Conjoined vs. Valediction



            In the two poems Valediction and Conjoined, the authors use various techniques such as metaphors and analogies to emphasize their opposite views of relationships. In valediction the author shows how in some relationships true love causes agony due to distance, but in conjoined it becomes clear that closeness brings more pain. In true love even though people are apart physically they are emotionally united. In others even the physical presence fails to bring them together.
Donne’s use of metaphors in valediction describes that their farewell should not be the occasion of mourning and sorrow. The speaker first mentions that their farewell should be as mild as the deaths of virtuous men and for to weep would be “profanation of our joys.” The speaker explains that he is forced to spend time apart from his lover and assures her that even though he is leaving, their souls are still one. Then the speaker goes on to compare the harmful “moving of th’earth’  to the inncovent “trepidation of the sphere,” by equating the first with the “dull sublunary lovers’ love’ and the second with their love, “inter-assured of the mind.” So like the rumbling earth, the dull sublunary lovers are all physical and unable to experience separation without losing the sensation that comprises and sustains their love. But the spiritual lovers “care less, eyes, lips and hands tom miss,” because like the trepidation of the spheres, their love is not wholly physical, and their movement will not have the harmful consequences of an earthquake. So since the lovers’ two souls are one, his departure is only going to unify them more rather than cause a barrier between them. Furthermore, he goes on to say if their souls are “two” instead of “one”, they are as the feet of a drafter’s compass which is the perfect image to encapsulate the value of htier spiritual love, which is balanced, symmetrical, serious and beautiful in its simple way. So if their souls are separate, they are like the feet of a compass. In a way, his lover’s soul is the fixed foot in the center and his is the foot that moves around it.
            In conjoined, Minty’s use of analogies gives the reader an insight to a very unhappy union of two people. This poem is clearly an example of a marriage gone wrong and is ony hue analogy of an unhappy marriage. Right from the beginning, the “onion’ is called and “monster” and it is two onions “joined by a transparent skin.” The skin is the joining of marriage of the two onions. The deformity of the two onions “each half round, then flat and deformed where it pressed and grew against the other” puts a tilt on the joining. So where the two onions come into contact with each other is where they are deformed. So this skin is holding the two onions into the monster of one union. Just like the onions the couple are connected under she skin by their marriage.  Also, the Chinese Siamese twins exemplify the deformity of marriage. She mentions how “or like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed.” This clearly describes the agony and pain of being joined physically with someone. Because these twins go through life with each other and are never along with one moment of peace. They are never separated from one another. This goes on to show how the couple feels as if they are being forced to be together all the time. They have to suffer through this pain of being brought together and not being able to leave the other person. Furthermore, the deformed “two headed calf rooted n one body” shows another example of marriage. This shows even more sorrow and anguish between the two. This makes the reader feel remorse and pity and makes one realie that a more perfect case for a bad marriage could not be found. Also, women feels as if the man can sense her moves and mentions how “do you fell the skin that binds us together as we move, heavy in this house?” this  further shows how the two are combined into now. They go around the house hiding from one another, but know where the other is at all times. They are unable to be separated.
            Both poems use different techniques to get their main point across and bring about two total opposite views of relationships. In valediction, they are forced to be apart but make sure that the other is assured of the love they have for each other. He comforts her as he bids farewell. Their souls remain united even though their bodies are separated. He is trying to soften the pain of their separation and compares their love to the most unlikely examples. He leaves her but wants her to wait for him until he returns so all she can do it wait patiently until her love returns home. This shows how much sacrifice there is in love and relationships. They have so much love for each other that they believe that this distance should not get in the way of one another. On the other hand. in conjoined the couple are forced to be together. They would do anything to be separated. They are unable to escape each other and are forever joined together. And there is nothing they can do about it now. Both sue different techniques to get the reader to understand the meaning of love. Each poem defines love very differently. Donne uses a lot of metaphors where Minty uses analogies to express the feelings of the couples. The messages of the two pomes are very different from one another. They uses different techniques to express the feelings the couples have for one another. In one they are forced to drift apart while in the other they are practically looking for an excuse to leave on another but are unable to do so. Therefore, both poems exemplify the different meanings of love and how in some occasions it is forced upon some people. 
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Neilson vs. O'Brien

