bkirsch’s Blog

(Although there are many motifs in this piece) Madness (mostly as a result of drugs and other maddening situations) is a common motif used in Alan Ginsberg’s poem, “Howl”.

The first usage of madness is in none other but the first stanza, where Ginsberg writes about “great minds” being “broken.” Although this may be an obvious representation of the motif, it solely encapsulates the interpretation of madness in “Howl.” Referring to “great minds” (or brilliant individuals) whom act stupidly, and ruin their brains with the usage of drugs, etc. — Ginsberg notes that, perhaps, the smartest people are often the most mad.

After that, the next lines refer to Ginsberg’s madness, perhaps, when he discusses such illicit material like drugs, “cock” and “balls”. Although the vulgar diction is used in a poetic setting, Ginsberg clearly refers to madness with his language, much of which is intertwined with the usage of drugs.

Although most of the references to madness deal with drug usage, the last few lines in the poem clearly depict madness, as he refers to 25,000 mad comrades singing the “internationale.” Although this blatantly refers to mad people, this line refers more directly to the (possible) anthem before battle – which Ginsberg almost mocks, as though he thinks the entire concept of war is mad. This could also (possibly) refer to drugs, as soldiers – some of the most brilliant and strong individuals who fight for our country – become so disillusioned by what they see while at war, and often result to drugs for a sense of escapism.

These last few lines not only conclude the poem, but conclude the concept of madness – whether one destroys his or her mind through sedatives or drugs, or is put in a situation which either makes them mad, or adds to their insanity.

Loyalty is a very important aspect of life. In terms of “A View from the Bridge,” loyalty plays a tragic role due to the way its controls the characters—both individually and relationally. From having a friend that is always loyal to you, to always being loyal to yourself (ex: not doing drugs, etc.); to negative forms of loyalty, like taking sides with another friend because your loyalties lie more with them, or dishonoring your loyalty to yourself—both in life, and in the character’s lives in Arthur Miller’s playwright, loyalty plays a key role.

Loyalty is important to the blue-collar workers because it is something they can rely on. Being the middle class (or having even lower socio-economic status), loyalty plays a key role because they consider each other to be family, as they work together closely like kin. However, although the feeling of “family” is important to the playwright, Miller exposes the tragedy of loyalty’s discrepancies and faults. For example, what happens when loyalty is not completely clear? Or when loyalty reaches a point where it becomes negative? Who do you stay loyal to? etc. This was seen with the facet that Eddie chooses to be so loyal to Catherine. Was he supposed to be more loyal to Rodolpho and Marco? In general, the lines become blurred.

The tragedy of this blurring and the confusion of loyalties in the playwright depict the main flaw of loyalty in Miller’s “A View from the Bridge”: the unknown effects of loyalty on others. For instance, when the lines are blurred in relation to who is supposed to have the closest loyalties, etc., it ends up hurting a lot of people – either intentionally, or unintentionally. For example, because Eddie has an undying loyalty to Catherine, he therefore loses his loyalties with Rodolpho and Marco when he calls the police on them (relational loyalty).

Individually, loyalty plays a large role in Eddie’s life. Tragically, Eddie’s obsession with loyalty to Catherine makes him disloyal to others. Eddie is torn apart with his loyalties (and they become blurred) as well with his relationship to his wife, Beatrice, whom decides to house her two cousins, Rodolpho and Marco in the first place, forcing Eddie to become torn. (Because they were in his house, one might think he might have treated Rodolpho and Marco like the family they should have reflected from the blue-collar middle class stereotype, yet his loyalties weren’t inherently present).

In conclusion, loyalty affects people both individually and relationally, and it is very common for loyalties to become blurred, exposing the great tragedy: the discrepancy of loyalties.

In “Hills Like White Elephants,” it is clear that the topic of abortion for an unwanted pregnancy is of main concern to the characters. However, more than the topic itself, as the story unfolds it is apparent that many feelings are improperly expressed by the American and the girl.

For one, it is obvious that the female does not “desire” this operation. In fact, it seems that she pushes her feelings away/denies her feelings of the operation in order to keep the American happy. She says things like “I know you care about me, but I don’t care about me,” giving off the impression that she is completely fine, and isn’t going to “care” about what happens to her if she does in fact go through with the operation (ex: all the emotional pain, etc.). In defense of the American, although it is clear that he hopes she will have the abortion, he does say things like “I don’t want you to do anything you don’t want to,” or other sensitive statements. Above all, however, it is clear to both the girl and the readers that those feelings are not really true.

Like most unexpressed feelings, they tend to rise in other forms. By the end of the story, in my opinion, one can see that that the emotions the girl is not expressing are really taking a toll on her, as she becomes upset with herself and the situation. I think she realizes towards the end of the story that the American is kindly pushing her toward a decision which she ultimately does not want to make, and realizes that she is therefore numbing her own pain in order to make a man, the American – someone who will never experience the emotional weight of this situation in the same way she will – happy. (This manifests through her conversation in which she tries to convince herself that the operation would be the “right” thing.) Because the American keeps telling her that she can do what she wants, yet keeps showing her what he wants, I believe that the girl becomes angry with the whole situation, and that she rather just stay numb by not expressing her feelings.

