Over the Pancakes

PLOT: In the short story, the plot begins in medias res. In the movie version, I think that it needs to start prior to the actual hunting day. There needs to be more development of the characters before Tub shoots Kenny. Instead of beginning the film right before the truck picks up Kenny, it needs to begin maybe the morning of with Tub getting ready and eating. He can drive to the meeting spot while scarfing down junk food. And when he finally did get into the truck with his friends, he could eat an orange and complain about his "healthy" breakfast. This would be a foreshadowing to Tub's later confession to Frank about his eating habits. In general, there needs to be more action in the movie. There are only around four scenes in the short story. I think in the hunting scene, Tub needs to have flashbacks to when he and Frank were better friends. This will give the audience a better understanding of the change in their relationship, while also adding length to the plot.

POINT OF VIEW: The point of view probably would not change. In the story, the narrator is omniscient. In the movie, there would be no narrator, just action. The narrator in this story played no role except to tell what was happening, which is obviously important. The description: "Squares of light from farmhouse windows fell onto the blue snow" would have to be shown, not said. The ending would also have to take a much different approach. Instead of just saying that the men took a different turn, the film would have to somehow show it. Not having a narrator will definitely have an effect on the work, but it will not change the overall meaning of it.

CHARACTERIZATION: Characterization will have the biggest change of all the elements. Tub, Frank, and Kenny all need to be more developed. The audience needs to see the relationship between Frank and the babysitter and even his wife. And like mentioned before, we need to see Tub's struggle with food. Finally, Kenny needs to be more portrayed as the "evil" character who stole Frank away from Tub. This could be done through flashbacks of Frank's. Every time Kenny makes fun of Tub, Frank could think back to a time where he and Tub were better friends, ignoring Kenny. Adding details to the characters will create a better ending. The less sympathetic the audience is towards Kenny, and the more sympathetic the audience is towards Tub and Frank--the ending will seem more like sweet revenge, not a worry.

SETTING: The setting of the short story is perfect for the movie. But for the new scenes, for example, Tub's house, needs to be extremely modest to the poor side. His house needs to be unkempt with takeout and food wrappers all over the floor. This will help Tub become a more sympathetic character, because it will portray him as lonely.

I envision the time setting for this film to be in the nineteen seventies in a town similar to Martinsville. Because it is in the 1970s, there are no cell phones. They couldn't have just called up an ambulance. (Although they could have at the coffee shop.. )

THEME: The theme in the short story is the self-absorbency, but in the film I think the theme should be friendship. This needs to be about Tub and Frank "falling back into love", not romantic love, but friend love. Instead of viewing the scene where Frank and Tub confess their addictions to each other (Tub with food and Frank with the babysitter) as Frank enabling Tub for his own selfish reasons, the audience will see it the two men accepting each other for who they really are. This changes the actual meaning of the work. It will turn the film into a more "feel good" movie, despite the weird ending. The reunion of Frank and Tub will allow the movie to end eerily, because the attention of the audience will be of the other two men. The last scene will not even show Kenny. There will be a sign that shows which way the hospital is, and their truck will pass the stop. The camera will move in on Tub and Frank, laughing together and then zoom out to a long road into nothingness.

I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?

PLOT: The movie Stand by Me stayed true to The Body. However, the pace of the story changed dramatically. Gordie only narrates through some of the story, so it seemed to go quicker. For example, the beginning scene in the movie shows Vern running towards the club house with his news and the rest of the crew playing cards. The narration does not get in the way of Vern revealing his secret. Even through the journey to see the dead body, their path is shortened. The creek in the movie was used as a short cut, instead of just a relaxing swim. They also did not include the ending, where the four boys were beaten up by the older boys. I can't help but think that these details were not included to help make it a more "kid-friendly" film. Although they used the "F" word a few times, it was much less than in the story.

POINT OF VIEW: The movie is still narrated by an adult Gordie, but he only interrupts a few times. So it is still in first person point of view. Because most of the story was shown, not told, it was much easier to follow and understand. Gordie's story about Chico in Stud City was not included, which took away from the relationship he shared with his family. But the story about Lard Ass, The Revenge of Lard Ass Hogan, was still included. This is probably because Lard Ass was actually told around the fire, but Stud City was only a part of the narration in the short story. It was also very inappropriate.

CHARACTERIZATION: First of all, in the story, Teddy's hair was long enough to hide his deformed ear, but it was obvious in the movie. I think this helped make Teddy a more sympathetic character. In the story, I kind of forgot about his family history, but in the movie, his ear never let anyone forget who his dad was.

Also, the relationship between Gordie and Dennis was dramatically different between the film and the story. In the film, Gordie says he didn't cry at all at the funeral, but he was much closer to Denny when he was alive. In the story, "[he] cried when [he] heard, and [he] cried more at the funeral" (page 298), but he really just felt disconnected to Dennis while he was alive. But it is much easier to sympathize for a character if he actually misses his dead brother.. and Hollywood only wants to draw in people.

SETTING: The biggest difference in the setting between the movie and story was Maine versus Oregon. I really don' t understand why they had to make this change, other than the fact that Oregon is more rural than Maine, which actually fits the plot better, I think. Stephen King was from Maine, so I think that is why he based some of his stories there. I read that the film was actually set in 1959, and the movie in 1960, but no where in the movie was this mentioned. Either way, it had no real impact of the movie. The time is really important to maintain what the story is really about. Gordie and Chris "grew up" on the journey to see the dead body in ways I couldn't have as a twelve year old. I would have been on the back of a milk carton by the time we reached the junkyard.

THEME: The theme definitely did not change from short story to film. It was still very much a coming to age story. However, Hollywood dramatized the ending quite a bit. Chris and Gordie shared a closer relationship in both the story and the film, but they didn't have the heartfelt conversation in the story that they had in the movie. But I think this change was actually important for the theme. It not only strengthened the relationship between Chris and Gordie, but it also helped in explaining the transformation that Gordie made in his relationship with his parents. This moment in the movie is where we actually see Gordie grow up. He finally understood that he really can't take into consideration what his parents thought of him. It is more awkward to get inside a character's head in a film than in a written piece, so this scene is a perfect way to reflect "coming of age".

spacey with estrogen

At first Zoe SORTA reminded me of Abby Koop (name used with permission). She's pretty hard to follow. Zoe and Abby are both very smart people.. She is a professor at a college and Abby is an AP student. But they both also know lots of random things.. Zoe "seems to know the entire sound track to The King and I" and Abby seems to know everything about Harry Potter. And they both tend to make awkward situations for themselves. So yeah.. Zoe is a strange character.

I think the biggest difference between Abby and Zoe is that Zoe is very bitter and sarcastic.
"I'm not married? Oh, my God... I forgot to get married." or after being asked if she is seeing anyone.. "I'm seeing my house... "
I think the narrator's dry tone adds to her strange personality. "She thought it was terribly, terribly funny."

Why does she know so many of these depressing stories? And why does she stop herself when she's talking to Evan about marriage, but not when she is talking to Earl about love? I mean.. I understand that she is weird.. but she was just plain mean to Earl. But then I guess he was mean back.. and he gets a little weird. Maybe they'd make a good couple.

his guardian angel

Irony in this story.

I think the ending might be dramatic irony.. The mom tucks the boy to bed and says "It was God did it you were there. You were his guardian angel." She doesn't know that Larry just drank the drink out of curiosity.. not out of protection. He didn't intentionally stop the father from drinking, but it worked.

But now that I'm thinking about it, I might be wrong. She says that "it was God did it you were there".. Maybe she is saying that God saved the father through the husband. It was like intervention from God through the angel(Larry). That might not be true.

Another ironic thing was simply that Larry got drunk and not the father. We all knew he was an alcoholic in the beginning of the story and that funerals set him off, so.. It was weird when the little boy actually ended up drunk.

It's fun to stay at the YMCA!

This story really makes me think about our society and social norms.
The only things I can think of that are sorta like this are capital punishment, abortion and gang stuff. But those things aren't really that much alike..

Then I was thinking about just weird things.. those weird tv shows like Hole in the Wall, Wipe Out... Now I am just on youtube watching a lot of pointless videos. I have to take this post somewhere else.

Maybe I can't really compare anything from this world to The Lottery, because everything I do is normal to me. The Lottery was normal to those villagers. Normal things don't usually change. We just accept things and don't question the reasons.

Here's a question: Why does the school year end at summer break? Why don't we get off like three months in the fall and then come back during January?

That's not really as extreme as stoning people to death.. or as Jesus-timeish.
When we don't question the way something is, then it just stays.

1981

Questionfive
Discuss the title of the story. The original title was "Mine". Which do you think is more effective?

I think the title "Popular Mechanics" is more effective as a title.. I'm guessing that the story is about divorce.
Sometimes in divorce parents will say.. "We're doing this for the kids.. they will be happier this way", but then they don't really even take the kids into consideration after that. I know a lot of my cousins come from divorced families, and this is true in their case. It's a constant battle over who gets the children until the children turn into adults and move out too soon. It really isn't a healthy environment to grow up in.
The author is criticizing parents who do this.. and usually they don't even know that they are. Each parent wants to win so bad, they forget who they are fighting for.
In this story, the mom and dad are so intense in their fight, they rip the baby apart and he dies! And that's basically what happens today too.. but the kids don't die.

