Essay of Analysis of "The Odyssey" and "Siren Song"

The Odyssey and the poem "Siren Song" both portray sirens; however, in The Odyssey, the focus is on resolving the "problem" of the sirens, no differently than any other obstacle on his journey, whereas "Siren Song" focuses on the siren as more than merely an obstacle. They share, however, the preying of the siren upon hubris and the desire to be special, as well as, by what happens, illustrating the allure of the sirens in spite of the pain that may be suffered to get there.

The Odyssey initially describes the actions of Odysseus much more than the sirens. The beginning discussion does not describe the sirens at all; it merely states that they were approaching the island of the sirens, and then for the first ten lines it does not even begin to consider the sirens. Instead, the text talks about the actions of Odysseus, who "sliced an ample wheel of beeswax [...] and I stopped the ears of my comrades one by one." Indeed, the only understanding of the sirens comes from their speech; this perspective originates from The Odyssey's point of view. Unlike "Siren Song," The Odyssey focuses on the person who opposes the sirens, Odysseus, more than the sirens themselves. This leads to the Sirens lacking any special quality that would make them any different than any other obstacle - there is nothing personal about them. This is in contrast to "Siren Song, " which focuses almost exclusively on the siren. The point of view is of the siren rather than Odysseus; the differing point of view leads to a differing focus.

Despite this differing focus in point of view, the two poems illustrate very similar themes. Firstly, they illustrate the allure of being a hero when one has hubris. In The Odyssey, the Siren's play up Odysseus' ego, calling him "Achaea's pride and glory!" Similarly, the sirens ask the victim to "help me!" similarly enhancing the victim's ego by the expression of being a damsel in distress who requires a hero (whether Odysseus or any other sailor) to save her.. The sirens also use an emphasis on the uniqueness of the victim to enhance the appeal to the victim's hubris. The sirens appeal to Odysseus in The Odyssey by proclaiming that "never has any sailor passed our shores," demonstrating that Odysseus would be the first (and therefore worthy of note); similarly, in "Siren Song," the sirens say that "only you, only you can [help me] / you are unique," emphasizing the person's separation from the typical and mundane both by the statement that the person is special as well as the repetition of the pronoun "you," which, in the singular, separates the listener from any others. Thus, the sirens use similar strategy in both poems.

Finally, the outcome for the sailor is the same, although differing in degree: the allure of the siren causes pain. Odysseus has to be bound "faster with rope on chafing rope," the tactile imagery of which illustrates the pain of Odysseus. This same pain is experienced by the victim in the other poem, illustrated by the shift between "you are unique" and "at last" that implies that the victim was eaten. In both cases, the sirens were sufficiently alluring to cause the sailor to want to seek them, and in both cases the sailor experiences pain, albeit that Odysseus, due to his intellect, only experiences chafing rope rather than death. Thus do the sirens result in similar outcomes for anyone they attempt to seduce, and the only thing that varies with their extent of success is not the outcome itself, but rather the degree of it.

The two poems portray sirens from entirely different perspectives. The Odyssey focuses on them from the perspective of a hero, thus making them equivalent to an inhuman obstacle, essentially de-personifying them, whereas "Siren Song" focuses on them from the perspective of the sirens themselves. In both cases, however, the tactics of appealing to the desire to be a hero and the result of pain for the victim who attempts to be a hero are the same. Despite the differing points of view, the ultimate portrayal of the Sirens are the same.

Pride & Prejudice #9

This section illustrates prejudice as the origin of hatred. In particular, regarding Elizabeth's feelings for Mr. Darcy, it is stated that "she certainly did not hate him. No; hatred had vanished long ago, and she had almost as long been ashamed of ever feeling a dislike against him that could be so called" (221). Her hatred dissipates with her prejudice, thus demonstrating how the sole ultimate source of her hatred was her inherent contempt for Mr. Darcy - a cause which, when dissolved, similarly removes the resultant emotion. This demonstrates how true hatred - and, perhaps, any sort of dislike - originates not from dislike, but from misunderstanding. Understanding breeds empathy; and, similarly, a lack of comprehension breeds a lack of sympathetic feelings. Combined, these indicate that dislike originates from misunderstanding on account of a limited range of environments in which the target of the dislike is observed rather than any true source of contempt, and that, correspondingly, this can be resolved by developing a full understanding of the character of the disliked individual.

