Frankenstein: The Purpose of the Frame Story

After finishing Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, the distribution and unique separation of time within the novel added to the story. Initially, the novel begins with four letters that Robert Walton, an explorer, writes to his sister Margaret. Just a few pages before the book ends, we return to Walton’s point of view with the statement, “You have read this strange and terrific story, Margaret,” (Shelley, 155). However, after Walton meets Victor Frankenstein, the reader hears nothing directly related to Walton until the last few pages of the novel. Although Walton was retelling Frankenstein’s story, the entire novel takes place in a letter to Margaret. This interesting separation of events is called a frame story, or a story within a story. Shelley’s use of a frame story enabled her to form the parallelism between Frankenstein, the creature, and Robert Walton. Many similarities are present between the three characters, and the format of a frame story allowed the author to formulate these comparisons without actually requiring them to interact with each other.  Furthermore, although she is never actually met, the frame story allowed for the creation and influence of Margaret. No actual response or words from her are ever read, yet her being influences Walton’s decisions and parallels Victor’s Elizabeth. Through her use of a frame story, Shelley was able to create many different aspects and connections in her novel that might have not been possible if she had followed a tradition format.

Slave v. Master: Motif

One major motif apparent in Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, is that of a slave and his master. Throughout the majority of the novel, there is a constant battle for power between the creator and the creature. Initially, Victor had all of the power, as the creation was simply and idea. However, as it became his obsession, Victor almost became a slave to his work or to the idea of the creature. He never stopped to think about the consequences of his actions, because the prospect of what he could do had taken over his mind, leaving no room for reason. While Victor gained some of that power and control back after creating the creature from the dead and bringing him to life, but as the creature grows older and Victor loses contact with him, the tables began to turn. As the creature became more and more angry with the human race’s disgust and fear of him, he begins to deal with his anger by plotting against Victor. He begins to hold the puppet strings that control Victor’s mood, actions, and health. By murdering Henry Clerval, the creature successfully sends Victor into depression and grave illness, while also getting him sent to prison. By making the right, but morally wrong, decisions, the creature is able to control Victor, just as a master controls his slave. Towards the end of the novel, the creature even refers to Victor as a slave, commanding him to do certain things. The creature states, “Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension,” (Shelley, 122). Not only does the creature call Victor a slave, but he also calls him unworthy. This change in power and role becomes quite obvious as the creature overpowers Victor.

Frankenstein: Dramatic Irony

In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, a misconception about one of the creature’s comments leads to not Victor’s downfall, but that of another. After Victor refuses to create a female being for the creature, the creature explodes with anger and threats of retaliation. He exclaims to Victor, “I shall be with you on your wedding-night,” (Shelley, 123). However, Victor’s understanding of this statement gets him into trouble. While he fully expects that the creature will kill him after his marriage, dramatic irony comes into play as the reader has prior knowledge of the creature’s motive. The reader realizes that the creature is after Elizabeth, Victor’s future wife, as he hopes to bring Victor to a state of misery and desperation. In the past, the creature had killed William and Clerval – and Justine indirectly – and Elizabeth would be the fourth attack on Victor’s family. He speaks to Victor, stating, “I will work at your destruction, nor finish until I desolate your heart, so that you shall curse the hour of your birth,” (Shelley, 104). This shows how the creature hopes to bring Victor emotional pain through the murder of others rather than Victor himself, leaving him with the knowledge that his own creation killed many of his loved ones. By killing off even more family members and friends, the creature has slowly whittled away at Victor’s resolve, and the death of Elizabeth would be key in breaking down Victor.

The Creature: Internal Conflict

After reading Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, the true murderer of William, Victor Frankenstein’s younger brother, is finally revealed. However, it turns out the murder was committed due to great internal conflict within the murderer, the creature. After being neglected and feared by his own creator and the DeLacey family, the creature decides that the only person on the planet who would not run in fear of him is a child. After coming across William, he reasons, “this little creature was unprejudiced, and had lived too short a time to have imbibed a horror of deformity,” (Shelley, 102). However, it turns out that the creature’s hopes are dashed. Not only is William terrified of the creature, he also brings up that he is the son of Frankenstein. This is then where the creature’s true internal conflict comes into play. Without realizing that William is Victor’s brother, not son, the creature believes that Victor has a family who he did not abandon. The idea that William was accepted and loved by Victor but he was ignored does not sit well with him, and the creature cannot take it. In the end, he unintentionally kills William, but it appears as though the same end might have been brought upon William at some point if the creature did not kill him then. Internal conflict plagues the creature all throughout the novel, and this instance is one time where the conflict gets the best of his temper.

Characterization of Safie

After reading Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, the characterization of Safie, an Arabian woman, helped the progression of the story. Within the novel, it is explained that Safie had come to live with the DeLacey’s, a family that Frankenstein’s creature had become attached to, after tragic and difficult events in her life. However, as the reader learns more and more about Safie, they learn more and more about the creature as well. Because Safie was Arabian and did not speak the language of the DeLacey’s, they taught her French so that she could communicate with them. Through this teaching, the creature was also able to learn to speak. In the novel, the creature states, “…she was endeavoring to learn their language; and the idea instantly occurred to me that I should make use of the same instructions to the same end,” (Shelley, 83). Furthermore, the novels and books that Safie was being taught from aided the creature, as he was able to learn history and manners and of governments and other civilizations. Safie’s character allowed Shelley to answer the questions of how the creature became such a fluent and eloquent speaker and why he knows so much. Safie’s character was also key in the interaction between the DeLacey’s and the creature. Although the family was not receptive of him and chased him away, the creature would have never been able to meet the family at all without the arrival of Safie.

Frankenstein: Hollywood vs. the Novel

Werewolf! Where wolf? There wolf! While reading Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, I began to notice some interesting differences between the monster of pop culture and Shelley’s real creation. The only Frankenstein-related movie I have seen is Young Frankenstein, which I know was intended to be comedic, but I still did not expect the film to differ from the book as much as it has so far. The classic creature from movies is usually depicted as a dead body brought back to life by Dr. Frankenstein, however in the novel, the creature is created under entirely different circumstances. Frankenstein is not the mad scientist we all expect, rather he is a young college student enamored with natural philosophy and chemistry. Furthermore, his creation is not one singular body stolen from a grave, but rather a patchwork of mismatched body parts that Victor Frankenstein somehow manages to bring to life. Also, although the monster from culture does cause destruction, death is not usually included in that destruction. In Shelley’s novel, the monster becomes responsible for the death of a small child, Frankenstein’s brother, which was entirely unexpected by me. After catching a glimpse of William’s murderer, Frankenstein claims, “A flash of lightening illuminated the object, and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect,” (Shelley, 50). It is at this point that Frankenstein realizes his own creation killed his own brother. This novel is the perfect example of how Hollywood can change the outcomes of books without anyone knowing otherwise. If I had never read this novel, I would have never known all of the misconceptions the movie I watched created.

