Rsponse to Passing POst

Many things in this book stood out to me, such as the inevitable result of anything red (clare stole money from her father to buy a red dress, she wore a red dress when she died/fainted), significant when you think of the symbolic significance of red--passion, desire the explanations of things that don't necessarily need explanations (like that brian was looking at clare...) and yet the ambiguity of things that need to be explained (I'm still confused whether Clare died or fainted...),drop dead dead. Went out the window etc.
However, the thing that reoccurred often was the child/family things. In fact, the weirdest thing about Clare was her utter lack of interest in her daughter.The first example of this is when she's talking to Irene the first time in a while, Clare only mentions Margery as a side-note when she's inviting Irene to join them for tea. Another example of this is when Irene is trying to get Clare to leave her alone (sort of) and she says "There's your little girl, Clare. Think of the consequences to her." And Clare seems to not even have thought of Margery, even though Irene did. It's also very strane how she talks about Margery in that awful sene in her apartment. She says she spent her whole pregnancy terrified that Margery would be "dark," suggesting that she thought little about the child herself and more about the ramifications for her passing. In addition, she sounds regretful by responding "I think that being a mother is the cruellest thing in the world." Although Irene agrees with this statement, she also brings up that Clare could lose her child if Mr. Bellew finds out. Although they are interrupted by the phone, Clare then invites herself to a function that is risking her child. Additionally, she mentions that she could "Kill Jack" and that she expects she "shall someday." Irene replies that he didn't do anything, clare was the one who put herself in that mess. Later on, Clare says that "Children aren't everything" when Irene mentions Margery again. Even later, when Irene mentions Margery, Clare says that "[Margery] is the only thing holding me back." These things do not seem very .. motherly to me. When we first start with Irene in Chicago, Irene is searching for the present that her child wants, going in and out of shops until she's tired. By the end, she's staying away from her children because Clare is there and being adored by them. In a way, i think that Clare wished so much to be in Irene's place that she willed herself there. It took until the last parts of the book for Irene to consciously notice, and by then, it seemed too late. She can't tell Clare's husband that Clare is black, because she realizes then, Clare will have nothing stopping her to take everything that irene has. In the beginning, Irene believes that Brian is "fond" of her. Towards the end, she thinks he sees her as purely his child's mother. Evidence? There could be a lot of things the author is trying to say, but I think it may be the fact that Clare's passing always got her something, such as everything irene had, but Irene's passing made her almost lose everything. Even though Irene didn't lose everything, in the end, what did she gain? Nada.
Ok, whoa. Lots and lots to think about here. First, how is Irene passing? Passing as happy in her marriage and family? The fact that Clare tries to take Irene's place seems less about the kids and more about greed and the desire for things she can't have, including the "perfect" family. Irene has always had that (ex: think of her parents and how kind they were), and Clare seems determined to take all that Irene has.
Now, for a so what. The most obvious so what you take us to is that the author shows passing is bad. Not really debatable. To make this workable, you'll need to narrow your "what" and focus on either Irene and her desire to pass as the perfect wife and mother without being emotionally invested in it, or focus on Clare and her relationship to motherhood. What do we see from her lack of connection to Margery and her obsessive attention to Irene's kids? Is the author showing something about the nature of motherhood? Go to your evidence. See where it leads you.

Passing (Entire Book)

Many things in this book stood out to me, such as the inevitable result of anything red (clare stole money from her father to buy a red dress, she wore a red dress when she died/fainted), the explanations of things that don't necessarily need explanations (like that brian was looking at clare...) and yet the ambiguity of things that need to be explained (I'm still confused whether Clare died or fainted...), etc. However, the thing that reoccurred often was the child/family things. In fact, the weirdest thing about Clare was her utter lack of interest in her daughter.

The first example of this is when she's talking to Irene the first time in a while, Clare only mentions Margery as a side-note when she's inviting Irene to join them for tea. Another example of this is when Irene is trying to get Clare to leave her alone (sort of) and she says "There's your little girl, Clare. Think of the consequences to her." And Clare seems to not even have thought of Margery, even though Irene did. In addition, she sounds regretful by responding "I think that being a mother is the cruellest thing in the world." Although Irene agrees with this statement, she also brings up that Clare could lose her child if Mr. Bellew finds out. Although they are interrupted by the phone, Clare then invites herself to a function that is risking her child. Additionally, she mentions that she could "Kill Jack" and that she expects she "shall someday." Irene replies that he didn't do anything, clare was the one who put herself in that mess. Later on, Clare says that "Children aren't everything" when Irene mentions Margery again. Even later, when Irene mentions Margery, Clare says that "[Margery] is the only thing holding me back." These things do not seem very .. motherly to me.

