TyroCity: Major English XII Notes

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.

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.”

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”.

The Hunter Gracchus

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

by Franz Kafka

Summary

Kafka’s stories often deal with the power that either drives man beyond himself into the spiritual sphere or pulls him back into a primitive, this-worldly realm. (Compare the “assault from above” and the “assault from below” in “A Hunger Artist.”) In several of his stories, he uses the symbol of the hunt to illustrate that wherever there is life there is also persecution and fighting. Nobody can escape it. A man may allow himself, it is true, to be driven in one direction by the hunt (as does the chief dog, for instance, in “Investigations of a Dog”), but having gone as far as he can, he will have to allow the hunt to drive him in the opposite direction and take him back if he wants to survive. Man remains the battleground of opposing forces, and this is why he roams the vague realms of life and death without being firmly anchored in either.

Few of Kafka’s stories convey such a dense atmosphere of vagueness, remoteness, and dreamlike absurdity. This absurdity is intensified by the highly realistic description of Riva and the factual setting of the opening paragraphs, accenting a total lack of any common frame of reference between the townspeople of — Riva and the newcomer. A touch of uncertainty and mysteriousness hovers over the story: the death ship glides into the harbor “as if” borne by “invisible means”; a man who is “probably dead” was “apparently” lying on a bier. Yet there can be no doubt about the “realness” of the story. To make this clear, Kafka has the hunter Gracchus remind us that, by contrast to the “real” world, “aboard ship, one is often victimized by stupid imaginations.” In other words, the events taking place in Riva are not imagined by its inhabitants or by the hunter. In sober diction and short punctuated sentences, Kafka enumerates facts which, because of their almost meticulous factuality, stand in eerie contrast to the incredible occurrence itself.

Yet if the stranger’s arrival is incredible, nobody really troubles about him or pays the least bit of attention to him. “Without any mark of surprise,” the Burgomaster tells the visitor his name and profession, and the stranger’s reply is equally calm. This contrast does not merely increase the impact of the story, but it also carries its own logic, in the sense that it reflects the impossibility of penetrating the story rationally.

It is of some interest that in a fragment belonging to the story, Kafka argues that Gracchus may be seen as an interpreter between earlier generations and those living today; he can transcend all limits of time and space ordinarily imposed upon a human being. Gracchus is capable of doing so because, as a dead person who is nevertheless “alive” in a certain sense, he has universal knowledge of everything that was and is. Comprised of both life and death during his travels in “earthly waters,” Gracchus represents the totality of being, the universal elements of existence of all forms of being. This view is the only possible starting point for a logical explanation of how the hunter knows (or remembers) the Burgomaster’s name. According to this explanation, the Burgomaster also participates in the timeless, universal quality of the hunter.

Who is the hunter Gracchus? Where is he coming from? We hear that he is “dead,” and yet “in a certain sense” also alive. For hundreds of years he has sailed “earthly waters” ever since the day he fell into a ravine hunting chamois in the Black Forest. His barge was to take him to the realm of the dead, but it got off its course and has been aimlessly roaming the shadowy regions between life and death ever since.

While they know each other’s names, the hunter and the Burgomaster know nothing of their respective worlds. Each is anxious to find out something but neither succeeds: the Burgomaster cannot even furnish the stranger with some desperately needed information about the town of Riva. This is, of course, a typical situation in a Kafka story: a complete lack of communication between people, or between worlds. The question arises: which world does the hunter represent? It is tempting to believe that the regions he comes from are a higher realm of reality, as opposed to the empirical world of Riva (which Kafka visited with his friend Brod in 1909). Once we analyze the hunter’s world, however, it becomes clear that his world cannot be put into any fixed category. In fact, it is the most striking characteristic of the story of the hunter Gracchus that he no longer belongs anywhere, neither in a metaphysical realm nor in an empirical one. This was not always the case: he had been happy as a hunter, following his calling. He was happy even after he bled to death. Only long afterward did his mishap throw him into this predicament of total estrangement from any sense of belonging. We hear that it all began with a “wrong turn of the wheel” of his pilot and are immediately reminded of the “false alarm of the night bell once answered — it cannot be made good” again, the tragic insight of the country doctor doomed to roam through the snowy wastes.

