Here's Revised Essay

Dear Readers...
Although I was pretty satisfied with what I had previously written in my original draft, I did make some slight changes. The comments that were provided did a superb job of leading me in the direction to better my essay, and to reach its full potential. The main ideas that I needed to revise, according to my commentators, was just to provide further analysis to a couple concepts that I presented in my essay. Therefore, I did my best to attack the parts of my essay that my commentators said needed to be better explained. Also, I revised the wording of my thesis as to make it more comprehendible. After all of this, I felt my essay was better revised.
p.s. I couldn't get blogger to post this earlier, I guess it's not really "late" because today is the due date...


Barbara De Angelis once said, “Marriage is not a noun; it's a verb. It isn't something you get. It's something you do. It's the way you love your partner every day.” In the two poems “A Valediction” and “Conjoined”, this quotation takes on two different meanings that are essentially complete opposites. According to Angelis, a marriage is only defined by how the couple decides to define it. If a couple chooses to make it an eternal bond of happiness, such as the couple in “A Valediction” does, then that is what they will achieve. On the other hand, if a couple decides to look at it as an eternity of servitude, such as the pair in “Conjoined”, then that is also what they will achieve. In both Donne’s poem and Minty’s poem, the authors use rhetorical devices to present contrasting ideals on the institution of marriage.

Both poems symbolize their ideals on love with items that give their readers a better understanding of their perceptions. Donne represents his perception of love by using gold to symbolize his views on marital status and the institution of marriage itself. Gold is a solid object that is virtually indestructible. Therefore, by choosing to represent marriage in this context reveals that Donne believes marriage is an eternal bondage that can withstand anything. Furthermore, Gold represents richness, and even royalty. Along with the representation of beauty and glory. Thus, the reader’s can infer that Donne believes that marriage provides its occupants with a gift that makes a relationship reach its full potential, and ripens love to reach its sweetest form. In contrast to Donne, Minty decides to symbolize marriage with an item that provides more of a negative connotation, revealing Minty’s negative outlook towards marriage. Minty uses the onion and the onions’ “skin” to provide meaning to her view of marriage. An onion gives off a sour connotation. In fact, it is a known fact that onions naturally bring tears to eyes when being cut. Therefore, by choosing to use an onion as the representative of marriage, it gives off the impression that marriage is a doomed institution. Furthermore, the skin of the onion is used to identify marriage as an inescapable institution. The skin holds together the two onions together although it is unnatural. The “two onions” symbolize the husband and wife, while the “onion skin” is marriage itself. Although both poems represent marriage as an unbreakable bondage, Donne perceives it to be enjoyable, while Minty perceives it to be uncomfortable and unnatural.

Donne believes marriage is the ultimate gift of love, and even makes the married couple in the poem seem pretentious in regards to their marriage. The couple in the poem contains such a high outlook to their marriage that leads them to become pompous and begin to belittle those marriages that they believe to be inferior to theirs. For example, Donne uses the metaphor, “So let us melt, and make no noise, no tear-floods, nor sigh-tempest move, twere profanation of our joys to tell the laity of our love”. In this, Donne tells the readers that the couple believes that their love and marriage was so “above” common marriages that those marriages could never experience what this couple did. Those other marriages could not even understand what their marriage was like. Also, Donne uses a simile to give another perception on marriage. Donne says, “If they be two, they are two so as stiff twin compasses are two; they soul, the fixt foot, makes no show to move, but doth, if th’other do. This makes the marriage seem as if it is an eternal bond in which both the husband and wife really heavily on one another. The leg of the compass reveals to be one of the spouses while the pencil is the other. The circle, which is marriage, could not be drawn by the compass without either the leg of the compass or the pencil. This gives off the impression that marriage is an equal institution in which both the husband and wife need one another to accomplish their goals. Donne gives off the notion that marriage is a loving unity between a man and woman that lasts eternity.