Pride & Prejudice #8

Even after her epiphany regarding Mr. Darcy, Elizabeth continues to display prejudice based on impressions, namely of the troop of militia. She judges the entire group based on Wickham, and therefore she wanted them to leave; she says that "the comfort to her of the regiment's approaching removal was indeed beyond expression" (188). She feels that she will be happier once the troop is gone, particularly because of Wickham, but also simultaneously experiencing less attraction to the group as a whole on account of Wickham. When they leave, Elizabeth recognizes her mistake, finding that "when [she] had rejoiced over Wickham's departure, she found little other cause for satisfaction in the loss of the regiment" (200). Thus, she finds that she was disappointed by the lack of happiness she obtained from the lack of other soldiers, illustrating that her impression from Wickham failed to demonstrate her feelings about the group as a whole. In this way, while she entirely inverts her feelings regarding Mr. Darcy and Wickham, her character itself is preserved - she is still human and susceptible to making mistakes; thereby Austen conserves the reader's emotional attachment, as everything that the reader had come to understand about of Elizabeth still applies, while altering the nature of Elizabeth's budding relationship with Mr. Darcy.

Pride & Prejudice #1-#5

Pride and Prejudice, of course, discusses primarily two topics, namely, the two mentioned in the novel's title. The former, the novel considers in much the same way that ancient epic poems mention honor, by explicating it through various character's demonstrations of it. Sometimes, indeed, it is explicitly mentioned; for instance, Mary discusses pride and vanity specifically, coming to the conclusion that "a person may proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity is what we would have others think of us" (19). In much the same way as honor, pride can be either good or bad; whereas honor can both lead to virtue, but also to idiocy if taken too far, so too can pride simultaneously lead to moral actions and arrogance. Elizabeth calls pride "abominable," but Wickham responds that pride "has often led [Mr. Darcy] to be liberal and generous - to give his money freely, to display hospitality, to assist his tenants, and relieve the poor" (71). Thus, pride has both negative and positive associations; while it can result in an aloof nature such as Mr. Darcy's, it can also lead to noble activities. By contrast, the latter half of the title is almost universally negative in connotation, although it still takes on a double meaning in that it applies both regarding higher and lower social statuses. Considering a higher social status, it generally leads to the conclusion as to Mr. Darcy's character and haughty predisposition, even when, in fact, he feels quite differently, as is represented by when Elizabeth thinks that Mr. Darcy noticed her "because there was a something about her more wrong and reprehensible, according to his ideas of right, than in any person present," when in fact Mr. Darcy pays attention to her due to a positive emotion, a nascent love, that he feels for her (45). Conversely, the upper class often regards the lower class as of a simple nature, not to mention dirty and poorly mannered in general. On the latter point, Mr. Bingley's sisters comment that Elizabeth, upon reaching their doorstep, was "nonsensical [...] so untidy, so blowsy!" and that "her petticoat [was] six inches deep in mud," commenting extensively on her impropriety (32). On the former point, in particular, Mr. Darcy comments that "the country [...] can in general supply but few subjects for such as study [of intricate characters]" demonstrate how the upper class views those who live in the country as simple-minded, despite the inherent contradiction represented in Elizabeth to this stereotype, resulting in a prejudice towards said class of people.

Mr. Collins' proposal aught to be considered in the context of these two themes, as both are present in the presumptuous nature of his proposal. Elizabeth cuts off his proposal because he presumes that Elizabeth will, indeed, marry him without first asking the question, both through his use of the future indicative rather than the subjunctive throughout his proposal and through the statement at which Elizabeth cuts him off, "when we are married" - specifically, that he did not say if, but when, implying a presumption that the future will indeed be so (93). This demonstrates both his pride and his prejudice. His pride is demonstrated in that he does not believe her rejection because "it does not appear to me that my hand is unworthy your acceptance" (95). In other words, he believes himself sufficiently high status to be desirable, illustrating his high opinion of himself. Furthermore, he presumes that her primary concern is status, illustrating his prejudice in assuming that emotion does not enter the decisions of the lower classes, and that their sole concern is the increase in status - a stereotype which applies in some cases, such as Mrs. Bennet, but not in others, such as both Elizabeth and Mr. Bennet (illustrated by his subsequent support for Elizabeth's decision). Thus do both pride and prejudice form an underlying arrogance and presumptuousness in the diction of Mr. Collins' proposal.

