Coming Home Again

“I made a big mistake.”
“About Exeter?”
“Yes, I made a big mistake. You should be with us for that time. I should never let you go there.”
“So why did you?” I said.
“Because I didn’t know I was going to die.”

ChangRae Lee’s “Coming Home Again” is an autobiographical account of the writers own relationship with his mother. In it, he examines his childhood and upbringing after her death. Though the family is Korean, I believe this is one of, if not the only story we have read thus far that transcends the cultural perspective from which it is written. It explores the realities of family relationships, the death of a parent, identity, and home. In the end, however, I believe all of these things accumulate to represent the narrators struggle to cope with the death of his mother, as well as his appreciation of the things she has done to raise him. Much of this was done through the medium of food.

Throughout the story, both Lee’s identity, sense of home, and relationship with his mother are represented by food. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence to support this claim, such as when his mother claims (about the meat) “it needs to bone nearby to borrow its richness” (Lee 2). The duel meaning that the quote implies is that Lee’s mother needs him close by because he provides her with happiness. Each description of the preparation of food symbolizes their relationship. On the other hand, Exeter, the private school to which his mother sent him, was a manifestation of each of their respective guilt. Lee tells of us his mother’s worries about sending him to private school, both after he has come home (evident by the quote above) and before. She grew “nervous and distant” after only 6 weeks in his absence in fear that he would consider her “more and more ignorant” each time he came home (Lee 4). She did not want to lose her son “in either body or spirit” (Lee 3). Really, she was afraid that the physical distance between her and her son would create a similar emotional distance. The narrator focuses a great deal on her guilt over sending him to school because, in her absence, he realizes the great sacrifice she made to build for him a good life.

Food, however, was one of, if not the only thing that could alleviate her worry to some degree. Similarly, food reminded him who he was when he was feeling lost. With reference to his school, he claims “I felt as if I had plunged too deep into the world, which, to my great horror, was much larger than I had ever imagined” (Lee 4). Many of his worries were dispelled when his mother visits him with a cooler of Korean food. He states “And it seemed I couldn’t get enough of it back. I ate and I ate, so much and so fast that I actually went to the bathroom and vomited” (Lee 4). Gorging himself with the food was similar to gorging himself with his sense of home, his identity, and his relationship with his mother. It was his acknowledgement that he missed her and of his love of their relationship. To that end, when he eats, he claims “And beneath the face of her worry, I thought, my mother was smiling” (Lee 5). This symbolism of food explains the reason his mother was so upset when he rejects her food on the day of the school picnic. It symbolized, to her, a deterioration of their relationship that neither of them had control over. This was due in part to her fear that the school would take him from her. Similarly, when he cooks all of the finger dishes to his mother and she cannot eat the, it symbolized, to him, a similar deterioration of her health and thus their time together or their relationship. These two examples of their food induced sadness, however, show just how strong their relationship really was and how much they truly cared for each other. In the end, food was the medium through which their relationship was strengthened and their worries alleviated. Each time he ate, it was like coming home again.

As a side note, this story was one I found myself relating to very frequently. There were many instances I felt I could understand the narrator, though I’m sure this was due primarily to the writing. However, the part that stuck out to me most was the end, when he found out his mother cried after he chose to eat at the school picnic. When I was eight, my parents got divorced. They made a schedule and planned where I would be on which holidays, so on and so forth. So, I was to spend the first thanksgiving after my parents’ divorce with my father and his family. My mother had called me to wish me a happy thanksgiving. It was only years later that my mother told me that, after she had hung up, she broke down in tears. I felt very guilty, despite many of the circumstances being out of my control, especially to an 8 year old version of myself. I suppose one of the points of the story is to illicit sources of both happiness and sadness within those who read it, with respect to their own relationships. It’s supposed to make you appreciate everything you have, which I try to do as often as I can, though it is sometimes very hard. I enjoyed this story very much. 

Edison, New Jersey

I believe Junot Diaz’s “Edison, New Jersey” would fall under the category of “slice of life”. It touches on many different areas of modern life that are not specific to Dominican Americans, though you could probably deduce many that are from this piece. However, my interpretation of the story might be a bit of a stretch, as its roots are in Marxism. I think the author was trying to devalue obsession with money and emphasize the rewards of hard work and doing things because you truly enjoy them. From what I gathered, our narrator was unhappy with his life. He continuously buys lottery tickets and steals from customers, both of which assign a negative connotation to money and material possessions. His life is centered on a principle of uncertainty (much of which has to do with money), making him directionless-ness. Everything he describes carries a negative connotation, even the uncertainties of his life. Such is evident when he and his girlfriend are describing how his day will go. She claims “I see an asshole customer, she murmured. Unbearable traffic. Wayne’s going to work slow, and then you will come home to me” (Diaz 133). He then asks if he will be rich (another reference to money) and she claims that that’s the best she can do. However, throughout the story, the only things that carry a positive connotation are stability, which he lacks. Many of these are things people have worked hard on without money as an incentive. He considers them sturdy and reliable. He describes the making of a pool table as “sophisticated” and claims that people do not understand “the precision of their construct” (129), implying that he truly enjoys assembling pool tables, though he might not be able to accept this because it is not a profitable profession. However, when he is offered a job by his ex-girlfriends father, he does not take it. He also assigns positive connotations to descriptions of the cobblestone of the Incan Roads in the Andes that you “couldn’t put a knife between” or the sewers in Rome that were not replaced until the 1950’s. He claims “that’s the sort of thing I can believe in” (129), as opposed to money, which, when he mentioned it previously, says “Money’s never stuck to me, ever” (129). I think it’s interesting that money, though he desires it so much, only ever carries a negative connotation with reference to the story and his take on life. He steals money, buys his girlfriend things with stolen money, and dislikes people who tip him poorly. However, based on his narrative, money doesn’t seem to be the thing that makes him happy. What makes him happy are the things he considers stable, the hard work of other people.

Tangents: I’m not sure if I was so drawn in by the story because I am from New Jersey and live near all of the places referenced or because the story was so well written, though it is probably the latter. With reference to the style of writing, I thought the use of dialogue (or lack there-of) played a very important role in situating the reader within the text. Because the narrator tells us what is told to him or what he says, we see everything through the lens of the narrator. Tangent: The possibility even exists that he is, at times, an unreliable narrator. Evidence for this exists in the part where he claims “That’s how the boss put it. Delinquent. We knew that’s what the customer called us because the boss didn’t use words like that” (Diaz 129). There is no evidence that the customer called him and Wayne delinquents, but the narrator believes it to be true, and so he tells us. Similarly, we are also unsure of whether or not he “got some”. He leaves any details about sexual encounters with the girl out of his narrative, but tells Wayne, when asked, that he did, claiming he has “no reason to lie about that”. I think this may have been done, in terms of the Marxist perspective, in order to demonstrate that we cannot trust him when he expresses a desire for money and to escape his current situation, though I am not sure. Lastly, there is the reference to Edison, Nj that I'm not quite sure what to make of. There is the fountain in Edison of light dispelling darkness (the picture), but I'm not really sure I'm equipped enough to speculate on that yet.