Minty gives the perception that marriage is a forced and inevitable part of life that all people must experience. For example, Minty uses a simile saying, “An accident, like the two-headed calf rooted in one body, fighting to suck at its mother’s teats…” A two-headed calf is unnatural and virtually is a monster. Therefore, marriage is seemed to be perceived as a forced situation. Furthermore, the two-headed calf is chosen to be illustrated at its youth, which gives the notion that marriage is an ideal that is forced on people at a young age, and therefore mandated as a necessity to a human life. The image of the two-headed calf fighting for the milk reveals that marriage is an institution in which its occupants must cut one another down to achieve their individual needs. Also, to give a better perception of marriage Minty uses another simile, “…or like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed to live, even make love, together for sixty years”. Once again, this scene is unnatural; reminding the readers that marriage itself is unnatural. Because Minty chooses to say the twins were “joined at the chest” the chest is in a proximity that is near the heart. The heart represents love. Therefore, Minty makes a brave accusation with this image as to say that love is destroyed by the unnatural bondage of marriage. Also, Minty takes a liberal stance as to the mechanics of marriage, by condemning the idea of “making love” with just that one person in the marriage. Thus, Minty presents the notion that any type of permanent bondage, be it physical or emotionally, results in consequences of unhappiness. As seen, Minty condemns marriage and its mechanics.

Marriage is something you do. How a couple decides to lead their marriage will define their happiness once they are married to the point of death. Although Donne and Minty have completely opposite perceptions of marriage, one thing is provided as a constant. That is, marriage is forever, and therefore how you decide to “do” marriage decides how the rest of your life will be, happy or not.

Happy or Not, It is Forever

Barbara De Angelis once said, “Marriage is not a noun; it's a verb. It isn't something you get. It's something you do. It's the way you love your partner every day.” In the two poems “A Valediction” and “Conjoined”, this quotation takes on two different meanings that are essentially complete opposites. According to Angelis, a marriage is only defined by how the couple decides to define it. If a couple chooses to make it an eternal bond of happiness, such as the couple in “A Valediction” does, then that is what they will achieve. On the other hand, if a couple decides to look at it as an eternity of servitude, such as the pair in “Conjoined”, then that is also what they will achieve. In both Donne’s poem and Minty’s poem, the authors use symbolism, metaphors, and similes to provide contrasting ideals on the institution of marriage.

Both poems symbolize their ideals on love with items that give their readers an overall understanding on their perceptions of love. Donne represents his perception of love by using gold to symbolize his views on marital status and the institution of marriage itself. Gold is a solid object that is virtually indestructible. Therefore, by choosing to represent marriage in this context reveals that Donne believes marriage is an eternal bondage that can withstand anything. Furthermore, Gold represents richness, and even royalty. Gold also gives the connotation of beauty and glory. Thus, the reader’s can infer that Donne believes that marriage provides its occupants with a gift that makes a relationship reach its full potential, and ripens love to reach its sweetest form. In contrast to Donne, Minty decides to symbolize marriage with an item that provides more of a negative connotation, revealing Minty’s negative outlook towards marriage. Minty uses the onion and the onions’ “skin” to provide meaning to her view of marriage. An onion gives off a sour connotation. In fact, it is a known fact that onions naturally bring tears to eyes when being cut. Therefore, by choosing to use an onion as the representative of marriage, it gives off the impression that marriage is a doomed institution. Furthermore, the skin of the onion is used to identify marriage as an inescapable institution. The skin holds together the two onions together although it is unnatural. The “two onions” symbolize the husband and wife, while the “onion skin” is marriage itself. Although both poems represent marriage as an unbreakable bondage, Donne perceives it to be enjoyable, while Minty perceives it to be uncomfortable and unnatural.

