TyroCity: Major English XII Notes

The Penalty of Death

Major English XII Notes — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 05:41:42 +0000

The Penalty of Death
by H.L. Mencken

Analysis

At last, a writer who fully understands that all society wants from the justice system is “a healthy letting off of steam” (Mencken). In his satirical essay The Penalty of Death, H.L. Mencken, through use of humor, exaggeration, and mocking euphemisms and anecdotes, satires America’s use of capital punishment. His essay attacks in particular the purpose of the death penalty and the public’s light treatment of “hanging a man (or frying or gassing him)” (Mencken). Mencken’s informal essay is persuasive in the sense that it is satire and uses irony to support his thesis.

Should The Penalty of Death be taken literally, the thesis would explicitly be: “What I contend is that one of the prime objects of all judicial punishments is to afford the same grateful relief (a) to the immediate victims of the criminal punished, and (b) to the general body of moral and timorous men” (Mencken). As a satire however, Mencken ridicules this statement as he supports it, and therefore his thesis is implicit, expressing his criticism of the American treatment of the death penalty. Mencken speaks satirically in the essay as an upstanding citizen patriotically supporting his country’s justice system while, also patriotically, offering helpful suggestions to improve it. The syntax is kept simple and many colloquialisms and clichés are used to give the speaker a personal, conversational voice. Mencken writes mainly for the pro-death penalty audience, as this “patriotic” perspective is exaggerated to the point where it mocks these advocates. This tone is achieved through exaggeration, such as the first “argument against capital punishment” that is discussed, saying “that hanging a man…is degrading to those who have to do it and revolting to those who have to witness it” (Mencken). Mencken does not mention the obvious arguments against the death penalty, such as a person’s right to life, instead exaggerating the American priority on a person’s own comfort. Also contributing to the sarcastic, mocking tone is euphemism, such as the repeated use of “katharsis” as a blatant replacement for “revenge”.

The essay is structured at first in a problem-solution form. Mencken wastes no time refuting the two “arguments against capital punishment” that open the essay, and offers his satirical thesis about “grateful relief” as a solution to the problem of the death penalty’s apparent uselessness. The “grateful relief” solution is, of course, ironic; it implies that that absurd goal is the only real reason that American uses the death penalty. Through example, he supports his argument of katharsis until arriving at the issue of a prisoner’s lengthy stay on death row. Here, Mencken’s true intentions start to emerge as he begins sympathize with the condemned criminals. He describes how it is unjust that “a murderer, under the traditional American system, is tortured for what, to him, must seem a whole series of eternities” (Mencken). Now that the criminal is being viewed as human again, the Mencken’s moral argument of whether the death penalty is right becomes apparent. This ends the essay with the message that all people should be treated ethically, which is effective after the completion of four or five paragraphs that claim the death penalty is not ethical. The essay’s abrupt end, without any sort of conclusion, may be jarring to the reader but also ensures that the reader is actively thinking about Mencken’s final message when the essay is put down.

In these final paragraphs, Mencken uses strong imagery such as being “tortured…a whole series of eternities” as an appeal to pathos and ethos, stimulating the reader’s emotions and sense of ethics. While this appeal to pathos closes the essay on a serious note, the rest of the satire appeals mostly to ethos and logos. Logos is present everywhere, particularly in Mencken’s refute of an executioner’s misery and his introduction of katharsis as a reason for the penalty, which he, in sarcasm and irony, supports heavily. As the essay is a satire, ethos is called on in nearly every point Mencken makes, as he suggests “you’re not anything like the people I’m mocking, are you?”

The Penalty of Death is very effective in its delivery of Mencken’s opinions. Mencken’s sense of humor makes it clear from the beginning what he intends to discuss and how he will do it, and his detailed support of his satirical thesis “katharsis” makes his message enjoyable as well as informative. His satirical voice is believable as pro-death penalty American, but his meaning is clearly driven home when the essay, like the life of a doomed prisoner, is ended before its natural close. As Mencken suggests, maybe the judicial system needs a new “healthy letting off of steam”.

