Shakespeare's History: Richard III

“A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!"
Richard III has such incredible control over every aspect of his life, and even controls the lives of others around him. He has a brilliant mind and is master at using language and betrayal to his advantage. The only real challenge Richard faces in the play is when another young man who is good with words converses with him. They have a little verbal dual, and the only thing that saves Richard is his position of power over the man, which forces him to back off and show Richard some respect.
Richard’s only vulnerability is exposed during his final moment, in battle. Here, his tried and true tricks and mind games have no effect against physical battle. Richard is not even able to put up a fight once he has lost his horse. Similar to the story of Achilles and his tendon – nobody is completely indestructible – there is always one soft spot that, once hit, will bring them down immediately. It is ironic that he can overcome the most incredible situations he gets himself into (murder after murder on top of murder), yet he is defeated when he simply has no horse to ride on.

Shakespeare creates this history simply by following the events of the times. This play could be considered completely factual, however, there is some bias to it. Had Shakespeare viewed Richard III as an awesome ruler, the play may have gone down a little differently. By portraying Richard in a negative light, however, Shakespeare is playing it safe and complying with the general audience's opinion of the situation. In order for the reader to fully understand the play, it is important to know the basics of The Wars of the Roses, divided York and Lancaster, and Richard III's family tree.

I enjoyed this play probably the most out of all of Shakespeare’s other works we have read. Aside from the confusing details of the battles, I actually had a fun time reading this play. The characters seemed to have so much passion and emotion, it was truly entertaining. I also found that reading aloud to someone (my dog) helps a great deal. Speaking the words out loud forces me to focus on what I am saying rather than just allowing my eyes to scan the words while my mind is somewhere else. Another factor contributing to my enjoyment of this play was the class discussions. Understanding someone else’s interpretation and appreciation for a character (like how Mr. Klimas idolizes Richard) opens my eyes to look more closely at the genius of Shakespeare’s writing. I then, also, begin to have that same appreciation for his work.

Shakespeare's Tragedy: Macbeth

Shakespeare develops this tragedy by creating a character who is struggling through the worst battle one can endure – one against himself. This tragic figure along with the bloody imagery, murders, and the dark tone from the start of the play, “(Thunder and lightning. Enter three Witches) When shall we three meet again /In thunder, lightning, or in rain? / When the hurlyburly's done, / When the battle's lost and won. / That will be ere the set of sun.” makes for a master tragedy.

The three witches and Lady Macbeth have such control over Macbeth and know his weaknesses so well that it creates a sense of hopelessness and doom. They key in to Macbeth’s weaknesses (ambition, insecurity, and courage) and are able to convince him to believe and act upon everything they say. Along with the sense of hopelessness is the sense of doom, created by the dark settings, the blood, and of course the numerous unnecessary murders of men, women, and children.
Slowly we watch Macbeth destroy himself – or rather, allow himself to be destroyed – as the play unfolds. The witches test his ambition, knowing that if he has a goal, he will not be satisfied until he has attained his goal. They then set dangerous and ultimately impossible goals and watch as Macbeth struggles to reach them, knowing full well he never will. Lady Macbeth then attacks his insecurity by questioning his manhood, forcing him to feel as though he must prove himself to her. While a true man would have the confidence to defend himself and his morals, Macbeth’s insecurity causes him to doubt himself and question any morals he may have. Lady Macbeth knows he is insecure and therefore presents him with a different version of manhood (a murderer!), which Macbeth then feels obliged to fulfill.
Finally, Macbeth’s courage and bravery are tested by everyone, for he needs these qualities in order to attain these ambitions set for him – he needs the courage to kill and will then become king of Scotland.

I found that the language of Shakespeare’s Macbeth was wonderful; however, I did find the story to be rather boring and too similar to Richard III. It seemed to be the same old story – a power-hungry character sets out to rule the world, yet never achieves his goal, and only murders everyone along the way. Now don’t get me wrong, there were many differences, like Macbeth was a tragic figure and Richard was pure evil, I simply felt as though it was very predictable. This may also be due to the fact that we read the two plays one right after the other. There is an upside, of course, because this is Shakespeare – Macbeth is a classic and, as I have now noticed, is referenced everywhere! I am glad I have read the play and can now relate to it when it’s mentioned out of the classroom.

