Till Death Do Us Part

Most marriage vows end with the couple promising to stay with one another "till death does them part." In Judith Minty's Conjoined, this vow is looked upon as torture ,while in John Donne's A Valediction, love transcends death. The latter conveys a profound, spiritual view toward marriage, while the other poem has a cynical attitude toward marriage. Thus, the two poems use figurative language to illustrate opposing viewpoints on the institution of marriage.

Conjoined takes a bitter, condescending outlook on marriage through the use of metaphors. For example, Minty states that an accident is like "Chang and Eng, twins joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed to live, even make love, together for sixty years." The metaphor of the conjoined twins refers to the horrible mistake that people make of getting married. Conjoined twins are restricted in what they can do just as people who are married often times give in to the other's demands and ,as a result, sacrifice his/her own desires.. The union of marriage is seen as an unnatural, inhumane conjoinment. Minty further illustrates her bleak perspective on marriage by stating that, " to sever the muscle could free one but might kill the other." This means that trying to surgically unattach the twins could save one but potentially kill the other unfortunate one. Metaphorically, one spouse will always reap the benefit, while at the expense of the other who makes a sacrifice. Humans are so unique and varying that it is inevitable that they will have different wants and needs. Thus, married couples will always be fighting to defend their own wills and holding each other back from their dreams by "the skin that binds [them] together as [they] move heavy in this house."Minty compares the married couple, "the onion in [a] cupboard, actually two joined under one transparent skin: each half-round, then flat and deformed where it pressed and grew against the other." The marriage is the skin of the onion that holds the couple together , suppressing their freedoms.They are bound together oppressively, ultimately destroying one another. Furthermore, Conjoined discloses the idea that marriage is a failed institution.

A Valediction, on the other hand, uses figurative language in conveying the omnipotent power of love and marriage. For example, the author states that he and his wife, " our two souls therefore ,which are one." This metaphor is comparing the martial union of a husband and a wife to the joining of souls. The couple's love is so great that their marriage alters them from being two distinct individuals into a single union where their lives revolve around one another. They are connected beyond physical attraction by a soulful love of the others' inner being. Despite the fact,"[one spouse] must go , endure not yet a breach, but an expansion like gold to airy thinness beat." This simile compares the pliability of gold to the endurance of the couple's love. Love can withstand the tests of time, distance, and even death. Even when one dies just his/her body is gone but his/her spirit thrives in heaven; therefore, the relationship cannot be severed by obstacles. Being that love is unconquerable there need be " no tear-floods, nor sigh-tempests move..." from bends down the road in the journey of life. Evidently, A Valediction, reveres the limitless, depth of power that marriage can have.

The two poems drastically contrast one another in their viewpoints about marriage. The poem,Conjoined, illustrates negativity toward marriage, while the poem, A Valediction, conveys positivity toward the vast strength of the institution of marriage. In Conjoined, the author feels that marriage is a drudgery that is unfair to both partners in the union and should be extinct. The author of Conjoined, feels that love will die in the midst of a couple's 'sixty year' marriage. Opposingly, the author of A Valediction feels that love is immortal and even though it is abstract it cannot be destroyed by tangible forces.In this poem, love is sustained by the lovers emotional bond rather than physical attraction. While in Conjoined, physical prescence is not even enough to flourish or even make the marriage bearable.

The two poems convey contrasting attitudes toward the institution of marriage proven through their use of figurative. In Conjoined, marriage is seen as inhumane, while in Valediction marriage is viewed as being celestial. Furthermore, the two poems contrast as far as the east is from the west.