"Mine" helps in understanding the irrational behavior of the parents.. like from Finding Nemo.. the seagulls all chirping "Mine! Mine! Mine!"..they took no consideration of any of the other birds or the fish. They just wanted one thing and didn't think about anything else.

"Popular Mechanics" actually tells the reader that the author is making fun of society and divorce.. and then the actual story describes the "Mine" thing.

the most important things are the hardest things to say.

PLOT: The Body takes place in one weekend with one overlaying purpose: to find the dead body. Stephen King begins this novella as Vern "[runs all the way from [his] house" (pg 298)to the clubhouse to introduce the story's mission. However, this mission is not revealed for another five pages! The most obvious part of plot in this story is pace: slow. The narrator has a different flashback or story for every point a character makes, which adds suspense to every detail within the story. For example, when Vern runs into the clubhouse with exciting news he asks everyone if they can get out of the house for the night... Gordie answers "Probably." (pg 298) and begins a long anecdote about him being "like the Invisible Boy" (page 298) at home because of the death of his older brother. Gordie does not even get back to Vern's news until after he tells two more stories. Nothing moves very fast; everything is stretched out to the minute details. It is not until the end that the pace picks up. It is important that the pace remain slow on the voyage to see the dead body because the narrator is then able to directly characterize the characters. This is where the magic happens. This two day period occurs over around one hundred pages and then after the body is found, the story wraps up in around thirty pages. The pace picks up because the end is not as significant.

POINT OF VIEW: The Body is narrated by the future version of Gordie, the main character of the story. It is written in the first person point of view. Because it is narrated by the main character, readers get an up close personal view point of the action and each character is directly revealed. Gordie frequently uses flashbacks in his narration, which helps reveal the relationships of each of the characters share. He also uses flashback to better describe his relationship with Dennis before he died. His feelings for Dennis "were replaced with an almost cynical awe...mildly shocked and mildly sad" (pg 312) about his death. Gordie even uses one of his own published stories to describe the way he feels about his parents and Dennis.

CHARACTERIZATION: The characters Gordie, Chris, Vern, and Teddy journey together across Castle Rock, Maine to see a dead body. However, Gordie and Chris are the only dynamic characters. Vern and Teddy don't go through a change as the story progresses. They are round and static characters. The dialogue between Gordie and Chris seems to dramatically age them both. Chris is always explaining to Gordie that he can become something if he just leaves the gang behind, but Gordie disagrees. "'What's asshole about wanting to be with your friends?'... 'It's asshole if your friends can drag you down'" (pg 380-81). Chris was wise beyond his years and the relationship he shared with Gordie allowed him to succeed through high school.

SETTING: This story takes place in Castle Rock, Maine in 1960. There is no real significance of Maine, but the story could not have taken place in any other era than in the sixties.

Chris grew up with no real role models in his family. His father beat him and he could not make it to school as often as he should. When the truant officer came to check in on Chris and "found out that Chris was home because his father had beaten the shit out of him, [he] just went away and didn't say boo to a cuckoo bird" (pg 307). If today that happened, the father would have been reported, Chris would have received help and he probably would not have had to struggle the way he did through high school. Gordie also mentions hitchhiking in his narration, which was apparently a common thing for kids to do back then. There are many small elements of the story that are there as a result of it being 1960.

Quite frankly, this time period sounds like a lot more fun for kids than the 2000's.. (Ignoring Ray Brewer's fate.)

THEME: The Body is a coming of age story. The journey to Harlow to see the dead body taught Gordie lessons he would never forget. The scene where Gordie sees the deer "was a moment [he] found himself returning to...when there was trouble in [his] life" (pg 394). The stillness of the encounter brought Gordie peace of mind in challenging moments in his life. Chris's words of wisdom also helped Gordie grow up. The long conversations he and Chris shared along the path made them both work extra hard during high school; Gordie fulfilled what was expected out of him and Chris went above and beyond. Ironically, Chris was murdered after working so hard to make it out of Castle Rock to make something of himself.

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas.

This story reminds me so much of the book "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas".. I don't want to ruin anything for anyone, even though I did in my small group discussion, but never mind.

The parents tried so hard to keep the outside world away from their son. He was so innocent and naive that he didn't know danger even existed. There was no way he could understand it. So when they kept adding more and more safety features, he really didn't think anything of it. All he knew of the outside world was in fairy tales, which is pretty unrealistic. Ironically, while pretending to be a prince saving Sleeping Beauty, he kills himself on the thing designed to protect him. That must have been frustrating for his parents.

I feel like the author is attacking the parents for wanting to preserve the innocence of their kid, but isn't that natural? Why would you want to introduce violence and oppression to your child?

I too old.

Question Five compares "A Worn Path" to a journey and a quest, which made me think of Phoenix as a semi-hero.

She goes on this journey to save her grandson, but I don't really think her grandson is alive. He probably died years ago when Phoenix was making the same journey. She's way too old to be hiking through the forest, which makes her seem even more.. sympathetic? When she finally reaches her destination, the doctor, she gets what she needs.. but when she heads back.. it's awkward almost. We all know that she can't finish her quest-that's why she is a semi-hero. It will be like a never-ending cycle of journeys, well, until she dies, which will probably be soon if she keeps walking through the forest like that.

Manifesting Domino.

2. What in Eveline's present circumstances make it desirable for her to escape her home? Characterize her father and Miss Gavan. What does the memory of her mother contribute to her decision to leave?

Right now Eveline's existence consists of taking care of two children and fighting her Dad for money to feed the family. It's natural for her to want to have a life of her own-she said she is over nineteen. Her mother seemed to have been abused by her father and since her death Eveline has taken over that role. She takes care of kids and is abused by her dad.

Her dad was overprotective.. She was his only daughter and his only provider at this point. Who else would cook Sunday dinner for free? He had to act protective to keep her at home.

Miss Gavan was all about looking the part.. I would imagine that growing up with a brutal father would hinder Eveline to be able to show up on time or to "look lively".

Eveline's memory of her mother kinda prevents her from leaving. She made a promise that she would take care of the family.. and by leaving with Frank, she'd break it.

But then again, I think Eveline left to meet Frank because she didn't want to end up like her mom. Frank offered a new life.

Tum-tum-tum-tiddle-um! tiddle-um!

In our small group discussion you (Mr.Costello) told us that Miss Brill's age wasn't as significant as her occupation--an English English teacher in France. But what difference does that make? I understand that she is isolated and lonely. She people watches by herself. She gained purpose in her life by acting as an actress in the park. Pretending to just be part of the background, listening to the dialogue of other "characters".

So I get that she is detached from the world.. but what does being an English teacher have to do with the couple making fun of her towards the end? I feel like she has to be more different than just being English. Is it her fur thing that makes her stand out? Maybe it's an English thing, not a French thing.

Maybe she feels like crap on her way home because she lost her sense of purpose at the park. She wanted to be noticed, because she's an actress. This might be a stretch.. but what if the people making fun of her were her English students, which would mean she lost her only other purpose.

Actually, I really don't get this story. Why doesn't she just move back to England?

Everyday Use

"'Mama,' Wangero said sweet as a bird. 'Can I have these old quilts?' I heard something fall in the kitchen, and a minute later the kitchen door slammed."

We were trying to figure out why the mom wouldn't just want Dee to take the quilts, if she was going to appreciate them forever.. instead of Maggie, who would put them to "everyday use" and eventually wear them down. But those quilts were promised to Maggie, who is used to Dee getting everything. She was spoiled as a teenager and she still had pretty skin after the fire. That was Maggie who got mad when she heard Wangero ask for the quilts.. she probably assumed her mom would give in-happy that she finally appreciated something. (like her TV show moment) But her mom obviously heard the fall and slam and fought for Maggie.

Maggie is a big pushover and her mom finally realized it.

I guess that was all pretty obvious now that I look harder at it.

Bartleby Bumblebee

I can't help but envisioning Bartleby as a bug. He doesn't do anything.. Maybe he just reminds me of Gregor. But I can't picture him as a human.. no one acts like that.

I think my reaction to Bartleby's behavior was the same as the guy who never gave us his name.. the narrator. At first I was confused.. "I sat awhile in perfect silence, rallying my stunned faculties".. that wasn't exactly my thought process, but I get it. I was just kinda like, well.. too bad.

The next time Bartleby "prefer[ed] not to", mystery man just got angry. It's understandable.. Mystery is paying him money to work; it isn't really an option.

Each time he gets frustrated.. but there is something weird happening.. "...there was something about Bartleby that not only strangely disarmed me, but in a wonderful manner touched and disconcerted me" He is so nonchalantly bold, which makes him interesting.

Mystery man makes a lot of allusions to the Bible. John 15:12 talks about loving everyone as Jesus loves us.. unconditionally. Mystery man tries so hard to do this.. He is stuck between business thinking and moral thinking. He needed to get rid of him, because he was only costing him money. He didn't do anything to help. But on the other hand, something seemed really wrong with him, so who else was going to take him in? To love like Jesus mystery man would have had to take him in.. and he tried! "will you go home with me now-not to my office, but my dwelling..." But Bartleby refused.

Maybe Melville is secretly saying that it is impossible to live like Jesus did... or just really really hard.

Different turn.. oops.

2. How do Frank's dialogue and actions help to characterize him?

So Frank reminds of that one guy from The Sun Also Rises.. I think his name was Bill. He always conformed to whoever he was with at the time. He was Robert's best pal when Robert and Jake were friends, but in a fight, he always sided with Jake. And when he was with Mike, Bill hated Robert. His feelings were always just based on how to impress others.