Zeroing in on Science Friction

Major English XII Notes — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 05:41:42 +0000

Background: From Physics to Fiction

As a physics major in the 1960s, Goshgarian and a few friends were drawn to their English professor, the late James Hensel, whom he calls “the teacher of all teachers.” Goshgarian named a character in Elixir for Hensel, and another is named for former WPI president Harry P. Storke.

“We were literature geeks in an otherwise science geeky kind of place,” Goshgarian says. “In the afternoon, after classes were out, we would meet up in Jim Hensel’s office to talk about everything from Charles Dickens to Tolstoy to Albert Einstein.” The young Goshgarian put his writing talents to use as an editor of Tech News and the Peddler, and started an offbeat humor magazine called Absolute Zero.

“I was reading science fiction by the pound,” he says. By his sophomore year, Goshgarian knew that he would work with words rather than atoms. “I liked words. I could see them and manipulate them. I could not see atoms, didn’t quite believe in them.” After earning a master’s degree and doctorate in English, he joined the English faculty at Northeastern University.

In the early 1970s Goshgarian’s department head challenged him to create a new elective to boost enrollment. He saw his chance to teach quality science fiction as a reputable literary form. Some 30 years later, his courses are popular and well-respected, although parents occasionally balk, “My child is taking what?” In addition to science fiction, Goshgarian teaches a detective fiction class and has developed courses in horror fiction and modern bestsellers. He also offers a graduate-level creative writing seminar.

Required reading for Goshgarian’s classes ranges from Edgar Allen Poe to Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clark and Dean Koontz. A centerpiece of the science fiction curriculum is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Discussions are supplemented with movies and guest speakers, which have included best-selling authors Stephen King, Tess Gerritsen, Robert B. Parker and Michael Palmer.

Goshgarian wants his writing students to learn “the ability to look at another person’s writing the way a carpenter looks at a house–to study the architecture of it, the freshness of the language, the narrative thrust that keeps the story going. And to see that the bones have flesh on them, that you have characters who are interesting and aren’t cardboard cut-outs.

“My goal is to make them better readers, too. That’s the secret of good writing. We do a lot of close reading. That’s what Jim Hensel taught me, way back at Worcester Tech.”

A Day in the Life of "Salaryman"

Major English XII Notes — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 05:41:42 +0000

A Day in the Life of “Salaryman”
– John Burgess

Background (With the compassion of 2 different stories)

A slave is a person who works extremely hard under a horrible condition. He also needs to work for a long time but with very limited benefit. In George Orwells Down and Out in Paris and London, Orwell says that the dishwasher is a slave. However, is not salary-man in A Day in the Life of Salary-man by John Burgess also a slave? Actually, the answer is no. In my opinion, dishwasher is a slave, but salary-man is not.
First of all, their working hours are distinctly different. According to Orwell, George works from seven in the morning until a quarter past nine at night for six days a week. Sometimes he has to go to work on his off day too. Differently, salary-man only works from ten past nine in the morning till seven in the evening for only five days, and he does not need to work on his off days. The lunch break of Salary-man and dishwasher are different too. As George says, This was our slack time-only relatively slack, however, for we had only ten minutes for lunch, and we never got through it uninterrupted (Orwell 64). In contrast, salary-man has much more time than dishwasher during the lunch break. The salary-man does more things during this break than the dishwasher does. Over lunch, they talk of their passion, golf At lunch, salary-man sometimes manages to stop into a driving range on the roof of a building near his company (Burgess 255). Moreover, salary-man and dishwashers lives after work are totally different. For dishwasher, he has nothing to do after work because he has only few hours left and not even enough for sleeping. Nevertheless, the salary-man has a good life after work. He may have been included in a dinner at a nearby restaurant and enjoy his moment.

And the writer thus, compares and tabulates a single day life in the story by giving the following distinct background in the lines that follows.