Things They Carried Reflection

Well…where to begin. First of all, the author, Jim Neilson, is arguing in his article that Tim O’Brien’s novel is ignorant of the truth of the war. The author feels that O’Brien wants readers to sympathize with himself and rarely acknowledges the struggles faced by the Vietnamese. Neilson states that, “In postmodern fashion, The Things They Carried focuses on literary and epistemological preoccupations at the expense both of a Vietnamese perspective and of any broader historical/political understanding.” I disagree with Neilson; I feel that O’Brien accomplished his intent in his novel to make readers understand the true feelings of a soldier in the experiences he goes through. O’Brien feels that he is a coward for not following his heart and fighting a war without knowing the purpose of doing so. He shows his lack of faith in the necessity of the war by questioning, “Was it a civil war? A war of national liberation or simple aggression? Who started it, and when, and why? What really happened to the USS Maddox on that dark night in the Gulf of Tonkin? Was Ho Chi Minh a Communist stooge, or a nationalist savior, or both, or neither? What about the Geneva accords? What about SEATO and the Cold War? What about dominoes?” (44). I think that similar to Art Spiegalman’s writing in Maus II, O’Brien only wanted to convey the feelings he knew of, which in O’Brien’s case is that of the sheer terror and horror faced by the soldiers. He did not want to stereotype by rationalizing American or Vietnamese intents in fighting.

As for Neilson’s claim that O’Brien’s novel is not credible because of his two sided psychological state toward the war, I feel that because people cannot be inherently good or evil things cannot be viewed simply as being black or white. It’s only human to look and see things differently at different times. It’s kind of like when something bad happens to someone and they go through a vicious cycle of being angry, sad, and then being happy again only to repeat the cycle again.

The Truths They Carried

I hope ev’rybody had a good weekend. I am not really sure how to start this blog, so here goes something. I think this book is very entertaining because each chapter tells a different story about the war. One theme that I noticed was that cowards are the ones who do what is expected of them instead of upholding their own beliefs. For instance in the chapter, On The Rainy River, O’Brien runs away and undergoes inner turmoil when he is drafted into the war and has indecisiveness of whether he should fight or hide. O’Brien says of his decision, " I was a coward. I went to the war (61)."This is ironic to me that he was brave to fight, yet he still calls himself a coward. He feels that it is amoral to fight and kill men in a war without having a clear defined purpose. I think O’Brien is trying to convey that doing what is socially acceptable no matter how chivalrous it may seem is really cowardice if you are not upholding your own moral standards.
Another theme that O’Brien tries to convey is that a true war story does not necessarily have to be true and that some true stories are irrelevant. Stories that are falsified or overexaggerated may have more truth to them than those that are historically accurate. Made up stories may show the real agonizing emotions like the sheer terror that the soldiers endured on a daily basis. The credible stories are simply a time line that tell a soldier’s journey from point A to point B but do not bridge the alienation and judgement between the soldiers and the folks back home. It is the stories invented by the soldiers that give outsiders an inside look at the hardships the soldiers’ have been through.

I finally spelled architechture right!!

Postmodernism…well where to begin? Hmm... well, first of all, I think Postmodernism is a multitude of different discourses with different purposes, seeking different answers, and drawing different conclusions. In earlier times, people all had similar American dreams of having a two story luxurious house, getting married, and having kids, but now some people would rather not get married, not have kids, and spend their money on other things. As the population increased, so did the variety of cultures and ideals. In Postmodernism, there is a decentering of values with no real focal point. Postmodernists believe that there is no universal truth. Because of the numerous viewpoints there is bias told in every event. Even history books are subjective, since the stories are usually told in the winners’ viewpoint. In Postmodernism, there are binary opposites that regulate the world. One cannot exist without the other. For instance, good can’t exist without evil. They derive their meanings from one another and without evil there would be no way to define the good. Semiotics means that the two opposites must coexist; otherwise, by themselves the words are meaningless. "You see how one member of the pair is privileged. The [other] term then becomes marginalized" (102).
Postmodern architecture is characterized by rationality and materials such as steel and reinforced concrete rather than ornamentation like modern architecture. Postmodernists believe buildings should be pure absolute forms such as cubes, cones, spheres, cylinders, pyramids, and squares. The shapes of the buildings are based on a Platonic ideal that, knowledge is found in pure, eternal, complete forms which we know with our intellects, but not through our senses. Postmodern architecture consists of new techniques and old designs. By copying modern architecture and putting their own twist on it, postmodern architects parody the past. The point of postmodernism architecture like other postmodern theories, is to keep people from being alienated, in this case, by their own houses.