Frankenstein! What Were You Thinking You Fool!

In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, one theme that is very apparent is the death and destruction caused by Victor Frankenstein’s creation. This idea is incredibly ironic however, since Frankenstein created his monster in hopes of cheating death and preventing it from affecting anyone else. Yet, in just a few years after the creation was made, it had both directly and indirectly caused the deaths of two of Frankenstein’s close family members, his little brother William and Justine Moritz. Because of the great number of family members who Victor had seen perish and die or his loved ones has witnessed the death of, Victor used his talent and obsession with natural philosophy to try and find a way around the grief and pain caused by death. However, after he creates the monster, he immediately knows that he has made a major mistake. This mistake continues to haunt him as it takes out more close acquaintances and loved ones, and at one point he even considers suicide because of the damage he has indirectly caused. Victor states, “I listened to this discourse with the extremest agony. I, not in deed, but in effect, was the true murderer,” (Shelley, 63). Furthermore, the irony of this situation does in fact add an element of spookiness and horror to the novel. What was made with the hope of saving lives became a cause of destruction, and because this can happen in our world today, Shelley effectively creates an ominous tone.

Frankenstein and Walton: Fast Friendship

Robert Walton

After beginning to read Mary Shelley’s famous novel Frankenstein, similarities between Victor Frankenstein, the creator of the classic monster, and Robert Walton, a hopeful explorer, became apparent. The most obvious comparison is the two men’s obsession with attaining a goal that has never before been accomplished. While Frankenstein hoped to restore life to a dead body, Walton wishes to reach the North Pole. Although both of these goals are very dangerous and could have drastic consequences, neither man can let go of the obsession they have formed. Furthermore, both men neglect their relationships with their families in order to attain their dreams. When Frankenstein leaves for college, he does not return to his family for six years because of his creation of the monster. The time it takes to study and create the creature and then the time he loses when it goes missing prevents him from communicating with his loved ones. Walton also leaves family behind for his goal, as is noted by the multiple letters he mails to his sister. Quite comfortable with the idea that he might never see her again, Walton never ceases to remind his sister, Margaret Saville, that he might die during this voyage. He writes to his sister, “I love you very tenderly. Remember me with affection, should you never hear from me again,” (Shelley, 6). Although people do put themselves at risk on a daily basis, both Frankenstein and Walton walk into the face of danger, disregarding the opinions of their families and the effect their disappearance has on them.

Frankenstein's Crazy Characterization

Mary Shelley

In Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, characterization plays a major role. The process the author uses to allow the reader to learn more about each character is quite interesting, as she consistently launches into a page and a half description about each person she introduces. When I first began reading the book, I found this strange method both interesting and quite honestly, annoying. At the mention of a new character, I immediately began to realize that I would be reading about that person for the next few paragraphs at least. However, this method has also proved to be quite effective. I have found as I continue to read that I can still recognize and differentiate characters introduced chapters ago when their names once again pop up. Although Shelley’s method is tedious, it seems as though it works to help the reader recognize each character. By explaining their whole life story in one place rather than leaking certain pieces of information throughout the entirety of the novel, Shelley enables her readers to organize the happenings of each characters life without getting confused. For example, Victor Frankenstein’s childhood friend, Henry Clerval, is introduced after a large absence from the novel when Victor states, “Nothing could equal my delight on seeing Clerval; his presence brought back thoughts of my father, Elizabeth…” (Shelley, 37). Because of Shelley’s past detailed description, I not only recognized the name Clerval immediately and associated it with Frankenstein’s friend; I also recognized the name Elizabeth. Through her unique characterization method, Shelley effectively prevents her readers from losing touch with the novel’s various characters.

Frankenstein's Foil Characters

While reading Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, her use of foil characters became apparent when the main character of the novel, Victor Frankenstein, attends college. There, he is introduced to two professors, Krempe and Waldman, who were both well versed in natural philosophy and chemistry. However, these two characters acted as the contrast to the other. Krempe is condescending and unsupportive of Frankenstein’s devotion to philosophers such as Agrippa and Paracelsus, stating, “Every instant that you have wasted on those books is utterly and entirely lost. You have burdened your memory with exploded systems and useless names,” (Shelley, 26). Waldman acts the exact opposite. He is much more appreciative of Frankenstein’s devotion to the subject and interest in the history of it. Shelley than uses these two characters to introduce the creation of what the novel Frankenstein is really known for – the creature. Because of the mutual dislike between Krempe and Frankenstein, Victor begins to spend more time under the instruction of Waldman. Waldman’s interest in the subject is then what sparks Frankenstein’s desire to create such a monster. Because of her use of these two foil characters, Shelley was able to effectively set the path of the novel. Krempe and Waldman’s contrasting personalities were what led Frankenstein to choose a side, which in the end led to the creation of Frankenstein’s monster.

“APO 96225” by Larry Rottman

After reading Larry Rottman’s poem, “APO 96225,” the attitude of the American public toward the war in Vietnam was very clearly revealed. The letters sent home by the soldier in the poem are initially vague and pleasant, but when the mother instructs her son to finally send information on what is really happening, his statements shock his family. The brutality and inhumanity of what was actually happening in the war was not what the family wanted to hear, and the father responds to his son’s letter with the message, “Please don’t write such depressing letters. You’re upsetting your mother,” (Rottman, 846). This is the phrase that really represents the American view of Vietnam. During the war, most people did not want to hear the details of what was really happening; they wanted the information that had been combed through and toned down. The son in the poem shares trivial details about the weather and scenery with his family rather than the actual information because he knows they do not want to hear it. This is confirmed with the father’s response above. Through his poem, Rottman clearly portrays the American’s refusal to know the truth of what was happening during the war, as it was not what they wanted to hear. The son’s return to discussion of the weather in the last stanza of the poem proves that he was correct in his decision to not originally share any reality with his family.

“I felt a Funeral, in my Brain” by Emily Dickinson

In the poem, “I felt a Funeral, in my Brain,” by Emily Dickinson, a literary technique commonly utilized is imagery. In each stanza, Dickinson uses imagery to paint a picture of what is happening to her. She has created a scene of a funeral through and through, beginning with the procession and ending with the burial. All the while, she portrays herself as within the coffin. However the imagery she uses adds to the depressing tone and topic of the poem. The photograph of “mourners to and fro kept treading – treading…” creates the idea of gloominess (Dickinson, 776). Mourners of the dead are often upset and crying, and the word treading creates the image of a person moving along as though they are being held back by some resistance, in this case, the death of a loved one. Furthermore, the line, “and creak across my Soul,” creates the sense of finality the author was focusing on (Dickinson, 776). As the reader pictures the coffin burying the deceased person, it closes of their soul from the world. As Dickinson successfully portrayed, her soul was being cut off or separated from reality by some force; in the case of the poem, a coffin.

