Obsessed, or just plain crazy?

"I must not only punish but punish with impunity." When Montresor, the narrator of Edgar Allan Poe's The Cask of Amontillado, says this, you know by the end of this short story that he means it. Despite this, one does not necessarily see him as a trustworthy narrator. While he is trustworthy enough to do what he says he is going to do, the reasons he feels he must punish Fortunato are never really that clear. In fact, he never actually mentions specific wrongs that Fortunato has committed. All he ever says about that is that Fortunato wronged him. Due to the lack of detail on that score and his seemingly blind hate for Fortunato, he seems a very untrustworthy narrator.

In this story, Montresor's hate seems to be very blind and excessive. At one point, though we get a hint at one possiblity of why he hates Fortunato so much, but it is just a hint, nothing substantial. He says, " 'The Montresors,' I replied, 'were a great and numerous family.' " This implies a certain fall from grace as he says "were" instead of are. This could imply that Fortunato had a role in that, however again, we have no evidence, and Montresor never provides any, meaning that it could just as easily have been some little thing that Montresor percieved as a great wrong. Afterall, Fortunato treats him as a friend, and is very shocked at what Montresor does at the end.

Also, we must consider the possiblity that Montresor is more than a little crazy. Afterall, it is not enough for him to punish Fortunato, but he must entomb him alive in a damp dungeon like cellar. He also says that he must do it with impunity, because getting caught would defeat the purpose of doing it. This man has planned this all out, which only someone with something seriously wrong with them would actually consider. At the end he says, "In pace requiscat!" which means may he rest in peace. In essence, he has just sentenced this man to a horrible death and says may he rest in peace. In my opinion this shows a great deal of mental instability. For these reasons I think that Montresor is only trustworthy when he is talking about what he did, but not when he is talking about why.

First Fight. Then Fiddle.

"Carry hate" (9) . This line ending from Gwendolyn Brooks' "First Fight. Then Fiddle" leaves a strong impression on the reader. The next line follows it with, "In front of you and harmony behind." (10) This statement spreading within two lines encompasses the very essence of this poem. In this poem, the author uses many images of war and peace to convey a certain message. Within the poem, he uses music as the main symbol for peace. As a general trend the poem constantly reiterates how the music and peace must come after the fighting, after the peace has been brought about by war. The way he presents it though shows war as a necessary evil, that war is for the sake of peace.

Throughout the poem, Brooks goes to some lengths to separate war and peace. In choosing the form of an Italian Sonnet, he was able to separate war and peace with the volta at line 9. Interestingly he talks of peace first, symbolizing it with a violin. After this he follows in the sestet with imagery of bloody war and fighting. The effect is that it shows a wish for peace, a longing for it, but a grim determination that the fighting must come first. In a way, he is idolizing peace as a time in which you may leisurely play your violin, and have fun, while making war into the force which allows you to have peace in the first place, regardless of how awful war is.

Having exemplified war and peace in such terms, we can see quite a bit of what the overall meaning behind the poem is. Brooks reiterates that fighting must and will come before peace, and this gives the sense that peace and order are things that must be actively maintained. "For having first to civilize a space Wherein to play your violin with grace."(13-14) As these lines suggest, order and civilization are historically built on war, and it is one of the few ways to maintain it. As the poem says, "Carry hate In front of you and harmony behind."(9-10)

This is the day that you'll always remember as the day that you almost caught Captain Jack Sparrow

Now he is a man whom all did harrow.
For he is a man they all did chase.
For he is a man named Jack Sparrow.

At him they would shoot many an arrow,
And this they would do as soon as they saw his face.
For he is a man whom all did harrow.

Chase him they would into allies narrow
And continue this lively race,
For he is a man named Jack Sparrow.

A man he is as goes with the flow,
Escape them he did with an odd sort of grace,
For he is a man whom all did harrow.

And many a time did he tip-toe
Around the commodore and his clothes of lace,
For he is a man named Jack Sparrow.

He is a man who always has a window
from which to escape, or maybe a staircase.
For he is a man whom all did harrow.
For he is a man named Jack Sparrow.

I decided to write about Jack Sparrow because I decided to do a villanelle. Since they are often not usually taken very seriously, I thought he would fit that part very well. Jack Sparrow is just funny so I decided to use him. I think that the form compliments his character rather well actually.

Pic link- http://superluli.nomadlife.org/uploaded_images/2653_JackSparrow300-764508.jpg

"The Tyger" by William Blake

In William Blake’s “The Tyger” there seem to be many contradictions throughout the poem. One example I will focus on is the way in which he describes how the “tyger” is made. Note that he spelled tiger as tyger in this poem, meaning that the name obviously has an alternate significance than just a tyger. The poem also has a childlike tone at times, and asks many questions which it leaves unanswered.

To start, Blake portrays the “tyger” as a fearsome creature that almost seems to border on revering and demonizing it. In the body of the poem it talks about how it was made with a “hammer”, a “chain”, a “furnace”, and an “anvil”. These things are obvious symbols of industry, and not something that would normally be associated with a natural creature. Combined with the purposeful misspelling of tiger as tyger, tyger could be taken as a symbol for industry itself. The contradiction that is in the poem acts as a highlighter that indicates that this is not about a literal tiger. The tyger is displayed as a fearsome thing, as Blake, the author, likely sees industrialization. To follow all this the poem asks “Did he who made the Lamb make thee?” This can be interpreted several ways, but I chose to interpret it to indicate doubt. The Lamb can be seen as a symbol of purity, innocence and simplicity, all the things that his mechanical tyger is not. Earlier it asked “Did he smile his work to see?” In a sense this questions whether God is happy that his creation, man, is making such things as the tyger represents.