Donne believes marriage is the ultimate gift of love, and even makes the married couple in the poem seem pretentious in regards to their marriage. The couple in the poem contains such a high outlook to their marriage that leads them to become pretentious and begin to belittle those marriages that they believe to be inferior to theirs. For example, Donne uses the metaphor, “So let us melt, and make no noise, no tear-floods, nor sigh-tempest move, twere profanation of our joys to tell the laity of our love”. In this, Donne tells the readers that the couple believes that their love and marriage was so “above” common marriages that those marriages could never experience what this couple did. Those other marriages could not even understand what their marriage was like. Also, Donne uses a simile to give another perception on marriage. Donne says, “If they be two, they are two so as stiff twin compasses are two; they soul, the fixt foot, makes no show to move, but doth, if th’other do. This makes the marriage seem as if it is an eternal bond in which both the husband and wife really heavily on one another. The leg of the compass reveals to be one of the spouses while the pencil is the other. The circle, which is marriage, could not be drawn by the compass without either the leg of the compass or the pencil. This gives off the impression that marriage is an equal institution in which both the husband and wife need one another to accomplish their goals. Donne gives off the notion that marriage is a loving unity between a man and woman that lasts eternity.

Minty gives the perception that marriage is a forced and inevitable part of life that all people must experience. For example, Minty uses a simile saying, “An accident, like the two-headed calf rooted in one body, fighting to suck at its mother’s teats…” A two-headed calf is unnatural and virtually is a monster. Therefore, marriage is seemed to be perceived as a forced situation. Furthermore, the two-headed calf is chosen to be illustrated at its youth, which gives the notion that marriage is an ideal that is forced on people at a young age, and therefore mandated as a necessity to a human life. The image of the two-headed calf fighting for the milk reveals that marriage is an institution in which its occupants must cut one another down to achieve their individual needs. Also, to give a better perception of marriage Minty uses another simile, “…or like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed to live, even make love, together for sixty years”. Once again, this scene is unnatural; reminding the readers that marriage itself is unnatural. Because Minty chooses to say the twins were “joined at the chest” the chest is in a proximity that is near the heart. The heart represents love. Therefore, Minty makes a brave accusation with this image as to say that love is destroyed by the unnatural bondage of marriage. Also, Minty takes a liberal stance as to the mechanics of marriage, by condemning the idea of “making love” with just that one person in the marriage. As seen, Minty condemns marriage and its mechanics.

Marriage is something you do. How a couple decides to lead their marriage will define their happiness once they are married to the point of death. Although Donne and Minty have completely opposite perceptions of marriage, one thing is provided as a constant. That is, marriage is forever, and therefore how you decide to “do” marriage decides how the rest of your life will be, happy or not.

You Tell Metanarratives to Get at the Truth

"You tell lies to get at the truth" (141). So, while referring to the novel, what exactly are the "lies" that establish the "truth"? I'd say it's pretty clear that these lies are the metanarratives that O'Brien uses to convey his emotions and mentality towards the war. So, as I read Neilson's article, I began to see the direct correlation between postmodernism and The Things They Carried.

Tim O'Brien yses the postmodern methods of metanarratives to convey his emotional and psyhcological pain towards Vietnam. O'Brien's obsession with the "ultimate truth" is somewhat ridiculed in this article. I have learned that O'Brien chooses to demonstrate the horror of Vietnam by telling the exoerienced with various different metanarratives. These metanarratives vary in content. Some are vague, and some are absurdly vivid in detail. But the amazing thing is, that with these modified versions, O'Brien does not lose credibility. Instead, these metanarratives serve as more proof to the terror of the war. The more versions, the more the reader's become more engrossed into the horror of the "truthful" stories. With O'Brien's countless versions, the readers grasp the fact that the terror of the war cannot be correctly identified or expressed. With the numerous metanarratives that the author includes, the reader's do not question his credibility, rather they begin to sympathize with him. I guess what could really be seen here is that the reader's begin to accept that with horrifying events, different versions of the experience are portrayed by its victims.