Enemies

Major English XII Notes — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:41:42 +0000

by Anton Chekov

Kirilov is the district doctor. His six-year old son has just this moment died of diphtheria. He stands watching his wife caress the body as the doorbell rings. It is a wealthy stranger (Abogin) who begs the Doctor to come treat his wife who is in great pain. Kirilov says that he cannot possibly leave his wife at this time. Abogin insists, however, claiming that the doctor must know how terrible it is to witness the illness of a loved one and that his home is close-by. Kirilov relents.

But when they arrive at Abogin’s house, his wife is not home. She has pretended to be ill so that her husband would leave the house allowing her to run away with her lover. Abogin is crushed and begins to complain to Kirilov. Kirilov is fiercely angry that he has been dragged from his son’s death-bed to hear Abogin’s love troubles. They scream at one another, and the doctor returns home, with a firm and undying conviction that all those with money deserve his hatred.

Comments

Chekhov suggests that grief and misery do not bring people together to share, but force them apart. Pain is egotistic. The story also reflects on the status of doctors. When Abogin tries to lure the Doctor from his house, he speaks of the noble, self-sacrificing profession of medicine. However, he has so little respect for Kirilov as to hound him, then offer him money to absolve the insult. Kirilov, meanwhile, unjustly forms a prejudice against the rich that will never leave him.

Source: The Tales of Chekhov, Vol. 11: The Schoolmaster and Other Stories

The Day of the Dead

Major English XII Notes — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:41:42 +0000

by Octavio Paz

Plot Summaries:

Zombies rule the world, except for a small group of scientists and military personnel who reside in an underground bunker in Florida. The scientists are using the undead in gruesome experiments; much to the chagrin of the military. Finally the military finds that their men have been used in the scientists’ experiments, and banish the scientists to the caves that house the Living Dead. Unfortunately, the zombies from above ground have made their way into the bunker.

The Dead have conquered earth, leaving just small groups of people out of their clutches. One group made up of both scientific and military personal, hiding in a bunker somewhere in Florida tries to get in contact with other survivors of the zombie infestation, but find themselves quite alone in this new world. Desperately searching for a cure and therefore indulging in strange experiments to overcome this strange transformation into zombies, the scientists loose the faith of the military, resulting in a race against death while the zombies take over the facility.. Only common sense can save them now…

– Submitted by Matt Puskas & Mark Logan

A Marriage Proposal

Major English XII Notes — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:41:42 +0000

by Anton Chekov

Plot synopsis

Ivan Vassiliyitch Lomov, a long-time neighbor of Stepan Stepanovitch Chubukov, has come to propose marriage to Chubukov’s 25-year-old daughter, Natalia. After he has asked and received joyful permission to marry Natalia, she is invited into the room, and he tries to convey to her the proposal. Lomov is a hypochondriac, and, while trying to make clear his reasons for being there, he gets into an argument with Natalia about The Oxen Meadows, a disputed piece of land between their respective properties, which results in him having “palpitations” and numbness in his leg. After her father notices they are arguing, he joins in, and then sends Ivan out of the house. While Stepan rants about Lomov, he expresses his shock that “this fool dares to make you (Natalia) a proposal of marriage!” This news she immediately starts into hysterics, begging for her father to bring him back. He does, and Natalia and Ivan get into a second big argument, this time about the superiority of their respective hunting dogs, Otkatai and Ugadi. Ivan collapses from his exhaustion over arguing, and father and daughter fear he’s dead. However, after a few minutes he regains consciousness, and Tschubukov all but forces him and his daughter to accept the proposal with a kiss. Immediately following the kiss, the couple get into another argument.

Further Understanding

The Play, “A Marriage Proposal”, shows how consideration of property and even our pride in property override other feelings and emotions like those generally associated with love and marriage. Even marriage is prompted by economic considerations, not by emotions.