Shakespeare's Comedy: The Taming of the Shrew

"Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow, / And dart not scornful glances from those eyes, / To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor: / It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads, / Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds, / And in no sense is meet or amiable. / A woman moved is like a fountain troubled, / Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty; / And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty / Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it. / Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, / Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee, / And for thy maintenance commits his body / To painful labour both by sea and land, / To watch the night in storms, the day in cold, / Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe; / And craves no other tribute at thy hands / But love, fair looks and true obedience; / Too little payment for so great a debt. / Such duty as the subject owes the prince / Even such a woman oweth to her husband; / And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour, / And not obedient to his honest will, / What is she but a foul contending rebel / And graceless traitor to her loving lord? / I am ashamed that women are so simple / To offer war where they should kneel for peace; / Or seek for rule, supremacy and sway, / When they are bound to serve, love and obey. / Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth, / Unapt to toil and trouble in the world, / But that our soft conditions and our hearts / Should well agree with our external parts? / Come, come, you froward and unable worms! / My mind hath been as big as one of yours, / My heart as great, my reason haply more, / To bandy word for word and frown for frown; / But now I see our lances are but straws, / Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare, / That seeming to be most which we indeed least are. / Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot, / And place your hands below your husband's foot: / In token of which duty, if he please, / My hand is ready; may it do him ease."

This speech finalizes Katherine’s character transformation. She makes a complete turnaround from being the “shrew,” totally against men and relationships in the beginning of the play, and at the end, during this speech, she actually defends the role of a wife.
Some of the main points which Katherine is arguing in this speech are that the husband is the “lord,” “king,” or “governor” in the relationship, and a wife who is “peevish” or “sullen” is a traitor to her ruler. It is the husband’s job to provide protection, support, and comfort to the family/relationship, while it is the wife’s duty to be obedient, loyal, and loving. Finally, she explains how these roles in the relationship are only natural, for the male body is strong and capable, mainly to provide the protection and support he owes to the wife and family. The woman’s body, on the other hand, is softer and weaker, able to provide love, yet not fully able to stand up to the husband.
But why does Katherine change her position so drastically? It is possible she simply gives up and become totally submissive to her husband, Petruccio. She may have just realized this was her only option, seeing as how Petruccio was not going to ease up on “taming” her. She may also have been jealous of Bianca, for men were attracted to Bianca, rather than herself. Katherine therefore dealt with these emotions as bitterness, almost hostility, towards all men. Once Petruccio comes along and chooses Katherine, however, she feels acceptable and is able to let her guard down. The most probable cause of this change, however, is Kate’s realization that the only way she can be happy is if she allows herself to accept the role she play in society, and that everything will fall into place afterwards.

The method Shakespeare uses to make this play a comedy is simply outrageousness, and completely ridiculous scenarios. The switching of roles and identities sets up for inevitable chaos, which in itself is humorously entertaining – to see others accidently set themselves up for awkward situations, trying to wiggle their way out, is funny! Not only do these characters alter their identities, but they all have such similar names ending in -io, which makes the situation even more overwhelmingly chaotic. In order to keep all of these characters straight the viewer/reader would be stressed, so all one can do is laugh at the absurdity.
Also, Katherine’s behavior is so out of character (for a woman) that it is shocking. It is entertaining to see something other than the norm, especially when they are making a fool of themselves. In Shakespeare’s time, this play must have gotten even more laughs out of the audience, for the Christian, patriarchal society of the times would have contrasted more with Katherine’s behavior than our, more progressive, society does today.

I enjoyed this play because it was honest humor. There was nothing stupid, distasteful, or referencing something that I had to look up. Shakespeare just jokes about typical human nature, which everyone can relate to. Reading something a little light-hearted and comical in school is something new to me, and was definitely a welcomed breath of fresh air. Normally, I’m trudging through a book with my brow furrowed, troubled by some tragedy that inevitably leads to a not-so-happy ending. Comedy is a genre we students are not all that familiar with or exposed to. It is very interesting to analyze what we find funny and why, and how authors like Shakespeare are able to understand this and make us laugh. I believe this genre deserves a bigger role in literature in school.