“Bartleby the Scrivener” by Herman Melville - A Degree of Autism

In the story, “Bartleby the Scrivener,” by Herman Melville, the idea that Bartleby might have some degree of autism is recognized. His personality and many of his actions imply this conclusion, in particular his struggle with social situations. As Bartleby is living in the lawyers office, he one day opens the door undressed and asks the lawyer to come back later. This is a strange way to act, as the office does in fact belong to the lawyer and Bartleby is simply being allowed to live there. Furthermore, Bartleby avoids responses to emotional stimuli. When the other office workers verbally attack him, Bartleby simply does not respond at all. This avoid of confrontation also leads to the conclusion that Bartleby might have autism. Another factor in this determination is Bartleby’s repetition of the phrase, “I would prefer not to,” (Melville, 649). Repetition of phrases and facts can often be linked to autism, further promoting this idea. Because he might not know how else to respond, Bartleby takes the easy way out by repeating a phrase he knows well and that prevents him from having to respond. Because of these reasons, there is a chance that Bartleby the scrivener has some degree of autism which could have lead to his peculiar character.

“Bartleby the Scrivener” by Herman Melville - An Unlikely Comparison

After reading “Bartleby the Scrivener,” a short story by Herman Melville, an unlikely comparison became apparent. Although unexpected, the narrator of the story, or the lawyer, turned out to share quite a few similarities with Bartleby. A few paragraphs into the tale, the lawyer states, “I am a man who from his youth upwards has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best,” (Melville, 642). Because of this attitude, the lawyer has accepted a rather passive career dealing with the finances of the wealthy. This way, he avoided the confrontation and arguing that often comes with being a lawyer. Bartleby the scrivener is very similar in his passivity. All of the rude and insolent comments made towards Bartleby by the other workers, Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger Nut, were completely ignored by Bartleby. He simply responded to their attacks by saying nothing, further proving his non-confrontational and detached personality. Furthermore, the lawyer is appalled that Bartleby refuses to leave the office and rather stays inside permanently, yet he himself only ever leaves his work to go home for the evening or to go on a walk. Bartleby and the lawyer also share a similarity in the idea that both reveal nothing about their pasts. Bartleby denies the direct requests for personal information, while Melville crafts the character of the lawyer to be void of this information. Additionally, any time a detail regarding the lawyer is about to be revealed, Melville cuts off the response to exclude any personal information. Although it seems unlikely at first, Bartleby and the lawyer are similar to each other in more ways than one.

"Miss Brill" by Katherine Mansfield

After reading “Miss Brill,” a short story by Katherine Mansfield, the theme of isolation becomes very apparent. However, it is not revealed until the end of the story. Throughout the tale, Miss Brill, an old woman, and her daily actions are discussed. She is described as watching life go by as though it is a play and she is the audience, first hinting at the isolation theme. Although she seems to enjoy that idea, it does isolate her from the others. Her joy of people-watching and experiencing the lives of others sets her apart from her community, alienating her as the “strange one” or “oddball.” Furthermore, the story continues to the rude comments of a young man and his girlfriend. He states, “Why does she come here at all – who wants her?” (Mansfield, 186). This only further isolates Miss Brill from the rest of her society. It becomes apparent that she lives alone and has no friends or even acquaintances, and it separates her from the others, sparking the hurtful comments like those of the young man. Miss Brill, although no one really knows her, is seen as a nuisance because she is always in the background, always in the way. This attitude towards her drives Miss Brill to leave the common grounds and go home, where it seems as though she begins to cry due to her isolation.

"Death, be not proud" by John Donne

In the poem “Death, be not proud” by John Donne, the understanding that death does not deserve pride. Although death can end life, it is not the finale. Death is merely a portal to another world consisting of life after death, therefore taking away any pride from the personified Death of the poem. The poem states in regard to common perceptions of death, “Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so,” (Donne, 971) in order to remind the reader that death is not the end for them. Although death kills the body, it does not kill the spirit, which will go on to live forever. The author states that if items such as poppies, a type of flower, can make us sleep the same as death accomplishes, then why is Death portrayed as a much more terrifying and ominous prospect. Flowers are not terrifying, yet they accomplish the same thing as death. Furthermore, the idea that death is only temporary darkness before eternal light comes into our lives discredits the horror stories and terror behind the event. Once we are granted eternal life in Heaven, death itself dies, as the pride of ending a life is overruled. This poem explains the importance of not giving death the upper hand, as eternal life will always put it in its place.

"That Time of Year" by William Shakespeare

In William Shakespeare’s poem, “That Time of Year,” three major images are introduced through the three quatrains in the poem. These images are the comparison age to the fading of autumn, the fading of the twilight, and the fading of a fire. Each of these images also further represents death or upcoming death. Stated in the first quatrain, “when yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang,” (Shakespeare, 966) this quote represents the little life left in a person close to death. When one is nearing his end, there are few leaves left within him to keep him going. Furthermore, the empty, bare boughs described in the poem represent the little fight left within a person before death. The second quatrain focuses on the fading of the twilight as comparison to death. Death is commonly associated with the lights going out, and the disappearance of any light left from twilight represents a life extinguished. The sunset is slowly diminished by the darkness of the night, just as life is diminished by the darkness of death. The fading of the fire described in the third quatrain further extends this analogy. The only thing keeping the narrator alive are the “ashes of his youth,” and in the end, these ashes lead to the death just as eventually life leads to death.

"Crossing the Bar" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

“Crossing the Bar,” a poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, creates two sets of figures within the poem. The first of these is “sunset and evening star,” and the second set is “twilight and evening bell.” Both of these sets are used to portray approaching death. The idea of the poem is crossing into another world after death, which is exemplified through Tennyson’s use of sea and sailor imagery. In the first set, the precise moment of death occurs when Tennyson states, “When I put out to sea,” (Tennyson, 886). Through this phrase, the author successfully portrays embarking on a journey; going out into the sea.  The moment of death in the second set occurs with the line, “When I embark,” (Tennyson, 886). This statement quite clearly explains the journey after life into another world. When one “embarks” from earth, their soul has moved on to another place, which Tennyson portrays through his poem. The narrator of the poem expresses a desire to see his pilot, and the capitalization of the word pilot and the prior knowledge that the poem involves death suggests that the Pilot is synonymous to God. Through these sets, Tennyson effectively portrays the journey to life after death.