Alienated and excluded from this world and the one beyond, the hunter Gracchus is at home everywhere and nowhere. Asked by the Burgomaster if he is not part of the “other world,” he replies that he “is forever on the long staircase leading up to it.” Typical of so many of Kafka’s stories, this one begins with the hero’s breaking away from a limited but clearly defined order. He once enjoyed living in this world, governed by a fixed set of rules, where people referred to him as “the great hunter.” Now he who wanted nothing more than to live in the mountains must travel through all the lands of the earth and find no rest, even among the dead. All he knows is that no matter how hard he strives toward oblivion, he keeps regaining consciousness; he remains still “stranded forlornly in some earthly sea or other.” The possibility of salvation does not exist, even under the best possible circumstances, because there is no way of communicating. Hence his frightening insight; to care is every bit as futile as not to care and “the thought of helping me is an illness.”

As he so often does in his stories, Kafka drew on his own situation as a “hunter” here. The name Gracchus is derived from the Latin graculus, which means “raven,” as does Kafka’s name in Czech. Kafka repeatedly referred to himself as a “strange bird, aimlessly sailing about humans.” Once upon a time it was possible to determine man’s position in this world and the next one. As Gracchus puts it, commenting on his own death: “I can still recall happily stretching out on this pallet for the first time.” Now he circles back and forth between spheres, and his apparently universal view of things is really that of Kafka, exploring all possible modes of thinking and living, dipping into each and staying with none.

As a result, the hunter Kafka was incapable of understanding the fixed order of earthly existence. He explained this failure in terms of a sudden lack of orientation, a distraction, “a wrong turn of the wheel.” In his diary he referred to it as “self-forgetfulness,” a lack of concentration, a “fatigue” which caused him to step out of the flow of time.

This lack of orientation and subsequent isolation, however, which permeates Gracchus’ (Kafka’s) life is not to be seen as something which one can explain autobiographically or psychoanalytically, as has too often been done in connection with Kafka’s conflict with his father. The experience of such fundamental disorientation and isolation is rather the precondition for Kafka’s uncompromising prodding into the complexities of human experience. That this human experience retreats even before his literary genius and permits only approximations is to be expected: language is by definition self-restrictive. What we term Gracchus’ “totality of being” or his “transcendence
of time and distance,” for instance, we have therefore put in these terms simply because it defies any adequate description. This does not mean that “totality” and “transcendence” do not exist; the whole story illustrates that they do indeed exist. It is simply that to force Kafka’s attempts to penetrate to the very core of the mystery of existence into a set of ready-made definitions would be tantamount to violating his intentions.

In this context, it is important to recall that Kafka himself has done everything, both in his stories and his commentaries on them, to qualify and even retract so-called clear-cut interpretations which he may have advanced or which others may have read into his writing. Naturally his stories are also interpretations and reflections, giving expression to manifold social, psychological, biographical, philosophical, and religious phenomena. But only up to a point. If interpreting were all he had had in mind, there would have been no need for him to leave his readers wondering about the answers to so many questions. The paradoxes and absurdities that abound in his works are the logical, because inevitable, expression of the fact that “reality” or “truth” on their highest level are indeed paradoxical and absurd when defined by our own limited comprehension.

Submitted by Der Jager Gracchus

For Prodigal Read Generous

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

by Edward Estlin Cummings

In the poem For Prodigal Read Generous poet asks the reader to be generous if she or he wants to understand what is prodigal. Only an unselfish person can give large amounts freely. Similarly, ‘age’ will tell him the value of youth. The old person reminds the reader that he too was young and his youth had already passed and that youth is so short. If the reader knows what mere surprise is, he will understand what a pure miracle is. Miracle is the intense form of surprise. After this, the reader is asked to study other aspects of life.

If the reader knows what satisfaction is, he will experience what pure joy is. A satisfied person is very happy. The monotony of prose will show how lively a poem is. If the reader is careful and attentive enough to avoid danger he or she should be curious. Otherwise his curiosity will lead to destruction. After this he is asked not to pay attention to something. Cummings asks the reader to read one set of words and to understand something else for each word. Finally, the reader is asked to close the eyes, probably with satisfaction that is obviously false.