Stepan Stepanovitch Tschubukov and Ivan Vassiliyitch Lomov were neighbours in a village. Natalia Stepanovna was the daughter of Tschubukov. Lomov a man of thirty-five wanted to marry. He thought Natalia was good at farm work and she was not bad looking. So he came to the house of Tschubukov one evening to propose to Natalia. Naturally he was in his best clothes befitting the occasion of a marriage proposal. Tschubukov received him cordially in his reception room. Like every young man going to make a marriage proposal Lomov was also excited and nervous. After some nervous stammering, he told Tschubokov that he wanted Natalia’s hand in marriage. Tschubokov was very excited and happy at the proposal. He went out and sent Natalia into the room to meet the suitor. Natalia was not told of the purpose of Lomov. Natalia and Lomov began to talk.

Lomov was more nervous as he was facing the bride. He made a strong preface before coming to the proposal. He told Natalia about how the Lomovs and the Tschubukovs had been good neighbours on good terms for many years. In this context, he mentioned that his meadow touched the birch woods of Tschubukov. Natalia was surprised to hear that the meadows belonged to Lomov. She claimed that the plot of land belonged to them, the Tschubukovs. A bitter quarrel ensued. Lomov claimed it belonged to him and Natalia too claimed it to be theirs. Lomov forgot his original purpose. They called each other names, even though a little while ago they were full of good neighbourly feelings. Tschubukov came in and heard their quarrel. He too claimed that the meadow belonged to him. The quarrel grew even bitterer. They called each other names and began to expose the scandals of each others’ families. Lomov had a weak heart. He used to have palpitation in the heart. He was excited and he fainted. He rose and left the house. At this juncture, Tschubukov remarked that such a fool had dared to come seeking the hand of Natalia.

The moment she heard that he had come to propose to her, Natalia changed her tone. She asked her father to bring back Lomov. Her self interest overruled all other considerations like her loyalty to her family. Lomov came back. Natalia was all politeness. She even conceded that the meadow belonged to Lomov. After all, if they were married, the meadow would come to be hers only. Lomov informed that he would go hunting after the harvest. He was sorry that his dog Ugadi limped and he began to praise his dog. He thought that a hundred and twenty five roubles that he had paid for it was very cheap for such a good dog. Natalia, however, thought that it was a very high price because her father had paid only eighty-five roubles for their dog Otkatai, which was a better dog than Ugadi.

Lomov disagreed and asserted that Otkatai had a lower jaw and Ugadi was a far better dog than Otkatai. Once again their pride in their dogs led to another quarrel. Tschubukov came in and joined the quarrel. Lomov once again got excited and he fainted.

Tschubukov who knew the importance of getting his daughter married, at once joined the hands of Natalia and Lomov and declared that Natalia agreed to the match. Natalia too, declared that she was willing and Lomov declared that he too, was happy. Tschubukov shouted for champagne to celebrate the intended marriage.

To The Moon

Major English XII Notes — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:41:42 +0000

by P.B. Shelley

The poet, P. B. Shelley, reflects on the timeless journey of the moon. The poet feels that the moon has grown tired of climbing the heaven and looking upon the earth continuously. It looks pale because of its endless journey – its ascent in the heaven, which it keeps steady and looking below on the earth with a similar constancy.

The moon is all alone in the company of the stars. It is outlandish (strange) in the company of stars which have a different birth and origin. The moon goes on in its endless journey waxing and waning alternately. It changes its face from time to time to express its disgust form the world. The moon is not getting the companion of its heart’s desire. It is in search of a companion suited to its noble birth, and like a joyless eye that does not find an object worth its graces; the moon too keeps steadily changing. The poem is a short lyric. The entire poem does not contain more than six lines.

