Where will English take me?—Final Blog

I have always loved to read, but I've found that the way you read changes with age. Obviously, our experiences and ideals shape the way we look at things, thus shaping how we might read or write. This is the case with me. I feel as though, before college, I simply just read for pleasure. However, in everything-- music, literature, movies, et cetera, I love to find some way in which I feel I can relate. The more education I gained, the more I was able to make more in-depth connections.

In this class, we have read numerous works and watched a couple of movies. Each thing that was analyzed covered a different subject matter, had a different theme, was looked at and analyzed through different perspectives. College, though I am only just finishing my second year, has already changed greatly the way I think, learn, read, and write. When I read, I still read for pleasure, but I also look at the work in many different lights. Any connections I can make, whether to myself, or to politics, or the world, I can't help but make. Before college, I still liked to make connections, but now these connections are not just to me, but to other issues. The more I know of a subject, the easier it is for me to see the symbols or themes relating to that particular subject. For example, when reading Glengarry Glen Ross, because of my political views, I made note of the corrupt and greed being displayed in the business world. Also, in Faith of the Fallen by Terry Goodkind, I couldn't help but to notice the primary theme of Communism/Capitalism.

In regards to writing, I have improved greatly since high school. High school killed the writer within me, yet my teacher for Engl 1101 my first semester in college was able to show me that I actually do know how to write and that I am talented at it. Engl 2145 has only helped to further my improvement. The best example I can think of is my close-reading I did. I have never been one for poetry. This is not to say that I do not enjoy it, just that as a writer, I can't relate. I am dismal at writing poetry, and it may be because I usually have a hard time understanding a poem or being able to fully appreciate its meaning. I did my close-reading on Plath's poem "Lady Lazarus," and interpreted it through making connections to her other poem "Daddy." Through this, I was able to understand the poems better and also improve the way I support an idea in an essay.

When I was younger, I wanted to be a writer, and I thought that when I grew up I would be a novelist. I tried writing, but given my experience and education, my writing was very mediocre. While in high school, I disregarded the dreams I had once had of being a writer, and could not even seem to write a decent essay. However, I never stopped reading, even in high school, and though I didn't feel as though I could ever write, I never completely lost the desire to be able to write well. So, then, and even more so in college, when I read, as a writer and a natural editor, I studied how the author has told their story. I look at style, purpose, grammar, and how effectively a mere sentence was able to get a message across. I even look at the subject matter, whether it was interesting, relevant, predictable, et cetera. I edit papers and stories for friends and peers, and I've found that editing and studying other writers has helped me to improve greatly as a writer.

College, thus far, has done a lot for me, and I only just began this semester in taking classes for my major. I have many more classes and learning yet to come. My ideal future in literature is to be a professional editor and publisher, and write on the side in the hopes that I can one day become a novelist. My dream is to write at least one best-selling novel and win a Pulitzer Prize, alive or posthumously (it never hurts to aim high). Going on how much I have improved so far, I feel like I could go so much further. I am glad for what this class has done for me as a writer and a reader, and I am excited to continue on.

Geography III

At first, I thought the title of Bishop's book of poems was somewhat random, and even after reading a couple of poems I still didn't see the reason for the title. Yet, when studying the poems in class and also learning more about Bishop herself, I've come to realize that when it comes to her particular art, nothing she does is pointless.

Geography describes the Earth and its inhabitants. All of Bishop's poems in some way connect to geography. They all have relatable themes that connect the readers as well. For Bishop personally, these poems are about lessons she has learned through connections to geography, which is why she put "First Lessons in Geography" in the front of her book. As for the number three in the title, the only conclusion I can gather is that she has lived in three continents of the world, and this book is meant to show what she has learned in her life in all three places.

The poem "In the Waiting Room" is a great example of her use of geography as a theme. In this poem, Bishop learns through looking at the National Geographic, that though landscapes may separate people, everyone is the same. She also uses geographical imagery such as, "I was saying it to stop the sensation of falling off the round, turning world…" to describe her disorienting experience. In her poem "Poem," Bishop takes great care to describe in detail the nature and landscape that is a part of the painting she is admiring. In "Moose," she also describes the landscape, and uses the moose as a thing of simple beauty that connects strangers on a bus and brings them wonder. In "Crusoe in England," she describes how a solitary person on a deserted island is able to find comfort, or perhaps distraction, in the surrounding landscape.