When we first start with Irene in Chicago, Irene is searching for the present that her child wants, going in and out of shops until she's tired. By the end, she's staying away from her children because Clare is there and being adored by them. In a way, i think that Clare wished so much to be in Irene's place that she willed herself there. It took until the last parts of the book for Irene to consciously notice, and by then, it seemed too late. She can't tell Clare's husband that Clare is black, because she realizes then, Clare will have nothing stopping her to take everything that irene has. In the beginning, Irene believes that Brian is "fond" of her. Towards the end, she thinks he sees her as purely his child's mother.

There could be a lot of things the author is trying to say, but I think it may be the fact that Clare's passing always got her something, such as everything irene had, but Irene's passing made her almost lose everything. Even though Irene didn't lose everything, in the end, what did she gain? Nada.

Response to (outstanding) Hemingway Post

Liz, What you're doing here is biographical criticism, and it is outstanding. You definitely have an essay springing up here, so all this writing, research, and thinking were well worth it!
The main thing about this story that caught my eye was on the last page: The lords prayer (certain parts changed slightly and words replaced with the Spanish word for 'nothing') and then about half of the Hail Mary (again, words replaced, but this time with just the English 'nothing'.) I was fascinated with this, because, of course, Ernest Hemingway wrote quite a bit about Spain, a primarily CATHOLIC place. Upon further investigation, I found that he himself was born into a family that worshiped with the First Congregational Church and then converted to Catholicism. This confused me; most people who believe in Catholicism (e.g., a person who converts to it) would not change the Lords Prayer or Hail Mary. Well, the character isn't Hemingway himself, but I can see your point; you wouldn't expect him to suggest that there is no spiritual force to comfort us. (I, myself, was born Catholic but hold no religious affiliation currently; however, 12 years of church taught me a lot about the ... rules of prayers.) I know what you mean. I grew up Catholic, too, and any time I go to a different demonition's service, I find myself missing the rules and prayers I know by heart. There's comfort in ritual, I guess. Upon even further investigation, he converted to Catholicism to marry his second wife, Pauline. Although this could be evidence to his not believing, just wanting to marry someone, he wrote "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place" in 1933, when they were married. (During the Spanish Civil war four years later, however, he sided with the 'anti' catholic side.) Thus, I believed that the changes were important to the story. Very interesting research! This story, then, foreshadows Hemingway's own religious disillusionment.
Anyways, introduction aside, here are the words that he replaced with 'nada', in order; Father, Heaven, Hallowed, come, done, Earth, Heaven, day, bread, forgive, trespasses (note he didn't make his 'nada' plural for this, but he did for the singular 'trespass' later on,) forgive (he changes this entire phrase however,) lead, temptation, evil, and the last phrase of the Lord's Prayer is gone. In the Hail Mary, he left out Mary, grace, and the Lord, plus the last phrase. These two prayers are not only the most recognizable of Catholicism, they are also the central prayers of praying on a rosary, in the order they're put in the story. (You'd say the Lord's prayer approximately 6 times and Hail Mary 53 times.)
Although this has been a religious post so far, I don't believe the meaning is completely. If you note what is not there, instead of what is, you notice a pattern. He never says God once (for the purposes of this reading, I shall assume this was just so he didn't use the Lord's name in vain,) Well, I think it's more significant than that! Nada is there plenty, but God isn't--says a lot about the religious theme! but the main things he skipped are words like "trespass," "forgive," "lead" us not into "temptation," and "evil." He even changes the entire phrase "forgive those who trespass against us" to "as we nada our nadas." I believe this is simply a statement of what happened to this older waiter's wife and why he doesn't have to go home. (As with all Hemingway stories, you have to go back and figure out who is saying what.) Although when he says "[the old man drinking] once had a wife." he knows a lot about the man that you probably wouldn't know/care about, even if the old man was a regular drinker at a cafe, such as defending him by saying the man might be better with a wife, and getting aggravated that the other waiter wouldn't let the old man sit and drink. I also noticed that the man who wasn't in a hurry didn't go home; he went to a bar. The older waiter probably was once like the younger one; wanting to go home early to see his wife. Now he's thinking about the Lords Prayer and half of the Hail Mary in a slightly mocking/cynical way.A few other things that stuck out to me. For one, during the Lord's Prayer, he said the Spanish word for nothing, "nada" and during the Hail Mary, he said the English word. Although Hemingway was fascinated by Spain, it was odd that he'd change languages, but not words in the middle of a paragraph. Another thing was that he cut off both prayers, with the Hail Mary omitting "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." And THERE is your evidence to suggest there's a connection between this religious crisis and the old waiter's failed relationshiop. Additionally, although the waiter implies that a clean and pleasant cafe is a good place to drink your sorrows away, he goes to a bar.I think perhaps Hemingway is making a statement about the way that a marriage is sort of a way you are connected to God; if your marriage goes sour, so does your relationship with God. IN-TER-ES-TING! Further, I think its possible that the older waiter, like the old man, tried to kill himself maybe, and failed. (Hemingway tried to kill himself later on, failed, and then succeeded a few months after his first attempt.) The waiter gets mad because he sees the man as similar to himself, in a way. God didn't help when his wife cheated, and he definitely didn't help when He saved him.
Holy cow, Liz! (Pardon the pun :) So much going on here. Ok. To make this work, you'll need to tighten the focus. Your "so what" seems to be that the loss of romantic love leads to this crisis in faith. Evidence: biographical link for Hemingway, close reading of Old Waiter's relationship issues and faith crisis. The suicide and the bar parts probably aren't necessary; you don't want to end up doing too much. FYI: If you go with this, you must correctly cite all your research on Hemingway's life.