But within a network of six lines only, the entire Shelley has been contained. It is short, lyrical, elegant and graceful. The theme is a conventional one. The poet speaks of the moon. The moon is personified. Seen through the colored glass of the poet’s imaginative sensibility, the moon assumes not only glow and beauty, but even a majestic charm, a personality. The moon is stately, noble, and elegantly born. It becomes enriched with an individuality which far excels the graces of the stars that only twinkle round her. The poet offers the moon with feelings of his own mind. The moon feels strange among the stars of a different birth in the same way as the poet Shelley felt odd among the people that crowded round him- people of a distinctly low origin, nobility and birth. The poem is intensely subjective, and the charm of the moon is the charm of the poet’s personality. He stood alone and companionless in the multitude of men, who were so indifferent to his passion for a millennium on this earth. He sung, he cried, he thundered and even wept, but the world went on unheeding. The moon becomes the symbol of revolution, which carries on the message of peace all alone and single-handed.

Each of the stars is a flaming sun, and the moon is supposed to be a fragment detached from the earth. But Shelley holds a different opinion. He thinks that the moon has no companion. It is all alone and solitary. It is lonely in the company of stars. The stars do not belong to the same kind. The moon is nobly born. The stars have an inferior birth and have a different origin.

The moon is seeking constancy, but the moon itself is not constant. He is constantly changing in shape and size. The moon is never the same even on two consecutive nights. This change is due to the fact that the moon cannot find anyone whom he can love faithfully. Actually, nothing in the world remains constant. They keep on changing.

The poem is rich with images but the images lack clarity. In the last two lines, the image does not exactly fit in and lacks expressiveness. The poet compares the waxing and the waning of the moon with the joyless eyes of one who finds no object worth its constancy. But the waxing and waning of the moon is not happily expressed in the image. The poet here means to say that the waxing and waning of the moon may be likened to the unsteady eyes of a man who is in search of an object pleasing to his sight. Like the eyes of a man who is in search of beauty as responsive as the steadiness of his eyes, the moon seems to be changing its face form time to time. The change expresses a joyless feeling as the eyes of a man not finding a suitable object for his eyes were as a joyless expression. The other image of the moon – or a wanderer wandering companionless- among the stars of a low birth has both clarity and expressiveness. The first image of the moon being considered as a wanderer, pale with climbing the heaven is very suggestive and contains a rich note of pathos sublimated by rich and personal feelings. The lines are musical. The single image has been varied and seen through different angles. This one-sentence poem describes the joyless moon that does not find anything constant in this world. It is itself inconstant. That is why it seems to be in quest of constancy.

She was a Phantom of Delight

Major English XII Notes — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:41:42 +0000

by WILLIAM WORDSWORTH

Wordsworth writes about his changing perspective on his wife, Mary Hutchinson, who he describes as the “Phantom of delight.” At first he sees her as he did as a youth, as a spirit “to haunt, to startle, to way-lay,” but by the third stanza, he sees her with mature eyes. She has become a real woman with “reason firm, the temperate will,/Endurance, foresight, strength, and skill.

Figurative Analysis:Wordsworth compares his wife to a “Phantom of delight” to show how smitten he was with her in his youth. He calls her an “Apparition” as well and givers her stars for eyes. He continues using metaphors to describe her change, comparing her to a machine that can travel between life and death. She has morphed from a phantom to an angel by the end of the poem as Wordsworth illustrates her change from mystery to reality. The poem reflects Wordsworth’s emotions tempered by the tranquility of wisdom through his use of figurative language.

Application of Poetry Terms:1. Simile: Wordsworth utilizes similes and metaphors throughout the poem. For example, he compares his wife to twilight, writing “Her eyes as stars of Twilight fair;/Like Twilight’s, too, her dusky hair.” Wordsworth uses similes throughout the poem to show first the unreachable qualities of his wife and later her real qualities as well.

Rhyme Scheme: Wordsworth utilizes a consistent rhyme scheme throughout the poem. The scheme is AABBCCDDEE in each ten-line stanza. The rhyme scheme unifies the poem and emphasizes the beauty of the woman through the natural beauty of the rhyme. The use of rhyming couplets may reveal a simplicity of purpose as well.
Alliteration: Wordsworth uses alliteration for aural effect in the poem. For example, he repeats the soft “s” consonant writing “For transient sorrows, simple wiles,” possibly to slow down the speaker and affect the speed at which the poem is read aloud for emphasis of his wife’s real qualities. Also, the soft “s” sound likely reflects the softness of the woman, a quality Wordsworth is trying to demonstrate in the poem.