Viramontes

Helena Maria Viramontes' "The Cariboo Cafe" depicts, from all angles, the struggle of Mexican immigrants. In the process, it inspects many of the elements that are applicable to people who do not fall under this category, such as "good" and evil, loss, and compassion. My favorite thing about this story, however, was the way in which it was written. The use of narrative and voice is extraordinarily complex. In truth, this was one of the things that made a bit confusing and difficult to follow. With that in mind, I think there is much to be said about possible motivations with respect to the narrative.

Viramontes writes the story from three different perspectives, establishing a context for each and then aggressively alternating between perspectives. The first is a third person narrative, which follows Sonya and her brother, Macky. The second is the owner of the Cariboo cafe who, despite the rough exterior the voice of his narrative portrays, seems to genuinely care about many people, including strangers. The last is the first person narrative of a women who has lost her son, Geraldo. I think Geraldo (or Macky?) is a very important figure in the story, primarily because he is the only character throughout the story who is given three separate names- one for each narrative. In the first, under the care of Sonya, he is Macky. To the owner of the Cariboo cafe, he is Short Order, and to the women who believes that he is her child, he is Geraldo. I think this, in combination with the aggressive alternation of the narratives, suggests that the people in the story are interchangeable. These problems are not specific to one family, or even specific at all. The constantly shifting narrative keeps the reader on their feet, always asking who is telling the story and who is being spoken about when in reality, in the context of the immigration problem, it could apply to any immigrant who is suffering in this manner. This is supported when the women is first looking for her child, Geraldo. The narrator claims "The women came up from the depths of sorrow to search for their children. I join them" and that she "hears the wailing of the women and knows it to be her own" (Viramontes 72-73). Both of these quotes support the idea that she is one of many people facing the same struggle, which is, in this case, losing their children to police officers fighting illegal immigrants. More evidence to support this concept stems from quotes that make characters vague or interchangeable. For example, the narrator claims "as time passed, buses came less frequently, and every other person seemed to resemble popi" (Viramontes 66). The fact that the women and the cafe owner are not given names further support the same idea.
 As an end / side note, this story reminds me of an anime (I'm a closet anime fan) called Baccano, which plays with narrative and voice in a similar manner, switching vigorously between protagonists, and even points in time, making it very difficult to watch and grasp after one try. One of the points made in the very beginning (or end) of the show is that people should "free themselves from the illusion that stories have beginnings and endings" as well as "main characters". Just some food for thought. Though I'm not sure if the two relate in content, they most certainly relate in their narratives.

Yamamoto

From what I gather, Hisaye Yamamoto’s “Seventeen Syllables” speaks volumes about the struggles of Japanese natives who immigrate to American. I’m not sure in what time period this story takes place, but after a quick Google search, I found that Yamamoto was born in 1921. I think it’s also important to note that she was born in California. She was a second generation immigrant.  During and after the time of her birth, it was very difficult for any Japanese natives to immigrate to America. Rosie’s mother is exemplary of that struggle- she could not move to America without being married to an American citizen. And so, she was wed to a man she didn't really know or love.

 I believe the most important piece of the story to analyze is the social commentary provided on the dichotomy between Rosie, who is a second generation immigrant, and her mother, who is a first generation immigrant. Their relationship, or sometimes lack there-of, symbolizes the disconnections that result from the barriers that rise between first and second generation immigrants, usually pervading in the form of language. Evidence to support such a claim comes from the beginning of the story where it states “Rosie knew formal Japanese by bits and starts, and her mother had even less English, no French. It was much more possible to say yes, yes” (Yamamoto 22). The “Yes, Yes” is something Rosie says to her mother throughout the story when she doesn't fully understand something but does not want to talk about it either, presumably because of the aforementioned barriers (usually language). It almost comes across as passive-aggressive. This lack of connection between Rosie and her mother is introduced very early and left to sit until the ending.

                 The ending was very interesting to me. It exemplified the same struggle between first and second generation immigrants, though not through the medium of language. Instead, the end used the medium of cultural norms to articulate the disconnection between Rosie and her mother. In American, people tend to associate “love” with “marriage”. This is why when Rosie’s mother tells her never to get married, Rosie immediately thinks of Jesus, the person she loves. When her mother is yelling at her, it claims “Jesus, Jesus she called silently, not sure whether she was invoking the help of the son of Carrascos or of God” (Yamamoto 38). (Absolutely brilliant quote, in my opinion). However, Rosie’s mother does not associate “love” with “marriage”, which I believe is a representation of many of Japanese Immigrants. Because she could not marry the person she loved (who also loved her) in Japan due to her low socioeconomic class (a characteristic also usually ignored in America with relation to the concept of love), but instead was forced to marry someone she did not love, she does not make the same association that Rosie does. Because of this cultural barrier, Rosie cannot understand her mother’s take on love and marriage, nor can her mother understand the way a different culture has impacted Rosie’s take. As a result, Rosie, perhaps passive-aggressively or perhaps out of a want to please her mother, pretends to understand her mother’s plea with the phrase “Yes, yes, I promise”. 

Achebe

Chinua Achebe’s “Dead Men’s Path” exemplifies, on a broad spectrum, the ongoing conflict between old and new. The story follows Michael Obi, the new headmaster of Ndume School. The setting is Nigeria in 1949. He is described as “young and eccentric” with a “passion for ‘modern methods’ (Achebe 1). He is very eager to turn the “unprogressive” school around. His wife (whose description I find fascinating- hoping to discuss it in class) decorates the school accordingly. To his surprise, he finds a path in the flowers. He orders that the path be closed. The Ani priest of the village tells him of the animist beliefs of the village- that the path connects the spiritual and the physical world. Obi, as a modern, well educated, and ambitious headmaster, is excited by this. He seems to take pleasure in telling the priest that the point of their school is to eradicate such beliefs. In the end, the villagers break down the fence used to block the path and vandalize the school and the flowers around it. The supervisor then came to inspect the school, giving it an unfavorable review. He also states that the “tribal-war situation developing between the school and the village” was due in part to the “misguided zeal” of the new headmaster (Achebe 3).

