Howl by Allen Ginsberg

       I always find it interesting to think of the extent of power the government tries to exert over its' people. I suppose many would say that the government tries to do what is best for the majority, but it doing so is some opinion wrong? What if the majority is wrong, or not with the best interests of the "state?" Are we to follow what the majority says because they always rules over the minority, even if they are wrong? (So easy to write questions that are statements b/c of the past essay). I suppose the struggle comes with opinion. Who really is right? How can we say that killing is wrong when in someone's mind it may be completely right?
       This leads me to think of what was written in Allen Ginsberg's "Howl." It is incontrovertible to see that the speaker is describing all the flaws of the generation, but he is also calling on other members of society to think and act out. The speaker tells them to distribute, "Supercommunist pamphlets in Union Square," encouraging others to think outside what the government tells you to think and be defiant. Later on, however, he admits to the reader that people who rebel, "Were burned alive, " "Jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge," and, "Sang out of their windows in despair." This seems to suggest that rebellion should not be done. What is most interesting to me, however, is how the rebels were, "Run down by the drunken taxicabs of Absolute Reality." By thinking that there is one reality, people hold a sort of dominance over others, most clearly seen by the driver who believes in an absolute truth and drives the cab that kills people. The speaker is implying that people who hold an absolute truth are deadly and can of course be interpreted that the speaker thinks that there are different truths. This creates an underlying question that can possibly debunk the entire argument of the rebels, or Beat generation: if there are so many different opinions of the truth, how can they fight so ferociously to their own opinion? By doing so, aren't they just doing exactly what the taxicab driver is doing? It's is almost like the Beat generation is calling the norm insane when the the norm calls them insane. It is an endless circle. You really are insane when you deny your sanity, right?

In the poem "Clocks and Lovers" by W.H. Auden, the debate on how to use time arises. speaker describes his unfathomable affection to his lover, citing that he would spend eternity with her. The voice of doubt then comes from a clock in the city, who brands the speaker as a fool for wasting his time on love.. Based off the poem, however, it can be inferred that love is a trivial thing, and time will always win out over it. There are several instances in the poem to support this.

            Through the course of the poem, each narrator defends his own viewpoints. The lover begins with his lover being the only one he sees and hears in a, "Field of harvest wheat." (4) He notes that he will love her, "Till China and Africa meet," (10) thereby signifying he will love her for eternity. He uses a metaphor later on to call her, "The Flower of the Ages," (19) supporting the previous statement that she is a rare woman. The clock, however, goes on to debunk everything the speaker has said. He tells the speaker, "Time will have his fancy/To-morrow or to-day."(31-2) Here, the clock is indicating that will they may love each other, time is inevitable, coming whenever it pleases. When the clock tells the speaker, "O plunge your hands in water...and wonder what you've missed," (37/40) he is mocking the speaker for being in almost a dream, thus telling him to wake himself up by putting his wrists into water. More so, by immersing himself in water, he would be cleansing himself of any parasite, in this case the disease of love. Finally, the clock asserts, "Life remains a blessing/Although you cannot bless."(51-2) This statement tells the speaker that life is a blessing because he can savor all that life has to offer, yet he cannot be blessed with it because he is wasting it on love.

            As the poem closes, the lovers are nowhere to be found, yet, "The deep river ran on." (60) This unmistakably asserts the clock's prediction that love does not last forever, and to waste life on it is foolish. If the clock is correct, why then do so many people fall prey to its' seducing ways? Is it because people fall prone to their emotions in lieu of their logic? Perhaps if people were to abandon emotions, the world would be much more rational and worry-free.

Resistance

            In the poem "Storm Warnings" by Adrienne Rich, the speaker describes the events leading up to a storm. The speaker prepares his house against the power of the storm and notes the constant tediousness of the storm's coming. In the poem, Rich creates several comparisons between the literal struggle of the speaker to the storm as well as the metaphorical struggle of human nature to their existence. Based off the information in the poem, it can be concluded that power is something the speaker and society are aware of, but are still perplexed by its proper usage. This can be supported with examples throughout the poem.

            The more that the speaker tries to prepare for the storm, the more melancholy he becomes. As the speaker notices the storm approaching, he quickly acts to, "Draw the curtains as the sky goes black." (22) Here, the speaker is well aware of the extent of his ability to prepare for the storm, and thus draws the curtains. When he sees that the storm begins to produce wind, he says, "We can only close the shutters." (21) By providing the distinct word of only, he is indicating that he cannot do some ludicrous action such as try to stop the storm or stop time. As the poem closes, he notes that drawing the curtains and closing the shutters are two of the few moves he can do.