AP Practice 1972

     The epic poem The Aeneid, by Vergil, perfectly illustrates how the opening of a story can set up the rest of the story. There are several major themes of the story that are set up in the first few lines, from the the difficulty in founding a new city and following the fates to insanity in considering the wrath of Juno to the piousness of Aeneas for following his fate despite this opposition.
     Firstly, the poem begins by describing the overarching story, as is typical for an epic poem at this time. Following the invocation of a muse, the story progresses quickly into the poet asking, in essence, "oh, how hard was it to found the Roman state!" Throughout the text, this is a theme: Aeneas is fated, ultimately, to reach Italy and found the new country of Rome that would eventually develop into the empire that it was when the story was written (and to which, and the ruler of which, Augustus, there are frequent references within the story regarding the definite fated future). This is illustrated several times, from when he is told by the ghost of Hector, the hero of Troy, to seek out Italy to when he goes to the underworld and is shown by the ghost of his father his future line. Specifically, his father mentions Gaius Julius Caesar and his adoptive son Augustus (both heads of the Roman empire), who track their heritage back to Iulus, Aeneas' son, thus their family name. The great fate of Rome is contrasted with the difficulty in founding it, and this contrast is established by the poem's proclamations of the difficulty of Aeneas' tale in the opening lines of the poem.
     Secondly, poem mentions the wrath of Juno, and asks "what could drive a god to such insane madness?" This introduces the second concept, amens and furens, or madness and passionate anger, which consistently appears throughout the text. In addition to Juno, this theme is mentioned with regards to Pyrrhus, son of Achilles, in battle; Dido, Aeneas' brief tragic love, in her passion; and Turnus, the major secondary hero of the latter half of the poem, also with regards  to his fury in battle. Here, Juno is portrayed as a passionately angry deity, as which she continues to be portrayed for the majority of the poem, thus introducing a series of mindlessly passionate characters that lead to their downfall (or, in Juno's case, as she is a god, the downfall of all her champions as well as her personal interests).
     Thirdly, the poem introduces Aeneas himself. Strangely, the piousness of Aeneas is illustrated in the beginning of the book by contrast: he is introduced shouting to a storm that is destroying his ships that he should have died in the Trojan War, illustrating his deep internal passions, but when much of his band survives the storm, he takes on a brave facade and stands before his troops announcing that this occasion will seem less sad at future times than it does at this time; despite his internal grief, he carries on honorably for the sake of his men, his gods (the penates) and his destiny. Thus is introduced the characterization of Aeneas as the very principle of pietas, of piety: despite being so filled with grief that he wishes he were dead, Aeneas carries on for the good of his people and for the sake of his destiny. This characterization of Aeneas is one of the most major themes of the story, such that the times when he diverges from his piety - when he kills Turnus at the conclusion of the story in a fit of anger, for instance - are some of the most notable points of the play.
     The Aeneid has more than three themes, of course, and these other themes are introduced in the beginning lines as well. However, the difficulty of founding a new country and reaching one's fate in the face of fierce and insane opposition and the piousness demonstrated by Aeneas in persevering despite repeated setbacks and the enticing nature of ceasing his long, weary journey is one of the strongest themes of the poem. This, more than any other theme, is the theme that perpetuates throughout the book which the introductory lines best illustrate: the greatness of then-modern Rome, the difficulty of its creation, and, therefore, the greatness of the man who began it.

But Now, I Do Know Everything

Me of just two years ago,
Why were you so foolish?
Why did you think you knew everything?
There were so many people who had more experience than you.
There were people two grades ahead of you who had the same
experiences that you were going to have.
Why did you think that you were so much better
than them, that you could avoid the stress they had?
It was a statistical certainty that you were not
to be so much smarter than those of the years above you
that you would be able to avoid the fate to which they had succumbed.
Your idiocy has taught me many lessons, and now,
I am not nearly as foolish as you were, little child.
I have learned what you did not know.
I have spent years after I was you, understanding
what you did not and experiencing
so many new things that now,
now, I do know everything.

Other Poems: "When Humans Do Change The World"; "Hungry"

Hamlet IV: Act 3 Scene 3-4

Act III brings questions with regard to the motive of the ghost regarding the queen; the ghost claims to want Hamlet not to kill his mother, but rather to allow her to suffer her own conscience. A likely implication of this desire is that the queen, being so crazed by her guilty conscience, will kill herself. However, the ghost asks Hamlet, when Hamlet is invoking the queen's conscience, to cease his invocation; not merely not to kill her, but to "step between her and her fighting soul" (III.iv.129). This implies that the Ghost showed up not because Hamlet is about to kill the queen, but rather because the queen is so distraught. This leaves another layer of the relationship between Hamlet and his mother, because Hamlet is not, according to the Ghost's phrasing, on the verge of killing his mother.