To close the eyes is also not to pay attention to something, not to take notice of it, to ignore it. Thus concepts change from generation to generation. There is the absence of capital letters in this poem. The poet may mean to say that nothing is more important than anything else. In other words, he wants to say that all are equal. The literary devices he developed were intended to show how the outer appearance reinforces the inner vision. His disordered syntax (sentence construction) and typographical disarrangements were intended, not to bewilder, but to heighten the understanding. The poet has dropped the conventional punctuation. We don’t get a period at the end of the sentence in this poem.

The first line of the poem reads “for prodigal read generous” and the third line reads “read for sheer wonder mere surprise”. In the third line the verb ‘read’ is placed first and its object ‘mere surprise’ has been placed at the end. In fifth line the order is completely different: first there is the object ‘contentment’ and after the object is the verb ‘read’ and then is the adjunct of ecstasy. Seventh line also follows the order of fifth line except the fact that there is no verb. The poet has reversed the usual or natural order of words for emphasis. The emphatic words are placed either in the beginning or at an end. The end position is more important than the first. Therefore ‘generous’, ‘surprise’ ‘ecstasy’ and curiosity’ have been especially highlighted in lines 1, 3, 5 and 7 respectively.

In all the eight lines of this poem, the poet has used the imperative form of the verbs read, turn and close. He is asking his reader to read different things, to turn the page and to close the eyes and thus to experience different aspects of life by himself. The poet uses the phrase ‘to close your eyes’ to mean ‘not to pay attention to something’ ‘not to take notice of it’ ‘to ignore it’ and ‘to show satisfaction.’

Episode of War

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

by Crane, Stephen

In this very short piece, the author plunges the reader immediately into a scene from the American Civil War. A lieutenant, never named, is wounded in the right arm while resting with his troops during an active battle. The next segment of the vignette, almost surreal in its presentation, is comprised of the lieutenant’s perceptions of the war going on around him as he walks to the rear in search of the field hospital. At the hospital, the wounded man has a brief, terse, and most unpleasant encounter with the surgeon, who is rude and lies to him. The lieutenant’s fear and despair is captured by single lines of tightly controlled metaphor and stark description.

Further Comments:

The power of this short piece resides in the author’s exquisite control of language. No word is wasted and the reader walks in the lieutenant’s shoes as he moves to the field hospital. The particular values of this piece to the medical humanities are its ability to draw the reader into the lieutenant’s reactions to his wound and the dramatic illustration of the surgeon’s absence of empathy.

Riders To The Sea

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

by John Millington Synge

Plot synopsis

Maurya has lost her husband, father-in-law, and five sons to the sea. As the play begins Nora and Cathleen receive word that a body that may be their brother Michael has washed up on shore in Donegal, far to the north. Bartley is planning to sail to Connemara to sell a horse, and ignores Maurya’s pleas to stay. As he leaves, he leaves gracefully. Maurya predicts that by nightfall she will have no living sons, and her daughters chide her for sending Bartley off with an ill word. Maurya goes after Bartley to bless his voyage, and Nora and Cathleen receive clothing from the drowned corpse that confirms it as their brother. Maurya returns home claiming to have seen the ghost of Michael riding behind Bartley and begins lamenting the loss of the men in her family to the sea, after which some villagers bring in the corpse of Bartley, who has fallen off his horse into the sea and drowned.
Maurya’s speech in the final scene is famous in Irish drama:

(raising her head and speaking as if she did not see the people around her) They’re all gone now, and there isn’t anything more the sea can do to me…. I’ll have no call now to be up crying and praying when the wind breaks from the south, and you can hear the surf is in the east, and the surf is in the west, making a great stir with the two noises, and they hitting one on the other. I’ll have no call now to be going down and getting Holy Water in the dark nights after Samhain, and I won’t care what way the sea is when the other women will be keening. ‘(To Nora)’ Give me the Holy Water, Nora; there’s a small sup still on the dresser.

General understanding

The play begins with Maurya, who has fallen into a fitful sleep. She is certain that her son, Michael, has drowned, even though she has no proof, and has been constantly grieving for nine days. Cathleen, her daughter, is doing household chores when Nora, another daughter arrives. She quietly slips into the kitchen with a bundle that had been given to her by a young priest. In the bundle are clothes taken from the body of a man who drowned in the far north. They were sent to Maurya’s home, hoping that she would be able to identify the body.