Neilson argues that “Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried accords with much of the anti-totalizing strains of postmodernism, and [he] will argue that it is precisely this tendency in his fiction that makes it incapable of opposing the ongoing reconstruction of the war as an American tragedy.” He is mainly saying that in this novel, O’Brien makes the Vietnam war seem not as big of a tragedy that it was. He also mentions "O'Brien does not contextualize his experience, does not provide us with any deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of this war, and does not see beyond his individual experience to document the vastly greater suffering of the Vietnamese." Neilson thinks that O’Brien underestimates the actual effects of the war and fails to go deeper into the tragic experience. He does not think that it gives people the accurate knowledge of the whole controversy. He thinks that it does not capture the truth. In My opinion, I think that is why the novel is so great. We do not know what is truth. I think that O’Brien did that just for his entertainment and to be clever. He left it to the readers to determine what is actually false and what they hold to be true. Neilson practically thinks that the novel lacks to achieve its goal because it does not capture the truth. He is putting down O’Brien for writing the novel. He thinks that O’Brien does not provide a valid argument in making the Vietnam war seem as a tragedy. I do not agree with Neilson. I think that each person has their own perception on things and in The Things they carried, we are provided with a lot of war stories from O’Brien’s viewpoint and what he remembered about that time. So Neilson saying that it does not hold the “truth” is not accurate because each person has their own viewpoint on everything. 
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

themes in the things they carried

well, i think that this book is very interesting and similar to cat's cradle. The way it is narrated and deals with the war reminds me a lot of cart's cradle. it is told from one person's perspective and how the narr1tor survived the war and the struggles that came with it.
Anyways, one theme that stood out to me so far is the burden to please everyone but oneself. I think that the narrator dealt with a lot of emotional burden. the last thing he wants to do is go to war but knows that he has to. he feels the pressure from everyone around him and knows there is no way of avoiding this. he mentions how he "feared losing the respect of [his] parents, feared the law, feared the ridicule and censure" (45). not only does he carry the weight of fear, but he also carries the weight of reputations. he is afraid of what society is going to think after he runs away and the insult his parents are going to have to face. he doesn't want them going through this. he later mentions how he "would go to the war...because [he] was embarrassed not to" (59). he thinks that the war is unjust but doesn't want to seem like a coward. he doesn't have a choice, and it doesn't matter how much he tries to avoid it, he has to go. And he realizes this but it doesn't come easy. he carries a lot burden and that comes very clear. he has a fear of shame and lacks the motivation. but again this is not a surprise because who would want to be forced to go to war. i think that there is internal pressure because he is killing himself inside thinking about this whole situation. i think that the main factor that keeps him from going to canada is what his parents will think of him if the didn't fight in the war. the shame they are going to face and the embarrassment he will face from everyone around him.
this is just an idea, i think that there will be a lot more themes as we read the book further.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

What it Postmodernism?

          In my view, Postmodernism is a complicated term. It is sometimes referred to as beliefs about beliefs. Honestly I have had a hard time comprehending this term myself. Lyotard mentions that postmodernism "has to do with skepticism about grand narratives." According to Jameson, "it must involve a way of mapping the new and confusing contours of our late capitalistic times." This goes on to show how many different view there are of postmodernism. This is no one concept that directly defines what it actually is due to it being a huge belief. So people tend to have their own perception of what they believe it stands for. So there is no one dominant worldview of postmodernism. People just tend to have different attitudes on this same culture. This may be due to how "others" have an influence on an ordinary being. We are influenced by our surrounding and that affects our decision making and what we tend to believe in. "Other" I think is referred to as the whole entire world and individuals who have an impact on us. The other is everyone except you. They influence how you interpret things. This goes on to show how narratives play a huge role in ones life also. So postmodernism’s emphasis on difference has allowed the others to express their own stories in their own voices. Lyotard also mentions how “we are forced to recognize that our world resists grand narratives as muc has individuals and groups create them.” This is because our world has so many views now days. He even mentions how out world “is a carnival of colorful and contradictory worldviews.” This just goes on to show hoe people are less likely to believe something due to the fact of how many other stories exist about that one particular thing. It is becoming hard to have only one belief and even impossible to determine the source where it came from. We are influenced by the “others” and tend to believe in what we hear. 
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Some ideas on this novel