Hamlet is furious, calling her all kinds of nasty names, but he does not attack her - merely what he believes to be Claudius, whom he believed he had caught standing behind a curtain, and likely involved in sin in that way; therefore, his killing of Polonius is not pertinent to the fate of the queen, although the queen may not understand this. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze his actions from the standpoint of attempting to attack the queen's conscience, but not to do her bodily harm. At the ghost's urging, after verbally assaulting his mother, Hamlet asks her, "How is it with you, lady?" (III.iv.132). This sudden change in character illustrates that he was not so riled in anger that he would attack his mother with weaponry, because his question would be more begrudging if he retained any of his original emotion, which he would if he were to the point of killing. This demonstrates how, even though she aided in the death of his father and married his uncle, Hamlet still cares enough for her that, unlike Claudius, he has no plans to kill her in his logical soul.

We don't have to worry about the world.

We don't have to worry about the world.
Let's burn that coal and live vicariously.
We can live unsustainably.
Who needs to be an environmentalist?
The world gives us sickness and vile diseases.
Who needs all the troubles it gives us?
Who needs all the benefits it gives us?
The world gives us water and healthy sustenance.
Who needs to go on living - existing?
We will die uncontrollably.
Let's frack that gas and party uninhibited.
We don't have to worry about the world.
We're already doomed.

Hungry

I am hungry. This annoys me.
Lunch is not for hours yet.
While I want to, I can't eat now,
so I guess I should not fret.

Periods pass. Later now.

Need food. Want now.
Lunch soon. Not now.
No food. Me sad.
Can't wait. Want bad.

Lunch now.

Food.

Chew, chew, chew... swallow.

I am satiated by my consumption of food,
and my fluency has now increased.
I apologize if earlier I was rude,
and abbreviated in my speech.
When I am edacious with respect to my eating,
and when I have built up a large appetite,
I tend to get somewhat animalistic -
I'm still human, even at my intellectual height.

Hamlet III: Act 3 Scene 1-2

In Hamlet's first thoughts alone after the play, he makes a reference to Nero. Specifically, he says, "let not ever / the soul of Nero enter this firm bosom" (III.ii.426-427). While the conventional meaning of this phrase would be that Nero killed his mother whereas Hamlet would not, there are multiple connotative associations with Nero that are lost to one without knowledge of the Roman empire. Nero is generally regarded as the morally worst Roman Emperor. Aside from marrying his mother, he committed a number of heinous crimes against the Christians. There was a great fire in Rome during his rule, and, according to legend, he watched Rome burn to the ground (although the phrase that he "fiddled while Rome burned" is generally regarded as inaccurate). Finally, he built a giant statue of himself, called the Colossus, merely to placate his own ego (this is where the Flavian Amphitheatre gets its modern name, the Colosseum). These images combine to form an image of a ruler who is entirely egotistical, malicious and incompetent. Hamlet cries to let him not be so. While the direct correlation is certainly the most relevant, the other connotations of Nero associate closely with Claudius: he is egotistical and malicious in stealing the crown and incompetent in his choices with Fortinbras. Thus, Hamlet is not only avoiding the direct association, but also any association with the terrible decisions of his father.

Hamlet II: Act 2 Scene 2

Polonius displays a loquacious speaking style that contrasts strongly with Hamlet's response. He states that Hamlet's replies are "pregnant" and that there is "a happiness / that often madness hits on" in his speech (II.ii.227-228). In other words, Polonius states that there is intelligence in Hamlet's brevity, as he earlier indicated he believed when he said "brevity is the soul of wit" (97). Even recognizing this, he is still sufficiently longwinded that the Queen asks him to say "more matter with less art," to which he replies "I use no art" (II.ii.103-104). This shows an interesting contrast between the brevity of Hamlet's loaded curt replies and the sesquipedalian loquaciousness of Polonius' extended monologues that serves to highlight the depth of Hamlet's thoughts as compared with the shallowness of Polonius'.