Sound and Sense #251 The Sound of Night - Maxine Kumin

This poem explores the happenings of nighttime that frighten us "day creatures." It paints an uneasy picture of the animals at night and what they do while we are sleeping - or trying to, anyway. The speaker is perhaps camping with another person/people, and they are a little leery of falling asleep among the unknown creatures of the night. The diction displays this fear, for the words used to describe the sounds, "cries," "squeaks," "noises," are rather harsh and unpleasant sounding - they are most definitely not soothing, soft words that roll off one's tounge and put them to sleep. These instead suggest uneasiness, "...noisy as ducks, drunk / on the boozy black, gloating chink-chunk" (Kumin 8,9). These noises are sharp and alert, keeping the speaker and company awake, for they must must "defend" themselves during the night. This suggests there is danger lurking that may attack or try to harm them. When listing the sources of all of these sounds, not one of them is positive, and "the strange" even has a line of its own. Unknown, unexplained, scary, foreign creatures are "the strange" ones that are especially frightening. All these campers can look forward to is the "sweet" sun that is guaranteed to rise in the morning and will silence all of the unknowns of the dark.


The term "we" is used, referring to the speaker and their company. It could also, perhaps, be referring to the human population as a whole. In that case, the poem takes on an entirely different tone, one of slight sarcasm and mockery. The speaker would then be pointing out all of the scary things that make us softy humans afraid of the dark. It is silly of us to curl up in our blankets next to a cozy fire, surrounded by the little birdies, bats, and frogs - all harmless and simply making noises. And of course those "supposed...the never seen" are out there too - who knows what they're going to do to you!

The imagery throughout this poem is entirely auditory. There is no solid, physical evidence to reassure these campers' wandering minds. Not seeing any of these animals leads to the fear of the unknown, which is most often the scariest aspect. The campers assume the source of every sound to be a bird, a bat, or a frog; but there is always that possibility that it is not, that it is something far more threatening on its way to gobble them up, for they never actually see this bird, bat or frog.

The structure of the poem also adds to the uneasy feeling the reader senses. "And now" is the start of the first two stanzas. First of all, this puts the reader right in the moment with the campers, experiencing that same trembling fear. Beginning this way is also very informal, rushed almost, as though the speaker is not focused because they are too consumed by the threatening noises surrounding them. The final stanza is different, for it begins only with "Now." In this stanza the speaker is now focused on the future - they are settled in, maybe a little accustomed to the noises, although still fearful. They are reassured by the definite coming of the "sweet" sun which will save them, and they concentrate on this to keep their minds off of the ever-present night sounds.

Sound and Sense #212 Money - Victor Contoski

This is an entertaining poem that describes money as though it has the characteristics of multiple living things. The first stanza implies that money is a wild animal, wild in the sense of free of any human connections, yet it is "willing to be domesticated." The next stanza describes it as a small creature that can fit in a pocket. The words "nest," "soft," and "curl up" suggest a cozy, furry little animal, like a mouse. The third stanza moves on to describe money as a dog - likable, it attracts other people, etc. The tides change, however, in the fourth stanza when the speaker describes money has a self-absorbed amoeba. The fifth stanza then returns to treating money like an animal that needs care, exercise, and watering (sixth stanza). In the second to last stanza, the description of money as something humans master, yet it turns on them, may be referring to a circus animal; perhaps a lion or tiger that obediently learns and performs all of the tricks, but one day turns and bites its trainer from out of the blue. The final stanza refers to money as a snake, or some animal with venom, that can kill its victim in 30 seconds. As the poem progresses, t describes the gradual transformation of money from a harmless little mouse, to a deadly snake. The speaker may have had some personal experience with money similar to this one, and this poem may be his warning to others to not get this involved with money or try to master it.

A literary device used in this poem is, in a way, personification. That is probably not the correct term, however, money is an inanimate object given animal traits instead of human traits. This allows the speaker room to make a large variety of comparison to encompass all of the various characteristics of money. Instead of saying: people will like you more because you have money, the speaker compares money to a dog. Dog is man's best friend; people walk up to complete strangers just to pet their dogs and may become friends because of it; a man's adorable puppy may be what causes two soul mates to meet in a movie. The reader now sees people buddying up to someone because of their money and a woman pursuing a wealthy man to secure her financial future. Now the money has taken on a living, breathing influence, that is stronger than a green piece of paper.

Hyperbole is used in the last stanza, when money is said to have the ability to kill. Of course this is unrealistic, and instead of literally physically killing a person, this implies an emotional death. Money can buy many wonderful things - it can feed thousands of hungry people, put roofs over heads, fund research to cure epidemic diseases, etc. Money can also destroy someone's life. It is a well-known fact that many of those who have won the lottery through the years end up with more miserable lives than before they had won the money. Some people get so caught up in the face value of money, all of the pretty things it can buy, the high status it gives them, etc., that when they run out, they are completely lost and utterly helpless. Because they relied on it to make them "happy," they know no other way to recreate this happiness. Money cannot buy happiness. That is also a well-known fact. This is the emotional death the speaker is referring to. That plummet into total darkness when all that someone has relied upon turns its back and leaves them.