I am not particularly partial to poetry. I prefer to be able to read something and be able to take it at face value, and then later interpret it how I wish. Poetry is not as straightforward and I have a hard time understanding its meaning. Not only this, but I enjoy long, engaging stories with beautiful descriptive language. Poetry doesn't seem to fit my specifications and it just doesn't pull at all the right strings for me. This is not to say that there aren't some poems that I greatly enjoy. If I read a poem without interpreting it, I want it to leave me "wowed." Then once interpreted, I want to be speechless, disoriented, and enlightened all at once.

Bishop's poems were hard for me to understand. After reading most of them, I was left greatly confused. Some poems made me feel as though I wasted my time in reading them, while others such as "One Art," I was able to understand and enjoy. Once we discussed Bishop and her poems in class, however, I found that I greatly appreciate her preciseness and dedication. Her poems were edited and edited until they were just right for her and until they had the exact effect that she wanted. Once I was able to understand the possible message of her poems and understand her possible reasoning for the way they were written, I discovered that I enjoy these poems, and I was indeed left feeling speechless, disoriented, and enlightened. She's not my favorite poet but her mastery in her craft is admirable. I only wish I didn't have to study her poems in order to appreciate them.

The Strong Females in Glengarry Glen Ross

The lack of respect for women and the lack of important female characters would make one think that Mamet favors his own sex and looks down on the opposite sex. In fact, on page 96 of the play Roma is so outraged at Williamson for making him lose his deal that he calls him a "cunt." This word is derogatory on its own, but the situation in which Roma uses it and the tone he uses shows that he has no respect for women. This is not the only example that could be shown as degrading to women, but what is more important is all the evidence against men.

On the surface, the play seems to have no female characters at all. However, women, or the lack thereof, are a huge factor in the power of the play. The setting of the play is in a male-dominated society and the main characters are males who seem to have no respect for women or for anything but money and power. The characters display a great vulgarity and put each other down. The exaggerated language serves to make the men look even viler and very unintelligent, I might add. These men cheat and lie and deceive and do whatever necessary to get to the top. The business they are in and they themselves are interpreted so that one could not possibly see anything good or respectful in them.

Also, the few female characters there are, are better than the men. First there is Levene's daughter. She actually means something to Levene and while his job is disgraceful, she is his motivation. This could seem negative, but it shows that a woman, even an invalid one, can still inspire others.

Mrs. Lingk is also another great example of a strong woman. Clearly, she wears the pants in the relationship with James Lingk. She tells James he must refuse Roma and she will not take no for an answer according to Lingk. In fact, Lingk is so fearful of his wife that even with her not around, he will not speak out against her to Roma. This shows the power and influence of the female and further makes the male characters look weak.

As for Harriet Nyborg, well she could be seen to be just as bad as the men she deceives. The fact that she deceives Levene, the one with the sick daughter, who is struggling to pay the bills, and who later loses his job, certainly this makes her seem heartless and show that women are not much better than men. Maybe that was Mamet's point—that men and women are equally despicable. If Mamet's point was to show all the flaws of our society and the bitter truth of human nature, that opens up a whole new, but very valid, can of worms.

Going back to Harriet Nyborg though, she most likely did not know about Levene's pathetic situation. However, if I were her, pity would not have swayed me. Her cheating Levene and many other salesmen out of their sales shows that she is fighting back. She knows that salesmen will say anything at the expense of customers so long as they make a sale and take their customers' money. She is fighting against the idea than men are superior; she is fighting against the corrupt practices of a society thriving on greed. She is made to look like such an insignificant part of the play, but in reality, she is the strongest character. She, and the rest of the women, serve to accentuate the corrupt men and show them for the weasels they really are. This is not a man's world, it's everyone's world.