"A Rose for Emily" by William Faulkner

The short story "A Rose for Emily," authored by William Faulkner, takes an interesting turn when a decomposed body was discovered in the house of the main character Emily. The man is presumed to be Homer Baron, a homosexual man who had previously been a possible husband for her, and this brings up the idea that Emily killed him. However, her reason for this never stated. It is likely though that Emily was motivated by her fear of change and her desire to preserve the past. Past events including Emily’s refusal to accept her father’s death and her refusal to both pay taxes and get a house number support this fear. By murdering Homer Baron, Emily ensured that he would never leave her, which because of his homosexuality he was considering. Emily even continued to live as though Homer was her husband, treating the corpse as though he was simple sleeping. The first person plural narrator mentions, “Then we noticed that in the second pillow was the indentation of a head,” (Faulkner, 289). Emily’s total detachment from the present day is reflected through these details. Terrified of being abandoned, she did everything in her power to avoid losing what she knew. Unfortunately, this included Homer Baron.

"The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson

“The Lottery,” a short story by author Shirley Jackson, focuses on a theme of great importance, what can happen when tradition is not questioned in society. The way something has always been done is not necessarily the most appropriate way with how times have changed, and this story is an example of this fault. The idea of “The Lottery” is that every year, one member of the community is stoned to death, simply because it is tradition. One of the characters, Old Man Warner, states in the story, “Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon,” (Jackson, 268). This quote was an old saying that the townspeople had used in the past as a reason for the barbaric lottery. They saw the lottery as some sort of ritual to bring in a bountiful harvest. However, during the present time of the story, this explanation is no longer applicable. It is even stated that many of the aspects of the ritual had been disregarded over the years, with only the stoning remaining. This proves that there really was no reason for the lottery other than tradition. Furthermore, many of the surrounding towns, the northern town specifically mentioned, had done away with the lottery, only further emphasizing the fact that it was not necessary. As the lottery was unjustly and barbarically killing an innocent person every year, the theme of the importance of questioning tradition is well explained.

The Glass Menagerie: Absent Amanda

After reading The Glass Menagerie, a play by Tennessee Williams, I noticed the presence of dramatic irony in the Scene Seven of the play. In the final encounter between Amanda and her son Tom, Amanda yells at him for once again avoiding the family and going to the movies. She yells, “You don’t know things anywhere! You live in a dream; you manufacture illusions!” (Williams, 1288). This statement is terribly ironic, as Amanda was the character who consistently created her own illusions throughout the entire play. Although Tom did write poetry and wish to escape his overbearing mother, he did not lose himself in the past like Amanda, who devoted her time to childhood memories. Tom wished to create a better future for himself, where he could make his own decisions and escape the ditch he was stuck in. Furthermore, Tom’s dream is proven to not be an illusion, as he does leave his mother and his sister in search of a better life. However, Amanda is still trying to live vicariously through her daughter Laura, dreaming up the gentlemen callers that flocked to her door during her youth. These flashbacks to the past prove that the character who is really living in a dream and manufacturing illusions is Amanda.

The Glass Menagerie: Ordinary O'Connor

In Scene Six of The Glass Menagerie, written by Tennessee Williams, the readers are finally introduced to the long awaited gentleman caller of the play, Jim O’Connor. In the character descriptions, Jim is characterized as “a nice, ordinary, young man,” (Williams, 1234). Furthermore, Tom, the narrator, continues to describe Jim as “the most realistic character in the play, being an emissary from a world of reality that we were somehow set apart from,” (Williams, 1236). When Jim does call on the Wingfield family, these characteristics shine through. Although Amanda is overbearing and showy, Jim proves his kind personality by laughing at her jokes and paying attention to her. Furthermore, although Laura is incredibly shy and awkward, Jim spends time with her and even encourages her to branch out and break through her introversion. Jim also has formed a friendship with Tom at the warehouse where they both work, even though Tom is considered strange by others because of his love for poetry. Although some people might be put off by the Wingfield family, Jim O’Connor embraces them. Unlike the Wingfields, Jim is also what one might call ordinary. He has a stable job that he works hard at, he is engaged to an equally ordinary girl, he is friendly, and most people like him. However, Jim is also described as the most realistic character. His realism shines through many of the characteristics with which he was described. While Amanda is lost in her past, Laura is lost within herself, and Tom is lost in his desire to escape, Jim is happy with the situation he is in and completes his daily tasks without complaint. The fact that Jim goes through an everyday schedule proves his realism, as most people today live their lives on a schedule. They go to work, do their errands, and have a family, and Jim embodies this person perfectly. His realism is contrasted with that of the Wingfields, where each family member lives in their own world on a day to day basis.

The Glass Menagerie: Shattered Sister

The title of Tennessee William’s play The Glass Menagerie holds great symbolism to one of the characters in the story. Laura, a shy and crippled girl, owns what is referred to in the play as a glass menagerie. However, these little glass pieces symbolize something much greater. Because of her crippled leg, Laura is so shy and separated from society that, as stated in the character descriptions, “she is like a piece of her own glass collection, too exquisitely fragile to move from the shelf,” (Williams, 1234). Every time one of her glass pieces breaks, it is like another piece of Laura shatters. In Scene Three, Tom, Laura’s brother, breaks several glass pieces, causing her to break down. Because the only thing Laura can relate to is her collection, each time a piece breaks it emotionally wounds her as well. Constantly exposed to the incessant arguing between Tom and her mother Amanda, Laura sits by and watches these scenes play out, just as her glass collection of the shelf. Portrayed as Laura’s favorite piece of glass, the little unicorn, symbolizes Laura more specifically than her collection as a whole. Nonexistent in the real world, the unicorn explains how Laura lives in her own world, separate from the realism most people face every day. Furthermore, as the unicorn is placed on a shelf with many glass horses, it describes how Laura is a unique character, living in a world of similar people. She stands out, and to her, that is a disappointment rather than something to take advantage of.

The Glass Menagerie: The Fleeing Father

The Glass Menagerie, a play written by Tennessee Williams, introduces four characters who actually speak during the play, however there is also a fifth character who is not physically present in the play. This character is the father of the Wingfield family. He is simply portrayed by a smiling picture in the Wingfield house. However, the father plays a much greater role in the play than a simple picture on the wall. A man who escaped the delusional Amanda, Tom, his son, almost seems to look up to his absent father for his ability to get away. Tom feels as though Amanda’s illusions and dreams from the past have the entire Wingfield family stuck in a rut that they cannot escape. Tom even describes a magic show he saw one evening where a man escaped from a coffin. It is afterwards that Tom states, “You know it don’t take much intelligence to get yourself into a nailed-up coffin, Laura. But who in hell ever got himself out of one without removing one nail?” (Williams, 1249). After Tom questions this, the stage directions of the play call for a spotlight on the picture of Tom’s father. This shows how Tom believes his father was able to escape the coffin of Amanda that he had nailed himself into. It is also through this scene that the reader discovers that Tom might just admire his father’s ability to escape. Tom feels as though he is trapped by the nails of his crazy mother, introverted sister, and horrible job, and all he wishes to do is escape from it all, yet he cannot figure out how to. When Tom finally does escape, he is still not as successful as his father as Tom does remove a few nails, as thoughts of Laura still haunted him.