This free verse poem is very simple - no complicated rhyme scheme, pattern, or meter. The speaker is merely stating facts, one per stanza. He is just putting out the warning, plain and clear for everyone to read: beware of money, for it can kill you.

Sound and Sense #209 Good Times - Lucille Clifton

This poem is rather simple, but has an important message. The speaker comes across as an older person, most likely a woman, who has perhaps lived through some tough times. These rough times however, make the simple, ordinary times appear to be that much better in comparison. It is these good times that should be remembered, which the speaker advises children as she looks back at her life, for perhaps she is lying on her death bed.

Because the speaker is an older person, it gives the poem a little more meaning. Coming from someone elderly, the poem has more truth, more validity - an 85 year old woman has the necessary experience, knowledge, and wisdom (that a 35 year old does not) to be making these suggestions on how to look at one's life.

The syntax of this poem suggests that the speaker is not very educated, for only names are capitalized, there is no sentence structure, no punctuation, etc. This literary device layers another meaning onto the poem, suggesting that good times are not restricted to the wealthy, privileged individuals who have higher educations, and whose "good times" are more extravagant than others' may be. "Good times" are the simple times, the pleasant, true times that make one happy.
The fact that only the names are capitalized may also point out that these people, all members of the family, are around during each of these happy memories. This may imply that "good times" are those spent with family.

Repetition is the most obvious aspect of the poem, for "good times" is repeated seven times throughout this 18-line poem. It is repeated for a simple reason, too - to emphasize the fact that the good times are those that should be thought of often and kept in our memories forever. Not bad times, tough times, confusing times, prideful times, or any other kind of times - no, just the good times.

Sound and Sense #201. Siren Song - Margaret Atwood

Having read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, I found a clear message in this poem right away. Although Atwood is not necessarily the speaker, I can pick out her voice coming through this poem, for she is a strong promoter of women's rights. Not having previous knowledge of the author would have made this poem more difficult to understand. It is clear that the speaker, whoever it may be, is resentful of her job as a siren. She is simply being used for her voice, beauty, and femininity to seduce sailors and trick them into coming ashore, where they will surely meet their deaths. "I don't enjoy it here / squatting on this island / looking picturesque and mythical" (Atwood 13-15). She is stuck with this job only because she is a woman, and she feels suppressed by it. What she really wants is help, "This song / is a cry for help: Help me!" (21, 22).


One major literary device used in this poem is allusion, for the entire poem is an allusion to Greek mythology. A siren is a beautiful woman/creature with bird-like characteristics who lures sailors to their deaths with her beauty and voice. Using Greek mythology to portray a current concern, women's rights, stresses its importance. If this issue can be dated as far back as Greek mythology goes, it is clearly an issue that must be addressed. The speaker is basically saying that it's about time someone should fix this problem, seeing as it has been around since the beginning of time.
Another literary device used is repetition. The speaker, the siren, uses repetition when addressing the reader, "I will tell the secret to you, / to you, only to you / ...Help me! / Only you, only you can, / you are unique" (19-24). This repetition stresses that the reader of this poem, "you," is the only person that can possibly help her. "You" is someone who is reading these words that the siren has written - they have not been seduced or put under the influence of her beauty or voice. The reader is not a pitiful sailor who has fallen for the siren's beautiful song, but is now the only person who knows of her true feelings and thoughts, for all others who have met her are dead. It is as though this poem is a message in a bottle that the speaker put out as her last chance of being rescued from her suppressing role as a siren. It also makes it more personal, and it hits the reader at a deeper level than if she did not address them at all. To try and get her point across as best as possible, the speaker must emphasize that this single, unique reader is her only chance, her last hope.


This poem is written in free verse - there is no rhyme or meter whatsoever. This could perhaps be the speaker's form of rebellion. She has been forced as a siren to sing this "boring song" for years, and by writing in free verse, she is eliminating any element of song. There is no rhyme, no rhythm, no flow or movement, and no repetition of a particular stanza, like a chorus would be repeated.

