Revised Essay

In “Conjoined” by Judith Minty and Valediction: Forbidding Mourning by John Donne the authors contrast one another in idealism of marriage and love but, use devices of literature similarly to an extent. Conjoined by Judith Minty describes the pain of being stuck within a relationship, in this case marriage. In contrast Valediction the author describes the relationship as a beautiful thing but something that must deteriorate with no mourning. Judith Minty uses metaphors and selection of detail to convey the horrible thing the marriage has made them become. Similarly John Donne uses similes and metaphors to show a different perspective of the beautiful connection that must wither away.
The differences between the poems are obvious however; there are many similarities between the two authors in use of metaphor to convey the meaning of their poems. In Conjoined Judith Minty used metaphors in her comparison of the morphed Onion to her and her companion. The skin of the onion being their marriage holding the two pieces of the onion as an example within the text she states “do you feel the skin that binds us”. The two pieces of the onion are metaphors for their splitting personalities. Judith Minty in Conjoined uses selection of detail to show the horrible morphed thing her marriage has become, she compares her marriage to “two headed calf rooted in one body, fighting to suck at its mother’s teats” she goes further to compare her marriage to “those other freaks, Chang and Eng.” Judith uses these to compare them to her “conjoined” marriage something that can’ be split for it “might kill the other”. This comparison shows the freakish nature of the relationship and the pain that it must incur as the “calf rooted in one body fight to suck”. In addition in the beginning of the stanza she asks him if “Do you feel the skin that binds us… as we move heavy in this house?” Comparing her one husband to a hated transcendental man that pays no attention to their marriage she attacks men with “men don’t slice onions in the kitchen” showing the authors possible feminist roots.
Similarly in Valediction John Donne uses metaphors however in his piece he uses them to strengthen the ideal of beauty and the cosmic nature of his relationship. An example of a Metaphor he uses would be “trepidation of the spheres though greater far, is innocent” showing the strength of his relationship something celestial not mere “dull sublunary lovers’ love” to which “moving of th’earth brings harm and fears”. In addition to this John Donne uses metaphors to describe the spiritual connection he keeps with his lover. In the sixth stanza he explains the separation of the two lovers that they must “endure not yet a breach, but expansion.” He describes here the stretching of their two souls when the two lovers are apart rather than the breaking.
In contrast to the similarities of the figurative language, both authors use different devices that further separate the pieces showing the differences in author. Judith Minty uses tone to add a distorted dimension to the piece. The tone of the piece is shown as a horrible, painful situation that is completely unnatural and alien to anything that is the norm. She shows this through the diction of the piece stating their connection as “bind”, and to split it would be to “sever”. She utilizes death to further emphasize the tone of the piece “might kill the other” this emphasizes her disgust of the other. She uses symbolism in the Onion describing the “each half round, then flat and deformed where it pressed and grew against the other”. This quote shows that if this skin was not there forcing together the pieces of the Onion they would easily split apart. In addition, the skin being the marriage holding them together forcing them to be in this unnatural relationship.
In contrast to Judith Minty’s perception of marriage and relationship, John Donne uses similes and symbolism to portray his delusional state of love with another. The author uses similes to compare his relationship to a compass that “as stiff twin compasses are two thy soul the fixt foot makes no show to move but doth if th’other do” further strengthening the connection between him and his lover. John Donne uses symbolism throughout the piece that has already been mentioned. Throughout the piece he compares his love to many things both celestial and lunar. The comparison of his relationship expands from virtuous men, to planets, souls, gold, and a compass all to further strengthen the inseparable nature of his relationship.
Each author holds their own view of one of the most discussed topics within literature that being, Love. In the poems Conjoined by Judith Minty and the A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning these two topics are shown as complete polar opposites. However each author utilizes similar and contrasting techniques of figurative language to convey their point.

Valediction v. Conjoined!

(super horrible, sorry huge thing popped up!)