When Humans Do Change The World

(1)   We
(2)   began
(3)   slowly
(4)   as cavemen
(5)   and then we developed agriculture.
(6)   Then we developed civilization,
(7)   but we still used our resources wisely.
(8)   Then came the Greeks, who developed culture and all that comes with it,
(9)   and the Romans, who developed the military and managed to form an empire, until it collapsed
(10) and all of that ended.
(11) Then, there was a period where things went slowly,
(12) when developments were far and few between,
(13) until the Renaissance, at which point things began to pick up again.
(14) Then came the industrial revolution, at which point things began to get faster and faster and we were developing more and more
(15) and we came out with technological development after development, exploiting our resources and killing off species and destroying ecosystems, but we didn't care about that, because we could become sustainable later, and so we came up with radio, television, the Internet, iPods, and then we changed the climate
(16) and it all stopped.

You'll see.

Bags packed, clothes away.
Phone, wallet, Ipod - 'kay.
You sure you have everything?
Hey, no need to snap at me!

I KNOW you've been away before.
I KNOW you've flown across the world.
But still, you know, can't check too much
for what you choose to bring and such.

You've been away for weeks, and farther,
but this is tough for me and your father.
This time it's like you're gone forever -
like you've died, and gone into the ether.

I know we'll have Facebook and also the phone,
and of course there's your younger brothers - your clones.
But still. I worry. Can you blame me?
Wait 'till your own children go - you'll see.

Now you call me silly.
Now you say I worry.
But many years later, when you're older,
grown to love them, and expect them -
Then, when you love them most,
they'll leave.
And then you'll see.

Hamlet I: Act 1 Scene 3

No parents are absolutely perfect, and this holds true in Hamlet as well as in life. Claudius and Gertrude - Hamlet's adopted parents - are obviously highly capable, but also villainous. By contrast, as a foil to them, Polonius is entirely benevolent to his children. However, due to his lack of consideration of Hamlet's style of life - of Hamlet's philosophical nature as well as maturity, and therefore the maturity of his love - he gives poor advice, not because he is malicious, but rather because he lacks the knowledge necessary to give better advice. For instance, he says to Ophelia that Hamlet's promises and love are "springes to catch woodcocks" (I.iii.124). He fails, as was mentioned, to account for Hamlet's lifestyle and age. Similarly, he advises Laertes with a series of quaint epigrams, but lacking any substance beyond this: his advice is, clearly, standard, and lacks the true depth of character than involved advice would attain. In particular, he tells Laertes to spend money on his appearance: "Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy" (I.iii.76). While he does state that Laertes should not be overly fancy, his focus on physical appearance rather than character presents this as more superficial advice - thus, while certainly not as malicious as Hamlet's parents, even Polonius, their character foil, is imperfect.

What Stays Behind Afterwards

           appear in the middle of an infinite timeline.
We live our childhood, the time when we sniff
every rose, because every one is new, and
we are far from death, with nothing to fear.
Then we grow up, and have lives to manage, where
every detail is important, because this is our opportunity
to make something of ourselves. We have to make
our mark, and eventually, we will be old, and then
we will be fast-approaching the ends of our lives,
and by that point it will be too late, because,
suddenly, even though time will continue on
without us, suddenly, we

Othello VII: Act 5 Scene 2

Despite Iago's best efforts, Othello is still visibly conflicted after killing Desdemona. This is visible with Othello's almost schizophrenic speech, in which he rapidly switches back and forth between discussing Emilia and Desdemona. This is visible in his many short sentences, none of which other than the last is longer than a line. In particular, he uses "she" three times in lines 18-20, but switches from referring to Emilia to Desdemona and back to Emilia again without clarifying. When this play is performed, the best way to have this make sense to the audience would be to have Othello rapidly shifting his vision between the door behind which lies Emilia and Desdemona's body, which - given his abbreviated speech pattern - would result in a rapid switching of subject matter between the two. In particular, when he says "My wife, my wife! What wife? I have no wife," he switches his mind quickly as if arguing with himself, illustrating how this speech pattern results from his internal conflict about killing Desdemona. That this comes from Othello, who earlier spoke so elegantly before the Venetian Senate, serves to even more strongly illustrate his insanity now. Thus, Othello has been nearly driven to insanity by his deeds; unlike Iago's soliloquies, this speech is not directed at the audience - instead, Othello is visibly speaking to himself, showing the insanity to which Iago's persecution of himself and of Desdemona has driven him.

