true love and compassion. Maybe Daisy's character turned out the way that she did because Fitzgerald only knows this type of woman, the type that is detached from anything that does not provide her with consistent luxury.

It is interesting to me that a woman that has her morals completely backwards could have enough self worth to view herself as good enough for the glamorous life she lives. Daisy's self worth does not measure up to the way that Gatsby views her and the result provides readers with some major disconnections.

A Short One...

I think that colors play a very specific and important part in The Great Gatsby. I believe that part of their main function is metaphorical of course. White usually stands for purity, which is very obvious and blue, I think stands for knowledge, wisdom or the realization of the way things really are. I also think that things in Gatsby are supposed to seem almost unreal or picturesque, which is where the vivid and constant color words come in. Certain scenes are intentionally very real and believable but like The House of Mirth some scenes seem to be set up almost as pictures or portraits.

Maybe it's because I've been reading lots of Jane Austen and Shakespeare that I noticed this, but Fitzgerald used a lot of color words in Gatsby, and comparatively, Austen and Shakespeare use barely any color words. The two that stood out to me the most were white and blue. The nouns paired with white seemed more realistic than those that were paired with blue.
Things that are white- palaces, mansion, windows, dresses, race, girlhood, railroad fence, dust, feet, sheep, complexion, spot, shirt front, flannels, etc.
Things that are blue- honey of the Mediterranean, gardens, uniform, coat, nose, limit of the sky, coupe, leaves, smoke, lawn , etc
In reading this novel, it seems that blue is associated with more abstract objects, whereas white is more tangible? That might be a bit of a stretch.
I also noticed the color green, specifically the green light at the end of the dock at Daisy’s house. It’s mentioned at the end of chapter one. Gatsby looks to this light and later in chapter 5, he mentions it again. This light possibly represents Gatsby’s confidence and/or optimism that he will win over Daisy?

The Great Gatsby is full of different types of imagery, one of which relates characters and scenes to the natural world. Gatsby's summer parties are held outside in gardens. Standing among lush, thriving plants, guests attend such an event in order to improve or solidify their social standing. At one such party, Nick makes a list of attendees, several referencing animals and flowers. Some names include Hornbeam, Blackbuck, Snell, Whitebait, Hammerhead, Beluga, Orchid, Catlip, and Klipspringer. Also at a party, Fitzgerald introduces a man that receives the name owl eyes. The audience finds this man in Gatsby's library, which makes sense because the owl typically symbolizes wisdom. Another character with an animal like name is Wolfshiem. It seems this man preys on the weak like a wolf would for the cuff buttons on his shirt are actual human molars. Even before Gatsby's death Fitzgerald paints a picture of the sky, leaves, a rose, grass, and trees. Also, on almost every page a reference to nature can be found. Statements like "roaring noon," "the dog days of summer," and "flipped up their noses like goats" brings readers to the outside world. And let's not forget the main character Daisy, named after a popular flower. Like a daisy, Tom's wife is fragile and needs all the support she can get, yet her beauty radiates like the sun. Even Myrtle's dog deserves consideration. Even though the animal exists for only a short period of time, the dog portrays such meaning in the power struggle Myrtle faces. On almost every page of The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald makes a human-animal connection or brings to the attention of the reader other vital aspects of the novel that directly relate to natural world.

Wow- it's been a while since anyone's blogged, and this is probably a dead subject in most people's minds, I really feel like Elliot is unique as a writer because he creates an intense collage of images that don't have a known linear flow about them. They seem random and strung together. They lack a perfect succession of time and place, but they do evoke strong emotions in the reader. I think this is where you can clearly see the connection to literature and art- there are those who love the abstract and feel that those who do not appreciate it do not understand it, and others who find it junk.

Eliot's Hypocrisy

One of the most amazing things about Eliot is ability to express his emotions through his poetry as we all discussed last class. However, in Eliot's Tradition and Individual Talent he states that great works do not come from personal emotion. I can't help but thinking that Eliot may be a hypocrite by saying this. When looking back over Eliot's works I can't help but think that all of these poems came from his own emotions. The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, for example, is so dark and depressing that I'm sure it was based off of Eliot's own sadness. The Waste Land also expresses the saddest images and thoughts, and these could not be so well expressed if Eliot himself had not been feeling this way. How many of us write from our own emotions? I know when I'm in a great mood I'll listen to happy music and write about how great life is, and when I am having a bad day I tend to write about sadness and listen to sad music. I think these poems came straight from Eliot's own heart at the time he wrote them.

Eliot and the Objective Correlative

I just came across a good summary of the connection between emotions and objects in modernist poetry. As I said in class, Eliot gave New Criticism some of its vocabulary and approach. The term objective correlative comes from Eliot, for example, and here Charles Bressler summarizes what this means in his introduction to literary theory and practice:

"According to Eliot, the only way of expressing emotions through art is by finding an objective correlative, or a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events, or reactions that can effectively awaken in the reader the emotional response the author desires without being a direct statement of that emotion. When the external facts are thus presented in the poem, they somehow coalesce (correlate), immediately evoking an emotion" (Bressler 58).

You might think of Marianne Moore's "The Fish," for example, in connection with this principle.