Frank made fun of Tub (that's a really mean name) when he was with Kenny, but when Kenny was in the back of the truck and he was alone with Tub, he acted like his best friend.

I think Frank is the dynamic character.. he is the one who made the change. He only actually said a few things to hurt Tub.. "You fat moron.. You aren't good for diddly." It really is his actions and his demeanor that make me feel like he is a jerk to Tub around Kenny.

Kenny always pulls it out of him. Kenny looks at Frank all the time.. I just imagine his eyes in disgust and Frank agreeing with him to maintain his reputation. So when Kenny is shot and in the back.. He gains his relationship back with Tub. He doesn't have anyone to impress, so he confides in Tub and they are cool again. I get this feeling that Kenny is dead now.. so maybe they can keep their friendship.

The Magic Barber

1. Characterize the speaker and evaluate her reliability as a reporter and interpreter of events?

I think anytime the mom is the narrator, she'll be unreliable.. Moms are always bias.

From the mom's point of view Maggie is seen as the good daughter.. she is following in the footsteps of the women in the family. But Dee.. or Wangero.. has gone crazy. She's completely lost touch in what the family is about.

But from an outsider's view, Maggie and the mom probably look ignorant.. maybe. I think their lifestyle is perfectly fine- it's whatever they want to do. They are African Americans.. not Africans. Wangero wants to be African.. she has lost her roots in her American family, but has found them in her African family.

Her mom doesn't get it, so Dee/Wangero comes across as stuck-up.. and annoying.

The speaker in this story is unreliable.

I don't really understand what being reliable means.. It's her story, so it would make sense that her opinion would dominate. It's not like this was written for a court case.. It is a work of fiction, so why does it matter if the narrator has a bias viewpoint?

Thinking

I guess a theme of this story is that everything in life is connected and the small decisions you make at any moment can affect future parts of your life.
The entire story is built up to believe that Chris will be Edie's husband.. So an entire story unrelated to Carmichael actually explains his marriage.
There is actually an episode of How I Met Your Mother where Ted explains how every choice he made in a single morning brought him closer to his kid's mom.. And if he hadn't of made those choices, they wouldn't be alive.

Have you ever thought about that? I always wonder how my life would be different if on the first day of school I had chosen Southport over Roncalli. Or what would my life be like if my sister and I hadn't decided to shopping the day we got in a wreck.. We would have had our own car and probably been able to do more things, but what?

If Edie's cow hadn't have had that baby, Mr. Peebles' wouldn't have hired her. And if Edie hadn't of decided to bring Chris a cake, then she probably wouldn't have stayed in the tent as long as she did and he wouldn't have promised to write to her. If she wasn't expecting that letter then the mailman wouldn't have asked her out and she probably would be married to somone else.

I always thought it was Meana.

I thought it was interesting to see the contrasts between an American and Indian family..
In the beginning the Das' were disconnected.. Mr. and Mrs. Dad really did behave just like like older siblings. They didn't act like parents or husband and wife.
And when Mr. Kapasi's relationship is revealed, we find out that they don't act like their married either. However, they did act like real parents. They did everything in their means to save their son's life. Mr. and Mrs. Das dreaded doing anything for their kids.. like taking their daughter to the bathroom or painting her nails.

So Mr. Kapasi is longing for companionship, Mrs. Das is looking for someone to confide in, and Mr. Das.. well, he's oblivious? Mr. Kapasi and Mina find their answers in each other, but only Mina really benefits.
After she tells Mr. Kapasi her story (because he was a translator..), she meets back up with her family and we finally see her in a motherly role (helping her son after the monkey incident).
I don't understand how Mr. Kapasis's problems came to a resolution... other than his fantasy world came to and end after the address blew out of Mina's purse.

Nasty Iron-Gray Hair

How is the point of view related to the plot structure?

A Rose for Emily is written in an omniscient point of view. I don't know who exactly is talking, but I know it is someone from the neighborhood, probably someone old who has seen everything happen..
The structure is broken.. there are lots of flashbacks. Whoever is telling the story knows everything from the past to the present, so that's how the point of view is related to the plot structure.

Each section is a different part of time and progresses through her craziness..
First she does no t think she needs to pay taxs.. then she won't admit that her dad is dead for like three days, she buys arsenic "for rats", and finally she died without being seen. And in the fifth section you find out she is a freak..

Male Plane

Chris was a plane driver, or pilot, whatever. And Carmichael was a mail man. This made me think of this joke from The 3 Amigos.. it has nothing to do with the story.

How I Met My Husband

Anyways, I am answering number five.. "Evaluate Chris Watters as a potential husband for Edie. Does her evaluation of him differ from the reader's?"

In my second reading I made this list of reasons why I should have seen it coming.. or reasons why Chris would make a terrible husband.

When he is introduced in paragraph 33, I automatically assumed.. Wow, what a dumb story. We all know this is who she ends up marrying.

But he is such a creep! Paragraph 55: "...good thing I'm used to shy ladies" or "...ladies dropping in on me".

In paragraph 86, he admits to Mrs. Peebles that "he couldn't settle down to ordinary life"- that should have caught my attention the first run-through. If he can't live ordinarily, then he isn't going to get married.

And the final card-paragraphs 140-145.. he basically molests her, which isn't a good sign of forming a long-term relationship. That's so disgusting.

Chris is not a good potential husband for Edie.

But she looks past it all. She always references her old friend Muriel Lowe.. and how they used to dream of love and romance. She was blind to that in Chris.. that's all she wanted, so that's all she could see. Thank God he didn't write her a letter.

But that got me thinking about Chris' real role. I think he was the same as Gregor in Metamorphosis. He didn't make any big change. He caused the big change. If he hadn't promised Edie that he'd write her, then she would have never sat out and waited by the mailbox.. so she wouldn't have married the mailman.

Erring Lace

I guess I'll go straight into what this poem is about.. even though I shouldn't.

It's better to be a little bit messy than to be perfect all the time. The speaker gets to this by describing the way clothes are worn... words like thrown,erring, neglected, confusedly, careless, and wild all give the poem an off-beat sort of tone. Not everything is quite right, but it works.

The author also uses a broken rhyme scheme, which gives me a sense of disorder.

There are also some oxymorons, which gives off another sense of chaos and whatnot.

"wild civility"--talking about shoestrings. When I invision this, I think of the laces not being tied. The guy is civil, because he is wearing shoes.. but he is "wild" because he didn't tie them. What a rebel.

"flow confusedly"--ribbons. When something "flows", it usually makes more sense and its easy to get.. so flowing confusedly must mean tangled.

O O Mother Mother Edward Edward O O

So when I first read this, I wasn't frustrated. I thought that in the beginning he was making excuses for himself.. so he wouldn't have to admit to his mom that he killed his dad. But "momma knows best".. so eventually she sucked it out of him. It was like she wasn't surprised that her husband was dead, which I found funny. She goes straight to his punishment-taking care of business, like most moms.

At the end he blames his mom for all his problems.. I just thought he was a big baby.

But then today in class, I was sort of wrong. The mom wasn't a good lady.. she wanted her husband dead, so she convinced Edward to do it. She doesn't start taking care of business to take care of her son, she does it so she can get all the goody goodies her husband "left" behind. In the end, Edward doesn't blame his mom like baby.. she blames her for convincing him to kill the dad.

I don't get why she wanted the husband dead.. wouldn't all his riches be hers when she was married to him?

Poppy or Charms

There's lots of personification in this poem.

The speaker gives death human characteristics.

Death is mighty, dreadful, and a slave to chance, kings, and desperate men.. Meaning death can only occur by chance, or if a leader wills it (like Hitler or Saddam Hussein) or like a man who kills someone or himself (or a woman).

The end of the poem reveals that death can die! We all wish that death could die.. but if we want it to, we have to die ourselves. So it's not really worth it.

I think what the speaker wants to get across is that death is inevitable.. so you really shouldn't think it's "mighty" or "dreadful".. it's just a fact of life. Eventually "our best of men with thee do go".

I like how the speaker says that death "dwells"... in sickness, poison and war.. It's like saying that death lives, which is a paradox! I think.

So death lives on Earth, but dies in the after-life. Once you get to heaven (or hell), you can't re-die.

Danced in a Green Bay

tone.

tone.

tone.

tone.

I think I'm going to go with gloomy/fearful. The speaker continuously warns us not to "go into that good night", which I think means death. And death is usually a gloomy subject to talk about.. and then the speaker says that "the dark is right". Which implies that we should fight death even when it is our time, because it's scary. So he's fearful.

He gives us the stages that each type of person goes through when facing death.

The old men know it's their time, but they are too afraid.

The good men begin to doubt themselves--were my deeds good enough to get to heaven?

The wild men regret their lifestyle.. if they go into the dark, they won't reach the "light". (you know, heaven)

The serious men.. I don't get the "grave men".

In the last stanza the speaker is begging his father to fight off death.

The "C" Word

I was watching Oprah yesterday, and apparently she can't say the word "creepy". So she uses the "c" word instead.

But this poem was creepy. If this poem were directed towards me, I'd get out of that relationship quick. This guy needs to chill out. If you really need to threaten your girlfriend like that so she won't leave you, then maybe you need to be single for awhile.