Othello VI: Act 5 Scene 2 Lines 1-24

Othello attempts to make his reasoning for killing Desdemona consistent with his earlier statement that, if she wanted another man, he would let her go. He does so by considering, despite the techniques that Iago used to convince him, Desdemona not as disloyal purely to him, but as a disloyal whore in general. As such, he says that "she must die, else she'll betray more men" (V.ii.6). Iago told him that it was natural for Desdemona to seek a white man in preference to Othello, and Othello accepted that reasoning as a portion of why Desdemona was unfaithful. With little other reasoning behind why Desdemona was unfaithful, this limited information would imply that Desdemona merely preferred Cassio to Othello. Yet, Othello's anger is so great that it overwhelms this logical conclusion, and he believes that Desdemona, despite her purity of appearance, is an unfaithful person, and must therefore be killed such that she will be unfaithful to no other man.

Othello V: Act 4 Scene 1

Iago frequently refers to himself as a villain; however, he uses very different connotations when he is speaking to the audience and when he is speaking to others of the play. Nevertheless, the frequency with which he refers to himself as evil can only lead to the conclusion that he is aware of the villainy of his own actions. Aside from the times when he speaks to the audience and calls his own plans hell-spawned, he frequently makes mild oaths that, if he is lying, he should be evil. For instance, when talking to Cassio, Iago states that there are rumors that Cassio will marry Bianca; when Cassio chuckles at the possibility, Iago replies, "I am a very villain else" (I.iv.144). While in context of the discussion, this is an innocent proclamation of Iago's verity, for an audience who is aware of the dramatic irony in context, this is, if taken literally, Iago stating that he is a villain (or, at least, given that he likely came up with this rumor in the moment rather than having actually heard such a rumor before hand, most likely stating that he is such), and thus, albeit mildly, acknowledging his own villainy. Thus, even in mild interactions, Shakespeare has Iago actively state his own evil - in the conversation, in jest, but placed in greater context, in truth.

Othello IV: Act 3 Scenes 3-4

Shakespeare is atypical as an author because, despite the quality of his writing, he occasionally came across a phrase that he wanted to express, but couldn't, or couldn't and maintain his rhythm. In such instances, he would invent his own word, and thus today we have words such as "eyeball" that Shakespeare invented purely for the sake of his own plays. Not all of his invented words "took," however, and Othello shows one such word - "exsufflicate" (III.iii.213). He took a Latin word and turned it into an English word (as would have been typical to invent a word, and as most educated people would have understood it due to their knowledge of Latin). The word combines the prefix "ex," meaning "out," with a "fl" sound that is present in words such as "flicker" (which likely has a similar root of "sufflicare"), "fly" and "flow," among other sound, to create a word that effectively communicates its meaning even to one who has no idea what the word means due to inherent phonetic associations. In this way, Shakespeare transcends the typical author, because Shakespeare doesn't even need to use actual English words to convey his meaning - sounds and subsections of words are sufficient.

Othello III: Act 2 Scene 2 - Act 3 Scene 2

In this passage, Iago maintains his principle of never making a statement that is entirely untrue except about his own feelings. He asks at the beginning of his soliloquy, "what's he, then, that says I play the villain, / When this advice is free I give and honest, / probal to thinking, and indeed the course / to win the moor again?" (II.iii.356-359). In other words, Iago asks the audience: why would Cassio think I am evil if I give him advice that is, indeed, the best course of action, even if I have my own motives behind it? Iago illustrates why every character in the play believes him to be honest: because he always offers advice that is valid and information that is generally plausible, despite his own motives for guiding characters in particular directions. Thus, Iago maintains his odd honesty that makes him, ironically, true to what he presents (honest) in the technical meaning of the word, without the trustworthiness that is connotatively associated with that diction.

S&S 13: Exercise 1

1. A because of the phonetic similarity of guide and guard as well as the lack of unnecessary verbosity in the second line.
2. B because "Apollo's lute" sounds more musical than "the lute of Phoebus" due to the 'l's in "Apollo."
3. A because "over" and "snow" continue the long 'o' sounds from prior in the line.
4. B because of more "l" sounds in a passage mentioning "bells"
5. B because it sounds more "murmur-y" and with the multitude of 'm's and many short syllables.
6. B because the "warbles" sounds more musical than "sings," more euphonious, whereas the latter line is more cacophonous (when describing the failure of the lark to be musical).
7. B because the list of items, particularly with 'b' sounds, enhance the harshness of the items.
8. A because the repeated 's' sounds are appropriate for "softly" washing one's hands.
9. B because of the more onomatopoeic word "tolls" (vs. "sounds"), among other sounds.
10. B because the "stinks and stings" contrasts more strongly with the "gilded wings" because of the harsh, cacophonous "st" sounds.