            Nevertheless, the speaker constantly tries to surpass his human limitations. In one instance, he tries to stop his watches, but he notes that, "Time in the hand is not control of time." (18) This quotation serves to indicate that the speaker cannot control something, in this instance time, that is out of his control as a human being. Later on, when he tries to, "Set a match to candles sheathed in glass," (23) as the sky turns black, the wind enters and puts it out. This attempt at defiance illustrates the idea that if it is going to be dark because of a storm, the speaker is to oblige and submit to it. As the speaker tries to silence the wind, he shows the wind the damage it committed is not fair, but, "the wind will rise." (20) This indicates his attempts to stop the wind are feeble and worthless.

            Clearly, the speaker tries to prepare for the damage the storm will cause. Just as apparent is the resistance he exerts on what is. The speaker's actions pose an interesting question of the actions humans commit. If someone is sick, are we to try to help them? According to the poem, we are not supposed to intervene with what is, and just watch that person die. Are we then supposed to live our lives with no resistance and just allow all unfortunate things to go unchallenged? Would there even be a meaning to life?

Is it Worth It

             Is life even worth it? Why wake up, eat, and sleep forever in an endless cycle? While Meursault goes through life in The Stranger, does his life have value when he commits actions? Through Gregor's acts as a vermin in The Metamorphosis, does trying to leave his room really impact his life? Because the constant struggle between doing nothing and taking action bears no winner, are actions worth it? Why do humans even keep trying to conquer life if we know that it will always come back, but we will not?

            Is it better to just observe life, or should someone strain him/herself by taking action? In The Stranger, when Meursault takes action by lying to the police for Raymond, is he not punished later on? Because of this, is the correct idea to not worry about others but only oneself? Later, as he attacks the priest for trying to convince him to believe in God and later is punished for it, does he symbolize the idea that one should not bother with pestering things? Ultimately, when he shoots the Arab to save Raymond's life, by being arrested, tried, and eventually executed, is Camus trying to allude that watching Raymond's life be taken is better than his own? In The Metamorphosis, does Gregor taking a job to pay his family and his own debt lead to his transformation to a vermin? Would he have stayed human if he were to be unemployed? After his transformation, when he confronts his office manager about his tardiness, does the manager's repulsion signify both his disgust with his appearance but also to someone who takes action? Afterwards, when he does the same thing to the boarders in his apartment, does their interest in him show the surprise they have in someone who foolishly commits deeds?

            Is it possible for humans to ever be happy? After doing something of significant achievement, is it almost inevitable for something to happen to dampen the spirits? Because it is a never-ending cycle, why try? When Meursault realizes this in his trial, does he not give up and succumb to conviction and eventual execution? When Gregor finally understands, is it almost incontrovertible that he would let himself die? Because actions seem to bear no impact, and because humans are still alive, why do we exist? Is it just for God to watch in amusement as we constantly fail, bringing a rock to the top of a mountain only to see it fall back down?

Questions Essay

Are actions truly permanent? In Albert Camus's "The Strangers," does Meursault know he is going to die, therefore accepting it? In Frank Kafka's "Metamorphosis," is Gregor glad to be an insect because he anticipated it? By being a submissive soul, does a person push him/herself onto the brink of destruction, only to either explode or never be able to take action? Each novel provides supporting examples of the idea of not being able to undo actions, but does this mean that people can never change?

            What leads up to Meursault's imprisonment? He kills an Arab without reason or purpose, but does Meursault himself really kill the Arab? He may have pulled the trigger, but he is ordered to do so by Raymond; this poses the question: did he truly choose to kill the Arab? In following the same monotonous routine every day, does he show that he cannot stray from the norm, thereby never truly being able to make a decision? Regarding his imprisonment, why does he not choose to speak at his trial to defend himself? Is it to showcase that the pressure of making a decision is too much for him? Or, is Camus perhaps signifying that those who do not make decisions never will?