                I believe that this story represents the power struggle between old and new, as well as the unwillingness to tolerate the ideas of others. The villagers of that time subscribed to a very animist system of beliefs, represented by the path in the flowers. Instead of allowing the villagers to keep their path, and in turn, their beliefs, the headmaster denies them both by closing the path. Because of this, the villagers tear down the fence and trample the flowers. This is important for two reasons. The first is that, by denying them the right to hold their beliefs because of his excitement to implement his own, the headmaster started a war with the villagers. He was narrow minded and subscribed only to his own point of view of modern reform, evident by the statement "The whole purpose of our school is to eradicate just such beliefs as that. Dead men do not require footpaths. The whole idea is just fantastic. Our duty is to teach your children to laugh at such ideas" (Achebe 2). His unwillingness to tolerate the ideas of others could be considered the “dead men’s path”- the path that will only lead to confrontation. To that end, the flowers are also important. The flowers symbolize how fragile the headmasters’ modern beliefs are in comparison to the long-held animist beliefs of the villagers. The headmasters’ modern flowers are trampled by the villagers, just his “misguided zeal” for modern-reform is trampled by the old, fundamental beliefs of the people on whom he tried to impose them. 

Saboteur

Ha Jin’s “Saboteur” takes on many meanings as you delve further into the context of both the setting and the author. It was written during the Cultural Revolution, a time when China was trying to enforce true communist ideology and abolish elitism. Because of that, there was a lot of hatred aimed scholars- at people like Chiu, the protagonist of our story. Chui is on vacation with his wife in Muji when police officers throw tea at their feet. Outraged, Chui speaks up and accuses the police of disrupting the public order they were supposed to uphold. He states “Comrade Police, your duty is to keep order, but you purposely tortured us common citizens. Why violate the law you are supposed to enforce?” (Jin 272). Because of this, he is arrested and held in prison until he confesses to the crime that he did not commit.

                This irony is only one example of the many in this story. Irony is the most abundant literary device. I believe this irony represents the idea that actions and consequences are arbitrary and disconnected. Chiu is arrested for trying to uphold justice when the police fail. There is disconnect between his action and the consequence. This would be counter-intuitive to the concept of true justice, which I believe this story is arguing against.

                At the beginning of the story, Chiu believes in truth and justice. He has faith that his government and communist party will abide by the idea that all people are treated equally before the law, and therefore has faith that he will not remain in jail. However, his belief in this justice fades as the story progresses. He soon learns that the system will not support him. Desperate, he turns his faith in justice to something else- to the media. He claims that he will turn to the newspapers and the press to inform the world of the injustice that has happened to him. However, that threat is not taken seriously.

                In the end, when Chui signs an acknowledgement of the crime he did not commit, his faith in true justice has vanished completely. He knows that there is nowhere he can turn in order to reprimand those who have done him an injustice. He decides to take justice into his own hands by deliberately spreading his hepatitis that has been acting up throughout the story. As a result, over 800 people are infected with 6 deaths, two of them being children. This is the most important part of the story for me. It undermines the concept of true justice. There was no way for Chui to achieve justice other than to take it into his own hands. Similarly, though we see the death of these people as unjust, it may have very well appeared just to Chiu, who had been wronged by not only the police of that town who arrested him, but by the citizens of the town who had provided eye-witness accounts of the incident. 

Brokeback Mountain

“Tell you what, we could a had a good life together, a fuckin real good life. You wouldn’t do it, Ennis, so what we got now is Brokeback Mountain. Everthing built on that. It’s all we got, boy, fuckin all, so I hope you know that if you don’t never know the rest.”

Of the love stories we have read this semester, I believe Annie Proulx’s “Brokeback Mountain” was the most exemplary. The theme of love in this story is seen as a force of nature- one that cannot be controlled. The story is narrated by Ennis, our protagonist. The writing is italicized in the beginning and written in past tense, then written as a flashback, shifting to past tense. As the story begins, Ennis tells us how his current troubles pale in comparison to the pleasure he is filled with as a result of the dream he had just had about Jack Twist, his lover. The story then switches to past tense and Ennis tells us about his experience on Brokeback Mountain.

Ennis gets a summer job working as a camp tender on Brokeback Mountain. This is where he meets Jack, who also has a job there as a sheep herder. During their time together, they end up falling in love. However, they continuously deny their homosexuality. Ennis tells Jack a story about how when he was a child, his father took him to see the body of a murdered gay rancher. This is symbolic of the idea that society, at that time (the 1960’s), looks upon the love between two men unfavorably.

 One of the things I find very interesting is that Brokeback Mountain is a fictional setting in Wyoming. However, the rest of the areas mentioned in the story are non-fictional. I believe this was done intentionally, making Brokeback Mountain symbolic of love as a concept in the face of adversity, evident by the quote above. Love, in the story, is described as a force that cannot be controlled, despite the societal norms that might inhibit the love of these two men. Such is evident when Ennis says to Jack (about their relationship) “There’s no reins on this one. It scares the piss out of me”. Brokeback Mountain embodies, in my interpretation of the story, the ethereal romance that takes place between Jack and Ennis. It can be seen as too true and true delicate for the outside world during that time, which is why it develops in a fictional setting. The expression of their love in the outside world (in non-fictional settings) ends tragically. Ennis ends up divorced and his wife sees their love as sickening, while Jack ends up dead- Ennis suspects that he was murdered. Similarly, when their boss see’s Jack and Ennis through the binoculars, it can be seen as the representation of the way the outside world looks down on their love, thus interfering with and defiling a place of beauty with judgment the same way judgment defiled the life they could have had together. However, despite the societal norms they were instilled with, their love could not be controlled, as Ennis still dreams of Jack. 

O'Connor

Subject to analysis today is Flannery O’Connor’s “Everything that Rises Must Converge”. There were many elements of this story worthy of inspection, however, the main focus of my discussion will focus primarily on the dichotomy between Julian and his mother, as well as the way it manifests in the form of race. I believe that this relationship is representative of the dichotomy of “the old” and “the new”. In the story, Julian is perpetually annoyed with his mother. Even though she provides him with a place to stay because he does not make enough money to support himself right out of college, he is still very hostile towards her. He cannot tolerate her racism, nor can he tolerate her obsession with appearance, both of which represent her innate disposition to an old view of the world. For example, his mother believes that appearance is a representation of who a person really is; their appearance is their identity. This is evident when Julian removes his tie and his mother asks “. “Why must you look like that when you take me to town? Why must you deliberately embarrass me?” (O’Connor 3). As such, she continues to dress as though she were as wealthy as she once was and prides herself on the neighborhood in which she lives, despite having lost her wealth and the deterioration of the neighborhood. This representative of her unwillingness to adopt the new ways of the world. In contrast, Julian believes that a person’s identity lies within their mind.

