Relationships???

Woohoo!!!! So proud f myself for not procrastinating and even being one of the first 10 to post!! =)


When it comes to marriage, what is it all about? Is marriage based on the deep emotional connection two individuals have for each other; or the superficial physical connection? No matter what it is, marriage can be interpreted in so many different ways depending on each individual. In the poems A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning by John Donne and Conjoined by Judith Minty, both authors uses figurative language such as metaphors, similes, imagery, and diction to convey their contrasting definitions of what they believe marriage should be: a indefinable, long lasting connection for Donne and one of needed space in some sort of confinement for Minty.

In Donne’s A Valediction, marriage is considered as something sacred and never-ending and several metaphors are used to portray this. For example, the first stanza of the poem goes like “As virtuous men pass mildly away, and whispers to their souls to go… and some say, No” (lines 1-4). This phrase means that even though the men are dead, there should be no real goodbye because in reality the person will alive in your heart. It symbolizes how in a relationship the emotional connection between two people can overpass death itself. Another example is in the third stanza, “Moving of th’ earth brings harm and fears…but trepidation of the spheres…is innocent” (lines 9-12). By comparing a marriage to the earth in a way the authors is saying that the connection and love between the two individuals in a marriage is bigger than the world around them. Nothing will be able to interfere in this relationship even if it is his departure. Also, when the poem comes to an end, the third to the last stanza is another metaphor of what a marriage/relationship should resemble. “If they be two… as stiff twin compasses are two…makes no show to move, but doth, if th’ other do” (lines 25-28). It is a perfect final example to use to model a relationship. The metaphor of the compass shows that even though he has passed, his passing doesn’t he is leaving her for good, but instead the strong connection between the two is only becoming bigger and bigger the farther he goes. Furthermore, like a circle being drawn from a compass, the man is saying no matter what he will eventually return back to where he first started, to where his soul mate will be.

Minty starts off her poem by describing an onion sitting in a cupboard, “a monster, actually two joined under one transparent skin…then flat and deformed where it pressed and grew against each other” (lines 1-4). The imagery that the reader first reads perfectly starts off the author’s opinion about marriage. When she talks about the onion becoming flat and deformed after pressed against each other in the cupboard to grow it resembles how after a couple becomes married and starts living together they no longer have their individuality and personal space. The couple will sooner or later become one in practically everything they do. They will no longer have the ability to branch out to go their own directions. In addition, the second stanza begins with the simile “like the two-headed calf…fighting to suck at its mother’s teats” (lines 5-6) and ends with “like those other freaks, Chang and eng…doomed to live, even make love, together for sixty years” (lines 7-9). The simile of the calf symbolizes how in a marriage it sometimes includes fights and disagreements after time if there is no breathing space to cool down. Even in a marriage, being together 24/7 is not so ideal. Similarly, the simile of the twins represents the same idea of the necessary personal space.

However, even though each poem is a contradiction of the other, there is still somewhat of a similarity between the two. In both poems the concept of the connection between twp people in a relationship is taken into consideration and in the end both concentrate on the emotional and physical connection. Even though each one picks one to focus on more that the other, they both use similar methods to present their ideas. Both authors carefully uses their choice of diction to show depict their views of a relationship. Donne uses words such as “mildly”, “whisper”, “no tear’floods”, and “expansion” to show that the connection between two individuals is unbreakable and grand enough to go through anything. There is no need for sadness or tears when there is a separation because emotionally the two are still tied together. As for Minty’s Conjoined, the diction used in the poem such as “monster”, “deformed”, “accident”, “freaks”, and “doomed” gives off a negative impression of being joined together for life. Minty makes it sound as though marriage is something that should not happen and even something she may consider as a burden. The attachment is too much to handle and could possible ruin an individual.

Overall, the authors’ views about relationships are clearly shown through the figurative languages used by each poet. Donne uses mostly metaphors to symbolize the connection between two people in a relationship as a deep emotional connection that can span any length when put under any circumstances. As for Minty, she use more similes and choice of diction to get her point across that sometime a relationship may be too overbearing for the individuals involved. Eventually, one would lose all individuality and become one with the other.

Hmm...

So here I go with this particular blog. I guess what I really want to say first is that this article was a little bit long for my taste so it was a little difficult for me to stay focused on it. Anyway, I guess the gist of Jim Neilson’s argument is that O’Brien’s The Things They Carried is a very one-sided point of view of the war. Neilson criticizes the book on how little it really relates to the war. “O'Brien does not contextualize his experience, does not provide us with any deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of this war, and does not see beyond his individual experience to document the vastly greater suffering of the Vietnamese.” He wants the book to be based more on historical facts and the full experience of the war form both sides: Vietnamese and American. However, sadly enough O’Brien’s is bases purely on the stories (true or not) that he remembers during his time in Vietnam. All of the little stories described are either from his own experiences or from the experiences gained by the members of his unit. “However sympathetic his reconstruction of an enemy soldier's life, though, O'Brien consistently undercuts it by emphasizing textual artifice…” even though O’Brien did mention a Vietnamese for a little while, Neilson still feels that he is only doing to prove his own point and not for the Vietnamese individual. It is obvious that Neilson truly disagrees with how O’Brien has reconstructed the war in his stories. For all the pain that the war has caused him, it seems as though O’Brien feels little pity for the county/people it also affected besides himself. Also in the article, Neilson tries to explain how The Things They Carried has so much postmodernism in it and I think he does a great job in doing so. He points out all the reasons why and why not the novel is postmodern which I think will help me a lot on the essay. Anyway I guess I’m xong for now. =]]

Ps. Xong is Viet for finished if you haven’t figured yet xP

The Truth in War Stories?