On another note, the childlike tone of the poem casts another light on the poem. The whole time it is asking questions that get somewhat repetitive. Even the last stanza is an almost verbatim repetition of the first. It makes it seem like a nursery rhyme, which is supposed to usually convey morals to children, and in an easy to understand manner. In a sense he is saying that even a child can tell the difference between what God has made and what man has made. Even the picture of his tyger looks like a stiff mechanical tiger, and even a child would wonder why it looks so fake. By looking at it in this way “The Tyger” is in essence an anti-industrial message.

Metro Station of Ambiguity

“In a Station of the Metro” by Ezra Pound is an extremely short yet ambiguous and having very deep significance. It has only two lines, making it just a single couplet, yet it can be interpreted very differently depending on how you look at it. On the subject of modernity it can be interpreted as both pro-modernity and anti-modernity. To show this I’ll start with the pro-modernity side of the poem.

The poem begins by saying “The apparition of these faces in the crowd;” which is a rather interesting wording. The word apparition in a pro-modernity sense could simply mean the appearance, but I find the faces more interesting still. If one thinks about technology stealing the soul then, one might expect the people to appear as simple faceless drones. However their faces are specifically mentioned. In this sense, it gives the feeling that while technology brings change that we are all still unique, as in most cases our faces are. The second line then reads “Petals on a wet, black bough.” The imagery here is from nature this time. Flowers are usually a symbol of beauty and nature and in this context can be interpreted as showing that technology is a part of life. The adjective wet is also interesting, as a lot of rain occurs in the spring, the season when nature grows and develops. In this way the poem can be said to be very pro-modern.

On the other hand, the poem can also be said to be very anti-modernity. The first line contains the word apparition, which can be interpreted as a phantom or ghost-like thing. In a sense saying that technology is causing peoples spirits to fade into nothingness. Also the word crowd is used, which shows the negative side in that one can lose themselves very easily in a crowd and be completely alone. In the second line it talks about it being wet and having the petals on a black bough. Rain is often associated with sadness as are flowers at times. These could give off the idea of a funeral and death in this sense, more specifically the death of beauty and nature as modernity spreads. So depending how you look at the poem it can be taken to mean very opposing things. Pound’s poem can achieve this very high level of ambiguity mainly due to its lack of further details.

Pic 1- link here
Pic 2- link here

Imagery and Interpretaion of "Design"

In Robert Frost’s “Design” there are many images that can be pulled from the text despite the poem’s relatively small size. Firstly it starts off with a “dimpled spider, fat and white” which is one of the dominant images in the poem along with the white moth caught by the spider. Another image following the same motif of color is the white heal-all upon which the spider has caught the moth. Additionally, there are images of “death and blight” and a “witches’ broth” coupled to the image of the morning. These images are a bit more under the surface however.

One thing that I noticed in these images however was the ironic nature of the pairings. The scene of the spider catching the moth is coupled with the color white throughout, which is a bit ironic and gives a bit of a mixed signal to the reader. After all, white is primarily associated with purity and good, yet in this poem it goes as far as to talk about death and blight. Even the spider is white, which also conflicts with the general image of one, as most people imagine spiders stereotypically as black or some other dark color. Also the poem presents the image of morning which conflicts with the witches’ broth line and the mention of death. Normally these are associated with the dead of the night.

These conflicts serve the authors purpose however. In the poem he reverses traditional imagery and symbolism, which causes us to take note of that fact and ask why. In the last line it says, “What but design of darkness to appall? – If design govern in a thing so small.” He finishes the poem with such a cryptic statement leaving it a bit open-ended for the reader. His imagery’s mixed signals lead the reader to ponder why he breaks with the norm and the last two lines lead the reader to wonder at how far the limits of “design” really extend. From this point of view the poem can be interpreted as using clashing images in order to cause the reader to question “design” and even the poem itself.

As for the pictures, I chose the spider because it is one of the most obvious symbols, and the witches brew picture because it too has a bit of irony and mixed signals just like the poem.

Picture sources:Witches brew-http://api.ning.com/files/K5EyQbUmZFAvdsKsyPWWK77z2PAhbVanSXsZ*c4Z9RbOCt5B1krcXgR2ruS1mefNwX87no1p9h6XzJWuEcFXaCLgregan0sg/WitchsBrew.jpg

Spider-http://bibleforums.org/forum/customavatars/avatar26242_1.gif

The Title's Reason

My title was one that I thought of spur of the moment and thought that it was very humorous. However as I thought more deeply into it I realized that it could have a much more serious connotation. Throughout history many people have tried to destroy literature for one reason or another. There have been many book burnings and library burnings in the past. Despite this, books and literature have always existed and it is a thing that cannot just be stamped out of existence. That is why my title is such as it is, though I still picked it mainly due to humor.