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.