Lear’s Feminine Side

Lear is a man who struggles with emotion. From the beginning of the play he seems to not understand how to handle emotion. First of all, he tries to compare the love of his daughters and reward them accordingly. When his favorite daughter does not suck up to him like he expected her to, he lashes out in anger and banishes her. Then, on a roll, he banishes Kent, his confidant, and clings to his "evil" daughters for comfort. Why does he seem to be so immature and naïve? According to Kahn, Lear's inability to embrace femininity is the problem.

It is apparent that there seems to be no mother figure in Lear's family. He no longer has a wife and his daughters no longer have a mother. We, as the readers, know nothing about the mother or how family life was like with her. She may well have been a tyrant or in some way the cause of the present family contention. We can assume though, that because of her no longer being around we have a dysfunctional family in the Lear household. Goneril and Regan seem to be altogether heartless. Goneril herself not only plotted against her father, but against her husband and her doting sister. Lear prefers to ignore womanly feelings and instead chooses to be manly or angry. Then there is Cordelia.

Cordelia seems to be the only one that is feminine or motherly. Is this why she was Lear's favorite daughter? Because she complemented his masculinity and offered him a sense of security? And is this also another reason why he banished her? Maybe he felt that the only way to not be hurt by her supposed betrayal was to repress all chances for feminine feelings, like Kahn said, by banishing her, thus symbolically banishing the female influence.

All that we readers can really do is make guesses and form our own opinions about the impact the wife and the loss of the wife made on Lear's family. However, this is not the only reason Lear may seem to deny the woman side of himself. He is a king and a leader. This role requires him to be manly and powerful. It also requires him to be rational, though we know he is not. Lear knows his duty as King and, as a prideful man, he does not want to look weak or unable to properly fulfill his role.

After he learns of the betrayal of Goneril and Regan, he yells and curses them and then vows that they will not see him cry. However, as he is continually placed in humbling situations, and with the help of his Fool, he sees that it is he who is the fool. His pride and blind masculinity led to his humiliation and wrong decisions. He wronged Cordelia, the only true woman in his life. He accepts this fact and in turn begins to accept his feminine side. He even runs around at one point dressed up in nothing but nature, embracing femininity.

When Lear is reunited with Cordelia he begs her to forgive him and admits that he has been foolish. Then when Cordelia dies, his true colors come forth. He is a more balanced person. He is still a man and still acts like the king he is, but at the same time he is not afraid to show his sorrow and vulnerability. He learned that feminine qualities are okay. They are what make his beloved Cordelia so admirable and lovely and they are what help him to grow and make him more happy in the end. Kahn is right that Lear's problem was his suppression of female qualities and that his solution was learning to embrace said qualities. We can come up with no sure reasons as to why he was the way he was in the beginning, but does it matter?

Political Sentiments

When I hear the quote "Politics and sentiment don't mix," I immediately think of Marxism. Satrapi and her family were self-proclaimed Marxists and so I would understand why Marji's father would make this statement. One of the main ideals of Marxism, besides that of the necessary revolting, is that the needs of the people are taken care of, rather than the wants. Heeding the wants of the people can not be afforded. Individualism must be sacrificed for the greater good of the whole. Without greed being an issue, the society is one unit. Great things can be accomplished and everyone is taken care of. Sentiments can not come into play here because the issue is about what is necessary, not what is wanted.

When politics becomes personal, leaders may think irrationally. They think of what it is that is personal to them and not about what might be good for their country. Rash decisions are made and the whole country may suffer as a result. I believe Marji's father saw the truth in this. He means to say that politics and sentiment should not mix because it makes for ill leadership and is jeopardizing for the whole country.

I think Marji's father's statement was meant to have another meaning as well. Satrapi's family, while interested in Marxism, does not practice it, and neither does the country in which they live. Their country is run by a dictator and they are in the midst of revolutions and wars. In situations like these, emotions are fragile and also frequent. However, in cases of dictatorship, the sentiments of the people are trivial and only power seems to matter. Many lives are lost and wasted because of war and the greed of leaders. From looking at the past political history of Iran and of many other countries, it is obvious to Marjane's father that the leaders do not have time or interest in caring for their people.