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

One of the various symbols in this novel is the character Emma. She symbolizes purity and innocence, and is the one female character that Stephen does not destroy in his mind when he is exploring his sexual identity. Stephen places her on a pedestal, almost worships her, because she is everything that is good (although he never has a conversation with her). He has such high regards for her that he feels she is in a completely different reality than him and that they will never be at the same level together. Stephen is making these comparisons because he is going through the phase where he feels incredibly sinful for exploring his sexual identity the way he is. Comparing Stephen to Emma gives a better perspective of Stephen's guilt; he feels as though he is the complete opposite of her extreme purity and innocence. Once Stephen finds his own identity and has a conversation with Emma, he sees things in a totally different light. This conversation makes him realize she is human, real, and has faults and impurities of her own. He sees it was unrealistic for him to put her on such a high pedestal; also saying that it was unrealistic of him to ever compare himself to Emma. She did not exist as he imagined her to - perfect, pure, angelic; and he was not the complete devil he thought he was. "Yes, I liked her today. A little or much? Don't know. I liked her and it seems a new feeling to me...O, give it up, old chap! Sleep it off!" (Joyce 275). Stephen finally accepts himself and the way thing are, lets go, and is able to move on with his life.


"A girl stood before him in midstream, alone and still, gazing out to sea. She seemed like one whom magic had changed into the likeness of a strange and beautiful seabird. Her long slender bare legs were delicate as a crane's and pure save where an emerald trail of seaweed had fashioned itself as a sign upon the flesh. Her thighs, fuller and softhued as ivory, were bared almost the the hips where the white fringes of her drawers were like featherings of soft white down. Her slateblue skirts were kilted boldly about her waist and dovetailed behind her. Her bosom was as a bird's soft and slight, slight and soft as the breast of some darkplumaged dove. But her long fair hair was girlish: and girlish, and touched with the wonder of mortal beauty, her face." (185, 186)

This passage stands out because it is one of the most important turning points in the novel. Stephen finally sees a girl as a beautiful, natural creation, rather than associating her with sex and ruining her image. The repetition of the words "soft and slight" in reference to her bosom suggests a modest figure, one that Stephen does not see and instantly relate to sex. "Girlish" is also repeated in this passage, implying girlhood innocence and purity. It goes on to say, "Her image had passed into his soul for ever and no word had broken the holy silence of his ecstasty...A wild angel had appeared to him, the angel of mortal youth and beauty, an envoy from the fair courts of life, to throw open before him in an instant of ecstasy the gates of all the ways of error and glory" (186). Although Stephen has overcome his sinful idea of women, he has yet to remove those innocent and pure from the pedestal he has raised them upon, as discussed above. This accomplishment will come at the end of the novel when Stephen and Emma finally have a conversation.

Because Stephen compares her to a "beautiful seabird" this passage also relates to flight, a common theme in the novel. At this point, Stephen has just rejected the priesthood but has yet to fully discover his inner artist. He is beginning to think for himself. The idea of flight and freedom allows him to make his own decisions, live his own life, and not be suppressed by Ireland or the traditions of his family or any religion. It is incredible that Stephen can actually see this freedom in her, whereas earlier in the novel he was trapped also by women.



"A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" is definitely an interesting read, however, I am leery to commit to saying that I like it or dislike it. On the positive side is Joyce's language, for one. Those paragraphs of the preacher's speech on hell are, although rather morbid, phenomenal. Joyce is able to chose the most appropriate words for each situation, almost like poetry, when the sound the word makes fits the tone of the work. One aspect of the novel that can be both good and bad is the theme of finding one's individual consciousness. This is something that everyone experiences at some point in their lives, and most of us teenagers are trying to find ourselves now. This makes the book easy to relate to; however, it is the extremity of this search that is the downfall. At his worst, Stephen's mind is so deep and dark that I almost no longer want to read it. His struggles and pitfalls are depressing, and because Joyce's language is so vivid, I feel as though I am struggling right along with him. Unfortunately, the depth of Stephen's mind is so cumbersome that it makes it difficult to read.

Heart of Darkness

I managed to find one symbol in Conrad's Heart of Darkness that we hadn't already discussed fully in class, and it is the Congo River. Obviously, the river is what takes Marlow into the heart of darkness, it is his journey, the path he takes into his inner soul. However, why does Marlow rarely step foot on the land, the actual soil of the Congo? The river is Marlow's safe haven - it prevents him from ever having to make direct physical contact with the darkness and evil. The river water is only passing through, flowing by, and it is the land that is evil. It's as though Marlow is simply on a tour of the land; he has the option of getting off the tour bus and staying, or remaining on the bus and returning to his true home. The river allows Marlow to escape if need be, such as when the natives attack him as he nears Kurtz. Had Marlow traveled by land, it is very improbable that he would have survived the attack. Had Marlow traveled by land, it is very likely that he, like Kurtz, would have been enveloped by the darkness and never escaped.