The Glass Menagerie: Sensational Stage Directions

After reading The Glass Menagerie, a play written by Tennessee Williams, something that became apparent to me was the importance of the stage directions. Although stage directions are always beneficial so that actors and directors know what the author imagined, the stage directions of The Glass Menagerie take it a step further. These stage directions help explain the story, answer questions, and portray the symbolism of certain objects. One object the stage directions especially help come to life is the portrait of the father of the Wingfield family. Though the stage directions, the reader learns what happened to the father, why he is not physically present in the story, and the effect he has had on the other characters. In the stage directions, the father in the portrait is described as “gallantly smiling, ineluctably smiling, as if to say, ‘I will be smiling forever,’” (Williams, 1235). As the reader later learns, the father had escaped the family years before in hopes of a better life, explaining the description of “smiling forever.” Furthermore, the stage directions further explain the symbolism between Laura and her glass collection. When one of her pieces breaks, the stage directions describe Laura as having been wounded simultaneously. This description of a person being wounded from a piece of glass shattering portrays the connection Laura has to the glass and the similarities she feels towards her little figures.

“The Joy of Cooking” by Elaine Magarrell

“The Joy of Cooking,” a poem by Elaine Magarrell, metaphorically represents the speaker’s sister and brother through the use of a tongue and a heart. However, it is through these metaphors that the speaker characterizes her siblings. When one thinks of the tongue, their thoughts oftentimes are directed towards speech and what a person says. In the poem, the speaker describes herself as “scrubbing, skinning, and trimming” her sisters tongue. These actions relate to preparation of something, and in this case, a meal. Because of the use of the tongue to describe her sister, it shows that the girl might have an attitude or arrogance to her personality that the speaker is determined to get rid of. Therefore, the speaker would be scrubbing, skinning, and trimming away her sister’s insolence and attitude. The characterization of the speaker’s brother through the use of a heart also tells a great deal about his person. The heart is described as “firm and rather dry,” (Magarrell), which symbolizes that the speaker’s brother does not show much love and is lacking in care for others. Moreover, the fact that the speaker suggests stuffing the brother’s heart to make it interesting shows that the brother needs more in his heart, whether it is love or care for others. He is portrayed to be rather empty through the speaker’s description, and her cooking recipes suggest ways to make him more interesting.

“Those Winter Sundays” by Robert Hayden

After reading the poem, “Those Winter Sundays,” by Robert Hayden, I realized a difference in the point in time of what is actually occurring in the poem to when the speaker views the subject matter of the poem. The actions in the poem were occurring when the speaker was a younger child, living with his father. Yet, there is a change in time to when the speaker views the past events of the poem. He is portrayed to be a grown man at that point, with realizations of his father that he had never had or even considered as a child. It was only through the passing of time and the maturing of the speaker that he realized how much his father actually did for him when he was a boy, and how ungrateful to his father he had seemed. The poem describes how the father did things as little as waking the speaker up or shining his shoes, to providing for him and keeping him warm. However, as a child, the speaker never understood that these actions of his father were signs of great love and care for his family. One line in the poem, “No one ever thanked him,” (Hayden, 781), portrays how the speaker in the poem took his father for granted. He never gave him any recognition for his selfless acts of love, even though the father did deserve them. Yet, now as an adult, the speaker has realized what his father actually did for him as a child and that he did not ever give him the thanks he deserved in return.

“The Drunkard” by Frank O’Conner

“The Drunkard,” a short story by Frank O’Connor, a young boy becomes drunk after drinking his father’s alcohol at a bar. After this occurs, the boy’s drunkenness is seen from four different perspectives, each with a different view of the situation. First of all, the boy tells of his own experience, how mother. First of all, the people to originally see the boy’s drunkenness are the men at the bar where the father and his son are. They show much disapproval in regard to the situation, and some men even went as far as to say, “Isn’t it the likes of them would be fathers?” (O’Connor, 348). They are appalled that a father could let that happen to his child, and they question his responsibility. Secondly, the boy’s father has a certain perspective of the events of the story. He is personally incredibly embarrassed that he was so careless that he did not notice his child taking his drink, and he fears a negative view of his person from his neighbors and wife, like those at the bar showed. While taking the boy home, the father even constantly tries to quiet him in order to avoid the stares and attention of the neighbors. These neighbors are actually the third perspective. However, unlike the bar customers and contrary to the father’s fears, they seem to find the boy’s state rather entertaining. He is attempting to act like an adult, and the women think it is hilarious and are laughing at him. However, probably the strangest perspective is that of the boy’s mother. She pretends to be very upset with the father for being so irresponsible, yet, once he has left, she thanks the boy for drinking the alcohol because it prevented the family from a long struggle with the father’s drunkenness. In the past, the father would be fine if he did not drink, but after he did, he could not stop. The boy’s consumption of the alcohol prevented the father from reverting back to his drunken ways.

“Once Upon a Time” by Nadine Gordimer

The short story, “Once Upon a Time,” by Nadine Gordimer takes a rather unconventional twist on the characteristics and aspects of children’s fairytale stories. While reading the story, it seems as though the author is writing a strange, society-focused story. In the story, the members of a suburb have had some burglaries, so they begin to add more and more security measures out of the fear that they will be next. However, many aspects of children’s fairytales break through. The story mentions an old witch, who is actually the husband in the story’s mother. Just as in classic fairytales, she is portrayed to be wise and even a little ominous in her warning to “not take anyone off the street,” (Gordimer, 232) as they might cause a burglary. Furthermore, later on in the story, the witch gives her grandson a fairytale book, which in effect results in the conflict of the story. The story ends with the death of the grandson, after he tries to reenact the daring rescue of a princess that he read about in his fairytale book. His desire for adventure and bravery contradicts his parent’s fear of a home attack, and in the end it is their fear that kills him. The parents wrap their house in barbed wire called “Dragon’s Teeth,” another allusion to fairytales, yet in the end, it is the dragon that slays the little boy when he gets caught in the wire and torn up. Although the story does not seem like a fairytale at first, Gordimer incorporates aspects of fairytales in order to get her point across.