Maurya begins to look as if she is going to wake up soon, so the daughters hide the bundle until a time when they are alone. Maurya awakes, and her fear for losing her only remaining son Bartley intensifies her grieving for Michael. Keep in mind, she has already lost five sons and a husband to the sea. The priest claims that that “insatiable tyrant” will not take her sixth. However, Bartley proclaims that he is going to venture over to the mainland that same day, in order to sell a horse at the fair, despite knowing of the high winds and seas.

Maurya begs Bartley not to go, yet he insists despite her pleas. In a flustered state of irritation, Maurya bids him gone without her blessing. Upon seeing these events unfold, the sisters tell Maurya, that she should go out and search for Bartley in order to give him the lunch that they he had forgotten to bring, and while at it, give him her blessing.

Maurya agrees to go, and once she is gone, the girls open the bundle. They find that they were indeed Michael’s clothes, but at least they have the comfort of knowing he got a respectable Christian burial where he washed up in the north. At this point, Maurya returns even more flustered and terrified before. She has seen a vision of Michael riding on the lead horse behind Bartley. Because of this, she is sure Bartley is doomed to die at sea. The girls then show her Michael’s clothes, and she exclaims that the nice white boards she had bought for Michael’s coffin may now be used for Bartley’s instead.

As she says this, the neighbors (women) enter, their voices raised in what the play calls a “keen”, or wailing lament for the dead. Men follow the women, who bring in the body of Bartley, who, sure enough, is dead. He has been knocked off a cliff into the surf below by the horse he was leading. The play ends with Maurya’s fatal submission as she says, “They’re all gone now and there isn’t anything more the sea can do to me.”

This play resulted in the public having an interesting outlook to the sea. Whereas beforehand the sea was always mysterious and adventurous, it now became melodramatic and depressing. This had a somewhat similar effect to “Jaws” in the mid 70s, changing peoples’ views of water and the ocean, but on a lesser scale.

Chapter 7: The Great Gatsby

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

Summary

Preoccupied by his love for Daisy, Gatsby calls off his parties, which were primarily a means to lure Daisy. He also fires his servants to prevent gossip and replaces them with shady individuals connected to Meyer Wolfshiem.

On the hottest day of the summer, Nick takes the train to East Egg for lunch at the house of Tom and Daisy. He finds Gatsby and Jordan Baker there as well. When the nurse brings in Daisy’s baby girl, Gatsby is stunned and can hardly believe that the child is real. For her part, Daisy seems almost uninterested in her child. During the awkward afternoon, Gatsby and Daisy cannot hide their love for one another. Complaining of her boredom, Daisy asks Gatsby if he wants to go into the city. Gatsby stares at her passionately, and Tom becomes certain of their feelings for each other.

Itching for a confrontation, Tom seizes upon Daisy’s suggestion that they should all go to New York together. Nick rides with Jordan and Tom in Gatsby’s car, and Gatsby and Daisy ride together in Tom’s car. Stopping for gas at Wilson’s garage, Nick, Tom, and Jordan learn that Wilson has discovered his wife’s infidelity—though not the identity of her lover—and plans to move her to the West. Under the brooding eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg, Nick perceives that Tom and Wilson are in the same position.

In the oppressive New York City heat, the group decides to take a suite at the Plaza Hotel. Tom initiates his planned confrontation with Gatsby by mocking his habit of calling people “old sport.” He accuses Gatsby of lying about having attended Oxford. Gatsby responds that he did attend Oxford—for five months, in an army program following the war. Tom asks Gatsby about his intentions for Daisy, and Gatsby replies that Daisy loves him, not Tom. Tom claims that he and Daisy have a history that Gatsby could not possibly understand. He then accuses Gatsby of running a bootlegging operation. Daisy, in love with Gatsby earlier in the afternoon, feels herself moving closer and closer to Tom as she observes the quarrel. Realizing he has bested Gatsby, Tom sends Daisy back to Long Island with Gatsby to prove Gatsby’s inability to hurt him. As the row quiets down, Nick realizes that it is his thirtieth birthday.