This woman needs to leave. First of all, he calls her a "feigned vestal", which I think means that she is pretending to be a virgin in front of her hypothetical new partner. And then he tells her that she won't be able to find anyone who will love her the way she wants. Obviously, he is a perfect boyfriend and since his "love is spent", she might as well stay with him. How romantic.

Buuut, at the end he says he won't threaten her with this unless he has to... He's trying to reassure her that he isn't a big jerk. He'd rather have her "painfully repent". That's much nicer.

you gonna miss me when I'm gone

I liked this poem, even though it was kinda sad. Women poets always seem to have easier poems.

When I was reading this, the song lyrics made me stop and think. So during the nights, the couple is miserable until the "first light"--which is day. The days are their escape from each other, but the speaker listens to this song that probably reminds her or him of her or his partner.. "you gonna miss me when I'm gone". But what the speaker thinks of is "heaving words like furniture". Ouch.. that's not fun to think about. It's like the speaker wants to want to miss her husband/...wife... but it clearly isn't going to work. Their lives were too chaotic when they were together.. all the piles of clothing and whatnot.

The couple can only be a couple when they are separate. The relationship seemed to have formed based on physical things.. it was too superficial: "our matching eyes and hair". There was never any chemistry, so that's why the thought of them being a couple makes sense, but the application won't work.

Naked Shingles of the World

The theme of this poem basically says that people can only have trust and faith in God, who is love, because earthly things are deceiving.

The speaker starts off by saying that "the sea is calm tonight". When I think of a calm sea, I am automatically relaxed (or really annoyed because we live in Indiana). But I think they even make machines that make the noise of the ocean hitting against the rocks to relax people who are trying to sleep.

But the speaker claims that these sounds are the sounds of human misery? He obviously isn't really talking about the waves. They probably stand for like heretics or bad people.

People who tempt us (or, you know, the devil) try to disguise themselves as really approachable, nice people. Like the old man in the white van with candy.

So the sea is the world-it disguises itself as something beautiful and enticing so that it can shake our faith in God.

CHARGE

The tone of this poem is sorta nostalgic, maybe? In the first two stanzas the speaker is remembering his childhood.. They were respectful to God and even to the "elder" that sat with them. And then the next two stanzas the speaker implies that "in these years" no one wants to be respectful or reverent. But he wants that all back.. This is really where I feel a sense of nostalgia. He wants to believe that the oxen knelt in the manger, because it was a belief he never doubted as a child. The word "hoping" in this sense gives me a feeling that he knows he won't find the oxen kneeling. He won't find anyone being reverent anymore. Times have changed.

On a side note, I hate when generations decide that times have changed too much. You know why you feel that way? Because time HAS changed! Didn't they notice that they got old? Nothing can ever really stay the same, so just step back and let the young people make their own memories. I'm not saying that the older generations shouldn't be allowed to remember their past, but they shouldn't blame the world's change on us.

Batter my heart.........

I can totally relate to this poem in certain ways. Life would be so much easier if God would just take away all the temptations. Buuuut, God doesn't work that way. He wants us to make a choice. :/.

But this is how we work in real life. Imprison ourselves, so we can be free.

In grade school, if we talked, the teacher isolates us from the problem and then we actually do our work. And as we get older, we (hopefully) learn to separate ourselves on our own. If I can't study while watching the Biggest Loser, I hit the record button and turn it off.

It is funny to think that we can relate to the same struggles as a person who lived in the 15/16oo's.

Darks. Lights. Whites? and Towels

This poem actually seemed simple to understand, which probably means I'm wrong. I still didn't really get the little things.

But here I go...

When the speaker said that the big towels were reserved for the beach, I was reminded of the poem "Dream Deferred". The towels have obviously been used more than for just the beach, because they are faded. So this woman (I'm assuming) and her husband (I'm assuming again) haven't made it to the beach as often (or at all) as they would have liked. They are probably just living their mundane lives, putting of all their dreams and aspirations that they had in the beginning of their relationship.

Their lives weren't depressing or anything, just not exciting. I mean, the only exciting thing I found in the poem was the "pocket surprises", which were pretty boring.

But in the end she basically says that she wouldn't trade any of it for anything. She couldn't fill the empty side of the bed with just her own clothes.

I wonder what APO 96225 means.

{Question 8}

The speaker is so matter of fact in this poem.. He speaks from an objective point of view, so he shows no opinion on anything that happens. But although he doesn't explicitly give an opinion, I sorta get this feeling of resentment too. After the Vietnam war, no one wanted to talk about it. Soldiers weren't welcomed back home. Everything was swept under the rug; everything went back to normal. But the soldiers had to deal with it.

I think what the speaker really wanted to say was: "Don't ask me questions that you don't really want to know the answer to. You don't want to help us deal with anything, so shut up. Everyone is annoying, even you, Mom."

APO=Acting Pilot Officer.. the lowest rank in the Air Force.

So I'm going to take a guess and say that this guy didn't even want to be there, like Tim O'Brien. If I didn't want to go to war, but I was forced to, I would probably already be bitter.

Barbie Doll

The purpose of "Barbie Doll" is to show humanity what we have become-what society does to women.

When we were little, we didn't care about what we looked like. Little girls are naive to what society demands of us. But really, we were already playing with our "wee lipsticks the color of cherry candy". Society influences our thoughts before we even realize it. So after puberty, we don't all look like a Barbie Doll, we just have "great big nose[s] and fat legs".

We are born into thinking we aren't good enough and we die with others changing our appearances to "pretty".

It is really ironic to say "every woman a happy ending", when that ending isn't real.

Pink Dog

[Question 12]

I think the dog serves as a symbol of all the embarrassing people in the city.

I don't find the poem to be serious, but it isn't entirely lighthearted. But by using the dog as a symbol, the poem is definitely degrading.

The embarrassing people are mostly homeless people, who look like hoboes. He points out specifically women who have several children, but don't really have any means of providing for them besides her breast milk.

This person just wants to party before Lent. Throw out all the dogs, please! I need room to move. Go to "where there are no lights"; we don't want to see you.

The speaker gives the "eyesores" two options. First: leave. Second: dress up fancy.

This way everyone can "Dress up and dance at Carnival"!

That was a lot of blabbing.

Bright Star

This movie actually looks really good. It makes me feel like the poem Bright Star has a more serious tone than what I read it in.

I'm talking about theme [Question 7]. Life isn't worth it unless you are with the person you love the most. In class we said that it was sorta like, "It is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all". But the speaker doesn't want to lose! If he had lost then he wanted to die. He doesn't want to live at all if he can't be with his love. "And so live forever-or else swoon to death". ( a little dramatic)

He just wants to lie with his lover forever and ever.

I'm not a crazy Twilight fan, but this reminds me of it, unfortunately. Bella loves Edward so much that she wants to turn into a vampire to be with him. They will both be immortal, so nothing can separate them. Vampires and stars are pretty much the same thing, right?

I taste a a liquor never brewed

[Number eleven]

Emily Dickinson uses an Extended Metaphor in this poem. She (or the Speaker) compares being drunk to Nature.

When I first read this Poem, I really didn't understand Anything! I think I am still reading to see the entire Picture, and I'm not trying to find the Details first.

Anyways, back to the poem. In the first Stanza, the speaker isn't Drunk yet. The Liquor here is actually Mugs of natural Pearls. I think.

In Stanza two, the Speaker is Drunk on Air; She is indulging Herself on the Dew, You know, the little Droplets of Water on the Grass in the Morning. Things are getting Crazy!

In Stanza three, the Speaker talks about Bees, Butterflies, and Foxglove's (which is a kind of Flower). The Bees and Butterflies both eat or use Pollen. Even though the Pollen is gone, "[the speaker] shall but drink the more!". She/He isn't Drunk enough.

Angels (Seraphs) and Saints run to see the "Drunkard" at the "Window"... I don't know how that has to do with Nature.

DEAR EMILY, --

I-- HOPE --THAT WASN'T-- ANNOYING!

MARY.

P.S.--

February. Bumholes.

So this is pretty nasty.

But I'm answering [Question 8]

The tone of this poem is definitely bitter resentment. The speaker is so blunt about everything. Most people try to use euphemisms when they talk. For example, if the speaker could have said "neutered" versus saying "snip off a few testicles".

My uncle Steve reminds me off this person. After his divorce, he just hates love and anything that has to do with it. Especially during February, where all the love in the world seems to blow up in our faces.

I'm not really old enough to get depressed about the love in the air, but I would imagine that at age 50, it is pretty annoying. I'd probably want to just eat food, probably chocolate.

At the end, the tone becomes a little less resentful and a little more "optimistic" about the coming months. "Make it be spring."

Dream Deferred

[Question 6]

So the purpose of this poem was to encourage other African Americans to move forward with gaining equality, which is the dream in the poem.

The dream can shrivel. It loses all it's good stuff. (Like a grape that turns into a raisin) No one wants to deal with nasty raisins. Once the dream shrivels, no one wants to deal with it.

Or it festers like a sore.. which is just nasty to think about. When you don't do anything about your goals, they are constantly on your mind, until you go crazy.

It could also stink like rotten meat. If African Americans had just let themselves be treated like dirt forever, the problem would have grown into an even worse problem, and there would be no way to fix it. You can't make rotten meat pink again (Unless you are the Piemaker).

They couldn't just keep making excuses to put off solving the problem. Everything can seem "sweeter" when we deny that anything is wrong.

The dream will never leave your conscience if you don't do anything about it.