So in effect, because none of us experienced Vietnam first hand, we accept the stories that we are told as truth. Questioning someone's word on a horrifying experience is an uncomfortable area to venture into, therefore we do not and we just accept the stories as truth. If we had been at Vietnam, we would most likely be able to shrug off somebody elses "true war stories". If we look at the text, we can even see this taking place by the characters. In "How to Tell a True War Story", we see Curt Lemon painted as a heroic figure. But in "The Dentist", we see him brought down by the narrator. But here's the thing, if we had listened to either one of these stories first, we would have accepted that version of Curt Lemon as the "truth". On the other hand, Rat and teh narrator are able to dervie their own perceptions of Lemon because they actually experienced encounters with Curt. Why is this? Well it's simple, it's because we weren't there to make our own assessments.

Anyways, although I do agree with Neilson that it is ironic that O'Brien uses vairous metanarratives to portray "truth". I also think that it is the only way to efficiently portray Vietnam.

When Does Pride go too Far?

Okay, well instead of trying to find a common theme within all of the stories that we have read, I am going to focus on a theme within one of them. With that said, I have chosen to analyze and come up with a central idea for the story “The Dentist”.

So, as I read this story I came to the conclusion that the author wanted to highlight how pride can be overbearing. There is nothing wrong with having pride in who you are as a person, but when pride begins to be the driving force of a persons’ character it can lead to a callous and shallow person. For example, within “The Dentist” we get a new perspective on how Curt Lemon was as a person. This short story directly contrasted the view of Lemon that we got within “How to Tell a True War Story”. In “The Dentist”, we see Lemon as a more shallow and self-righteous person. Lemon holds so much pride for himself that he cannot show any sign of weakness. Over time, his personality has allowed him to always succumb to pride and never show any sign of fear. This is why when he faints in the dentist’s office he loses control within his own mind. For example the narrator says, “Anyone else would of laughed it off, but for Curt Lemon it was too much. The embarrassment must’ve turned a screw in his head” (pg. 88). I think that the main point with this was to highlight the fact that people should be able to accept that they have weaknesses. Also, I think that the author wanted to highlight the fact that Lemon believes he that any weakness lessens who he is as a man. This is why he goes back to the dentist and makes him pull out a perfectly good tooth. This, in essence, eases Lemon mentally. He cannot stand his mishap at the office. Lemon had his tooth pulled to clear up any illusion that the men have that he is weak. Although the men know he did this on purpose to prove a point, Lemon is content. Because in Lemon’s mind, he cleared up any questions of his masculinity with the stunt.

A Whole lot of Nothing and Everything

With the finality of the semester, the inevitable question is brought up yet again. What exactly is postmodernism? Well, in my opinion, postmodernism is a whole lot of everything. Actually, I amend that, postmodernism is a whole lot of everything and at the same time it’s nothing.

So, I bet your wondering what I meant with my last statement. My theory is that postmodernism is way too abstract to define what it means. In this way, it seems as if postmodernism is nothing. It’s as if it were a void, and this would be due to the fact that not one person can define exactly what it means.

Although we cannot give postmodernism a clean and precise definition, we can decipher some of the notions that fall into this category. I believe that something can be considered “postmodern” if it is different from what the general population considers to be normal. I guess you can consider postmodern thinking as a more creative and liberal outtake. For example, while we studied postmodern architecture, we considered it to be anything that is different from a standard black and white four story high building. Postmodern architecture could be considered anything more abstract and unique. Ironically enough, in order for postmodernism to be existent, society as a whole must accept a universal ideal as to what is “normal”. “Postmodern architecture, art and literature represent the Other, and thus present a heterogeneity…” (pg.160). Postmodernism is just a spinoff of what is considered normal. As Postmodernism for Beginners said, it evolves from the “Other”. The only way the “Other” can exist, is to accept that there is a standard way of thinking.