Driving back to Long Island, Nick, Tom, and Jordan discover a frightening scene on the border of the valley of ashes. Someone has been fatally hit by an automobile. Michaelis, a Greek man who runs the restaurant next to Wilson’s garage, tells them that Myrtle was the victim—a car coming from New York City struck her, paused, then sped away. Nick realizes that Myrtle must have been hit by Gatsby and Daisy, driving back from the city in Gatsby’s big yellow automobile. Tom thinks that Wilson will remember the yellow car from that afternoon. He also assumes that Gatsby was the driver.

Back at Tom’s house, Nick waits outside and finds Gatsby hiding in the bushes. Gatsby says that he has been waiting there in order to make sure that Tom did not hurt Daisy. He tells Nick that Daisy was driving when the car struck Myrtle, but that he himself will take the blame. Still worried about Daisy, Gatsby sends Nick to check on her. Nick finds Tom and Daisy eating cold fried chicken and talking. They have reconciled their differences, and Nick leaves Gatsby standing alone in the moonlight.

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.

The Mad Gardener’s Song

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

by Lewis Carroll

Summary and Critical Analysis

The poem ‘The Mad Gardener’s Song’ by Lewis Carroll contains the several disjointed stanzas which have a stupid mad logic as a common factor. The first line of each stanza begins with “He though he saw….” And the third line of each stanza with “He looked again, and found it was”. This revised vision leads the personal to a conclusion in the last two lines of each stanza. However, the conclusion does not match the premise from which it is drawn.
The poem starts in a common way that the speaker thinks that he saw an elephant practicing a flute but suddenly the stanza encounters with something very uncommon that the elephant practicing the flute comes to be the letter form his wife which is the bitterness of life, for him. Similarly the poem begins and ends with nonsense rhyme. The speaker says in the second stanza he thinks he saw a buffalo on the chimney but when he looks it again he finds the buffalo was his sister’s husband’s niece whom he doesn’t like because he was burden for him that’s why he wanted to send him to Police Station.

Similarly, the speaker thinks that he saw a rattle snake which questioned him in Greek but latter on next look it was the middle of next week and he has regret for it that it cannot speak. Again, he thinks that he saw a Banker’s clerk descending from the bus but he finds it was a hippopotamus and if he stay for the dinner, there won’t be enough food left for them. Similarly, he thinks he saw a Kangaroo working at a coffee-mill but in real it was a Vegetable- Pill which can make him ill if he eats it. Next he imagines a coach driven by four horses standing besides his bed but it turns out to be a bear without head. He pities upon it thinking that it is waiting to be fed.

Similarly, the poem moves ahead with disjoint stanzas and mad logic. The speaker thinks that he saw an Albatross fluttering round the lamp but it was a Penny-Postage-Stamp in real and he advised it to go home because the nights are very damp. The garden door opening with a key turns out to be double role of three and he thinks that all its misery is clear to him. Finally the argument that proved he was the Pope turns out to be a bar of soap and he thinks that it takes away all the hope.

The Mad Gardener’s Song is composed in nine disjointed stanzas. These stanzas are similar and related only in that they follow the rhyme scheme ab ab db and all of them have a mad logic. The first line of each stanza begins with “He thought he saw….” And the third line of each stanza is “He looked again and found it was….” The last two lines carry the conclusion of the stanza but the conclusion does not match the premise from which it is drawn.

In conclusion, the whole poem is nonsense. It is simply a humorous poem written for the purpose of laughing and entertaining. If we see it deeply, it somehow turns as a satire for those people whom the poet doesn’t like and wants to show his anger to them.

Whatever is the reason, but in common this is a nonsense poem written with mad logic. The poem associates disparate elements without any intention of making sense. Although the cause and effects don’t match some stanza seems to be meaningful. Hence, the use of the uncommon style and nonsense logic as a common factor, this poem has become the example of a nonsense rhyme.

The Happy Journey to Trenton and Camden

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

by Thornton Wilder

Plot summary

Almost the entire play takes place during an automobile journey from Newark to Camden, New Jersey by a family on their way to visit a married daughter, who has recently lost a baby in childbirth. Very little happens, but the father, mother, and children reminisce, joke, and sight-see and somehow, in classic Thornton Wilder fashion, capture something of the universal joy and sadness of life as they motor along.