Although it is suggested that humans express themselves, in the case of “Hills Like White Elephants,” that seems to not be the case, as keeping one’s feelings inside may be a defense mechanism in order to make a tough situation (like an abortion) less of a reality.

Friend,

In 1913, the Armory show was swept by the modernist movement—a progress dominated by a “new” art style, focusing on interpretation and the true convictions of artwork. This movement was a progressive launching of mostly American modernism (reflective of the era), embodying principles and challenging viewers to think (about how we consciously perceive work), defamiliarizing us with the meanings of art. In the show, certain pieces leap off the screen with modern influence.

Amidst the abundance of significant, modern American art displayed in the Armory, two American pieces that leap of the screen are Henry Reuterdahl’s, “Blast Furnaces,” and Chester Beach’s sculpture titled, “The Unveiling of a New Dawn.” Conveying emotion in raw form, the style of these two pieces conveys the ideal of the modernist movement, as they vividly display the emergence of urbanism in America.

Upon viewing the works of Beach, the viewer is overcome with the appearance of a twist on a traditional marble statue. Positioning man and woman as objects for the new era while reenacting historical events, Beach sculpts man and earth as one fused image superimposed on the face of man (or mankind). The sculpture represents the title, “The Unveiling of a New Dawn,” as it implies the idea of evolution and invokes a plethora of emotion in the observer, forcing the viewer to find his or her own interpretation of the piece amidst its physical appearance.

Correspondingly, “Blast Furnaces” by Henry Reuterdahl, displays a portrait that requires one’s own interpretation. Focusing the viewer’s attention on the feeling of heat in the picture of a factory, Reuterdahl actively brushes in a modern style, with each stroke on setting a different motion… and emotion for the observer. Reuterdahl also defamiliarizes viewers with his not-so-common depiction of factory life, putting emphasis on the level of heat from the furnace/for the workers (the smoke)—all while depicting the bustling life and industry of the leaders of the up-incoming industrialization of America.

Also hip to the modernist movement displayed in the Armory was art of European influence. Viewers can see a rampant depiction of modern, metropolitan art with Russian artist Wassily Kandinsky, in his painting, “Garden of Love.” From the vivid colors, to the non-traditionalist brush strokes placed over the portrait, it is apparent that Kandinsky desires his viewers to imagine. From what first appear as blobs of bright, warm colors, it seems as though Kandinsky uses his liberal strokes as a form of force for his viewers to think, interpret, and aspire. With the idea that love is different for all, Kandinsky’s portrait is meant to embody love in its varied forms, with its varied interpretations—whatever it is, this “garden” is up to viewers to decide what “love” means.

As far as European sculptures go, there is a profound similarity to the modernist sculptures of American artists. Similarly to the American sculpture that Beach creates, Lachaise, a French-born artist, shows his modernist influence with his 1912 piece of work, “Statuette.” This statue seems to be of a nude woman who is standing against a smoky backing. Once again, Lachaise demonstrates his art in the modernist fashion that defamiliarizes viewers with what they already think they know, and emphasizes thought and interpretation.

In conclusion, both American and European artists displayed modernist values in the art showcased in the Armory show. In relation to our texts and the modernist movement in general, Frost tells his readers to have their own interpretations, urging us to be modernists ourselves. Throwing aside the idea of classical conformity, all of the artists in the modernist movement exemplified revolutionary, new perspectives, and encouraged the idea of defamiliarization. That’s what makes this “stuff” modern.

 1.)    This narrative takes place in chapter XV at the point where Hurstwood’s infatuation with Carrie has expanded, while his home life is depleting, and Carrie is reflecting upon her life.

2.)    In this excerpt, the narrator is describing the action. Readers can see this because he refers to both Carrie and Hurstwood as the “other,” (not him), and in third person. Words like “he” or “she,” or plainly stating his or her name clearly show that the voice of the excerpt does not belong to the characters.

3.)    The narrator’s voice describes the characters through the entire passage.

4.)    Dreiser’s narrator in Sister Carrie plays a very important role in helping readers fully grasp the situations and events that occur. He is very judgmental and honest about the characters, implying especially that Carrie is in fact a fallen woman with his words. (For example, “Her sympathies were ever with that under-world of toil from which she had so recently sprung, and which she best understood.”) The narrator also seems educated, since his diction is superb. He rides a fine line between being a “teller” and a “shower,” as he dictates what’s happening in the story, yet also describes it with phrases like, “sucked its waxen beauty,” and, “a pale, somber half-light, which was the essence of poetic feeling.”

5.)    In this excerpt, he is describing both Carrie and Hurstwood in a way that mostly defines his or her character. From Carrie’s reflection on her life, father, etc., to the idea of her as a “fallen” women, and Hurstwood’s growing attraction to Carrie, all describe how the characters are, feel, and act based on his narration.