“A Worn Path” by Eudora Welty

After reading Eudora Welty’s short story, “A Worn Path,” a question became apparent. This question was whether the grandson of the main character and focus of the story, Phoenix Jackson, was actually alive, or whether he had died a few years ago. Personally, I believe that Phoenix’s grandson had died a few years ago. First of all, during the story, Phoenix does have a hallucination of a boy giving her some cake. This proves that she does have some tendencies to imagine things, and the loss of her grandson could have sparked the illusion of a boy. Furthermore, in the story it mentions that the boy had been in the same condition for two to three years at this point. Phoenix’s grandson had swallowed some lye, an acidic substance, and it is much more likely that he would have either gotten better or died after such a long period of time. Also, the fact that Phoenix claims, “My little grandson, he is just the same,” (Welty, 229) may represent that she still sees him the way he was before he died, unchanged after two years. Moreover, when a nurse asks Phoenix how her grandson is, she is unresponsive for a few minutes. In my opinion, this lack of recognition or comprehension supports that her grandson is gone and that he is now only a figment of her imagination.

A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry: Ruth vs. Beneatha

In Lorraine Hansberry’s play, A Raisin in the Sun, there are many characters who greatly contrast with each other. However, two characters that especially differ from each other are Ruth Younger and her sister-in-law, Beneatha Younger. While Ruth usually keeps her feeling to herself and reacts calmly to situations, Beneatha has the tendency to lash out or attack when she is angry or upset. When Walter Younger loses all of the family’s money, Beneatha exclaims in response to this turn in events, “Oh, God! Where is the bottom! Where is the real honest-to-God bottom so he can’t go any farther!” (Hansberry, 142). However, during the same scene, Ruth expresses her disappointment and sadness for her husband through her silence and facial expressions, as the stage directions state, “Ruth stands stiffly and quietly in the back of them, as though somehow she senses death,” (Hansberry, 126). Furthermore, Beneatha is very determined that she will have a career and not end up a house wife like Ruth. Beneatha wishes to be a doctor, and is doing everything she can to make that dream come true for herself. However, Ruth is content with her position as a house wife and a housekeeper for other families and does not crave a job like Beneatha’s. Because of these differences, Ruth and Beneatha prove to be contrasting characters.

A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry: Mama's Plant

After reading the play A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry, one symbol stood out to me. This was the plant belonging to Mama, a character in the play and the head of the Younger family. The plant is described as the only greenery or vegetation that the family could keep in their home because they had neither space nor a garden. The plant was confined to its pot, just as the Younger family was confined and trapped within their tiny apartment. This sense of restriction, caused by the apartment, also restricted the characters in their actions and success. Walter Lee Younger, Mama’s son, wanted nothing more than make a name for himself in the world and prove himself to his family, yet his inability to do this trapped him within the apartment, which prevented him from seeing a way out. His desperation led him to make a business deal that resulted in the loss of all the money that the family had, as Walter states, “All of it…It’s all gone,” (Hansberry, 129). This loss almost prevented the family from escaping from the entrapments of the apartment. Furthermore, Ruth, Walter’s wife, became pregnant during the play, but she began to consider an abortion just because she did not want her child to have to survive in a cramped and dilapidated apartment. Ruth was described as a woman who would never ever consider an abortion, which makes the emphasis of her decision and desperation even greater.

A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry: The Allusion

In the poem “A Dream Deferred” by Langston Hughes, Hughes writes in response to the question, “What happens to a dream deferred,” a line in his poem, “Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?” (Hughes). The title of the play A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry is actually an allusion to this poem by Hughes. The plotline of the play mainly consists of the hopes and dreams of the characters in the story. Yet, these dreams primarily go unfulfilled, or “dry up” as the excerpt from the poem suggests. One character, Walter Lee Younger, desperately wishes to invest in a liquor store because he believes it will bring him the money he wants and feels his family deserves. However, Walter’s dream dries up when he loses all of his investment money to a scam artist. Beneatha, another character and Walter’s sister, has had the dream of becoming a doctor ever since she was a child. Because of her desire to succeed in this goal, she works hard in school and has the support of her family. But, as her family goes into turmoil and disagreement, her raisin also begins to dry up as she loses her will to become a doctor. Beneatha states that medicine was “the one concrete thing in the world that a human being could do,” (Hansberry, 133), and she wanted to be a part of fixing others. However, it turned out and became apparent to Beneatha that lost dreams were oftentimes more detrimental to a person than an injury, and she could not fix lost dreams. The dried up dreams of the characters relate back to Hughes’ suggested raisin, withered by the sun.

A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry: the Activist, the Bystander, and the Confused

 Lorraine Hansberry’s play, A Raisin in the Sun, has many compelling and complex characters that add to the plotline of the story. However, three of these characters can be classified into one of these groups: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened. A character who makes things happen in this story is Mama, the strong-willed leader of the family. Mama is determined throughout the entire plot to make life just a little better for her family and to make their dreams come true, which she believes she can accomplish by buying a new, bigger house. As Mama receives ten thousand dollars after the death of her husband, she chose to buy the family a house while also providing some money to her daughter for her medical education and some money to her son for businesses investments. Mama just wants to see her family happy and successful, and she makes a point of ensuring that that is exactly what happens. Consequently, a character who watches things happen is Travis, Mama’s grandson. Although Travis is a minor character, he is there to watch the chaos of his family unfold. Because of all of the arguments, distress, and sadness the other members of the family cause each other, Travis is often forgotten about and sent away to prevent him from getting in the way. However, as a young boy who reveres and cares for every person in his family, he respects them and stays out of their way. The character that wonders what happened is Ruth, Mama’s daughter-in-law and Travis’ mother. Ruth married Mama’s son Walter in hopes of having a wonderful life together, yet things took a turn for the worst and they are living in a state of anger and despair. Ruth states to Walter, “I don’t know where we lost it…but we have,” (Hansberry, 87). This expresses Ruth’s confusion as to what happened with her family. They do not get along anymore and disagree with each other, and it affects the family’s ability to function. These three characters represent the activist, the bystander, and the confused.

A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry: Character Changes

After reading the play A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry, I noticed a dramatic change take place in one of the characters, Walter Lee Younger, as the story progressed. He begins the story as an angry, hopeless man, declining into depression, yet by the end of the play, Walter proves his worth to his family with his final actions. When the play commenced, Walter was depicted as a rather antagonistic character. His interactions with his wife Ruth were tense and oftentimes involved argument and anger, especially regarding money and the Younger Family’s financial situation as they were very poor. In response to a question as to why he cares so much about money, Walter responds, “Because it is life, Mama!” (Hansberry, 74). That mindset was the reason behind Walter’s initial downfall. Because he focused so much on money rather than actually caring for his family, he hurt his relationship with his mother and sister, his wife, and his son, and lost their support. Furthermore, after Walter truly does lose everything, he breaks down even further, and so do his relationships. Because he wasted his sister’s education money on a business deal gone south, she absolutely detests him, stating “He’s no brother of mine,” (Hansberry, 145). When Walter describes how he is going to grovel in front of a man who is trying to prevent the family from moving into an exclusively white neighborhood in order to get money, he crosses the line with his mother and loses her support too. Yet, his family’s complete lack of faith and loss of hope for him wakes up Walter and brings his true pride as a man to the surface, repairing his relationships. He finally realizes that true wealth and happiness come from one’s family, not from money, and he states to the neighborhood committee man that since his father spent his life earning the new house for their family, they are going to use it, regardless of what their neighbors would prefer. When Mama and Ruth agree that Walter “finally came into his manhood,” (Hansberry, 151), it shows that he has finally changed for the better and proven himself to his family.