Further Understanding

A comedy
3 men, 3 women

A father, mother and two of their three surviving children drive from Newark, New Jersey to Camden to visit their married daughter, who has recently lost her baby in childbirth. Their journey is punctuated by talk, laughter, memories (some mundane, some happy, some painful), and appreciation of the Now – ham and eggs, flowers, family, sunsets and the joy of being alive. In this family drama, nothing much happens-and yet everything important happens. As Ma Kirby says, “There’s nothin’ like bein’ liked by your family.””

The Happy Journey to Trenton and Camden requires no scenery-just a curtain back-drop, a cyclorama, or an empty stage. It was first produced November 25, 1931, at the Yale University theater in New Haven, Connecticut, by the Yale Dramatic Association and the Vassar College Philalethis, with The Long Christmas Dinner, Love and How to Cure It, and Such Things Only Happen in Books.

“It should constantly be borne in mind that the purpose of this play is the portrayal of the character of Ma Kirby, the author at one time having even considered entitling the play ‘The Portrait of a Lady.’ Accordingly, the director should constantly keep in mind that Ma Kirby’s humor, strength and humanity constitute the unifying element throughout. This aspect should always rise above the merely humorous characteristic details of the play.”

-Thornton Wilder, “Notes for the Producer,” 1931

“My earlier one-act plays, before Our Town, were free of scenery too and things went back and forth in time. . . In my plays I attempted to raise ordinary daily conversation between ordinary people to the level of the universal human experience."

The Big Fish

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

by Daniel Wallace

Summary

Edward Bloom (Albert Finney), a charismatic teller of tall-tales, is a source of frustration to his grown son, William (Billy Crudup). At Wills wedding, Edward embarrasses him by telling the guests an impossible-sounding story about the day of Will’s birth, involving a giant catfish that ate his wedding ring. Will believes that his father tells lies to get attention and confronts him angrily. They don’t speak to each other for three years.

Will receives news that Edward is very ill, and that he might not have long to live. Will and his pregnant wife Josephine (Marion Cotillard) travel to Ashton, Alabama, Wills hometown. Edward is weak and bedridden, but he and Will finally speak again. Will asks to know the truth about his father’s life. Edward retells his version of his childhood.

In a flashback, a young Edward and his friends meet a local witch (Helena Bonham Carter), who has a glass eye which reveals the eventual death of anyone who looks into it. Edward sees how he will die (though the audience does not), and decides that he can now take unreasonable risks because he knows they cannot kill him. Soon afterward, Edward begins to grow at an alarming rate and is hooked up to a machine in bed, as his muscles and bones cannot keep up with his “body’s ambition.” In an encyclopedia, young Edward reads that a goldfish will remain small if kept in a small bowl, but will grow bigger if kept in a larger area. He decides that, because he is growing so fast, he is meant for bigger things.

As a teenager, Edward Bloom (now Ewan McGregor) is a star athlete, entrepreneur, and local hero. When a mysterious “monster” comes to town and eats livestock during the night, he volunteers to talk to it and get it to leave. Edward tracks down the culprit, a gloomy but goodhearted giant named Carl (Matthew McGory), and convinces him to move to a bigger city. Edward explains that Ashton is too small a town for men of Carl’s size and of Edward’s ambition. The two leave town, and Edward is given the key to Ashton by the mayor.

They approach a forest, which Edward wants to take a shortcut through. He promises to meet Carl on the other side, and ventures through the woods (which are full of thorns, spiders, and bees). He stumbles across the town of Spectre, a seemingly perfect place where no one wears shoes. After spending the day there, he shocks the townspeople by politely excusing himself to get on with his journey. His shoes are flung up onto a high rope along with many other pairs that were taken from each townsperson upon their arrival to Spectre in an effort to keep them there, but Edward continues his trek barefoot. He promises a smitten little girl named Jenny that he will return someday.