Poem Lines
She was a Phantom of delight
When first she gleamed upon my sight;
A lovely Apparition, sent
To be a moment’s ornament;
Her eyes as stars of Twilight fair;
Like Twilight’s, too, her dusky hair;
But all things else about her drawn
From May-time and the cheerful Dawn;
A dancing Shape, an Image gay,
To haunt, to startle, and way-lay.
I saw her upon nearer view,
A Spirit, yet a Woman too!
Her household motions light and free,
And steps of virgin-liberty;
A countenance in which did meet
Sweet records, promises as sweet;
A Creature not too bright or good
For human nature’s daily food;
For transient sorrows, simple wiles,
Praise, blame, love, kisses, tears, and smiles.
And now I see with eye serene
The very pulse of the machine;
A Being breathing thoughtful breath,
A Traveller between life and death;
The reason firm, the temperate will,
Endurance, foresight, strength, and skill;
A perfect Woman, nobly planned,
To warn, to comfort, and command;
And yet a Spirit still, and bright
With something of angelic light.

The Use of force – Question Answers

Major English XII Notes — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:41:42 +0000

by William Carlos Williams

‘The Use of Force’ is a short story that depicts the conflict between an unnamed doctor and his patient, a sick little girl. The story is written in a first person narrative and does not use any quotation marks, making the dialogues inseparable from narrator’s own words. The story presents an important question of whether using force on someone, even for a good purpose is moral or not.

General Questions:

What is the nature of the conflict in the story?

The nature of the conflict in the story is both physical and emotional. We see the conflict that occurs in the story to be the conflict that happens between the doctor and Mathilda, however, there is another form of conflict presented; that is the conflict that arises inside the doctor as he debates within himself whether using force on the child is justifiable or not.

Why does the doctor respect the child but find the parents “contemptible”?

The doctor respects the child and infact he has taken a liking to her, as he says ‘I had already fallen in love with the savage brat’. He liked Mathilda so much as she was a beautiful child, she had magnificent blonde hair, which made the doctor think about picture-children that appeared in advertising leaflets and photogravure sections of the Sunday papers, then, he also respected her so much since he was impressed by her determination to defend herself from him. Though, he found the parents to be contemptible because although they were eager to cooperate they were also distrustful of him. His contempt escalates from being implied to plain obvious when they started coaxing the child, calling the doctor a ‘nice man’, their efforts were useless, and rather than helping they hindered the doctor’s efforts.

What does the story tell us about the use of force? How is the doctor affected by resorting to the use of force? How is the child affected by being forced to open her mouth against her will?

The story tells us that although the use of force on something or someone may be justifiable, what compels it makes people have difficulty in separating their emotions and the standards they have set for themselves. The doctor, at first seems very professional and decides to take a more standard way of approaching the child. He smiled in his ‘best professional manner’, he then attempted to coax her, but as she was reluctant and as she started becoming more and more defensive, he could not control his emotions, which in turn made him mad with fury and use force on the child. Here, the wooden tongue depressor is a kind of metaphor for the doctor’s tolerance. As it breaks, the doctor’s tolerance also breaks, and he shuns rationality and uses force on the child, even though it was for a good purpose.

Describe the relationship of the parents with the child.

The Olsons had a fairly good relationship with their daughter. Yet, they were not fully aware of her feelings, they were stuck in conflicting emotions themselves, and they were unsure whether they should hurt their daughter in order to save her, or let her have independence. The parents cared for Mathilda, they wanted her to get better, they wanted her to live, but since they were facing conflict within themselves they could not react properly. The father provides a good example of their weakness, when he tried to hold down his daughter he failed because of the fact that she was his daughter, he was ashamed at her behaviour, and he feared he might hurt her.