Langston Hughes warned his fellow African Americans that if they don't do something about the way they were being treated, it will turn violent.

SPRING. the season, not the jump.

-Question 7-

The theme in a single sentence: All beginnings start off beautiful, but, given time, everything will eventually be ruined.

Everyone thinks of new life when describing spring. So the author begins with this image-eggs, blooms, lambs- all things beginning life. Everything makes the reader feel... peachy. And then immediately we see the downfall. He uses the Garden of Eden as an example, which was beautiful and perfect in the beginning. It couldn't last; "have, get, before it cloy".

The author ends with a short prayer. He wants to save the children, who are now innocent and naive, but sin will ruin them without divine intervention.

This poem that seemed so joyous in the beginning really turned out to be a bummer. Spring is going to end too, with summer.

The Widow's Lament in Springtime.

{Number 12}

The white flowers in this poem represent the memories the widow has of her late husband.

"...but the grief in my heart is stronger than they for though they were my joy formerly, today I noticed then and turned away forgetting". She can't face her memories, because the joy they once brought her can never be brought back. So when she sees the white flowers, she feels sorrow. On the other hand, her son sees these flowers and wants her to remember, so she can move on. He tells her he sees the white flowers in the meadow, implying that he wants her to start that journey of recovering. He knows that she won't be over quickly, but it is within sight. But the widow doesn't even think twice about what her son wants. She wants those memories back, but she knows she can't. All she wants at this point is to "sink into the marsh next to [those flowers]". I think she just wants to die.

I felt a Funeral, in my Brain.

Number 11 will be addressed in this poem.

Figurative language: extended metaphor.

So, Emily, or Dickinson, uses the process of a funeral to describe a mental breakdown throughout the entire poem.

I read the first stanza as the beginning of the funeral, maybe even the showing. Everyone is walking back and forth. So in the mental breakdown this can serve as the speaker coming in and out of reality. When the people moved "to", she was capable and real, but when they moved "fro", everyone was gone. She was in her on world.

And then then everyone stopped. They didn't come "to" anymore. (Because the funeral started).

She's in this strange world, waiting to leave completely. And then she begins that journey on the way out of the funeral. "I heard them lift a box". Then silence came, probably in the hearse at this point. She is isolated and is about to leave this world.

"I dropped down, and down..." Now she is in the ground. She is gone. Her mental breakdown is complete; she is insane.

Those Winter Sundays

I'm discussing the tone of this poem.

I think it is pretty obvious.. cold, distant, and dark. His father got up in the "blueblack cold". Blueblack isn't even a real word, so you know the speaker uses it to make us feel the intensity of the coldness. The word reminds me of bruises and evil things. So we are feeling really cold, then we instantly feel distance from his father: "No one ever thanked him." It was quick and short, but I felt it.

Even the warmth mentioned in this poem feels cold. "I'd wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking. When the rooms were warm, he'd call..." Physically, the room was warm, but I'm still feeling cold. It is kind of like a selfish warm, and as I read it, I wanted him to hug someone, particularly his dad.

Cold cold cold cold cold.

The Convergence of Twain. Bold Move.

I think the speaker of this poem isn't directly talking to any person in particular. Maybe he is making a statement to this world: human vanity will lead to downfall. "The mirrors [were] meant to glass the opulent...The sea-worm crawls-grotesque, slimed, dumb, indifferent" (III). The mirrors are from the boat, so the vain passengers look at themselves to capture all the lavish jewels and whatnot. Then the worms are the bystanders.. the normal people. I think the speaker describes them as "grotesque" and "slimed" to be sarcastic? He is mocking the views of the passengers. They are indifferent because they could care less about what happens to these greedy people! According to this speaker, the iceberg is just a punishment.

So when I say "Bold Move.", I mean- how crazy of this author to be so blunt about this tragic accident! When people come up with theories about 9/11, people get offended! It was just too soon.

This was answering question six.. the purpose of the poem.

"The Nature of..." Post

I agree with Perrine's approach to determing "correct" interpretations of poetry. Obviously anything can't really be the right meaning. The author wants us to read it in the way he wrote it, but would rather us interpret the poem in our own way if we don't understand it at first. There aren'texact correct interpretations in poetry, but by using context clues, we can make better meanings. His two criteria actually do make sense to me. Poems stress me out. I never know when I am reading it right. Knowing that there CAN be more than one interpretation puts me at ease, even though I know my interpreations don't usually make any sense. In this class studying poetry will be hard for me. I take everything to literally. If I pay attention to how my meaning relates to the details of the poem and isn't too "far-fetched", then at least I know I am on the right track.

It is easy to read a poem literally and not get any meaning from it, but Perrine takes that to the next twelve levels. The problem of symbols is actually knowing that there are symbols being used. We all understand what a symbol is, but can we find them? "A literary symbol means something more than what it is". This concept confuses me. How can I interpret the poem using context clues if I don't understand the clues? Because I take everything for what it is, it is hard for me to even understand a poem that doesn't use symbols. Now there are two levels of depth I have to dig through. Interpreting symbols is just like interpreting a poem, but if I don't get the poem near the correct interpretation, then I will be way off when I try to figure out the meaning of symbols.

Kết Thúc

When I bought this book way back in June, my brother told me that it was one of his favorites, but it would take me awhile to realize it. As in, the first half and a bit is pretty boring.

And I have to say, those are my feelings exactly.

There was no real development throughout the book, so it took me awhile to get used to.

So, I'm thinking the theme of this book was death. I don't think Tim really wanted us to learn anything from this book. He just wanted to make it interesting, but not necessarily entertaining.

I like how at the end he brings in Linda. I mean, the entire book death was confined to war. Although war might amplify death, it is still a major part of normal life. The analogy helps us relate to the characters on a smaller scale, which is important in any novel.

When I think about how I feel about this book, my mind automatically thinks: "And in the end, really, there's nothing much to say about a true war story, except maybe 'Oh'" (page 74). Personally, I might add a "that was weird".

Man, he said, that's a bad date.

I found it unusual, yet interesting, that Tim would include this analogy between war and his childhood sweetheart. Although the comparison was unexpected, it made sense. Ultimately Tim's talking about death. He handled these two completely different death experiences very similarly.

"But in a story I can steal her soul. I can revive, at least briefly, that which is absolute and unchanging" (page 224).

I know Tim is redundant at times, and he already made this point once or twice before, but giving us a second outside example helps push the point through. He writes to give his friends a voice.

He made Linda, Kiowa, Lavender, Lemon, and Norman all alive again. As Tim told this story, I "...dream[t] along with [him]...to make spirits in [my] head" (page 218). These people were alive in my mind and in the minds of every person who has read this book.

I think it's beautiful the way he says that.--"The thing about a story is that you dream it as you tell it, hoping that others might then dream along with you, and in this way memory and imagination and language combine to make spirits in the head. There is the illusion of aliveness" (page 218). That has got to be my favorite take on writing that I've ever heard.

Incredibly

When a soldier shot himself to get out of the war, he was treated sorta like a coward, I guess. It was considered pathetic. As unnatural and horrific as war is, soldiers realize that it is something that they just need to get used to for a while and when someone wimps out, it is a big deal. But in Rat Kiley's case, "No one blamed him..." (page 212). Being a medic, Kiley probably saw a lot of dead bodies and torn limbs.. and who knows what else. Everyone killed, but Kiley let his own people go. People he knew, he let slip away. (I'm not saying he liked killed anyone, but he couldn't save a lot of them).

I appreciated no one giving him a hard time about leaving.. He obviously had seen too much.

Reading about this change in Kiley got me thinking that every soldier mentioned in this story is probably a dynamic character. They all change in some important way as a result of the story's action. And the story's action just happens to be the Vietnam War.

That Blade Of Grass

So earlier Tim talked about blame and now he is talking about revenge, which is basically the same thing. Revenge is placing the blame on someone plus other bad things.

Because Jorgenson didn't save Tim in time, he has to work at some base, away from the action. This separated him from his friends and what they were experiencing.. He had it too easy. So he is mad at Jorgenson for that and for ruining his butt. He is mad in some sick sort of way.

So this quote "Sanders shrugged. 'People change. Situations change. I hate to say this, man, but you're out of touch. Jorgenson-he's with us now.' 'And I'm not?' Sanders looked at em for a moment. 'No,' he said. 'I guess you're not'"(page 188) and this famous quote " Whoa, whoa! Time out. Let me get this straight. You know her, she knows you and she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this? Did I miss something?!" (You know, from the Lion King.) We all know how Timone and Pumba feel.. you know, through the whole Can You Feel The Love Tonight scene. Left out, abandoned, and sad. They want their "trio" back. But this random lion stole it from them. All they know is that she's got Simba and they're back on their own-alone.

This is how Tim felt. He wanted his buddies back, but Jorgenson stole them from him. He's getting revenge. Even if he knows deep down, it isn't right. "There was a coldness inside of me. I wasn't myself. I felt hollow and dangerous" (page 197).
This situation is far different from death. In death, the only way to get even is, well, more death. In this case, however, Tim can get even just by spooking Jorgenson a little. It's wrong, but it's not as wrong as death, right?

I thought for sure the prank would end terribly.. but I think it acutally made everything better. Hmm.
Maybe Tim is saying that blame/revenge is acceptable and useful in any case that doesn't involve death.

It Was Just What It Was.