In “Conjoined” by Judith Minty and Valediction: Forbidding Mourning by John Donne the authors contrast one another in idealism of marriage and love but, use devices of literature similarly to an extent. Conjoined by Judith Minty describes the pain of being stuck within a relationship, in this case marriage. In contrast Valediction the author describes the relationship as a beautiful thing but something that must deteriorate with no mourning. Judith Minty uses metaphors and selection of detail to convey the horrible thing the marriage has made them become. Similarly John Donne uses similes and metaphors to show a different perspective of the beautiful connection that must wither away.
The differences between the poems are obvious however there are many similarities between the two authors in use of metaphor to convey their point. In Conjoined Judith Minty used metaphors in her comparison of the morphed Onion to her and her companion. The skin of the onion being their marriage holding the two pieces of the onion as an example within the text she states “do you feel the skin that binds us”. The two pieces of the onion are metaphors for their splitting personalities. Judith Minty in Conjoined uses selection of detail to show the horrible morphed thing her marriage has become, she compares her marriage to “two headed calf rooted in one body, fighting to suck at its mother’s teats” she goes further to compare her marriage to “those other freaks, Chang and Eng.” Judith uses these to compare them to her “conjoined” marriage something that can’ be split for it “might kill the other”. This comparison shows the freakish nature of the relationship and the pain that it must incur as the “calf rooted in one body fight to suck”. In addition in the beginning of the stanza she asks him if “Do you feel the skin that binds us… as we move heavy in this house?” Comparing her one husband to a hated transcendental man that pays no attention to their marriage she attacks men with “men don’t slice onions in the kitchen” showing the authors possible feminist roots.
Similarly In Valediction John Donne uses metaphors however in his piece he uses them to strengthen the ideal of beauty and the cosmic nature of his relationship. An example of a Metaphor he uses would be “trepidation of the spheres though greater far, is innocent” showing the strength of his relationship something celestial not mere “dull sublunary lovers’ love” to which “moving of th’earth brings harm and fears”. In addition to this John Donne uses metaphors to describe the spiritual connection he keeps with his lover. In the sixth stanza he explains the separation of the two lovers that they must “endure not yet a breach, but expansion.” He describes here the stretching of their two souls when the two lovers are apart rather than the breaking.
In contrast to the similarities of the figurative language, both authors use different devices that further separate the pieces showing the differences in author. Judith Minty uses tone to add a distorted dimension to the piece. The tone of the piece is shown as a horrible, painful situation that is completely unnatural and alien to anything that is the norm. She shows this through the diction of the piece stating their connection as “bind”, and to split it would be to “sever”. She utilizes death to further emphasize the tone of the piece “might kill the other” this emphasizes her disgust of the other. She uses symbolism in the Onion describing the “each half round, then flat and deformed where it pressed and gew against the other”. This quote shows that if this skin was not there forcing together the pieces of the Onion they would easily split apart. However the skin being the marriage holding them together forcing them to be in this unnatural relationship.
In contrast to Judith Minty’s perception of marriage and relationship, John Donne uses similes and symbolism to portray his delusional state of love with another. The author uses similes to compare his relationship to a compass that “as stiff twin compasses are two thy soul the fixt foot makes no show to move but doth if th’other do” further strengthening the connection between him and his lover. John Donne uses symbolism throughout the piece that has already been mentioned. Throughout the piece he compares his love to many things both celestial and lunar. The comparison of his relationship expands from virtuous men, to planets, souls, gold, and a compass all to further strengthen the inseparable nature of his relationship.
Each author holds their own view of one of the most discussed topics within literature that being, Love. In the poems Conjoined by Judith Minty and the A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning these two topics are shown as complete polar opposites. However each author utilizes similar and contrasting techniques of figurative language to convey their point.

"The Truth In Things" Hmm sounds like a contradictory statement Mr. Neilson maybe its time to read Postmodernism for beginners!

Well, I'll start this off with; Yes this was very hard to begin and very hard to stop reading in my opinion. To summarize the gist of this passage I shall start off with a quote. "Vietnam War seems at times to have been waged more against totality than against the peoples of Indochina. For many critics and theorists, the war cannot be represented adequately through traditional literary modes; only a postmodern aesthetic can convey something of the war's surreal, sense-shattering, media-inflected nature." The gist of this article is that it comments on O'Brien's tendency to stick to Postmodernism also to sway from it. As in the quote it starts saying that Vietnam War was a postmodern warn, made to question the truths, but he continues to say that Postmodernism also gives voice to those without one. How ever he criticizes O'Brien saying "With its lack of interest in the plight of the Vietnamese and its focus on the psychological suffering of one American veteran, The Things They Carried, like almost all other Vietnam War novels, has in its small way furthered this process of forgetting." However I would disagree with Jim Neilson, in that i do believe he devotes an entire chapter to "The Man I Killed" on this single man he killed strangely he admits to this but does not satisfy Neilson saying "Consistently undercuts it by emphasizing textual artifice: he was "a scholar, maybe. . . . He had been born, maybe, in 1946 in the village of My Khe" (139). However this may be just a small story within the whole novel of stories but the heavy emotions he keeps with it I do believe O'Brien attempts to convey his emotions in this chapter, by both showing the disconnected soldier and himself creating a narrative for the poor fellow dead due to his gernade. However if you relate this back to Maus when is it the right time to stop bringing up a subject as a reporter asked Spiegelman, Why should the german's of now be sorry and repentful when they weren't even involved. Well that will be all for tonight folks :)