Ernest Hemingway A Clean, Well-Lighted Place

The main thing about this story that caught my eye was on the last page: The lords prayer (certain parts changed slightly and words replaced with the Spanish word for 'nothing') and then about half of the Hail Mary (again, words replaced, but this time with just the English 'nothing'.) I was fascinated with this, because, of course, Ernest Hemingway wrote quite a bit about Spain, a primarily CATHOLIC place. Upon further investigation, I found that he himself was born into a family that worshiped with the First Congregational Church and then converted to Catholicism. This confused me; most people who believe in Catholicism (e.g., a person who converts to it) would not change the Lords Prayer or Hail Mary. (I, myself, was born Catholic but hold no religious affiliation currently; however, 12 years of church taught me a lot about the ... rules of prayers.) Upon even further investigation, he converted to Catholicism to marry his second wife, Pauline. Although this could be evidence to his not believing, just wanting to marry someone, he wrote "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place" in 1933, when they were married. (During the Spanish Civil war four years later, however, he sided with the 'anti' catholic side.) Thus, I believed that the changes were important to the story.

Anyways, introduction aside, here are the words that he replaced with 'nada', in order; Father, Heaven, Hallowed, come, done, Earth, Heaven, day, bread, forgive, trespasses (note he didn't make his 'nada' plural for this, but he did for the singular 'trespass' later on,) forgive (he changes this entire phrase however,) lead, temptation, evil, and the last phrase of the Lord's Prayer is gone. In the Hail Mary, he left out Mary, grace, and the Lord, plus the last phrase. These two prayers are not only the most recognizable of Catholicism, they are also the central prayers of praying on a rosary, in the order they're put in the story. (You'd say the Lord's prayer approximately 6 times and Hail Mary 53 times.)

Although this has been a religious post so far, I don't believe the meaning is completely. If you note what is not there, instead of what is, you notice a pattern. He never says God once (for the purposes of this reading, I shall assume this was just so he didn't use the Lord's name in vain,) but the main things he skipped are words like "trespass," "forgive," "lead" us not into "temptation," and "evil." He even changes the entire phrase "forgive those who trespass against us" to "as we nada our nadas." I believe this is simply a statement of what happened to this older waiter's wife and why he doesn't have to go home. (As with all Hemingway stories, you have to go back and figure out who is saying what.) Although when he says "[the old man drinking] once had a wife." he knows a lot about the man that you probably wouldn't know/care about, even if the old man was a regular drinker at a cafe, such as defending him by saying the man might be better with a wife, and getting aggravated that the other waiter wouldn't let the old man sit and drink. I also noticed that the man who wasn't in a hurry didn't go home; he went to a bar. The older waiter probably was once like the younger one; wanting to go home early to see his wife. Now he's thinking about the Lords Prayer and half of the Hail Mary in a slightly mocking/cynical way.