Well, I did not think that I was going to like this book to be honest. But as I started reading it, I found it to be one of the best books I have ever read. It was so interesting and I found that the format made the book really easy to understand. It was striaght forward and grabbed my attention right away. This is by far the only postmodernim book that I have liked so far. Anyways, here are some of my ideas on what I am considering writing my essay on.
One aspect of the book that really got my attention was the relationship between the Artie and his father. I thought that he did not appreciate his father at all and only talked to him when he needed something. He was so inconsiderable to his father's feelings and does not realize how much he is hurting him. Also, something else that really grabbed my attention was how the older generations appreciate things so much more than today's generation. Valadek knew the true value of everything since he had faced so many difficulties in his lifetime. Atrie fails to realize this and makes fun of his father for acting this way. I find that extremely wrong and this made me realize how I takes things for granted. My parents did not have cell phones when they attended high school and kids today take this for granted. We fail to realize how much our parents have gone through and I think we should appreciate everything we are given. Valadek knew the true value of food and did not want to waste anything. Artie on the other hand was ashamed of his father for thinking this way. So this really caught my attention.
I know that my ideas have nothing to do with postmderanism, but I just really got interested in the relationship between Artie and his father. But this is just an idea, I might end up writing my essay on something else. I am kind of unclear on what to write about. Well, these were just some of my thoughts.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

What would we do without the internet?

In my point of view, I think that the internet has made things so much easier for people. A person can practically find anything he wants by going on Google. It is one of the best resources to find the answers to all of your questions. We live in a fast pace society and the internet provides us with all of the useful information that a person needs to know. We have become use to this speed and do not realize the impact it has had on our everyday lives. Technology has become a part of life and rarely does anyone not use the internet at least once a day. Nicholas Carr talks about making information more easily available and mention that “research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes.” This really proves how much society has improved over the past couple decades. There is actually no end to this advancement. It just keeps getting better and better every day as science keeps coming up with better ways to make our lives easier. It is actually hard to believe how something that took a long to achieve can now be done is a manner of minutes. But in a way, we have become use to this quick pace. Everything revolving around us is moving so fast that even if out internet takes a couple minutes to load, we get frustrated. We do not even have the patience to value internet. For example, my parents came from a time when TV's were looked at as a procession that the wealthy had. But now, TV's are practically in every room of the house since we have become so accustomed to them. But back then they valued them so much and now TV's in a way have become outdated. A person can do practically anything online. So I do not think that the internet has lead to the stupidity of society. In my opinion, it has helped us become more intelligent. We learn more things by researching online and resources help us in out every day lives.

So internet is very useful and is necessary thing to have is today's society.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Some thoughts on the Video

So I was not very surprised after watching the video “did you know” on friday. Our world today is moving so fast that it is becoming hard to keep with all the new scientific inventions. We are in moving in a fast pace society and technology is improving every second. There is always something new that science has to offer or some new discovery that has been made.

One thing that really caught my attention in the video was how “a week's worth of New York Time contains more information than what a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century”. There is so much going on in the world today and so much information to absorb. So this just goes on to show how much society has changed just in a short amount of time. Well...maybe not that short but still..it has improved significantly. But that brings up the question...has it changed in a good way? In a medical person's perspective, it has helped save millions of lives. But media (technology) wise...it has become complicated in my opinion. It just seems like technology is taking over everything and that one person cannot operate with having some type of device in their hand. So where is technology heading?? How much more is it going to improve? The answers to these question are yet to remain unanswered for now..well cause I don't really now the answer. But I for sure that I will never stop improving.

So this relates to Dr. Alan Kirby's article because he thinks that post modernism is “dead and buried” and “that postmodernism is dead by looking outside the academy at current cultural production”. How can he say that it is “dead”? There is so much going on in the world that it is hard to comprehend everything that goes on. I do not think that post modernism is ever going to end.

Things will keep on improving and views will keep on changing.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS
Copyright 2009 RaVnEeT's bLoG
Free WordPress Themes designed by EZwpthemes
Converted by Theme Craft
Powered by Blogger Templates