"'That old man,' she said, 'is he mad at you or something?' 'I hope not' 'He looks mad.' 'No,' I said. 'All that's finished'" (page 179). Ambiguity! Tim could mean that the war is over or he could mean that he has finally put Kiowa to rest in his mind. For him, those things probably mean the same thing. His fellow soldiers equaled the Vietnam War. We see it as a fact in history. Just something that happened. Tim lived it.

After he returns Kiowa's moccasins (why did he have moccasins?), he is at peace with his best friend's death, and therefore, at peace with the war? So "that old man" isn't angry anymore.

I don't know if this story is true or not, but if it is I also do not know if Tim originally knew that he would take the shoes back. Once he saw the field, he knew he had to. Because "Now, [the field] was just what it was. Flat and dreary and unremarkable" (page 176), Tim had to make something permanent within it. He had to leave the shoes there.

Even That Story Is Made up.. Huh?

We read works of fiction all the time, so reading something that isn't true really doesn't bother me. Usually that's the fun part. But thinking that a work is true for well over half the book, then finding out it was mostly all a lie is kinda irritating.

"I want you to feel what I felt" (page 171). If you wanted us to feel how you felt, then maybe you should have written about how you felt. Not about how you would have felt if what actually happened was way cooler. "I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening truth" (page 171). How the heck can fake be truer than truth?

Why don't you (*Crazy Idea*) write a novel about how you actually felt? See how that sells.

I know I seem mad, but I'm not really. I respect Tim as an author and veteran. He also seems like a pretty nice guy. And I guess maybe I understand what he was trying to do. Maybe the feelings he shares with us throughout the book match more closely to the feeling that he felt he should feel during the war, but like he said, he was too afraid to feel them. I think either way, we get an inkling of what it was like to be in the Vietnam war. (That's probably a stretch).

My Own Fault

From the beginning Cross didn't seem like your typical military man. Always thinking about Martha and whatnot. And now he (well, Tim..) sorta admits it. "...he had signed up for the Reserve Officer Training Corps without much thought" (page 160). And so now he is leading all these men, and because of his mistake, Kiowa dies. But is it really his fault..? This chapter focuses a lot on blame.

On page 169, Tim or Cross or whoever contradicts himself big time: "No apologies were necessary, because in face it was one of those freak things...When a man died, there had to be blame" (page 169).

This begs the question: Does there have to be blame when a man dies? I mean, Tim gave us a long list of reasons Kiowa could have died. But what does it matter? When a man dies, he is dead and "nothing could ever change it anyway" (page 169).

I think Tim just wants his readers to realize that placing a blame usually makes things more complicated and drags everything out. Whereas letting something go is simple and quick. Just rip that band-aid right off instead of picking at it -you know, one hair at a time. It's gonna hurt more if you do it that way.

Still, There Was So Much To Say.

I think I found more motivation for the writing of this book. But I also realized that the lit term "motivation" doesn't meant the author's reason for writing, it means the characters reason for behaving. Buuuut, I'm going to proceed, because Tim is a character and this book is basically about him remembering all these things to write..

Through all Norman's apostrophes, it is easy to tell that when a soldier comes home, he is itching to talk about it, but just doesn't know how. Like I said earlier, no one understands. He keeps replaying fake conversations in his head.. It's so sad. I just want to tell him that I understand that he couldn't save Kiowa..

Norman wanted to talk so bad, but he wouldn't let himself. Then in Tim's own little explication, we find out that Norman actually wanted Tim to write about a man struggling like he did post-war. Tim gave himself purpose by writing all these war stories.

"[The town] did not know shit about shit, and did not care to know" (page 137). (I found this a little bit puny, but in a more serious tone) and then.. "This guy wants to talk about it, but he can't...You were there you tell it" (page 151).

Tim isn't motivated by just preserving these stories, he is motivated by his friends-giving them a voice, so they can move on and find another purpose in their lives.

Even Now I Haven't Finished Sorting It Out.

If you didn't notice, Kiowa is always the one who comforts Tim after he kills a man. (Well, at least in the two cases described in this book.)

"Kiowa tried to tell me that the man would've died anyway. He told me that it was a good kill, that I was a soldier and this was a war, that I should shape up and stop staring and ask myself what the dead man would've done if things were reversed" (page 127).

From the way Tim describes Kiowa and his family, I know he is a nice guy, who in any other situation, wouldn't want to hurt anyone. He respects life, but knows he doesn't have time to get all worked up about lives lost, especially the enemy. But I find it ironic/foreshadowish that in the very next chapter, Tim reveals how Kiowa died in Vietnam. I don't know if he meant anything by that..

He could just be reinforcing the point I already made.. I think he really wants us to know that all life is important to him. And even though Kiowa tried to help him move on from the people he killed, it still meant something. He still felt they deserved a moment of his time.. I guess. Because then, when Kiowa dies, everyone is thinking about him and how much he meant to everyone. He got that moment of time. His death was a bigger deal than a death of the enemy.. but Tim didn't want to treat it that way.

Lost All Hope

I finally had hope that this chapter "The Man I Killed" would involve Tim as a character.. but really, it didn't.

But luckily, he knew the entire history of a man he killed before he could even talk to him. Well.. that's what I thought when I was reading. I even wrote "How does he know that?!" on the side of the page. After giving it some thought, I think Tim made it all up, because this man he killed sounds sorta like Tim did before war.

"He loved mathematics..." (page 121) versus "I had the world dicked-Phi Beta Kappa and summacum laude..." (page 39).. Then "Beyond anything else, he was afraid of disgracing himself, and therefore his family and village" (page 121) versus "I feared losing the respect of my parents...My hometown was a conservative little spot on the prairie... conversation slowly zeroing in one the young O'Brien kid, how the damned sissy had taken off for Canada" (page 43).

The two men are clearly very similar.. Tim had to have created his image in the man he killed, because he felt guilty. Instead of trying to not feel guilty, by convincing himself that the man was terrible and evil for fighting for the Viet Cong or whatever, he convinced himself that the man didn't really deserve to die. They were there for practically the same reasons. Maybe this was the first person he killed, so he it really took a toll on him. If every soldier had to think that long about the person they just killed, we'd still be fighting the British for our independence. Death has to become a natural part of daily life for a soldier . I don't think it had kicked in for Tim at this point.

Why God Invented Pneumonia

So far Tim (I'm going to call him that now) has talked about love, death, friendship, pride, and God. Each thing is taken on a little bit differently than what we would call typical.

Now they are building some kind of fort in a church, probably somewhere in southern Vietnam. The monks living there seem so grateful for the Americans and show no sign of reluctancy in letting them set up in their Church. I really don't know much about the Vietnam War- I know we had to somehow stop Communism and whatnot, but there were probably some selfish government reasons involved too. Tim didn't agree with the war, or he didn't before he went. I don't know his take on it now, but I'm sure there were others that didn't want to be there either. And I know war probably isn't the number one solution on any sane church's list, but these really holy men appreciated the war efforts, I assume. So if the monks appreciated it, I'm sure that the average southern Vietnamese citizen also appreciated the Americans. I noticed that through reading this.. but I don't think the soldiers did. Kiowa was was afriad to be at the church.. "'It's bad news,' Kiowa said. 'You don't mess with churches'" (page 113).

I think maybe in the midst of all the fighting, the Americans didn't realize why they were there? They just concentrated on the day to day and humped fake things.

No Sweat

I'm trying so hard to figure out this book, but then I remember O'Brien told us that none of his stories will have a real point to them. He just wants us to read them and react with an "Oh". So far I've been reacting with a "huh?". It's not that I'm not enjoying it, I just don't know what to say about it.

I'm sorry Tim, but I'm going to have to come up with something.

Humping. "To carry something was to hump it" (page 3). I thought that was a really weird way to describe it, but I didn't put much thought into it until now.

Henry Dobbins umm.. "humped" the memories of his girlfriend through her pantyhose. I think there is a bit of situational irony when she breaks up with him and he still uses the panty hose as a good luck charm: "'No sweat,' he said. 'The magic doesn't go away'" (page 112). You expect him to be like Mark Fossie.. getting rid of the panty hose and finding something else to hump. Kinda like in Dear John, where John burns all the letters from the woman he loved.. I forget his name. So I'm thinking that maybe these soldiers don't really need something to be real to hump it, they just need the idea. Unlike us, they don't see their girlfriends every day, they probably don't really communicate either. All they have are thoughts (unless your dumb enough to bring your girlfriend to war).

As I'm thinking about this more, I'm realizing that Cross (from the beginning) humped the love he had for his girlfriend through pictures and rocks.. but he didn't have that love in return. All he did was imagine it. And apparently that is enough for men at war.

She Was Up To Her Eyeballs In It.

This really long chapter about Mary Anne and Mark Fossie makes a really good point. I don't know how realistic this is though.. Can a soldier really bring his girlfriend to war with him? The whole story was pretty elaborate not to be true, but I'm reluctant to believe it could happen. However, I understand what the story really was about.. and that's what O'Brien really wants anyways.


After I read, I was reminded of this movie I watched called Brothers, it's rather recent, so you all probably know what I'm talking about, maybe. Here's the trailer, watch if you want to. I'm not really referring to the whole love drama of it.
Well, the part in the trailer where he is like "You know what I did for you?!?" (He is crazy mad) Well, he did something crazy so that he could get back to her, but he can't talk about it with anyone, because no one understands. He is really stressed out and gets really angry. At one point, he asks to go back to Afghanistan, because "No one can understand here".