A few other things that stuck out to me. For one, during the Lord's Prayer, he said the Spanish word for nothing, "nada" and during the Hail Mary, he said the English word. Although Hemingway was fascinated by Spain, it was odd that he'd change languages, but not words in the middle of a paragraph. Another thing was that he cut off both prayers, with the Hail Mary omitting "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." Additionally, although the waiter implies that a clean and pleasant cafe is a good place to drink your sorrows away, he goes to a bar.

I think perhaps Hemingway is making a statement about the way that a marriage is sort of a way you are connected to God; if your marriage goes sour, so does your relationship with God. Further, I think its possible that the older waiter, like the old man, tried to kill himself maybe, and failed. (Hemingway tried to kill himself later on, failed, and then succeeded a few months after his first attempt.) The waiter gets mad because he sees the man as similar to himself, in a way. God didn't help when his wife cheated, and he definitely didn't help when He saved him.

~Sorry this was so long and wrapped up sloppily~

Response to Poe Post

The first thing I noticed about this paragraph was that "I knew" is repeated many times. These two words make the story creepier, because they show how the character "knew" exactly what the old man was going through, and yet he feels no reason to stop his approach to kill. I can't help but wonder, too, if he's taking a shot at the certaintly with which people relied on reason; the narrator acts like all of this is so reasonable, and of course, he's wacko. All of the details seem to either make you shiver or confirm your belief that the main person is crazy. Things like saying the character "pitied him [the man] although I chuckled at heart" is in affect saying that he feels bad... but he really doesn't. When the murderer gets into the man's head, knowing exactly what he's thinking, that when he hears a sound, it must be a cricket or a mouse, the reader cannot help but think, "this guy is insane" because he has a connection to his victim, and yet he feels no remorse. That connection to the victim is so suggestive. Is he family? Servant? Friend? Or just someone who identifies very ? One of the creepiest things he uses is personifying himself as death. After repeating that the man's suppositions had found "all in vain" Death is approaching him and stalking him in his shadow... until he envelopes his victim. Throughout this piece, a repeated image of the main character being a predator, saying he is "stalking" his victim and he "did not move a muscle." Good observation. Overall, the weirdest thing, subconsciously, about this is that there is no protagonist or antagonist. You don't want the 'protagonist' to do what he wants, and the 'antagonist' hasn't ever wronged his murderer. This is unsettling, because in 99% of all stories, there is a defined protagonist and antagonist, whether or not the antagonist is actually the "bad guy." What an interesting point. The "so what" here? This fits with your sense that the narrator identifies so strongly with his victim. Poe suggests they're more alike than different--what does that mean for all of us? Overall, all of these details contribute to the horrible creepiness of the piece.

Tell-Tale Heart, 2nd page 3rd paragraph

The first thing I noticed about this paragraph was that "I knew" is repeated many times. These two words make the story creepier, because they show how the character "knew" exactly what the old man was going through, and yet he feels no reason to stop his approach to kill. All of the details seem to either make you shiver or confirm your belief that the main person is crazy. Things like saying the character "pitied him [the man] although I chuckled at heart" is in affect saying that he feels bad... but he really doesn't. When the murderer gets into the man's head, knowing exactly what he's thinking, that when he hears a sound, it must be a cricket or a mouse, the reader cannot help but think, "this guy is insane" because he has a connection to his victim, and yet he feels no remorse. One of the creepiest things he uses is personifying himself as death. After repeating that the man's suppositions had found "all in vain" Death is approaching him and stalking him in his shadow... until he envelopes his victim. Throughout this piece, a repeated image of the main character being a predator, saying he is "stalking" his victim and he "did not move a muscle." Overall, the weirdest thing, subconsciously, about this is that there is no protagonist or antagonist. You don't want the 'protagonist' to do what he wants, and the 'antagonist' hasn't ever wronged his murderer. This is unsettling, because in 99% of all stories, there is a defined protagonist and antagonist, whether or not the antagonist is actually the "bad guy." Overall, all of these details contribute to the horrible creepiness of the piece.