"Interpreter of Maladies" by Jhumpa Lahiri

The short story, “Interpreter of Maladies,” written by Jhumpa Lahiri creates an interesting conflict between the two main characters. It is through the story that the reader learns both Mrs. Das, and American woman with an Indian background, and Mr. Kapasi, an Indian tour guide and interpreter, are terribly unhappy with their marriages. This causes both characters to create the conflict of the story. Mrs. Das admits her infidelity to Mr. Kapasi, while Mr. Kapasi lusts after Mrs. Das even though he does not know here. Mr. Kapasi’s infatuation with Mrs. Das causes conflict, as he is already married, yet she is causing him to think of throwing that all away. Furthermore, Mr. Kapasi even begins to create a world where he and Mrs. Das are in fact together and happy. The problem with this feeling of Mr. Kapasi’s is that Mrs. Das is really not everything he had hoped for; rather she is selfish and uncaring towards her husband and children. Mrs. Das may interest Kapasi with the questions and inquiries she makes, but her attitude is not one Kapasi would wish upon himself or his own family. In the end, this conflict of feelings is resolved as Mr. Kapasi discovers the real Mrs. Das. A paper that he had written his address on for Mrs. Das, the paper that Kapasi was basing their future on, was blown away in the wind, yet Mrs. Das did not notice nor care enough to check. This proved that Mrs. Das’ priorities were not in the place Mr. Kapasi would like them, and she became less appealing through this turn of events. It is the final minutes that he spends with the Das family where Kapasi gets his true feelings towards the family as they hustle around, flustered, with no appreciation for the Indian culture.

 

"Dream Deferred" by Langston Hughes

While reading “Dream Deferred,” a poem by Langston Hughes, I became caught up on a certain line. That line was “Or does it explode?” (Hughes). That question is, strangely enough, an answer to a previously posed question about what ensues when a dream is deferred. Usually, when one puts off a dream or does not act upon it, it is usually forgotten about and never put into action. When I first read this poem, I assumed this first opinion after assuming that that last line meant that the poem would disappear or be destroyed, as those are the verbs I usually associate with explode. However, as I pondered that phrase once again, I began to grasp that the word “explode” might not have a negative connotation in this poem and to Hughes after all. When a metaphorical explosion occurs, it can also mean that they have taken off, or in other words, gathered lots of attention. Perhaps, in this poem, that is what Hughes was attempting to relate to his readers. All similes in the poem involve unpleasant or disgusting prospects, yet explosion leaves room for a more open, positive interpretation. Hughes very well might be telling his readers that if a dream gets pushed out of the way and set on the back burner, it is not always destined for doom. Rather, that burner can heat a dream up until it explodes and carries with it a great impact.

 

"Mr. Z" by M. Carl Holman

After reading “Mr. Z,” a poem by M. Carl Holman, I took from it the message that the character of the poem was making a fruitless attempt to escape his past. Throughout the entirety of the work, it appears as though the unnamed character, assumed to be Mr. Z, is working to try and remove any traces of his past. I determined that Mr. Z was likely biracial, yet rather than embracing both of his cultures, he tried to erase one culture and completely change his life into that of an Anglo-Saxon. The author describes how the character transformed himself in order to conform to what others thought was proper or correct. His habits changed, his spouse changed and even his eating habits changed, as the story states, “his palate shrunk from cornbread, yams, and collards,” (Holman). However, they key word in my discovered message is fruitless. Even though Mr. Z followed all the rules and tried to be like the others, his endeavors were unsuccessful. Furthermore, as he drifted farther and farther away from his true background, he drifted away from any background at all. He was able to pursue a life free from ethnic boundaries, yet in death, he was once again grouped with the people he wanted to get so far away from. The closing line of the poem is “one of the most distinguished members of his race,” (Holman), so even though Mr. Z spent his life trying to reshape his past, he was unsuccessful and fell back into racial categorization.

"Hazel Tells LaVerne" by Katharyn Howd Machan

“Hazel Tells LaVerne,” a poem written by author Katharyn Howd Machan, cleverly creates an image of a working woman, living in the lower social class and economic class. They author illustrates this sense of a lower class citizen through various techniques and observations. As the poem is written in a grammatically incorrect way, the vernacular of the character in question is revealed. Although this does not always old true, misspelled and slurred words oftentimes form the idea of a lower class citizen who was never educated properly. It is through this that the author adds a personality and background to the character without coming straight out and stating the facts. Furthermore, the prospect of a lower economic class citizen shines through the occupation of the speaker. It appears that she is a cleaning lady in a hotel, which does not pay much. All of these clues and hints allow the reader to understand that the speaker is probably a poorer citizen, especially when the poem begins to stretch the truth with the appearance of a frog prince. When the speaker is told that kissing the frog will make her dreams come true, she states and then repeats later, “me a princess,” (Machan). The way she states that line is as though she feels something so far from her reach now could not become fathomable by kissing a silly frog. It is this unfortunate feeling that oftentimes invades the worlds of those struggling to get by every day, as men and women, like the woman in “Hazel Tells LaVerne,” see a future any different from their current situation unreachable.

"Everyday Use" by Alice Walker

After reading “Everyday Use,” a short story by author Alice Walker, one character in particular that caught my attention was Dee, the speaker’ daughter. In my opinion, Dee is the epitome of a round character. Throughout the few pages of the story, she reveals a personality of confidence, ambition, and even cruelty. As a child, Dee was always very pretty and popular, yet her attitude pushed away true friends. Those who paid attention to her were mesmerized by her persona and wanted to imitate her, yet this constant desire to be someone they are not led to nervousness about others’ perceptions and attitudes towards them. As written by Walker, “impressed with her [Dee], they worshipped the well-turned phrase,” (Walker, 176). This constant attention seems to have fed Dee’s confidence immensely. Furthermore, Dee also displays ambition. Obviously she has, as the speaker called it, “made it” (Walker, 173), meaning that she has overcome her background and setbacks in order to create a name for herself. It is very likely that the constant confidence boosters provided by her childhood friends allowed Dee to embody this characteristic, and Dee’s ambitious personality no doubt aided her in her quest for a distinguished future. However, as confidence and ambition can oftentimes have positive aspects, one characteristic Dee shows throughout the short story is cruelty. The author writes background information into her story about a house fire and Dee’s little sister getting burned, but Dee is described as feeling happiness at that time. Dee “had hated that house so much. I used to think she hated Maggie, too,” (Walker, 175). Whether she liked it or not, Dee and her family lost their home, and her nonchalant attitude towards that loss evokes a sense of cruelty. Furthermore, Dee’s sister Maggie was badly burned in the fire, yet Dee only thinks of the positives of losing her home. This story shaped Dee into the round character that she is as it formed and enhanced her various personality traits.