That's exactly what Rat Kiley explains: "...Mary Anne made you think about those girls back home, how pure and innocent they all are, how they'll never understand any of this, not in a billion years. It's like trying to tell someone what chocolate tastes like" (page 108).

(I never really thought about describing chocolate to someone who has never tried it.. although, I've never met anyone who hasn't tried chocolate either)

Soldiers have seen things indescribable to the typical American. Even though there is no point to a good war story, I think O'Brien shared this one with us because he wants us to know that even though this entire book will talk about the war (probably) we won't understand it completely, unless we've experienced ourselves. It is kinda of like a foreshadowing. O'Brien is warning us of what is ahead by telling us that if we aren't a soldier or a Mary Anne, then forget now about wanting to feel some sort of connection to this novel.

As We Sat Waiting

I am kinda confused in understanding the point of view that this novel is written in. The narrator is clearly there as a part in the action. He uses pronouns like "we" and "I", but he is also sort of "all-knowing". Especially in the beginning when he talks about Lt. Cross and Martha.. "Lt. Cross gazed at the tunnel But he was not there. He was buried with Martha under the white sand at the Jersey shore...he was aware of how quiet the day was...yet he could not ring himself to worry about matters of security" (page 11). How does the narrator know all that? I guess he could just be making assumptions.
This confusion makes me question the actual role of the narrator. Why is he even there? He doesn't really get in on any of the action. When you envision the actual scene, he is just there, listening to Rat Kiley or someone telling a story. Surely he will play a bigger role eventually, right?

Even though he is telling us these stories, I think he is just a flat character. We really don't know him very well other than he fought in the war, and he is now an author. I can sorta create some other personality traits of his based on his description of the other men, but I don't think he will change the course of the story. His sole purpose is to tell stories to his audience.

"You're never more alive than when you're almost dead"

O'Brien dedicated this entire chapter, like 16 pages, to the truth of a war story. He reiterated himself a lot, so I know that this truth thing must be a big deal for the upcoming chapters. I kept questioning him as I was reading. Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over? By the end of the chapter, I felt like he did at war: (not to the same extent, obviously) where "the only certainty is overwhelming ambiguity" (page 78). O'Brien wants us to understand that the validity of the details of war stories are probably always going to be ambiguous and the response to most of them might just be an "oh", like he explained. But if you look past the war part of the story.. if that makes sense.. you can see something else. For instance, in that baby water buffalo story, who knows if any of that was true. What we do know now is that Rat Kiley loved Curt Lemon.

War stories aren't about war. They are about love, courage, grief, anger, friendship and other stuff like that. This kinda shines a new light on what I used to think of when I heard my Grandpa talk of war. I always expected to hear some sort of adventure hero story. And as a child, that is what I heard. But I'm sure now that as a "more mature child" I would gain something different from the story.. Well, I don't know. O'Brien makes it so confusing. He says that a true war story has no meaning, but then he kinda also says it does at the end. So who knows?

Jensen and Strunk

The juxtaposed chapters. Enemies and Friends. So far I still don't see a plot, even less so than in The Sun Also Rises. O'Brien just writes little tidbits of his memories and categorizes them into typical characteristics of the war he experienced. In these two chapters for instance, he remembers Jensen and Strunk. The two hated each other to the extreme extent that it felt "like fighting two different wars" (page 60). And O'Brien has me thinking that men at war are crazy. I mean the weapons they carry could do a lot of damage, if you think about it. I know when I first started driving, I always thought to myself that I had so much power in this car. You know? Like I could run into things and destroy a lot (Don't think I'm crazy or anything, I know you've all thought about it. Especially those of you who drive SUVs.) I can't imagine having that power times a gillion. So when these guys get angry, they get pretty freaking crazy. Jensen "rattled off an entire magazine of ammunition" (page 60) because he was so ticked off with Strunk. But then I read the next chapter entitled "Friends" assuming it would be about two other people. Nope.. It is about Jensen and Strunk. They hated each other so much, but at the same time, "they learn[ed] to trust each other" (page 62).
These two relationship statuses: Enemies and Friends are complete opposites, and yet I guess in a war,you can be both.

The Plain Fact of Crisis

So Tim O'Brien is the narrator? I'm going with that. I don't really know what to say about this chapter.
I'm sorta surprised about his reaction to the war itself. Going into this book I assumed O'Brien was some sort of war buff who willingly dedicated his life to our country.. but not really our country, more like to stopping the Dominoes. He went to Vietnam "because [he] was too embarrassed not to" (page 57). I'm not trying to judge his reasonings, but it does seem kinda lame. But I probably would go through the same process. I hope I wouldn't flee to Canada, but I would definitely think about it. (Not that I would be any help in fighting a war).
I'm curious to know if his philosophies change after serving in Vietnam. I thought this book was going to be inspiring, but now I'm sorta thinking it might just be an "I regret my life" sorta novel.
Nonetheless, it is very well written and I'm enjoying myself. And I have a sneaking suspicion that which ever way his stories take me, I will learn something from them.

I'm also confused about the organization of the book. He started off in Vietnam, telling war stories. Then he flashes forward to sometime after the war, where he and Cross recollect old memories. And then he flashes way back to before he serves in Vietnam. I want to know if this is going to be how the rest of the novel is written, or will I eventually find a real story line?

I Feel Guilty Sometimes.

I don't know who the narrator is yet, but I know he is going to write a book similar to this novel. The narrator represents O'Brien. He tells his readers why he wrote this book and many others through this mysterious character. They share the same motivation. Like Hemingway wrote a novel based on stories from his life in Spain, O'Brien remembers stories from his life at war.

"You take your material where you find it, which is in your life, at the intersection of past and present. The memory-traffic feeds into a rotary up on your head, where it goes in circles for a while, then pretty soon imagination flows in and the traffic merges and shoots off down a thousand different streets. As a writer, all you can do is pick a street and go for the ride, putting things down as they come to you" (page 33).

Well, I guess I just summed up some of his motivation in a quote, which isn't how we are supposed to do it. But I wanted to also point out the imagery O'Brien uses. When I read that passage I see it all happening. I don't know if it helps me better understand his reasonings, but it makes it a lot more interesting. He goes on to also tell us that "stories are for joining the past to the future" (page 36).
In The Sun Also Rises I had to use outside knowledge to come up with a motivation factor, but O'Brien comes straight out with it. I think this is because not everyone (especially in our class) can really relate to these characters who have been in war. So O'Brien assures us that he knows what he is talking about. These are all stories from his memory that he has made into a work of .. historical fiction? By stating his motivation, he has egos.

It Doesn't Matter. I Love Her.

Right from the beginning we know that Cross is in love with Martha, so it must play a big role in the rest of the book.. although knowing that Cohn was a boxer really meant nothing to the novel. I'm going to go ahead and say that love is a motif for Cross's life. He loved Martha, but he also loved his men and he was at constant battle trying to prioritize. Martha definitely had it in the bag. Even after he tried to "shut down the daydreams" (page 23), he still thought about her too much. He told himself he would be a better commander, but all the while he thought about how much he hated her, but still loved her. Or what he was going to do with the lucky pebble. "He [dispensed] of love; it was not now a factor" (page 25). Before Lavender's death he was trying to love his men more than Martha, but afterwards, he tried to hate Martha, which disabled him to love his men.
At this point, I think he is just as confused as I am. Because after chapter 2, we find out that he never gets Martha. So why is she playing such a big role?

Well.. The Things They Carried

Chapter One gave the title of this book a literal meaning. O'Brien described the things that soldiers actually carried: "...P-38 can openers, pocket knives, heat tabs, wristwatches..." (page 2). And he also gave us an idea of what soldiers have to physiologically carry: "...the responsibility for the lives of [Cross's] me, ...a silent awe for the terrible power of [some] of the things they carried, ...ghosts, ...imagination,...blame..." (Chapter 1).
I think the emotional baggage that these men carried affected the way they talked, walked, slept, and even fought. Soldiers were stripped of their "humaness" in some ways. Death at home sometimes takes months and years to fully accept and heal, but in war death occurs too often to take that much time to accept. Soldiers sometimes just have to ignore it and treat it like a normal part of life. Instead of mourning the loss of Lavender, all Kiowa can think of is "boom-down" (page 6).
Although they have to ignore it and move on at the time, I think everything they experence will one day hit them hard. War isn't a healthy environment for anyone. As I am reading this book, I am also thinking about my Grandpa, who fought in Vietnam.
If you don't know who Ronald Lee Ermey is, you probably do. He was a drill instructor for the Marines and an actor. He was in Vietnam and talks about it a lot. My Grandpa used to tell us how much he hated him, because "No one who actually fought in Vietman would talk about it". My Grandpa also fought in WWII and he told us all the stories we wanted to hear about it, but that was the only comment he ever gave about Vietnam, which makes me think that the emotional toll from Vietnam was huge.

And We're Taking the Coda

Throughout the entire book, I think I fell in love (notin love, love, but just, you know) with Jake. He is a character that a lot of people can relate to. And this was definitely, definitely my favorite part of reading this book, which is why I saved it for last.
I think it is really important for an author to have relatable characters. It's just too hard to read a book if you have no idea what's going on.
All the things that I thought had nothing to do with the overall theme actually helped develop a really great story. If he hadn't of added the side stuff, I wouldn't have known Jake the way I do now.