                The big theme, however, that both separates and unites Julian and his mother, as well as highlights their distinct different points of view on the world (old and new) is that of racism. Julian’s mother is flat out racist. She opposes the newly desegregated society and believes herself to be above African Americans. Her sense of entitlement is presented in many lines throughout the story such as “I've always had a great respect for my colored friends” (O’Connor 2). Julian, on the other hand, believes himself to be much more liberal and accepting of the newly desegregated world, due perhaps in part to his college education. However, though he does believe himself to be accepting and liberal towards desegregation, let it be noted that he might be considered just as racist as his mother. He never really shows empathy for African Americans, nor does he ever really see them as people as often as he sees them as tools with which he can anger his mother. He seeks to engage African American people as though they were trophies with which he can declare his new, liberal points of view. This is, perhaps, representative of the transitional period between the old and new ideas on topics such as desegregation.  

                The thing that tied everything together for me was the hat. Julian’s mother bought a ridiculous hat that she wore on the bus on the way to the Y. Similarly, the large black woman that got on the bus with Julian and his mother was wearing the same hat. To me, shit shattered the illusion of the old world that Julian’s mother was living in. There she was, riding the same form of public transportation to the same place, wearing the same detestable hat that she liked so much as the person that she considered herself so far above. Her sense of entitlement manifested in the form of the penny she tried to give to the black woman’s child. Though she may have believed herself to be doing the child a kindness, the penny was, in fact, condescending in nature, as Julian suggested. The rejection of the penny declared the woman an independent, free member of society who no longer needed to look to white members of society for support, thus symbolizing the new age whilst simultaneously shattering the old one that Julian’s mother lived in. 

The Voorman Problem

1

11)      “And what kind of God finds wars amusing?”

“A bored one. Yes. I equipped humans’with imaginations mainly so they can dream up new ways to entertain me. ”

22)      “Prisoners are more fun than well-kept congregations”

This is perhaps my favorite of the readings or films we have read or watched thus far. In “The Voorman Problem”, directed by Mark Gill, Dr. Williams (played by Martin Freeman) is a professional psychiatrist hired by Governor Bentley (played by Simmon Griffiths) to address what he refers to as “the Voorman problem”. He explains that inmate Voorman believes himself a god and that the prisoners all subscribe to the same belief. Upon interviewing Voorman, Dr. Williams’s initial clinical reaction is to label him as insane. However, Voorman proposes that, as proof, he will make Belgium disappear by tea time. Doctor Williams tells his wife of the proposal to illustrate how ludicrous it is, only to find that she has never heard of Belgium, and that Belgium no longer exists. During their next meeting, Voorman explains that, as god, he operates for the sole purpose of entertaining himself (a character trait I have as well, at times). He then switches the places of himself and Dr. Williams and exits the room.

 I believe the most important notion to address in this film is the actual “Voorman Problem”. I will explain my theory, which is best exemplified by the quotes above. My interpretation of the film is that “the Voorman problem” refers to the actual “problem” of the possibility of a god in general. The problem is that god, as an entity, might not actually care about the world he has created or its constituents. In fact, he may consider human beings his toys or his prisoners, regardless of whether or not they worship him. Evidence for this claim is abundant throughout the film. When asked about why he remains in the prison if he is a god, Voorman claims “Prisoners are much more fun than well-fed congregations”. I believe there is a dual meaning to this quote, implying that it is more entertaining to control and “imprison” people as god (by creating them for entertainment) than it is to have people surrender their control to you by worshipping you. This idea also reveals a hint of irony in the dialogue. The Governor refers to Voorman as “a prisoner who believes himself a god” when he is, in fact, a god who assumes the role of a prisoner. Similarly, it is all the more ironic because all members of the human race could be considered his prisoners or his play things. This idea is further supported in the beginning when Dr. Williams asks how they "will know when to release the prisoners” to which the governor replies “…release them?” implying that they will never be free, just as humans could never be free from a god like Voorman. This brings to light the main problem; even if we were to look past the flaws in logic and assume there was a god, there is always the possibility that he might be operating under the principle of self-interest. The problem with Voorman (exemplified by the first quote above) is that he created the human race to satisfy his boredom and his need for entertainment, deconstructing the general notions of our purpose in this world. There exists, in our world, the possibility of a god who may have very well done the same. The other part of the Voorman problem is that, as previously mentioned, if this were true and that god did exist, we would all be under his control, making us his eternal prisoners. This is the Voorman problem. 

Tim Parrish

“And in that moment, I hated him, for hitting me, for making Bob go to war, for being an adult in a place that made no sense. But mostly I hated him for being weak the way a child sees weakness, hated him for being unable to solve complexity with a simple gesture, hated him because when he held Mr. Ramos I had seen the limitations of strength” (Parrish 32).

                I believe Tim Parrish’s “It pours” is a coming of age story. Jeb, the narrator and protagonist, lives with his mother and his father. His brother, Bob, enlisted to the army and sent a tape home describing his troubles and his concerns, though it was not intended to be heard by his family. His mother blames his father for not stopping Bob from going to war.

                I believe there were two very interested highlights from this story. The first is the parallel between Jeb’s father, Mr. Ramos, and their families. Both Jeb’s father and Mr. Ramos have “lost” their sons per se, and both seem to blame themselves for it. Mr. Ramos’ son was sent to prison after being arrested for a “marijuana bust”. To that end, I thought it was interesting how Jeb’s father blames Mr. Ramos in the beginning when he states “Ramos shoula kept a firm hand on that boy” (Parrish 12), but refuses to accept the blame for sending Bob to war, claiming that he made his own choice. Both Jeb’s father and Mr. Ramos blame themselves for the conditions of their sons, though neither admits it.

                The second is the manner in which the father’s choose to relieve themselves of their grief, thus adding to the parallel. Jeb’s father continuously cleans and works on the house, though Jeb insists there is nothing left to clean or work on. Mr. Ramos works on his car, starting it four times a day since his son went to prison, a sound Jeb continuously watches out for and takes comfort in. (This part is driving me crazy because I have so many theories on what it might mean but so little evidence). I believe these are both exemplary of the guilt of both of their fathers. Similarly, I believe this comes to light at the end when Mr. Ramos is trying to save his car and confronts Jeb’s father by asking “Who you think you are? You think you’re better than I am?” (Parrish 31), implying that, though his son went to prison and Jeb’s brother went to war, they are equal in the sense that they have both failed as fathers. For Jeb, this brings his father’s weaknesses to light, particularly when he has nothing to say after that scene in the garage. In that moment, he realizes the unfairness and inconsistency of the world, hating his father for being unable to control it in a way he previously thought he could. When his father held Mr. Ramos, he had seen the thread of weakness that tied them together. In that sense, this is a coming of age story for Jeb. 