"That all interpretations of a poem are equally valid is a critical heresy." -Laurence Perrine

After reading “The Nature of Proof in the Interpretation of Poetry,” an article by Laurence Perrine, I was able to take away from it specific information that will certainly help guide my study of poetry this year. When we were asked to interpret the untitled poem by Emily Dickinson, “The Sick Rose” by William Blake, and “An Army Corps on the March” by Walt Whitman and “The Night-March” by Herman Melville, I will admit that my interpretations were not what Perrine claims to be “correct.” The interpretation of Dickinson’s poem as a field of flowers made perfect sense to me, and I thought that that was the correct interpretation. However, after reading Perrine’s thoughts on the subject, I see his point in why the meadow description is, in fact, incorrect. Perrine claims and I now support that “a correct interpretation, if the poem is a successful one, must be able to account satisfactorily for any detail,” (Perrine, 1), yet the meadow interpretation does not explain every detail without assumption. If an interpreter leaves certain details unexplained and makes certain suppositions about a poem, they are, in a way, adding meaning to the work that the author did not intend to be present. Although I thought that the wharf in the poem described the garden perfectly well, I now see that the statement “the wharf is still” caused me to make assumptions. I explained that there was a wind in the garden that stopped, causing the flowers to stop swaying in the wind. However, Dickinson never mentions any detail that could represent wind, invalidating my description. If an interpreter leaves certain details unexplained and makes certain assumptions about a poem, they are, in a way, adding meaning to the work that the author did not intend to be present. Because of Perrine’s explanation on this topic, I can, in any poem I interpret this year, confirm that my understanding of the work does not contradict what is said in the poem and does not take any liberties by adding details or allowing for assumptions.

Furthermore, Perrine points out to the readers of his article that “even a symbol does not have unlimited meaning,” (Perrine, 5). Many written works contain a plethora of symbols that add an element of mystery to their story, yet these symbols do not always represent what the reader interprets them to signify. This year, I must make sure that my understanding of a symbol reflects both the organization in the way a poem is written and the characteristics of each symbol. In Blake’s poem about a rose and a worm, I cannot correctly assume that the rose represents darkness and the worm represents sunlight because of the characteristics and descriptions in the poem regarding each symbol. Blake seems to describe the rose as a helpless victim through phrases such as “does thy life destroy” and “he has found thy bed of crimson joy,” and darkness, a typically dangerous and terrifying character, creates the sense of a predator rather than a victim. Likewise, an assumption that the worm represents sunlight would also be incorrect because of the details surrounding the symbolic worm. Blake’s description of the worm as invisible, flying at night, and destructive does not allow for a pleasant interpretation, one such as sunlight. The worm rather must represent an evil, dark, or possessive entity in order to comply with the author’s portrayal. In the future as I interpret other poems, I can pay more attention to the symbols present and the details surrounding them to ensure that my interpretations are not far-fetched or inapplicable. This article explained to me that every symbol cannot mean anything the reader wishes it to, and I can make certain that my interpretations are justified.

The Great Gatsby: Pages 169-180

F. Scott Fitzgerald

In the concluding pages of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby, it seems as though each character’s true nature and personality came to light. Unfortunately, in my opinion, most of their final chances to redeem themselves passed by without action, and they allowed their story to end on a sour note. Although I believe that Fitzgerald did write a captivating, interesting novel, I am always confused why books like The Great Gatsby go down in history as the most famous, or cleverest. Personally I find them depressing and draining. I really was enjoying this novel, I was laughing and finding it interesting, but alas, it seems as though the author felt that the happiness just could not continue until the end. Both this novel and The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton ended on similar notes, and after reading both of them, I feel as though the authors are trying to get across the point that no story has a happy ending. Whether speaking of Wharton’s Lily Bart and Lawrence Selden or of Fitzgerald’s Gatsby, Carraway, and the Buchanans, it seems as though they are trying to prove that in life, we just have to accept that happy endings are rare, or even nonexistent. When the novel took a pessimistic turn, it became not the interesting book it had been, but rather a tedious chore to read. While I was reading, I felt as though the last couple of chapters were void of any emotion, happy or not. All the color that had filled the pages was gone, and nothing was left except bleakness and gray. Character Nick Carraway removes even the last sense of emotion, even if it was written in anger, when “on the white steps an obscene word, scrawled by some boy with a piece of brick, stood out clearly in the moonlight, and I erased it,” (Fitzgerald, 180). Although I am aware that there is a lot of depression and sadness in the world, I have still not lost hope for happy endings, and I hope that these writers’ perceptions are proven wrong.

The Great Gatsby: Pages 157-168

Myrtle Wilson

After reading these pages of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, my previously proclaimed hopes that this novel would not follow the same path as The House of Mirth were unfortunately crushed. Just as Lily Bart died alone and without many friends, the great Gatsby of Fitzgerald’s imagination also met his end without love, and without friends. Lily began to have problems when she went after what was unattainable, and the same unfortunate thing happened to Jay Gatsby. His everlasting hope that Daisy Buchanan would leave her husband was destroyed, and he died heartbroken, leaving a legacy filled with scandal. Although I did find Gatsby arrogant and insufferable at certain points in the novel, I also do not believe that he deserved what happened to him. The murder of Mrs. Myrtle Wilson was put in his hands in order to protect Daisy, but not only did it lead to his demise, he also never received the love and care of Daisy. In fact, all of those who took advantage of him never repaid him in any way. Once they were done enjoying his parties and alcohol, once Gatsby had nothing left to offer them, they drifted off into the wind. This also happened to the beautiful, troubled Lily Bart. All those who called themselves her “friends” were really taking advantage of her beauty and money, but when that was gone, so was their friendship. Only Lawrence Selden cared about Lily until the end. Similarly, the only person who never tried to deceive Gatsby, who never lied to him, and who never mistreated him was Nick Carraway. He states, “I found myself of Gatsby’s side, and alone,” (Fitzgerald, 164). Although Carraway did not completely agree with all of Gatsby’s actions and choices, he did care about him, which is more than any other character could say.