The ethics of politics aside, sentiments, especially in the case of the people of Iran, will be a prime issue. In Persepolis, Satrapi's family could not put their emotions aside, nor should they have. Their lives were in danger and they had to be ever careful of everything they did so as to not get in trouble with the "law." They tried to live as best they could in the given circumstances. It is obvious that Marji, her mother, and her grandmother were more sensitive when it came to politics and that they believed that if they felt strongly enough about the issues, it might do some good. They went to demonstrations for a time but I think they stopped because they knew this was a battle they could not win. Although they hated that they were even in a position that would cause them to worry for their lives and freedom, they knew the cold truth of what Marji's father had said. Politics and sentiment do not and should not mix. However, it is also a truth that politicians are not dealing with a country full of robots; they are dealing with humans. Sentiments will be present no matter what. While leading a country should never be personal, in the case of the people of Iran, politics seem to be the cause of sentiment.

Moviegoer Analysis

From the beginning of The Moviegoer, it seemed to me that Binx was a cynical, closed-off sort of fellow. When he mentioned that he was on a search, on page 13, I did not think that it would come to bear much fruit. If one is easily displeased or cynical about everything that comes his way, what can one expect to find in a search? A search is nothing new to people like Binx, because they will always look for something to break the cynicism, something to bring them out of their disappointment with the world. Binx wants to find something that will bring him out of the "everydayness of his own life" (13).

Binx says, "To become aware of the possibility of the search is to be onto something. Not to be onto something is to sink into despair" (13). I think Binx really did want to find something and he was excited that maybe he would. However, the problem is, if the answer were staring him in the face, I did not think he would notice, or accept the answer if he did know it. Throughout the whole novel, he is looking for something extraordinary to happen, but he always ends up disappointed. Sometimes we think he is coming onto something, for example, the fact that he started to faithfully listen to This I believe, because he felt bad for mocking it. However he remained cynical to the beliefs of the people on the show, calling them "peas in a pod" (109). Maybe he does not believe in the uniqueness of the individual as they do. Maybe if he did, he might not need the search or might more readily find the answer?

Near the end of the novel, Binx still has not seemed to find an answer. His aunt asks him "What do you love? What do you live by?" and he cannot answer her. He remains silent because he still hasn't found the meaning of his life (226). On page 228 he is obviously frustrated with the fruitlessness of his search. He says that his "only talent is smelling merde from every corner," (at least he finally admits this fact about himself) and he calls everyone "shit." The world is a "shithouse of scientific humanism where needs are satisfied, everyone becomes an anyone…--on this my thirtieth birthday, I know nothing and there is nothing to do but fall prey to desire" (228). This seems to be the end to his search, the conclusion he comes to. However, this is not the end of the book.

Kate, besides his Aunt Emily, is the one woman that Binx seems to truly respect and care for. He feels a connection with her, because he recognizes that they are so alike. Kate is afraid of the world and of not knowing herself, but she says that when she is with Binx, she cannot be frightened (234). Kate needs to cling to Binx to feel secure, and though Binx seems to not even need Kate or anyone for that matter, I believe that he needs her just as much. Together they might come to some sort of revelation about life, and so they get married.

Binx concedes to go to medical school just as his aunt wanted. He feels so unsure that he thinks if he goes to medical school and is married to Kate, he might find some sense of purpose to life. From this point on, he seems to be happier now that he has actually decided to take some sort of path in life. As for his search, he has "not the inclination to say much on the subject" (237). He seems to have come to the conclusion that there is nothing to do but "plant a foot in the right place as the opportunity presents itself" (237). As far as religion goes, this was something that he could not rule out of his search (146). Now he realizes that he did not necessarily need religion. He is naturally shy, as well as suspicious of it (237). It seems by the end of the book that Binx did not really find a specific answer to his quest, but in admitting that he hasn't, he has. His answer perhaps is that there is no specific answer and that one must live his own life and come to his own conclusions.