SQ

“So the Test Ban people couldn't do anything but shout about freedom and accuse Dr. Speakie and the Psychometric Bureau of trying to "turn the world into a huge insane asylum” (Le Guin 73).

I found Ursula K Le Guin’s “SQ” to be a comedic gem, whether its content is inspected literally or looked at through the lens of a critique on contemporary society (the latter being the route I am particularly fond of). In “SQ” a man by the name of Dr. Speakie develops a method of testing a person’s sanity. Should that person test under a 50, it means they are sane. However, should they test over a 50, it means they are insane, and should be institutionalized accordingly. Dr. Speakie and his statistically sane constituents also operate the asylums in which those who fail the test reside.  From the perspective of the reader, the test, perhaps counterintuitive to its purpose, does not seem to be an accurate way of determining the sanity of a person, because the majority of people who take the test fail. This would devalue any practical definition of the word “insane”. So many people fail that test that 60% of the remaining, sane population is used to operate the asylums to treat the 3.8 billion people institutionalized via the S.Q. As a result, the “universal application of the SQ test was eventually going to involve everybody either as Inmates or as Staff” (Le Guin 72).

At first, my contention with the story was the way in which they determined sanity. Although I know this is science fiction, I say this because there is no way of determining if a person is “insane”. Sanity is not even a psychological term, it is a legal term. By law, a person is insane only if they cannot distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. A person cannot be proven insane unless facing a charge in court of law, providing evidence to support such a claim. Similarly, the idea that “right” and “wrong” may change based on the opinion of the majority also helps to devalue the validity of the SQ, considering the majority test insane. However, I soon began to suspect that the legal definition of sanity may imply that our narrator, and in turn the SQ test, is unreliable. Such is evident when Mrs. Smith claims “The people who called him a power seeker were just the same people who used to say that Hitler was insane and Nixon was insane and all the world leaders were insane and the arms race was insane and our misuse of natural resources was insane and the whole world civilization was insane and suicidal” (Le Guin 69). No modern day sane person would believe that these things were not, to some degree, insane, at least in terms of right and wrong. In my eyes, her character was questionable from the beginning, as was the SQ test and Dr. Speaky.

The questionability of both her and Dr. Speakie’s characters serve a bigger purpose in my interpretation of the story. To that end, I believe “sanity” in terms of the story is to be taken with a grain of salt. I believe this measure of “sanity” is actually a comment on contemporary society and the dangers of conformity. In this case, “sane” would be representative of the word “normal”.  The skepticism the reader develops of Dr. Speakie and Mrs. Smith may function as the catalyst that helps pose the question “why would it be a good thing to be normal or 'sane', especially in the context of this story?” I believe the test more likely than not depicts a person’s deviation from normal behavior. Those who deviate too far are to be institutionalized. In an attempt to keep people from deviating too far, the rest of the population is forced to act as the “eternal vigilance” to help pay “the price of liberty” (Le Guin 73). In essence, if the world is divided into those who are insane and those who are not, (or those who are normal and those who are not) it would require that one look after the other to sustain their way of life. In an effort to create a world where no person should deviate too far from the spectrum of sane or “normal” in fear of criticism or ostracism, the world is turned “into a huge insane asylum”, assigning each individual the role of “Inmate” or “Staff”, thus devaluing Doctor Speakie’s innate belief that “Mental health is freedom” (Le Guin 73). 

An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge

“As Peyton Farquhar fell straight downward through the bridge he had lost consciousness and was, as one, already dead” (Bierce 3).

Bierce’s “An occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” is a story that uses extensive and carefully articulated detail to skew the concept of both time and reality, for both its protagonist and the reader. The story takes place during the civil war. The protagonist, Petyon Farquhar, was a planter of a respected family in Alabama. As such, he is a fan of the confederacy and an avid supporter of the confederate army, acting as “the character of a civilian who was, at heart a soldier” This description suggests that Farquhar would perhaps like to be a soldier, and seems himself as such. (Bierce 2). It is because of this that Farquhar decides to attempt to burn down Owl Creek Bridge, which is controlled by the federate army. He received a tip from a confederate soldier, who was actually a union spy. To that end, it should come as no shock that he is thwarted, captured, and sentenced to hang, the place in which our story both begins and ends.  

My favorite thing about this story is the way in which it is written. Bierce uses carefully constructed detail in order articulate disconnect between fantasy and reality, as well as skew the concept of time. The first piece of evidence that suggests to us that Farquhar may be slipping from reality is the description of his watch, where it states “the intervals of silence grew progressively longer; the delays became maddening. With their greater infrequency the sounds increased in strength and sharpness. They hurt his ear like the trust of a knife; he feared he would shriek. What he heard was the ticking of his watch” (Bierce 2). In this moment, Farquhar’s perception of time and reality is skewed, as is our own. Everything that follows takes place in a slow, distorted state of time, which is, in reality, the few seconds it takes for Farquhar to fall to his death. An escape is then described in beautiful detail, all of which turns out to be a product of Farquhar’s imagination, occurring within seconds. The entire vision Farquhar has of escaping his fate at Owl Creek Bridge is another representation of a split between reality and fiction. It is possible that the escape is demonstrative of the kind of person or soldier Farquhar would like to be. This is also the reason he attempted to burn the bridge in the first place.

However, there are a number of things, disguised in the language of the text, that imply a connection between reality and fiction. These connections serve to make the disconnections identifiable. The first would be the sensory details of the story. For example, when Farquhar falls and breaks free of the rope in his vision, he describes, in extraordinary detail, the pain in his neck. He states “Keen, poignant agonies seemed to shoot from his neck downward through every fiber of his body and limbs” (Bierce 3). (The whole passage is too long to use). The pain in his neck is a manifestation in his delusion of what is happening to his body in reality, though it is cleverly disguised as a sensory detail of the writing. Another detail that implies both a connection AND disconnection between reality and fiction is when his hands are described. It states “He was not conscious of the effort, but a sharp pain in his wrist appraised him that he was trying to free his hands. He gave the struggle his attention, as an idler might observe the feat of a juggler, without interest in the outcome” (Bierce 3). This statement demonstrates the way in which Farquhar is, in reality, not actually making an effort to free his hands. It is a subconscious disconnect between his thoughts and movements that suggest a disconnect between fantasy and reality. All of these details function to make the quote of the story I found most interesting.. well.. all the more interesting. In the very first line of part three, prior to his vision of escape, I believe it references the union of both Farquhar’s fantasy and reality (key words: as one). It states “As Peyton Farquhar fell straight downward through the bridge he had lost consciousness and was, as one, already dead” (Bierce 3). 