Frederick Douglass Page 7, Paragraph One

The first thing that i noticed was that the cruel man's name is "Mr. Severe." This is ironic because, as an extremely cruel overseer, he is a severe person. The main thing he uses is pathos pathos pathos. When he says the man would "whip a woman, causing the blood to run half an hour at a time" in the midst of her "crying children," your stomach twists, especially the part where they're "pleading for their mother's release." Not only is this a horrible, almost physically painful image, the woman's children were watching, and begging the man to stop. Every time there are children involved, an argument (even a kind of ... passive? One like this, that is telling a story but never coming outright to say his argument) is made stronger, especially pathos. Another example of pathos is when Frederick Douglass says that he seemed to "take pleasure in manifesting his fiendish barbarity." It immediately makes the reader think of a crazed lunatic who enjoys seeing all of his victims suffer. This description of the violent man is further by the man being a "profane swearer" who was "cursing, raving, cutting and slashing among the slaves of the field" from "the rising til the going down of the sun." The repetition of "horrid oaths" (which is repeated more in the rest of the chapter,) emphasizes how awful his language really was. I've also never read a story where you breath a sigh of relief when somebody dies, but when he says, "his career was short," I'm pretty sure most people would agree it was good. This paragraph affected me most,mostly because of the pathos.

Response to Patrick Henry Post

The first thing noticed when reading this passage is the urgency. From what Patrick Henry is saying, the war is "actually begun," and our "brethren are already in the field," making listeners feel like they are abandoning their country. Outstanding, yes. "Brethren" strikes me as a loaded word, too, because it evokes familial ties that were centrally important to Age of Reason gentlemen. Even further, he says that listeners are standing "here idle." He is asking primarily what people are waiting for, and then implying that being idel is a sin Well, yes, but not in the Puritan sense. Just in the sense that inactivity goes against the "just God's" vision because it allows for a tyrant to rob humans of their God-given (by Age of Reason thinking) rights to liberty. by commanding God to "forbid it." This ties in to "puritan hangover," which states that idle hands are the devil's workshop. The pathos of feeling left behind is combined with strong language, such as peace being paid notice alliteration for with "chains and slavery" and God being told to stop it. Rather than saying that people are already fighting, he says "brethren," implying that the people fighting are not just random people: they are part of OUR country, a country we have a right to have. Yup. Nice job--you addressed my earlier note. He also repeats multiple times that "peace" is asked for, but not possible without seeling your soul for slavery. He puts the "gentlemen" in a different group than the audience and himself, asking what "gentlemen wish," but not asking specifically what the audience wishes. Not sure what you're getting at here. Why is this gentlemen section significant? Furthermore, he puts the audience between his argument and the "idle" ones', urging them to make a decision. Perhaps the most powerful thing is the parallel structure/repetition. Right after saying, "the war is actually begun," he rephrases it, saying that soon they will hear "the clash of resounding arms," and that other people are "already in the field." What do you make of these images? The very language issues a call that a listener of conscience cannot ignore. He also asks what the gentlemen wish followed by, "what would they have?" His last line, the most famous of all, is the perfect parallel structure: "give me liberty or give me death!" Not only does this echo in your mind, it is also shocking, and expresses his utter disgust with purchasing peace. Yes, good. He sets it up as an either/or choice, which builds on his use of the slavery analogy through the rest of the piece. Living as a slave, he's suggesting, is not truly living.
Liz, you've done an excellent job with this first post. I can tell you spent a good deal of time thinking through the passage. Keep asking yourself the "so what" questions to help you make your response and analysis more specific. Nice stuff, sister.

Patrick Henry Speech

The first thing noticed when reading this passage is the urgency. From what Patrick Henry is saying, the war is "actually begun," and our "brethren are already in the field," making listeners feel like they are abandoning their country. Even further, he says that listeners are standing "here idle." He is asking primarily what people are waiting for, and then implying that being idel is a sin by commanding God to "forbid it." This ties in to "puritan hangover," which states that idle hands are the devil's workshop. The pathos of feeling left behind is combined with strong language, such as peace being paid for with "chains and slavery" and God being told to stop it. Rather than saying that people are already fighting, he says "brethren," implying that the people fighting are not just random people: they are part of OUR country, a country we have a right to have. He also repeats multiple times that "peace" is asked for, but not possible without seeling your soul for slavery. He puts the "gentlemen" in a different group than the audience and himself, asking what "gentlemen wish," but not asking specifically what the audience wishes. Furthermore, he puts the audience between his argument and the "idle" ones', urging them to make a decision. Perhaps the most powerful thing is the parallel structure/repetition. Right after saying, "the war is actually begun," he rephrases it, saying that soon they will hear "the clash of resounding arms," and that other people are "already in the field." He also asks what the gentlemen wish followed by, "what would they have?" His last line, the most famous of all, is the perfect parallel structure: "give me liberty or give me death!" Not only does this echo in your mind, it is also shocking, and expresses his utter disgust with purchasing peace.