Technical Issue Fixed

So, here's my essay. I was not in class when we read Valediction, and, to be honest, I don't understand it in the slightest. I feel this essay is very weak and I apologize. I sort of found my thesis midway through the essay (ie, found what I wanted to prove). Now I want to go back and analyze the specific evidence more. :-) Night all.

~~~

The eyes through which one looks at a subject define how it is viewed. No two people can see the same thing in the same way. Even the most confident of views has its opposer. On the subject of romantic relationships, the general consensus is positive. But the extent varies. Still, there are those who view it through displeased eyes. The poems Valediction and Conjoined by John Donne and Judith Minty take two opposing views on relationships. Through the use of metaphors, and control of tone, these differences are defined--- one as releasing and one as stifling.

While both authors view romance as something finite and highly impactful, Valediction produces a much more positive perception. The strong influence can be seen in the comparison to the galatic movement of planets. The "trepidation of the spheres, though greater far, is innocent" of bringing the earth harm and fear. This is a powerful statement. A clear, natural experience is disregarded in the comparison to the emotions accompanied with the speaker's love. This reveals not only the depth of the love, but the influence it holds over each partner in the relationship. Clearly, this is not something one can escape from easily. It is a permanent thing. Love is compared to celestial bodies, named after mythical gods, to show its power and its ability to withstand time. Conjoined, also shows the durability of the bond of marriage (traditionally following this love foretold in Valediction). However, the diction chosen to reveal this by Minty is melancholy and urgent. Words like "doomed" and "bind" and attempts to "sever" the bond ending in "kill[ing]" show the strength yes, but something much more. It shows that this bond is not desirable. While Donne gives the impression that love this strong is liberating, Minty implies that it binds, or enslaves, one. The speaker is constantly trying to free themselves from the oppressive relationship, a fight for indepence. Minty is making a statement about the power of being separate, and views it as prefereable than being attatched to someone else. Continually, her negative attitude is shown through allusions to cruel and gruesome mutations such as a "two-headed calf" or conjoined twins "Chang and Eng." The idea of two minds trapped in one body is compared to marriage--- two individuals trapped in one institution. Minty comes to the conclusion that for one to truly thrive and live, one must independent and not relient on anything or anyone else. Allowing others to mesh with one restricts their movement, making them "heavy." She presents the idea that being attatched to another person weighs you down. Comversely, Donne presents the comparison to a graphing compass, bringing the two loves always full circle to "end where [they] began." Like the two in Minty's poem, they cannot escape each other. However, this is not a bad thing in Donne's opinion. The attatchment to another person forms one whole from two halves, instead of two shrinking into one. While both use metaphors to show the inescapability of romance and relationships, the attitudes coupled with them allow them to present two very different ideas.

When both use such similar metaphors, what makes them seem so different. Truly, the metaphors seem different but are in essence the same. Both present love as a bond. So, what then, shines such different light on them? The tone of each poem makes all of the difference. Valediction is presented with a light rhythmic beat and provides positive diction, giving the impression of contentment. Words associated with deep, meaningful bonds are spread through: "love," "soul," and "refined." Their love is full of the "profanation of our joys." Even the speaker is aware of the happiness brought out of the bond. There is a simplicity to the words that calls upon to reader to believe in the validity the bond, and the clear, loving way it exists. However, Minty's tone is the exact opposite. Using words such as "deformed," "monster," and "freaks," show that she feels this very same bond to be unnatural.

In the end, the same message is presented in two opposite ways. Love is a bond so powerful, once trapped, one cannot escape. Donne insists this is a beautiful thing, and Minty insists it is a tragedy. Again, this only reiterates the idea that, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a bond of love must be measured individually case by case.

Within 48 Hours...

...is not late right? Right?

I blame the illness! Amid a throng of other excuses...

So, right, The Things They Carried

To be honest, I'm having a hard time looking at this with a Postmodern eye. But, I'll have a go at it. I think, like Maus, it deals mainly with the idea of representation, or rather the lack thereof.

War, it presents, is so full of emotion that sharing the emotion completely is entirely impossible. No one would be able to understand the torment that these men had to go through. However, it seems, that trying to share these stories is the POINT of telling war stories (of which this novel is a collection of).

So, aware of this point, why would O'Brien publish this novel? Why do we keep trying to tell stories that can't be told? Why try to relive emotions that cause pain and that no one can identify with? I mean, we can try to understand, and sometimes we succeed to tiny degrees, but more often than not, we miss the point, as is seen with the case of the woman who felt sorry for the baby animal that Rat Kiley tortured and killed in his emotional anguish. I admit that, while I am able to empathize and completely understand the idea of the story, I too found myself feeling aghast and sorry for the animal. So, obviously, the raw feelings can't be transferred from person to person. Even Rat Kiley's emotions must have been diluted through O'Brian's perspective. So, again, what's the point?

I don't know. Perhaps we feel relief at attempting to explain our emotions, by imagining or pretending that others can understand our stories. Is it nessecary? Is there a better way? I suppose we'll discover O'Brian's opinion as we go along...

So, what is Postmodernism?

After a long long semester, I suppose I should know by now. Question is, is this blog also supposed to come accompanied by an opinion? Who knows, we'll see as we go along.



Postmodernism takes the idea of not labeling people to the extreme. It sees that by focusing on one thing, one is always marginalizing the Other.



Other with a capital O.... we've seen a lot of this so-called Other throughout the semester. So, who is it?



It's the opressed, and the privelaged. It's the black AND the white. No matter what opinion you entail on any subject, the Other is that with which you disagree.



So, everyone who proponents to stop marginalizing people, Postmodernism says you can't. Sorry.



I guess Postmodernism champions, in a way, both the existence AND the nonexistence of marginalization. So, what type is ok and what isn't? Well, I'm pretty sure we can all figure that out for ourselves, but all of it will always exist.

So, that is that concept of binary opposites. For every black there is a white. For every opinion, a counter.

What else does it mean?
Someone told me that it means, everything is relative. But, relative to what is the main question that it hopes to solve I suppose.

For example, Brave New World citizens seeem perfectly happy. However, when we compare it to our world, relatively, it's awful. But relative to 1984, it's paradise. So is it awful or paradise? It's both, in relativity.

This is where Postmodernism attempts to bring in everyone else's viewpoint. If we look at someone's "odd" viewpoint from their angle, in relative to certain things, anything can seem positive.

Is murder ok if the circumstances allow it? Alone maybe not, but many people can see murder as justifiable relative to a wrongdoing in the past. An extreme example, but relative nonetheless. :-)

In theory, the relativity thing and "tolerance" is a good idea, but I notice it doesn't leave a lot of room for non-postmodern ideas. I suppose that's its fatal flaw.

Postmodernism condemns metanarratives, going back to this idea that it marginalizes Others to accept just one metamarrative, and instead calls for the coexistence of several smaller narratives.

But, as good as that all sounds, Postmodernism is effecitivly marginalizing metanarratives with no chance of reprive. Paradoxing its own principle. I suppose it depends on the metanarraitve.

Looking back on my collection of blogs, I think my experiences with Postmodernism have been documented realistically and informativly.

In the end, Postmodernism attempts to embrace the new and different. However, I would like to add that it has to be careful not to let go of traditions and the past.

Andrea