Saint Marie

Being one of the longer and more complex stories we have examined thus far, it should come as no surprise that there are many possible interpretations of Edrich’s “Saint Marie” as well as many different elements of the story on which to focus. The topic on which I wish to focus primarily is the devil or “the dark one” and what he may symbolize in the context of the story.

 Throughout the story, both Marie and Sister Leopolda refer to their ability to detect “the dark one”. They both seem to notice the dark one in the same places doing the same things. For argument sake and purposes of the story, this would rule out the possibility of the dark representing a symptom of any psychological disorder. In turn, this would mean that (assuming he doesn’t exist as an entity), the dark one is used symbolically or as a literary device. My theory is that “the dark one” exists for two reasons. First, it creates a common thread or link between Marie and Sister Leopolda. Following this thread, we can examine the way the dark one might illustrate the things Marie and Leopolda have in common, and what this might represent in terms of good, evil, and saintliness.

 In both the case of Marie and of Leopolda, there are (for lack of a better word) evil or sinful characteristics that serve to motivate either of the two. I say evil because, when contrasted with their end game, which is to become saints, the characteristics that motivate them are more similar to those of foreign dictators than those of saints. This is very interesting in the context of the story, especially because they never actually touch the notion of what characteristics might constitute or coincide with those of a saint. Marie is motivated by what seems to be pure spite. Her ambition is driven by a burning desire to prove herself to the white catholics and to be worshipped. Such is evident when she claims “And they never thought they’d have a girl from this reservation they’d have to kneel to. But they’d have me. And I’d be carved out of pure gold” (Edrich 43). Though she is truly ambitious to become a saint, the things that motivate her are, from a saints perspective, selfish and riddled with sin. This is the common thread that ties her to Leopolda. What motivates Leopolda is less clear. At face value, it may seem like ridding the world of the dark one and doing god’s work (or perhaps a very twisted version of gods work) is her motivation. However, I have no doubt that some part of her is motivated by pure sadism, evident by her stabbing of a 14 year old girl after pouring a kettle of boiling water in her ear. Like spite, sadism is not a trait that best compliments a saint. Because they both see the dark one, this might represent the bond they share with respect to what motivates them. As a result, it seems they are undoubtedly drawn to one another, while simultaneously harboring hatred for one another. Marie claims "Sometimes I wanted her heart in love and admiration. Sometimes. And sometimes I wanted her heart to roast on a black stick" (Edrich 49).

 As for what this might mean in terms of the story as a whole, I have two theories. The first is that those who are motivated to do gods work by selfishness and sin will receive no pardon in terms of their fate. Another type of Karma, if you will. Evidence to support this claim is found when we look to our characters at the end of the story. Leopolda, after stabbing Marie, was forced to lie and assist Marie in transcending to Sainthood. In layman’s terms, she “lost” to Marie. Similarly, Marie has now risen to sainthood, but receives no gratification. She uses the same terms in both the beginning and end of the story, describing her lips and hair, to articulate that how what was once golden in her vision was now dust in her life. She took no pleasure in spiting sister Leopolda, evident by the section where she whispered “Receive the dispensation of my sacred blood” and then followed that statement with “But there was no heart in it”. She then proceeded to explain how she even pitied sister Leopolda, even though spiting people like her was one of, if not her primary motivating factor. Second, tangential, and perhaps less rational, is the theory that (and I’m not sure why I’m so stuck on this) no light can exist without the dark. That is to say, good and evil fuel one another in a never-ending cycle that blurs the lines between right and wrong. This begs the question, though Marie has technically achieved sainthood, how can she ever truly be considered a saint? (I.e Saint Marie). If she was to lead and instruct others on the road to saintliness, would she not taint them with her selfish desires, lies, and deceit? I digress. In the end, I believe "the dark one" embodied the common thread that was the motivation of both Marie and sister Leopolda. This, in turn, bound them together and determined their fate.

(I’m very unhappy with this blog post, which is usually an indicator that I cannot settle on one interpretation. To that end, I will leave it as it is for now, in fear of making it any longer.)

God of Love

The film featured in today’s blog post is “God of Love”. I Believe the best scene to analyze is the scene where Ray realizes that his best friend, Fozzie, is actually in love with Kelly, the girl Ray also loves. Though Kelly does love Fozzie, Fozzie makes it painfully clearly that he has no interest in her (or rather, he does, but he does not want to feel as though he has betrayed Ray). To me, this scene seems to tie together and summarize all of the notions provided in the beginning and end of the film. Ray states “You can’t control who you love, you can’t control who loves you. You can’t control when it happens, where it happens, or why it happens. You can’t control any of that stuff”, a realization he came to during this scene, when he decides to use his last “love dart” on Fozzie, so that he may fall in love with Kelly, instead of Kelly so that she may fall in love with him. This act of selflessness best exemplifies what I found to be a central theme of this film, and perhaps the concept of love in general, which is control. From the beginning of the flashback, Ray seems very keen on controlling who he loves and who loves him. This is evident by the opening prayer, which is as follows: “Dear god, whose name I do not know, I pray to you in a time of personal crisis. As you know I’ve been praying to you in the assistance of winning the affections of one Kelly Moran, which I’ve made consistently clear is the only thing I’ve ever prayed for.. at all. Thus I remain surprised and confused that last month, you saw fit to have Kelly fall in love with my best friend Fozzie”. The prayer is demonstrative of Ray’s unwillingness to accept the limit to the control he has over certain aspects of love and life. Similarly, the skepticism with which it is riddled is demonstrative of his unwillingness to surrender his control to a God, perhaps because he might not believe in one, or perhaps because he does not want to surrender his control to anyone. He expressed similar obsession with controlling aspects he believe will help him win the affection of Kelly, such as serving chicken pot pie instead of seafood, or seeing “Romeo and Juliet” instead of “Black Swan”. In the end, I think the darts served as the tool that allowed him to see that even with divine intervention, there are certain things, like love, that he cannot control. Once he comes to the realization that “love doesn’t make any sense” and surrenders his control by assisting his friends (among others) with falling in love, he becomes the God of Love. 