            Why would Gregor turn into a vermin? Did his meager and subservient life lead to him becoming, literally, a bottom-feeder? Is he becoming a vermin significant in that his life is as worthless as a pest whose life can easily be ended with no impact on others? When he is stuck in his room, unable to complete any actions, does he show that no actions lead to no results? Why, then, does he even go on with life as a traveling salesman? As a salesman, he relies on others to make decisions, so does he really take action? When he later dies, his family literally goes out for the first time in months; does this sudden yet resolute action show that him taking no action led nowhere in life, thereby creating no everlasting impact on his family? By telling Gregor to leave, thus leading to his suicide, is his death even of his own accord? or is it his family's?

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Murder%20in%20the%20Cathedral%20PP_files/frame.htm

Murder in the Cathedral PP

Pretty sketch, I know, but I'm not tech savvy so... file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Murder%20in%20the%20Cathedral%20PP_files/frame.htm

The Mystery of the Caves

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

            In the poem "The Mystery of the Caves" by Michael Waters, a boy reveals his relationship between himself and his two parents in comparison to a story he has read. In the story, a boy struggles to survive in a deleterious cave filling with water while in his life he struggles to choose between his mother and father. Based off the information provided in the poem and in comparison between the boy's life and the story, it can be inferred that fantasy is not so different from reality. This can be supported through the images and symbols of the text.

            The boy in the cave faces decisions that can either save or kill him. "The Mystery of the Caves" opens with a boy frantically running through a cave as it fills with water. The rising water evokes an ultimatum: the boy can either venture to the top but risk failure in finding nothing, or he can risk dying on ground level. This begins the dilemma of pivotal decisions in the cave. The "labyrinth of caverns" serves as a metaphor that symbolizes the boy's confusion in making a decision. Later on, the boy holds, "One yellow finger of flame wavered on his last match." (7) Here, the boy has one last lit match, which symbolizes yet another instance of him having to make a decision to leave his spot or stay before the flame dims out.

            The boy reading the book suffers from the same difficulty in making a decision. His reality begins with his mother and father arguing. The boy is unsure which side to take, and "The boy found it impossible to see which passage led to safety." (15) This can be compared to the boy with respect to his hesitation in siding with his mother or his father but also to the boy's situation in the cave' should he endeavor to go to the top, or should he stay below? The mother's "blur of perfume" the young boy becomes entangled in symbolizes the haze of judgement he has in trusting either his mother or father. As the poem progresses, when the mother is being restrained by the father, the young boy observes her, "among bright islands of skirts." (29) The bright skirts can be paralleled to the match in that they evoke in each boy a question: what do I do?

            Clearly, both boys face the dilemma of what decision to make, with the boy in the story deciding to leave or go and the boy in reality torn between his mother and his father. An incontrovertible answer, however, is never stated and is instead left to the reader. The boy finishes the poem with the idea that the boy in the story, "is still searching below the light for a thin pencil of light." (33) The light, symbolizing hope, poses an interesting question to the reader: are all decisions in life regretted? When people enter into the world of what could have been, does fantasy really become that different from reality?

Existentialist Thoughts II

This may sound a bit repetitive with respect to my last post, but it is worth noting. Also, I like to write these journal entries as a sort of reminisce to the infamous journals we kept in Ms. Brey freshman and sophomore year. Speaking of Ms. Brey, at the Homecoming Dance, I was speaking to her. We talked about the usual unusual things we talk about, but I would expect nothing less when speaking to one of my past mentors. I asked her what I should do regarding a teacher, and she replied that there is nothing to do. I can fight and try to change him, but I cannot control how he is. After a person has an idea, it can be hard to change his/her standpoints, if not impossible. This may sound like ignorance, but only so if moderation is not introduced. The main point that she was saying, however, is that I am not always in control of others, but I am always in control of myself and myself alone. I must be able to adapt to every and any situation. After reading the statements on Existentialism, this idea that Ms. Brey told me relates to the concept, "In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me." This may sound arrogant or egocentric, but it is nevertheless true. I cannot decide what other people want, nor should I have to. If I did, free will would no longer exist. I know what I want, so I will pursue it. If others do not have the ambition to do what they feel will benefit themselves, then why should I? If I have to help them, they may want to do something that will not benefit me. Is the goal of life not to achieve a sense of pride, or accomplishment? The degree of accomplishment varies from person to person of course, but I think that's what it's all about. If everyone were to make choices to benefit others, where is the motivation to keep living for oneself? If people have nothing to live for, is then, the most authentic moment in life death? That would be the case in a world where people do not motivate and push themselves for more. Yet, that is a world I slowly and fearfully see approaching.