I loved Jake's take on being Catholic and prayer. I'm pretty sure the majority of people pray the same way he does. I couldn't help but laugh at this: "...so I prayed that I would make a lot of money, and then I started to think how I would make it, and thinking of making money reminded me of the count, and I started wondering about where he was, and regretting I hadn't seen him since that night in Montmarte, and about something funny Brett told me about him...I was such a rotten Catholic" (page 103).
No one really admits that they pray like this. It's rather embarrassing. So when Hemingway points out this human flaw, it draws people to like the character.

Good job, Hemingway.

Isn't Pretty To Think So?

Brett claims she is going to go marry Mike now; he is her type of man. Of course, Romero didn't work out. She couldn't be her spunky self with him.
But why does she call Jake to rescue her? It's frustrating. I just knew that this book wouldn't have a happy ending.
But, I think Hemingway ended it appropriately. Remember that movie, My Best Friend's Wedding? The ENTIRE time we all wanted Julia Roberts to get the man, but in the end Cameron Diaz does. The little girl, Disney princess side of you is really disappointed and all, but the realistic side of you knows it was for the best.
Even though Brett and Jake will never officially be together, they will always share something "special". (I don't want to sound too corny). Both Jake and Brett seem pretty content with what they have and who am I to want more?

As frustrating as it is, I'm glad Hemingway didn't stoop to the cliche ending. It gives the novel a little edge.

Buoyant to Madrid

After Mike and Bill leave in Book III, the mood is so relaxed! Jake is just having a good time. This is all true especially back in France. You can tell that he just belongs there. "It is the simplest country to live in" (page 237). Then he goes to Spain by himself, and everything continues to be pretty relaxed. Swimming, reading, drinking, just taking it easy. Jake was happy.

"COULD YOU COME HOTEL MONTANA MADRID AM RATHER IN TROUBLE BRETT" (page 242). Tense, tense, tense. It was like an immediate change from perfect to "oh no!". Jake loves Brett, so he was obviously worried, but I know that Brett is probably overly-dramatic, so it wasn't going to be a big deal. So I wasn't tense, but Jake definitely was. I love that Jake knows how ridiculous he is being. (Cohn was also ridiculous, but he wasn't aware of it). "Send a girl off with one man. Introduce her to another to go off with him. Now go and bring her back. And sign the wire with love" (page 243).

Eat Some Soup

"The three of us sat at the table, and it seemed as though about six people were missing" (page 228).

I am running out of book to post about, so I am going to try to make something of this quote. I made a list of all the characters we've met so far: Jacob[x].Cohn[].Georgette[].Count[].Brett[].Bill[x].Mike[x].Romero[].Edna.[]. If you count the empty boxes, there are six people not at that table. Maybe I'm taking it too literal.
Also, I can't help but thinking this could be a sort of foreshadowing. Will everyone come back? Actually.. I can't imagine this book ending like a perfect fairytale. The tone of this line isn't really hopeful; it's more like..someone sighing. Hemingway is probably warning us that everyone we've come to know (or just briefly meet) played no real role and they aren't coming back. Jacob will still be lost in the end, just as he was in the beginning.

I'm No Aficionado

I've read all the way through Book II and I really don't get the whole bullfighting thing. I really don't like reading those scenes, because I'm a bad visualizer and that's practically all you can do during them.
The one posted on here is actually about Hemingway (It actually takes an excerpt from The Sun Also Rises and sorta explains it, kinda). The second one is just a link explaining the process. It's pretty boring, probably what you'd expect.

So now I have an idea of what's going on, I can try to make something of it. From my mini research on youtube, I now know that Hemingway was actually a big fan of bullfighting. Maybe he really was an aficionado and maybe he really knew Montoya). He wanted to write this novel to, I guess, beat out Fitzgerald, who just wrote The Great Gatsby (At least that's what the lady in the video said). I'm thinking that he set his novel in Spain, so he could write about something he loved.
I'm kind of embarrassed, because I don't really think I know what the lesson is. I guess it could be what I posted in that other post. And if I was right, then this is how bullfighting could relate:
Give a little, take a little and stop once you have it. It's the same way you fight a bull."He had to get so close that the bull saw his body, and would start for it, and then shift the bull's charge to the flannel and finish out the pass in the classic manner" (page 221). When Romero fights, he has to risk his life for a tiny bit in order to get what he wants (which is to be able to kill the bull). I guess you could also say he is "paying" through taking a chance?

Sometimes things only make sense late at night.

Gentleman Ashley

After Mike tells us what happened between Cohn,Romero, and Brett, he gives us a new insight on his her past.
At this point, we are all probably thinking the same thing: Settle down, Brett! Don't be mean. But now we see that her current husband (soon to be ex-husband) was a real jerk! "...he used to tell her he'd kill her. Always slept with a loaded revolver. Brett used to take the shells out when he'd gone to sleep" (page 207). What a sad, scary life. I think that would also give me a distorted view on love. If that is her experience of settling down in marriage, then I don't blame her for jumping from man to man. I'm sorry for those who suffer from it, but we all face that in our lives-Brett did too. "She hasn't had an absolutely happy life, Brett. Damned shame, too. She enjoys things so" (page 207).
Why did she marry "Gentleman Ashley" in the first place? My guess-she wanted to be the traditional wife on the those times. Settle down and get married-have kids. Deep down inside, however, she was always this spunky, out-of-the-box woman who didn't like to be suppressed. So now she is breaking free and will never turn back to that lifestyle.

Go Brett! (Sorta. She should probably give another guy a chance. Preferably Jake)

What A Night

I have found my last mandatory lit term. "Why [Cohn] went in and found Brett and the bull-fighter chap in the bull-fighter's room, and then he massacred the poor, bloody bull-fighter" (page 205). Hyperbole, for sure. Robert and Romero did have a fight, but no one died. I think he exaggerates so much, because he knows (from personal experience) that Cohn is awfully strong. And most likely, because he doesn't like Robert. He wants to make him look worse than what he really is. (Also, he is drunk and it probably sounded funnier that way. He is always drunk.) So again, we see this crazy side of Robert come out. He has absolutely no self-control.
Brett has no self-control.
And Mike doesn't really love Brett; he just hates Cohn. I mean, don't you think if he did he wouldn't have let Robert beat up Romero? He would have done it himself, out of anger. The only man he gets mad at for hanging around Brett is Robert.
I guess the difference is that Brett wants to be with Romero and she really doesn't want to be around Cohn. Still, I think most guys who are in love don't want their to share. Brett's not going to settle down and no one is going to get her for the romantic "happily ever after" (cliche) ending.
Robert: Go back to Frances.
Jake: Move to America and start dating around.
Mike: Go home and get a job! Sober up!
Bill: Just continue to go with the flow.
Romero: Keep dreaming and don't get too hopeful.

"Oh, yes," I said. "I'm all right".

I'm in the middle of a chapter, and I usually don't blog until the end, but I feel like I just hit an important moment with Cohn.
Everyone has been giving him such a hard time about following Brett around. He knows everyone hates him now. Even Brett admitted it: "'My God! I'm so sick of him!...I hate him too,...' she shivered". (page 186). (This was a conversation she had with Jake, but we all know Cohn was listening in.
And now I'm going to go all the way back to page one. "He cared nothing for boxing, in fact he disliked it, but he learned it painfully and thoroughly to counteract the feeling of inferiority and shyness he had felt on being treated as a Jew at Princeton" (page 1). Robert was taught to hit when he felt inferior. He doesn't like it, but I think it is instinct. Now everybody is ganging up on him, he was bound to hurt someone. (I think Jake ought to have known that, I mean, he told me.) So I guess my conclusion on Robert is that he was never trying to make anyone annoyed or upset. His motivation are his feelings and I don't think he thinks about others or consequences. I knew from the beginning he was naive. He probably felt he loved Brett so much, and he tells us now that they even used to live together in San Sebastian. They broke up (I'm guessing), she moved on, and he didn't. But he follows his feeling nonetheless. He should get over it, but that's not the way he works.

They Aren't Bananas

When Romero was first introduced, I didn't think he was going to play a very big role. I thought he would be like Georgette or Harris-there for a part of a chapter, but no more than that. I mean, I'm sure they have a role, but I haven't figured it out yet. However, I think I've figured out why Hemingway wrote Romeo in.
He relates well with everybody. (Besides Mike, who is just a mean drunk) He is a true aficionado, "nothing conceited or braggartly about him" (page 178).
First, Romero helps further my point about Bill. He conforms to fit in, I think. He doesn't like Cohn, because Jake doesn't like Cohn. And now, during the conversation with Romero, he wants to fit in again. "Tell him I think writing is lousy" (page 179). I mean, he's talking to a bullfighter! A writer may seem pretty lousy when compared to something so.. crazy tough. I'm not saying I don't like Bill; I think he is actually one of the more normal characters. All I'm saying is that he isn't there to add more to the plot, he is there to bring out the characteristics of others. (I could give more examples, but I must move on).

And if there wasn't enough tension in Brett's love mess, I think Romero can top it off. What the heck, Brett? Stop leading everyone on. Romero is nice and all, but she only loves him because of his green pants. Before Romero, all the men in Brett's life fell in love with her prior to the story's beginning. But now we see how it happens! I want to like her so bad, but she is irresponsible and kind of mean.
I think she is the one who never "paid" Jake. Not the other way around.