Othello II: Act 2 Scene 1

An interesting feature of Iago's character is his strange honesty. He rarely makes a statement that can be illustrated to be incorrect except his expression of his own feelings. For instance, after telling Roderigo that Cassio and Desdemona love each other, he acknowledges that his statement could quite possible be true. He says that "that Cassio loves her, I do well believe 't. That she loves him, 'tis apt and of great credit," indicating that he finds is quite possible that nothing he said was false (II.i.308-309). Thus, everything he said on that topic to Roderigo could, theoretically, be logical, and therefore his opinions are, should he need to explain them if his plans unravel, plausible even if he weren't conspiring against Othello. While he acknowledges Othello's quality as a husband (in contrast to what he said to Roderigo), he still defiles Othello's name with respect to virtue, thereby rendering his opinions of Othello's future also plausibly true from his perspective should Roderigo analyze the truthfulness of Iago's claims to him. Thus, the only matter in this passage about which Iago has lied such that he contradicts what another person may perceive him to be is when he lies about his feelings about Othello to everyone but Roderigo. In this way, he simultaneously maintains multiple effective façades about his feelings, all of which are plausible interpretations of his internal opinions and thoughts based on all the information he grants to his combined audiences.

Othello I: Reasons for Iago's Actions

The most vexing type of villain is that which knows its own evil. The Party of 1984, for instance, is jarring in its philosophy because it recognizes that it acts for its own benefit. By the same token, Iago of Shakespeare's Othello is one of the most desirable parts in literature. In part, this is due to the variety of facades that Iago utilizes, but it is also, in part, due to his recognition of his own villainy. He even states that he is entirely self-interested, that "[he] follow[s] but [him]self" (I.i.64). Thus, his first, instinctual thought is to act in his own self-interest rather than that of his state and of society - and that he recognizes this makes him an unusual evil, since most evil believes, at heart, that it is doing good.

This does not, however, mean that he does not believe that his actions are justified in vengeance. Firstly, Othello did not choose him as his lieutenant; instead he chose "a great arithmetician, / One Michael Cassio" (I.i.20-21). Iago feels that he is better-suited for the position of second-in-command, and that Othello should therefore have chosen him. Secondly, his racist opinions cause him to think poorly of Othello, despite all respect he may have - he states that "Moors are changeable in their wills," and so does not hold respect for Othello's personal virtue despite his acknowledgement of his capacity as a general. Thirdly, Iago states, "it is thought abroad that 'twixt my sheets / 'Has done my office," meaning that he believes Othello has slept with his wife (I.iii.430-431). Although it may appear to be a reason for Iago's anger, the fact that Othello stole the woman that Roderigo, a friend of Iago, as declared when Iago stated "I have professed me thy friend," sought to marry is irrelevant to Iago's decision - Iago is not so considerate as to think of his friend's feelings (I.iii.379-380).

S&S 12: Notes

• Rhythm = practical, meter = ideal
• Accented produced by stress ("force of utterance"), duration, pitch, juncture (by pos. in Latin)
• Rhetorical stresses: to make intentions clear in speech/prose
• End-stopped line vs. run-on line: by punctuation vs. natural pause or no pause
• Caesuras: mid-line pause, grammatical nor not
• Free verse: no meter, typical today; prose poem: ignores even line, like prose
• Feet --> Lines --> Stanzas; identification = scansion
• Foot Types
• Duple: Iambic (iamb), trochaic (trochee), spondaic (spondee)
• Triple: Anapestic (anapest), dactylic (dactyl)
• Spondee never used entirely, trochee rare, dactyl only in Latin
• Line Types:Monometer, dimeter, trimeter, tetrameter, pentameter, hexameter
• Regularity vs. metrical variations
• Substitution (swap foot)
• Extrametrical syllables (adding at edge of line)
• Truncation (cut off, as int() in CPU)
•  Virtue
• Some lines clearly have identifiable pattern
• Added stress from tradition; not three consecutive unstressed, but rather artificial meter
• Extra syllables not counted: extrametrical syllable
• Adjust: some swapped for trochees (don't force a fit)
• Words can be broken easily
• Main points
• Not always necessary, even for rich understanding, but can emphasize and identify
• Scansion reveals meter, not rhythm properly, because oversimplified
• Feet have no meaning other than separation within lines
• Perfect meter != good poetry
• Expected rhythm vs. heard rhythm (self-explanitory)
• Grammatical vs. rhetorical pauses (commas vs. no comma)
• Blank verse: Unrhymed iambic pentameter; typical for old English poetry

The Stranger: Paper Outline

Thesis: Every death in The Stranger serves to demonstrate the same ultimate absurd point: that even death is meaningless and unimportant in the grand scheme of the world.