Edward and Carl stumble upon a circus, where Carl is immediately hired as an attraction by the owner and ringmaster, Amos Calloway (Danny DeVito) and his clown/attorney Mr. Soggybottom (Deep Roy). Edward glimpses a beautiful girl in the big top audience, but she is whisked out the door with the crowd before he can speak to her. She turns out to be a family friend of Calloway. Certain that she is the woman he will marry, Edward begs Calloway for a job, asking for only one piece of information about the girl for every month of work. Edward toils at the circus, and learns that the girl loves daffodils and music, that she is going to college, and that her name is Sandra Templeton. Edward bids farewell to Mr. Calloway (who also happens to be a werewolf), and sets off to find Sandra.

Meanwhile, the elderly Edward befriends his daughter-in-law, Josephine, but is still at odds with his son, who believes him to be a liar. Will begs his father to be himself, but Edward firmly retorts Ive been nothing but myself since the day I was born, and if you cant see that, its your failing, not mine!

Upon reaching the university where Sandra Templeton (Alison Lohman) is a student, teenaged Edward finally meets her and explains that he loves her. She is kind to him and had heard of his accomplishments in Ashton, but is already engaged (to Edwards hapless rival, Ashton native Don Price). Still determined, Edward finds not-so-subtle ways to woo Sandra. One morning, Sandra awakens to find her lawn covered in daffodils provided by Edward. However, Don Price appears and begins to brutally beat Edward, who had promised Sandra he would not fight back. But as Sandra sees Dons cruelty, she breaks the engagement, and eventually does marry Edward.

While recovering in the hospital from his fight injuries, Edward receives a draft notice, forcing him to enlist for the Korean War. While sad to leave his new wife, Edward knows from the glass eye that nothing in the war will kill him. Thus, he volunteers for the most dangerous missions in hopes of being sent home sooner. While parachuting into a Korean army camp during a performance for the troops, Edward meets struggling Siamese twin singers Ping and Jing. He offers to help them break into American show business if they can help him get home. However, the Army lists him as missing and presumably dead, sending a telegram to a heartbroken Sandra (in the present day, Sandra finds the telegram and shows it to Will, proving that there is some truth to Edwards stories). Edward eventually rejoins his wife, and takes a job as a travelling salesman to buy them a better house.

In line at a bank one day, the younger Edward encounters Norther Winslow (Steve Buscemi), a native of Spectre he had met years before. Norther has since become a criminal, and Edward is roped into assisting him in robbing the bank. However, the bank has literally no cash for them to steal. Norther resolves to go to Wall Street where the money is. He later sends Edward $10,000, which he uses to buy a house for Sandra and a young Will.

Years later, Edward is nearing middle age. He reconciles with Jenny (also played by Bonham Carter), the little girl he met in Spectre, who now lives in a dilapidated old house and gives piano lessons. Seeing the condition of her home, Edward begins to fix it up himself, with the help of Carl the giant. After he restores the house, Jenny reveals that she still has feelings for him after many years. Edward gently tells her that he loves only Sandra, and departs.

Back in Ashton, elderly Edward weakens more and more. However, he repeatedly tells his family that this is not the death he saw in the eye. Will spends some time alone, still believing that he will never have a chance to know his fathers true character. Shortly after, Edward has a stroke and is hospitalized. Will encounters the family doctor, who had delivered him and is now treating Edward. Will asks to know the real story of his birth, having heard only his fathers catfish story in the past. The doctor explains that it was simply a normal birth, and though Edward exaggerated it, hearing his story was entertaining and comforting. Will decides to reconcile with his dying father.

At Edwards bedside, Will steps into his fathers shoes and begins an impromptu story: Edward regains strength, and he and Will escape the hospital. Jumping into Edwards old car, they speed to a nearby river, where all their family and friends are waiting. Instead of a funeral, they are holding a goodbye party, and Edward happily bids them farewell as he transforms into a catfish and swims away.

Will is the only one present for Edwards death, and is deeply happy that they connected at last. At Edwards funeral, Will is astonished to see characters from Edwards stories show up to attend: Mr. Calloway, Carl (not a giant, but still very tall), Ping and Jing (not conjoined twins, but identical), and many others. Edward had combined his love of storytelling with his own reality, which finally makes sense to Will. When his
own son is born, Will passes the stories on to him.

Contributed by bored_with_chicken