So what happens when society begins to evolve once again? I mean, the core values and ideals that society currently represents was not always the standard way of thinking. Change is inevitable, and usually with change society becomes more open-minded. Therefore, it is only acceptable to believe that our values will become more liberated. Now remember, postmodernism has liberal foundations. Is it possible that in time, postmodern thinking could be considered “the norm”? Maybe, but then what happens then? Will society develop an even newer post modernistic outlook? Maybe again, but then would it be considered? post-postmodernism? Hmmm….weird indefinable questions, but then again that’s what postmodernism does to you.

Oh my, well I must start off by saying that I am completely in love with this novel. Spiegelman is an absolute genius and the way that he constructs this novel is genius. Okay, so I have many potential thesis topics, so here I go.

One thing that really interests me is the whole concept of how Spiegelman created this graphic novel. For one, why did he even choose to make his father’s story in the form of a comic book/ novel? This holocaust was a a serious the tragedy and the fact that he decided to make this story into a comic book must be done on purpose. Also, within this comic book structure version of the novel, the metaphor that Spiegelman uses in which the people are different types of animals is also significant. I would enjoy deciphering this within my essay.

Another subject that really interests me is all of the relationships in Maus II. The entire book, most of the characters are selfish and abusive towards one another. One of the only people that I believe is not selfish in this novel would be Mancie. For example, in the novel when Vladek writes a letter to Anja he says, “and Mancie took it. She was so good. Always she took” (pg. 63). Mancie’s relationship with both Vladek and Anja instills hope in both of them. Mancie does this for no benefit to herself, but to the couples’ benefit. Also, Art abuses the fathers’ willingness to talk about the Holocaust. Art even believes that his father always is a source of “tension”. But, in reality he is the one who is making the father bring up tense stories. I could back this theory up by mentioning Art’s visit to his therapist in which the therapist said, “It sounds like you’re feeling remorse-maybe you believe you exposed your father to ridicule” (pg. 44). This exemplifies how Art knows that he took advantage of his father. I then think after I characterize this relationship, I would go on with other relationships provided in his novel.

Finally, one subject I could go on about is the key theme of luck within the novel. Vladek is a “survivor” of the Holocaust, but how much luck was actually involved? It seems like to me, ever since he got his number interpreted by the priest, he was instilled with this hope that led him to strive and encounter all the luck that he did. Also, I would like to deliberate on how this luck affected him. Vladek seems to feel remorse for surviving the camps when so many didn’t. What affect did his luck play to this?

Anyways, I believe in the first thesis idea that I stated, I could incorporate Scott McCloud pretty well, I could use his arguments on the nature and structure of comic books to show how and why Spiegelman constructed his novel the way he did. I’m sure there is so much more I could do, but that’s all for now.

Let's Talk About Accuracy

Taylor argues that, ““In the past the man has been first,” he declared; “in the future the system must be first.” Just take a look at this quote. It seems all wrong. I understand that productivity enhancement is a primary goal for people of the technological fields, but I don’t believe it needs to be taken this far.
The thing with these companies is that they are only focused on one thing. That thing is productivity. But why is it productivity? It’s productivity just to enhance their profits. Therefore, the information that they provide their consumers with is not all faithful. What people don’t realize is that the internet and all the “factual” sites out there are not completely reliable. I mean just look at Wikipedia for example. Anyone can modify that site. And yet, we take it as if it is pure and accurate information.
Okay, so I mean this is kind of bound to happen. Every company does what they have to do to get where they need to get. I mean that’s just the mechanics of business. I’m not scolding the people who created this. Rather, I am concerned with us, the American population. We are the ones who allow this shift of power to happen. We are the ones who rely on these databases as if there is no tomorrow. Or rather I should say, as if there were no libraries. I guess what I’m trying to get across is that there are other access points to information out there, but we don’t use them. I believe that the reason we don’t use them is purely because we Americans are rather lazy. We can’t take the extra five minutes to go to a library and get more faithful and accurate information. Besides, Google and Wikipedia are so much more convenient. Just type in one phrase and all of your information pops up. Anyways, we rely on these internet data bases that may or may not give us reliant information. So therefore yes, I do agree with what Carr said.