Happy Endings

The story I have chosen to write about in this blog post is Margaret Atwood’s “Happy endings”. Of the three short stories chosen for class today, this one undoubtedly my favorite. Though it is rather sad, it exemplifies many of the conundrums (or perhaps lack there-of) that I face during the occasional existential crisis. The quote that I feel best represents many key themes of the story / stories is “…and everything continues as in A” (Atwood 1). “A”, in the context of the story, is the scenario in which the two lovers, with interchangeable names irrelevant back stories live their lives in harmony until the day they finally die (the most important part of scenario A). As the scenarios progress, more characters are added and the circumstances change. Many of these characters, such as Mary in scenario B or John in scenario C, come to a rather tragic end, while their happy counterparts live comfortable lives with their happy counterparts “and everything continues as in A”. Throughout the scenarios, Atwood entertains different scenarios and circumstances, all the while implying that none of the details really matter, evident by quotes such as (addressed to the reader) “If you think this is all too bourgeois, make John a revolutionary and Mary a counterespionage agent and see how far that gets you” (Atwood 2). The language implies that the people and their circumstances are rather arbitrary. However, the former quote can be interpreted in a few ways. At first, I thought that scenario A implied that someone would always be happy and someone they know will always be miserable because of it. In that respect, it seemed plausible to assume that everything would always “continue as in A”. I thought it was interesting that when Atwood references scenario A, the names, words, and context of the actual scenario become interchangeable as well, evident by the line (in reference to scenario A “If you like, it can be "Madge," "cancer," "guilty and confused," and "bird watching"” (Atwood 2). This might defeat the purpose in everything “continuing as in A” if “A” were to take on the theory I have provided previously. I believe that everything “continuing as in A” means that all stories and the people in them will undoubtedly come to an all-encompassing, unimportant end. The only important notion of any ending would be that the story did, in fact, end. The quote that I feel best represents this notion and is appropriate to put at the conclusion of this analysis is when Atwood states “You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, either deliberately fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die.” (Atwood 2). Once again existential in nature, the quote seems to suggest that the whether an ending is happy or sad, it does not matter, because it is simply an ending, just as death is an ending that seemingly negates the purpose (or brings to light the purposelessness) of life. This makes “the stretch in between” (the beginning and ending, that is) rather interesting, because it too becomes meaningless, making it “the hardest to do anything with” (Atwood 3).

Alexie

The short story I will be assessing for today’s blog post is Sherman Alexie’s “This is What It Means to Say Phoenix Arizona”. Many themes stood out to me while reading this short story. However, the one I feel is most appropriate to address and to center the discussion around is the way Victor and Thomas act as foils for one another, which serves to help interpret the dynamic between dreams and reality. Dreams, whether they be actual dreams or hopes and aspirations, are mentioned many times throughout the story. One of the most applicable examples is when the narrator flashes back to the time Thomas Builds-The-Fire jumps off the roof. When he fell and broke his arm as a result, all of the other kids made fun of him, including Victor. The quote I will be using is "’He broke his wing, he broke his wing, he broke his wing’ all the Indian boys chanted as they ran off, flapping their wings, wishing they could fly, too. They hated Thomas for his courage, his brief moment as a bird. Everybody has dreams about flying. Thomas flew. One of his dreams came true for just a second, just enough to make it real” (Alexie 6). I find this quote to be an accurate depiction of not only Thomas’ character, but the contrast between Victor and Thomas as well. Indeed, the two seem to serve as literary foils for one another. This scene seemed rather metaphorical. I think Victor and Thomas need each other, as a dreamer needs a realist, and as dreams need reality. Thomas is an avid “story-teller”. Throughout his entire life, he has continuously told stories, “long after people had stopped listening”. This is rather exemplary of the idea that Thomas’ is a dreamer. It also implies that he tells these stories for himself. He claims his stories are all he has. Victor, on the other hand, is not a dreamer. He is a very rational person, evident by his response to Thomas’ intended use of his father’s ashes. He states he was going to do the same thing as Thomas, but he “thought it'd be like cleaning the attic or something. Like letting things go after they've stopped having any use.”(Alexie 8). Similarly, when Victor feels guilty about the “realization” that he couldn’t be Thomas’ friend, it states “The only real thing he shared with anybody was a bottle and broken dreams. He owed Thomas something, anything” (Alexie 7). I believe that’s why Victor’s father asked Thomas to look out for Victor, and that’s where “Take care of each other” comes from. Thomas needed reality in his life in the moment he jumped off of the roof, just as we all need to abide by the reality that is our own. To that end, Victor needs dreams and hope in his life now, especially after the passing of his father. Evidence of this contrast in the text that does not relate to dialogue includes quotes such as “Victor and Thomas made it back to the reservation just as the sun was rising. It was the beginning of a new day on earth, but the same old shit on the reservation” (Alexie 7). The way Thomas seemed to know everything Victor was thinking before he spoke also served as evidence that Victor needed Thomas, needed dreams in his life, just as we all do. This contrast serves to provide insight on the appropriate balance between dreams and reality. Though one might not exist without the other, dreams are what make reality worthwhile.

(P.S, I’m not sure why I’m stuck on analyzing contrasts, as I did in last week’s blog post. They just seem to be pop out).

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

The short story I have chosen for today’s blog post is “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K Le Guin. I should probably start by saying that this is my favorite story we (as a class) have read thus far. There were two quotes that struck me the most (indeed, there were many). The first was on page 76, where the narrator claims “The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encourages by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid” (Le Guin). This quote is a crucial component of my analysis, which is as follows. I believe that Omelas, or “the joyous city” is the philosophical concept of happiness. To that end, I believe that the way she actively involved the reader by asking them what would constitute their vision of Omelas was a cleverly disguised way of asking what would make them happy. It seemed to me as though she was asking what else would be conducive to the happiness of the city of Omelas, as well as to their personal happiness. This could be considered happiness in general. At the same time, I believe she was implying that the happiness of the people of Omelas (which would also be happiness in general) was not random. These people are not happy because they are “less complex” ( Le Guin 76). Their happiness is calculated, deliberate. It exists for a reason. It is not “stupid” or lesser, nor is it unearned in the eyes of the happy. It exists because, by knowing sadness, they have made the necessary sacrifices that build a foundation for their happiness.