Write a paragraph about the reaction of the child during the crisis.

It is obvious that Mathilda was afraid of the doctor, her behaviours change from being indifferent to violently defensive. She was not aware of the fact that he was going to save her life; he even justifies ‘the damned little brat must be protected against her own idiocy’. Everyone saw her reaction as shameful, but no one actually cared enough to understand her feelings and how hurt she was. She reacts negatively to the force being used on her; she shrieked hysterically, ‘Stop it! Stop it! You’re killing me!’ She even hurt herself while breaking the tongue depressor with her mouth.

Do you think a doctor’s use of force like this on a patient is justifiable? Give reasons for your answer.

The use of force on a sick child by a doctor is not very justifiable, even if it is justifiable; the reason why it was done would not be ethical. The doctor explains that he used force on the child because he was saving her from her own idiocy; he was merely trying to save her life. But still, we cannot take his actions as justifiable, since there was another way, the doctor says himself that he could have come back in an hour and tried later. His use of force on the patient cannot be condoned as he was compelled by his emotions, and that is not what a doctor does, he failed to maintain his composure. He broke his own standards, followed his emotions and hurt the child, even though he was saving her life.

The Inner Part

Major English XII Notes — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:41:42 +0000

by Louis Simpson

Summary and Critical Analysis

When Americans won the war for the first time in history, they assumed that they were the most important people. Their behaviors changed. The leaders and the most important persons began to wear formal clothes. They stopped wearing shirts only. Their wives thought that it was a mark of rude behavior to scratch their bodies in public. Similarly, they started using formal language. They supposed that informal language would make them like common people. In order to express their surprise, they stopped saying the informal world “Gosh”. Their daughter seemed as sensitive as the tip of a fly rod. Their sons looked as smooth as a V-8 engine. They had lost their human qualities. They had become like inanimate objects. When the priests examined the inner parts of birds, they found that the heart has been misplaced and the small eggs inside them were as black as death and they were sending out bad smell.

‘The Inner Part’ is a poem in which we can see the superficial change of the Americans and spiritual emptiness in the name of being civilized after winning the battle of the Second World War. They have become so proud that they began to think superior than others. They pretend to be civilized by wearing coat, tie and shirt. Their wives stopped scratching in public and even they stopped saying “Gosh”. It shows that they forgot their god also. They became materialistic that they began to compare their daughter as sensitive as the tip of a fly rod and son as smooth as v-8 engine. They have forgotten the difference between object and human being.

‘The Inner Part’ by Louis Simpson describes a superficially improved condition of American civilization after the Second World War in the first three stanzas, and then goes on to show how the country is spiritually vile and corrupt. Humanity is a mere world in a country that is spiritually dead. People pretend that they are superior and their behavior is affected. They want to show off. People are no longer humane. They are like machines. They misunderstand the language of hove and kindness. Whatever they say is a mere expression of hatred and death. There is no room for sweet things in the world.

In the third stanza sons are compared to V-8 engines because the boys want to roam here and there and they want to show their smoothness like the body of the car. Daughters are compared to the tip of a fly rod, which are sensitive enough when the fish is hooked. The boys and girls do not care for human qualities, because they are spiritually vile and corrupt.

In the last stanza instead of surgeon a priest; a spiritual leader is to examine the body physically because the priest examines the body and finds spiritual absence in the heart of Americans. The heart is misplaced, so there is neither love, nor kindness in it. It is as black as death and it only sends out bad smell of decaying body. The poet here tries to disclose the inner part or the reality of the Americans who are spiritually vile, corrupt and without any sense of humanity.