Maus 2 Ideas

Maus is my favorite book that we have read so far this year. I am not really sure what I am going to write my essay on though. Maybe I will write an essay arguing that the Holocaust cannot be commemorated accurately. Justice would never be given to victims of the Holocaust since authors have not been through the tragic experience. That is why Artie only attempts to show his father’s experience in the concentration camps and not portray the general experience of others who went through the Holocaust. His father may have not been under as harsh of circumstances as other Jews, so people may not get the full gist of how horrific the concentration camps were. He wears a mask of a mouse since he feels guilty as if he is trying to façade the emotions of a Holocaust victim in writing his story. He fears stereotyping his father as a miserly Jew but being in a concentration camp can change a person and shape them in a new form for the rest of their lives.

For my essay, I am thing about using Postmodernism as a source. Since the book talks about how there is no universal truth that all believe, so everyone will have a different interpretation of the how awful the Holocaust really was. Artie even finds a fallacy in hearing that their was orchestras playing at the concentration camps when his father never knew of this. Every author will have a bias based on his/her own culture and religion that will affect how he/she depicts the Holocaust.

I would also like to somehow incorporate something about the setting changes from past to present and visa versa but I am sure what to do with that. Let me know if you have any ideas.

Google The Great(or not)

I hope y’all had a good weekend! Well where to begin…

It is evident from Karr’s article that people (myself included) have developed an inability to focus on lengthy texts due to the internet. “A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.” Our brains can no longer retain depth from reading, since we learn the art of skim reading on the internet. While typing an essay, it becomes distracting being on the computer. I take numerous breaks going on Facebook, playing solitaire, and checking emails. The internet is literally turning our brains to mush.

In postmodernism, there is a decentering of values. There are an infinite number of metanarratives making there no central focal point. I think this reflects how people can no longer focus or comprehend a sophisticated understanding of any one thing. Vonnegut most likely made Cat’s Cradle with short chapters that had a different topic for almost every chapter because he knew people would be incapable of focusing on any one topic for an extended period. One such character, Mona, has an inability to focus on one man. For instance, when John knows he is going to marry Mona, he wants her to only love him and she tells him that, “[she] loves everyone” (207). Mona cannot even focus on being committed to one man. If she were dedicated to John, she would learn the depth of his personality, but by being promiscuous, she can ‘skim’ over him and other men.
The internet has even corrupted marriage in today’s society. More than 50 % of marriages end in divorce. People become disinterested in there spouses because of the lack of focus promoted by surfing the net. Apparently, even Barbie and Ken, after years of marriage, are now divorced. As you can see, the internet has turned people into mindless zombies.

Hypertechnology

Imagine you are sitting right next to your friend and both of you are texting one another instead of talking. How pathetic is that? Even though you are with company at the same time, you are isolated. Today we are living in a pseudo-modern world, since technology has abolished meaning in life.
In pseudo-modernism, authors have little purpose.
In Dr. Kirby’s article he states that, “In all of this, the ‘viewer’ feels powerful and is indeed necessary; the ‘author’ as traditionally understood is either relegated to the status of the one who sets the parameters within which others operate, or becomes simply irrelevant, unknown, sidelined; and the ‘text’ is characterized both by its hyper-ephemerality and by its instability.” Writers have no purpose in dictating their own work. The writer of a show is invisible to outsiders. Shows such as American Idol are entirely dependant on the voting of viewers. The creator of the show does not get to pick the winner, only the voters who text in their vote. An essay must present an argument to be worth reading and analyzing. Reality shows, on the other hand, bring no thought provoking conversations. Shows and authors become void of meaning. The writer becomes a waiter asking the ‘customer’ if they would like beef or chicken. The waiter cannot control what the customer orders, in the same way, that a writer cannot control the outcome of his/her own work. Ironically, technology was meant to improve our society intellectually, when in actuality, it has diminished our ability to expand our knowledge.

Where does all of this leave us? Is technology more evil than good?