6.)    The narrator wants readers to fully understand who these characters are: what drives them to do what they do, and how they truly feel on the inside. It makes sense that the narrator would want his readers to fully capture the raw image of the characters in their defining moments (whether it’s lusting after a woman that is not one’s wife, or reflecting on the changes that have happened which make one “fall”).

7.)    Although the narrator is not technically a main character in the novel, I believe that he is one with the characters: he watches them, he knows them, etc. Because of this, I feel that the narrators’ relationship with the characters, here and in general, is very strong, yet almost phony. From the way he writes, I believe he thinks that he is almost one with them, that they are friends, etc., yet he is technically not a character in the novel.

The death of the narrator’s husband proves to be both a victory and a defeat for her. Because the husband is now dead, she is free — alive and well from his oppressive behavior and treatment. Most importantly, she maintained her sense of self through the the story, and didn’t change who she was when she was being rididculed for being “crazy”, etc. On the other hand, her husband’s death is also a defeat because he was the one who made her who she was by putting her through everything (in the attic). Even though she maintained her sense of self throughout the process, there is still somewhat of a defeat because the person who almost enabled her to become the way she is is now dead. 

They shut me up in Prose –

“They” (society, men, etc.) keep her quiet. In prose (everyday language, story-telling, informal speech/writing)–basically, herself–her thoughts, ideas, etc.

As when a little Girl

When she was young (obviously she’s older now).  Capitalization of Girl refers to her name. Following the previous statement means how when she was a young girl, she was silenced.

They put me in the Closet –

Closet it capitalized as a literal name for a figurative meaning. She was literally confined in a small space, and therefore she was silenced in society.

Because they liked me “still” –

“They” once again refers to an unknown audience (society, men, etc.). “Still” refers to her physical being, in a literal closet–and her mind, thoughts, etc. being stopped/silenced.

Still! Could themself have peeped –

Even when she’s “still,” they could see (peeped) something happening. (She wasn’t really still.)

And seen my Brain — go round –

They could see her “Brain” and thoughts working and “go[ing] round.” Doing what they tried to stop her from doing: thinking.

They might as wise have lodged a Bird

A “Bird” personofies freedom. It can fly — at any point – away, and spread it’s wings. Comparing a human to a bird is interesting, because a Bird is free, and the human is therefore a free spirit. “Lodging” a bird is like a brutal form of shutting something up.

For Treason — in the Pound –

You can’t lodge a bird for “Treason,” and Dickinson is mocking the idea, just like you can never really quiet a person’s mind. You may punish them/it, as in a “Pound” or a “Closet,” but you can never take away their/its free thoughts.

Himself has but to will

You have to “will” for freedom, as you also have a will to choose what you wish to do with your mind. No one can take that away… if you “will.”

And easy as a Star

A “Star” is a beautiful and poignant light in a dark sky; it shines and is visible among the dark abyss it is superimposed on. Dickinson is a “Star” against the rest of society/women (at this time) as she realizes the depths of her ideas and mind.

Abolish his Captivity –

You have the “will” to abolish your own Captivity, because you are not truly captive if you have your mind working. No one can keep you mentally captive.

And laugh — No more have I –

Once you realize you can “will” to escape your captivity mentally, as Dickinson has, you can “laugh” at the miserable people that have accused you of such silly notions. Now, she has surpassed mental captivity… and will never stop thinking.

*Disecting the poem line by line really helped in my understanding of the piece. The bigger picture of never being silenced for being yourself or thinking your thoughts (prose) is something I didn’t fully grasp until I blogged. I think it’s really interesting how Dickinson compared her situation to a Bird being Lodged, and the Star looking upon Captivity. And, in conclusion, the meaning I got from the poem was much more distinct and clear once I delved into the lines.

Honestly, I really enjoyed the Wiki assignment because I am a very visual learner. This came in handy in two ways: it allowed me to post a photo which made the text take on a whole new meaning, and it also allowed me to expand my knowledge through the perspective of my classmates as well. The only thing I didn’t like about the assignment is that I felt like it was a “first come, first served” type of deal. Once someone had posted something very similar to what I was thinking, I felt as though I couldn’t pick a similar picture to represent it because it would be copying? Maybe that’s just me, but that’s the only complaint I had–and it’s not even a big deal because I ended up finding a picture which I liked.

If Emerson read Witman’s, “Song of Myself,” he would do so (as he reccomends in his texts) creatively. Within the first stanza of the poem, Whitman introduces readers to a textual experience that includes two people: him and the reader. When he states, “what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you,” he demonstrates the theme of unification, which we see throughout the poem, specifically with the body in its most natural state: nude. This theme is seen from the first few lines on, and is demonstrated in this image which displays the body conjoined in its rawest form for embrace. I picked this picture because the idea of coming together–whether it be spiritually, sexually, etc.–is something readers can see in “Song of Myself” and can apply to contemporary experience.