After the attempt to best articulate the people of Omelas to the reader, the narrator asks “What else? What else belongs in the joyous city?” (Le Guin 78). The description of the city is concluded by asking the reader if they believed in the joyous city yet, if everything that should be in a utopia, as the reader sees fit, is present, and in essence, she is asking the reader if these things alone would make them happy. She then follows that question with the description of the child. I believe this child to be the embodiment of the necessary suffering that acts as a crucial component in the philosophical construct of happiness. Every action has an opposite reaction; no dark can exist without the light. I believe that the narrator was implying that the child, that sadness and suffering, did in fact belong there. How could the people of Omelas know happiness if they were to never encounter suffering? Everything described, especially the child, works in a delicate balance to ensure that the people of Omelas stay happy (or so that happiness in general can exist). They just made an attempt at minimizing the amount of sadness required. However, there are those who walk away from Omelas. I believe them to be unsung heroes. They can never be happy knowing that such sadness exists, and in the context of the story, they refuse to be part of an organization that requires that such sadness exist deliberately. They condemn themselves to walk amongst the dark so that others can walk in the light, rejecting happiness if it means they must inflict (or maybe even because they must know) sadness.  

Sweat

This post is about Zora Neale Hurston’s “Sweat”. From what I gathered, this story seems to rely heavily on karma, a philosophical / Buddhist concept to which I’m not so sure I subscribe. Our protagonist, Delia, is a black woman who lives and works in Florida. She lives with her husband, Sykes, and she works for white people, as she washes their clothes. Her husband, Sykes, is an abusive husband. This fact is introduced in the beginning when he scares her with the whip, followed by the continuous references to her beatings. The quote I am choosing to analyze, or rather, a quote that stuck out to me was from the second page, when some of the other characters are talking about Delia and how terrible Sykes is. Before they agree that they would all like to kill Sykes, Clarke states “Taint no law on earth dat kin make a man be decent if it aint in 'im”. I found this quote rather interesting, not because of the philosophical debate it might inspire about the nature of people, but because of the foreshadowing it posed and the way it was conducive to the karmic element of the story. The statement implies (as does the rest of that conversation) that because a man like Sykes could never change, something needed to be done about him. Whether it was a punishment issued by the characters who wished him harm or not, this quote implied (to me) that Sykes would get what was coming to him, which he did. The snake was also a major component of the story for me. Throughout the story, Delia expressed her fear of snakes, a phobia on which Sykes capitalized by procuring a rattlesnake. Snakes, from a more metaphysical outlook, symbolize eternity, evident by the symbol of a snake curled into a circle eating its own tail. One could interpret this many ways. In the context of this story, I would say it’s not too far of a stretch to suggest that the snake implies that things have come full circle. When Sykes returns to the house towards the end of the story, he is bitten by the snake that he put in the house to torment Delia. From a philosophical perspective, it is interesting that the thing Delia feared so much ended up freeing her. In that sense, the story has come full circle. To that end, Sykes also received what was due to him. Delia let him die as she waited under the chinaberry tree, which may have symbolized the peace she felt accompanying Sykes’ death, another implication that the story has come full circle. 

A Clean, Well-Lighted Place

A quote that struck me and captured my interest, more abruptly than the former mentioned in “Tell Tale Heart” was from Ernest Hemingway’s “A Clean, Well-Lighted Place”. In this short story, Hemingway describes an old, deaf man who drinks at a café all through the night. Similarly, he presents two waiters, one young and the other middle aged. The young waiter complains frequently about the old man, who had tried to commit suicide pervious to that night. He complains because he wants to go home to his wife and go to sleep. However, the old man often stays to drink until 3 in the morning. The middle aged waiter defends the old man, saying that there should be no hurry, and that the old man should be able to stay and drink as he pleases, simply because this is a clean, well-lighted place. After “the nada y nada y pues nada” monologue, the story took more of an existential tone. After re-reading it, there was a quote that stuck out to me. The dialogue is as follows:

“What is an hour?”

“More to me than him.”

“An hour is the same.”

This is, to me, perhaps the most existential quote of the story. It may even give the story its purpose, in my opinion. I think that the “clean, well-lighted place” is somewhat of a sanctuary for those who wish to do nothing. That is to say, those who adopt a glass-half-empty perspective of existentialism simply wish to kill their time and do nothing, because it doesn't matter what they do with their time. That’s why when the young waiter expresses his desire to go home, the old waiter expresses that whether he is with his wife or at the café, same as the old man he is waiting on, “an hour is the same”. One might even go as far as to call the café a kind purgatory. However, only those who adopt that point of view could understand the kind of solace the café might bring to those with existential angst. A quote that further adds to my speculation on this matter is “Each night I am reluctant to close up because there may be some one who needs the café”. This implyies that the café provides something of value, presumably to people like the old man, or the middle aged waiter, both of whom express an existential point of view. 

Tell Tale Heart

The short story I am choosing to write about for today’s class (or blog assignment) is Edgar Allan Poe’s “Tell Tale Heart”. I know the assignment is to choose one particular quote from the story and analyze it, but I find that, with this particular story, it would be more effective to analyze a series of quotes, as to derive an overall tone for the writing. This would help to illustrate my opinion of the story, the quotes, and the author. In this story, Poe describes a series of events, using a first person narrative, pertaining to the murder of an old man. The character he creates is quite funny (to me), which is presumably intentional. I say that because it matches the use of dark humor and irony that I have come to expect of Poe. Throughout the story, he (the character) addresses the reader directly, only to ask things like “How, then, am I mad?” and to assure us that he is sane, despite the fact that he is plotting and executing the murder of an old man because he did not like his eye. The character will then go on to do things like rationalize and demonstrate to us, the readers, reasons that would surely disprove the notion (that no one other than himself has posed, mind you)  that he is insane. He will say things like “Now this is the point. You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing. But you should have seen me. You should have seen how wisely I proceeded—with what caution—with what foresight—with what dissimulation I went to work!” Surely, someone who possesses such wisdom, caution, and foresight must be sane. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of a “mad man” is that they would never suspect themselves mad (at least from a legal standpoint).  Anyway, to me, this exemplifies the tone in much of Poes work, which is abundant in both black humor and sarcasm. For example, one of my favorite quotes from “A Premature Burial” is where he states “the most ghastly extremes of agony are endured always by man the unit, and never by man the mass. For this, let us thank merciful god!” Though they are presented in different contexts, I find the quotes rather similar in tone. They both seem accompanied by a general feeling of hopelessness or futility, which is recognized and laughed at. I digress. In the end, the sanity he believes he possesses was lost when he hears the continuous beating of a heart long after the old man had died. Granted, that part wasn't as funny to me as the former mentioned, but it may have been to Poe. He seemed like a pretty dark guy.