So now that I’m caught up, I’m thinking that the central theme of most of the stories so far is the difference between what truth is and what storytelling is. Practically in every story Tim is questioning what the truth is compared to a war story and what listeners should believe and such. Its all up to the readers to decided whether each war story in the collection is the truth or made up to sound like a possibility that might have happened. “In any war story, but especially a true one, it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen” (71). Over the years it seems as though the mind can play tricks on oneself, distorting the distinct line between what truly happened and what was believed to happen. A true war story can never be exactly all truth, “often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn’t, because the normal stuff is necessary to make you believe the truly incredible craziness” (71). I guess a war story has to be manipulated at some point to make it somewhat believable because without the lies embedded here and a war story may sound just unbelievable in the end.

Anyway, this leads into the whole postmodernism concept. The idea of postmodernism is always questioning the truth and what it really is. Is there ever really a truth or is it just a bundle of lies that were believed in so much they turned into truths (if you get what I’ saying). So back to the novel, I think it’s a great representation of the postmodern theory. I never really thought about it until class on Friday when Veerprit was talking about it all day from first period to sixth.

So overall, is there such a thing as a true war story or is every war a story a combination of truth and made up realities to believe the truth? I guess we will never find out unless we go back in time to experience the whole event in a first person point of view.

"Forty-three years old, and the war occurred half a life-time ago, and yet the remembering makes it now. And sometimes remembering will lead to a story, which makes it forever" (38). So now the question is, does it really matter if a story is true? Or are the feelings and emotions experienced more important than the details?

Oh, now that i thought about it, it gets me wondering about war reenactments and how they now what is truth or not as well as history. Depending on who it is, history may be a total lie or all truth, who knows. Anyway, just a quick little thought.

Postmodernism???

Okay, so first of all super sorry for procrasitinating on the blog. I just practically forgot all about last week because of deadline and all.

Anyway, here I go…

After reading all these different books and analyzing the Postmodernism book, all together I think I have somewhat of an idea what postmodernism is. I think the concept of postmodernism is a little complicated to explain. I think it has several meanings, but the one that stands out the most to me is individuality. Postmodernism, i s all about leaving grand narratives behind and moving onto several different ideas and not just one. There is no longer one set definition for certain thoughts and ideas. Now there are”Other” influences everywhere presenting themselves forward to be heard and seen. There is no longer a definition of what is truth. Truth is what each individual define it be; therefore, it can be anything.

Then again, postmodernisn can be defined as a journey to find a perfect utopia where everywhere lives in harmony with each other and the only way to do so is to be practically be identical and exactly alike like in Brave New World. This, I think, is the total opposite of individuality. Especially several of the books we have read they depict a society where being similar and categorized is the best way to live. These books that we have read show the predictions of what our society will turn into if such ideas are forced on a society. Another example of this postmodern thought is in Cat’s Cradle, where a world revolves around lies to get by and to be happy. The perfect utopia is only found when the truth is no longer necessary.

Overall, I think postmodernism has many central ideas and not just one complete one. I really have no idea what the central idea is even though we have worked on it throughout the whole semester, but what I have so far is above. I know I’m rambling on about practically nothing and even contradicting myself at times, I think what I said above sums up what I think is postmodernism.

Maus

Okay, so I’m so sorry that this blog is so late, but honestly I’ve just been procrastinating all break. Anyway its 12:08 AM Monday morning and here I go…

So now that I’m done with the book and the essay I guess I have a lot to say for this Maus thesis blog. When I finally read the book (which was a few days ago) I really enjoyed. I was reading while in the waiting room at my doctor’s office and I couldn’t put it down. The secretary’s probably though I was a super nerd or something. Anyway, I thought the book was really interesting and easy to read. I think that one of the main reasons why I liked it so much was that it was in a comic book type of style. The graphic novel allow me to visualize the events being described which made it a lot easier for me not to put the book down.

Also with the help from reading the informative comics by Scott McCloud in class, it helped me understand why animal caricatures were used instead of humans with facial features. This now leads into my essay thesis ideas. When I was brainstorming my essay (which by the way took forever) I though a lot about how Art Spiegelman uses people with animal faces as his characters. Along with that I thought about why he chose to use a graphic novel to talk about an event that is so serious and important as the Holocaust. At first I had no idea why he would chose a type of novel that is somewhat childish to portray a critical part of history. Then after a while I decided on the thesis idea that even though the graphic novel may be childish, Spiegelman is attempting to explain such an important part of history in a simple way where it would be easy for readers to understand. The Holocaust is a very large part of history and yet it is difficult to explain and understand. Therefore, I decided to go with this essay topic.

Anyway, there you go and once again sorry for the lateness Dominguez. =]