The poem is trying to show the superficial changes in the behavior of Americans in the second half of the twentieth century. Though they had tried to show themselves very decent outwardly, there is a very different story inside. They have turned into hypocrites, and their children also have become devoid of humanity. They have turned into objects. The lack of humanitarian feelings in Americans is made clear through the description of birds whose heart have been replaced by reeking (smelling bad) black seeds. This bird devoid of heart stands for Americans who have forgotten the meaning of being a human. The black seeds stand for the negativities like, selfishness, great snobbery, and hypocrisy. Outwardly they are well mannered but the inner reality is really miserable. The country had become spiritually vile and corrupt. Humanity is dead and spirituality is merely a word for them. The heart from where positive feelings like love, compassion, sincerity and spirituality flow is shown to be missing. That is why the poet appears pessimistic to the fact that the American way of life and thinking might change for better. Such a possibility is shown to be almost impossible as the place of heart is taken by the black seeds emitting unpleasant smell.

As Louis Simpson believes, this poem rises from the inner life of the poet and is expressed in original images and rhythms. Also, the language of this poem is closely related to the language in which men actually think and speak. He has written this poem in irregular, unrhymed lines. There is a dramatic and narrative element in the poem. The action, feeling and idea have come through with no interference in this poem.

Major English XII

Major English XII Notes — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:41:42 +0000

Encounters

Generations

Plays in One Act

Encounters

Generations

Play in One Act

Encounters

Play in One Act

The Great Gatsby

Other titles

Musee des Beaux Arts

Major English XII Notes — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:41:42 +0000

by W. H. Auden

The basic premise of the poem is response to tragedy, or as the song goes “Obla Di, Obla Da, Life Goes On.” The title refers to the Museum of Fine Arts in Brussels. Auden visited the museum in 1938 and viewed the painting by Brueghel, which the poem is basically about. Generalizing at first, and then going into specifics the poem theme is the apathy with which humans view individual suffering.

Auden wrote that “In so far as poetry, or any of the arts, can be said to have an ulterior purpose, it is, by telling the truth, to disenchant and dis intoxicate.”

The poem juxtaposes ordinary events and extraordinary ones, although extraordinary events seem to deflate to everyday ones with his descriptions. Life goes on while a “miraculous birth occurs”, but also while “the disaster” of Icarus’s death happens.

For those cultural barbarians who don’t know the story of Icarus, here it is, in condensed form. Icarus was a Greek mythological figure, also known as the son of Daedalus (famous for the Labyrinth of Crete). Now Icarus and his dad were stuck in Crete, because the King of Crete wouldn’t let them leave.

Daedalus made some wings for the both of them and gave his son instruction on how to fly (not too close to the sea, the water will soak the wings, and not too close to the sky, the sun will melt them). Icarus, however, appeared to be obstinate and did fly to close to the sun. This caused the wax that held his wings to his body to melt. Icarus crashed into the sea and died.

Some have even claimed to find hints of Auden’s eventual re-conversion to Christianity in the poem. Richard Johnson, author of “Man’s Place: An Essay on Auden”, believes there is a touch of Christian awareness in the poem, especially the timeline. The reader of the poem is placed in front of the Breughel painting in a museum, and at the same time is expected to project those images and truths to the world outside. There is also a sort of continuity through the poem as you read it and are allowed to see what the poet means. This allows a reader to become aware of his human position.

The poem first discusses a “miraculous birth”, and at the end “the tragedy” of a death. The theme in the poem is human suffering. If you add these things together, and stir really well you might even get some hints at religion, mainly at Christianity.

Also, the poem suggest a religious acceptance of suffering (example: eating your morning breakfast while watching coverage of a serious train-wreck on CNN). Religious acceptance basically means coming to terms with the ways of the world.

Poem

About suffering they were never wrong,
The old Masters: how well they understood
Its human position: how it takes place
While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along;
How, when the aged are reverently, passionately waiting
For the miraculous birth, there always must be
Children who did not specially want it to happen, skating
On a pond at the edge of the wood:
They never forgot
That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course
Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot
Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer’s horse
Scratches its innocent behind on a tree.

In Breughel’s Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away
Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may
Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,
But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone
As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green
Water, and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen
Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky,
Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on.