Burden of The Hump

Now after watching Mr. Dominguez's video it reminds me of my oh so lovely junior year of high school, but on to other subjects Main themes that run throughout the stories I have read within this book will be discussed. As going through the novel it seems to become slower more of a very dragged read that you have to literally push yourself to read the next word. It seems to be less stories more of O’ Brien’s voice dominating the things the men in Vietnam faced seem to wear the reader down to almost stop from reading the tortures they faced and what they became, this will lead us to a main theme of the novel. Truth of the stories told seems to be a very major theme in the novel as O’Brien takes a very postmodern view of it. He devotes a whole story to just that purpose on how to tell a war story, being it either true or not the whole point for him is rather to, convey a specific feeling that would associate with the wild Vietnam. “The truths are contradictory” pg 77 and O‘Brien adds “his frustration at not quite getting the details right, not quite pinning down the final and definitive truth” . Another theme that runs through the book is the culture jump and the nature of the Vietnam war itself. Being inside a very rural country something United States itself had never faced they are in something that isn’t quite clear, the enemies/ allies are not clear but muddled together. O’ Brien brings up a strange contrast on the war and its effects he says “ Nobody listens. Nobody hears nothing’. Like that fat ass colonel. The politicians, all the civilian types. Your girlfriend. My girlfriend. Everybody’s sweet little virgin girlfriend. What they need is to gout on LP.” In the chapter “Sweet heart of the Song Tra Bong” a soldier’s girlfriend comes to Vietnam and adverse things happen to her she begins to engage in the war too much the adrenaline of Vietnam gotten to her and she joined the dreaded Green Beret’s that are seen as the sneaky soldiers that are not quite enemies and not quite allies. She turns into this inhumane beastly person who eventually gets swept up into the Vietnamese jungle. Well there is so much more but that should be enough to talk about!

Post Modernism : the definition

Our question of the week for generalities would be to define Postmodernism, which in a sense is quite strange. In fact defining postmodernism under one solid d efinition would be against the fundamental ideals of Postmodernism itself! This would be creating one transcendental "postmodernism" thus creating a meta narrative that modernist oh so hated. Good old wikipedia defines postmodernism as Postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy, which was the basis of the attempt to describe a condition, or a state of being, or something concerned with changes to institutions and conditions (as in Giddens, 1990); and because this is a meta narrative created by Giddens or the writer of the wikipedia article this in a postmodern view would be correct as well as any other definition that i would concoct myself. I see postmodernism as the attempt to deconstruct any modernistic or any transcendental view that attempts to cover all of the other local narratives.(this is unfinished, and i will continue after asking mr. dominguez the question)

Maus, My Thesis

My thesis for the upcoming essay will be a bit muddled or maybe clear as day. My thesis will be something like this "Maus effectively argues the impossibility of commemorating such an event as the holocaust. I come up with this theory from the analytic readings we did in class, which i was late to arrive! But i do see the holocaust being almost impossible to accurately place under one such "transcendental" story. We can never do this as there are so many stories, emotions, and lives that happened throughout this time that we would never be able to construct one large story to fit all of these. As such it puts a satire on all history books, monuments and museums of the holocaust. Art Spiegelman shows this in almost every page of his comic book. From cover to cover the art work shows the mass people that were effected. He shows it through irony and satire. I would obvioously bring in writing of some of the philosophers in the Post Modern For Beginners book, that have critiqued the insufficency of history books and the likes. These sources would be the most pertinent to the essay that i would be writing. The difficulty i would have would be most likely quoting the text without summarizing the actual comic "scene". I might use some of the excerpts in Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud that Mr. D gave us from this i will bring in the section that he gave us about the different faces and different "titles" that these comics take. McCloud's theory or statement possibly on the icons that we give to such things can also be placved into my essay the most obvious of which is the Mouse head on each of the jewish people. All of this will be anaylized and hopefully become to be the best essay yet to come.

Are we really that lazy?

Three days and four teeth later I bring to you people my blog! I was not their for Mr. D to present the ideas we are suppose to focus or zoom on in this blog so as usual it will be a vast amount of random crap that no one should really be allowed to read. As Nicholas Carr states in his “Is Google Making Us Stupid” article we are changing in our reading habits. I remember reading books before I would ever pick up the remote and now today we pick up the mouse rather than become deeply immersed in a book. Becoming deeply immersed in anything seems ridiculously hard today, with the Internet giving us the vital needs of whatever we need we just skim for the hearty chunks and leave the rest behind! On my blog page I have had a survey going and so far the majority of people who have voted picked the “I skim” option! This pick and choose, Carr states seems to be derived from the internet because the information is so easily accessible it does not seem necessary to even read the whole article. Why read the book when spark notes gives you the gist of it? Even Cat’s Cradle is attempting to attack television , the media giant of his time, with short passages to keep the attention of the reader. Maybe in newer texts we will have to shorten that even further, sentences will become nothing but short hand. Carr continues his thought when he dives into artificial intelligence, as he states “The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive” With Google attempting to create an artificial intelligence that is literally smarter than the human brain as so to “serve” the human better, basically this relates to the human into instant gratification of information as so we don’t have to add that much more of a word so the computer will think for us so we have to do nothing we have become so lazy that thinking is too difficult for us to do! Sorry for the terrible grammar again 