• The first death, Maman's, illustrates how Meursault reacts to death: very impersonally, as though he were merely an acquaintance of Maman.
• Lack of info p. 1
• "Not my fault" instinct p. 1
•  Does not express emotion towards death of mother
•  Meursault's reaction in this case illustrates how society in general reacts to death.
• Continuing of life shows symbolism - ch. 2 in general compares Meursault to society through juxtaposition of interactions w/ Marie and observation of other lives
• Specifically: "really, nothing had changed" (24).
• Absurdist philosophy: World continues on, even after death that jars one world
• Salamano's dog, although a disappearance rather than an absolute death, serves a very similar purpose to Maman in that Meursault acts pragmatically, stating facts rather than helping Salamano; even after Salamano finds out that his dog is most likely dead, Meursault still only offers condolences.
• Meursault's response to Salamano's distress, showing up at his doorstep: "I told him that the pound ... as they saw fit" (39).
• No compassion in response, merely informing of facts as losing of dog is routine, insignificant occurrance, even though Salamano is shocked by it
• Offers condolences when "I told him [...] that I was sorry about what had happened to his dog" but still "yawned," indicating boredom, immediately before (45)
• In the murder of the Arab, Meursault is an agent of the world, illustrating how random the world is in the people whom it harms and helps.
• Happened to choose to return to beach (57)
• No agency in crime - "the trigger gave" (59) and whole passage
• Illustrates pointlessness of world in action
•  Meursault's preponderance of his own death and his own conclusions illustrates the ultimate point of absurdism - the philosophical if not the narrative climax of the book.
• Paragraph from last blog for points

The Stranger IV: Bk. 2 Ch. 4-5

In the end of The Stranger, Camus directly inserts several of the ideas of absurdism in order to explain not only Mersault's thought process, but the very precepts of the philosophy of absurdism. Camus even goes so far as to have Mersault directly state that he had had an "absurd life," the direct relationship in diction with his philosophy of which cannot be ignored (121). Moreover, he elaborates on the concept of absurdism for any reader who is not familiar with Camus' philosophy. He states that "everybody knew life isn't worth living. [...] Since we're all going to die, it's obvious that when and how don't matter. Therefore (and the difficult thing was not to lose sight of all the reasoning that went into this "therefore"), I had to accept the rejection of my appeal" (114). A few specific pieces of this quote explain his absurdist philosophy: he first writes one of its main ideas, that "life isn't worth living." He then explains why that is so - because we will all die eventually. He then defends his idea with a parenthetical elaboration. His statement is essentially that one must accept what logic states, despite what conclusion it might result in - in this way, absurdist philosophy is like science, because it lies upon a basis of logical argument in order to concoct conclusions that some might consider "absurd." In this way, Camus explains what absurdist philosophy states and how it comes to its conclusion, then argues that his logical argument must result in a true conclusion.

The Stranger III: Bk. 2 Ch. 2-3

When Mersault reads the story about the Czechoslovakian, he concludes with a moral lesson - he interprets it as a allegory. He concludes that "you should never play games" (80). To a large extent, this is how he spends his life: he does not play the "games" of society. Whereas society would prefer that he put up a façade of sadness at his mother's death, he does not follow this rule. Whereas society would prefer that he equivocate about some of his deeds - most notable in his discussion of his sexual interactions with Marie - he does not avoid what he has done. There are many actions that society would prefer him to take which Mersault considers to be "games" and does not want to "play." Mersault chooses to ignore the rules that constitute the "game" of society because he considers society to be no more important than the rules of a game: important in context of the game (just as he understands that he is going to be punished for killing the Arab), but this "game" should not determine how he lives his life - ultimately, he, like any game-player, exists outside of as well as within the game, and can choose to ignore those rules externally despite needing to follow them in their context.