At the start of reading this novel, we were given topics to research in order to obtain some background of the novel. One of these topics was Chinua Achebe, a Nigerian author, poet, and critic. As we learned, Achebe gave a lecture, An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", accusing Joseph Conrad of disrespecting African culture, being racist, and all for white supremacy, which he apparently demonstrated in this novel. I must disagree. Concerning Conrad's word choice, as we discussed, Conrad is partly a product of his times. In 1902 racism was clearly in full swing, as displayed by the actions of King Leopold II. Civil rights still had a long way to come. As for disrespecting the African culture and promoting white supremacy and imperialism, there is a particular quote which debunks Achebe's accusations,

"The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much" (Conrad 70)

This demonstrates Marlow's, or Conrad's, understanding of the big picture. Sure, there are a some racy statements sprinkled throughout the novel, but that his simply human nature. We are all judgmental, biased, and prejudice - it just takes some respect and an open mind to keep us from exposing these slanted views. In a novel, it is almost impossible to retain the author's most personal views and opinions. This statement, however, shows that Conrad understands the basics; that labeling someone, taking advantage of them, and persecuting them based on race and culture is wrong.

It was to my surprise that I actually enjoyed this novel. Even before turning to the first page, I was concerned Heart of Darkness would be much too deep and thought-provoking for Christmas break. Fortunately, I enjoyed the mystery and originality of the piece. This was also the first frame narrative that I can recall reading. I believe that Marlow's point of view left more questions unanswered and room for interpretation; for Marlow has a limited view, the reader hears the story through his biases, and who knows what key parts of the story Marlow may have left out, by accident or out privacy's sake. This added to the mystery of the novel, which I most definitely enjoyed.

Invisible Man

Trying to find one symbol in Ellison's Invisible Man is almost impossible, but I will limit myself to the snow in the eviction scene. The snow is mentioned several times, each describing it's degree of cleanliness. Snow is, of course, white, therefore it represents the white society. It is first described as "dirty snow" (271) when the old couple's things are scattered in it. Here it is contaminated; white society is stained by the intrusion of blacks. Later a drawer from the couple's house "spilled its contents into the snow" (272) because the white workers knocked into it. In a way, this represents white society forcing the blacks to assimilate, join the sophisticated white society and abandon their roots. It is next described as "trampled snow" (280) as the blacks attack the marshal. The angry people finally stand up for themselves and attack the marshal, or trample over the law. Finally, as the narrator tries to escape the scene when the police come, he most jump over the "snow caked walls" (285). These are white obstacles, hurdles, getting in the narrator's way as he tries to protect himself.

"In my mind's eye..." (Ellison 36)

Although the remainder of this sentence is incredibly significant (the description of the bronze statue, unveiling or more efficiently blinding the kneeling slave), I believe the first four words tell the reader a lot about the narrator. We were first exposed to I.M. in his passion-filled explanation as to why he is invisible, because of others' blindness. His exact words are "A matter of the construction of their inner eyes," (3) meaning those eyes with which society judges reality upon, whereas their physical eyes see everything without bias. The fact that I.M. would then begin a sentence this way is ironic, for it exposes the fact that he also has these "inner eyes" which are capable of judging and persecuting. Word choice is key in this instance, for I.M. specifies it is his mind's eye that is viewing something, not his unbiased physical eyes. This quote, however, works in favor of I.M. The view described following the four words is one that portrays both sides of an issue: whether or not the slave is being blinded or unveiled by the founder. Had I.M. possessed the same "peculiar disposition of the eyes," (3) as the majority of society does, he would have described the statue in one way, most probably that the slave was being blinded.

For some reason, one that I cannot seem to put my finger on, I did not enjoy Invisible Man very much. I most definitely appreciate Ellison's creativity and incredible use of symbolism, however the story itself was not one of my interest. Let's focus on the positive, though, for this is a masterpiece when it comes to the use of literary devices. Every single page could have been torn apart word for word and discussed for hours on end. My favorite scene that we analyzed was the eviction scene. Each household item listed had some significance, and there was a lot of stuff in that house! What captured my attention the most was the curling iron, straightening comb, and the switches of false hair, which show the African-American's loss of culture and heritage, as they attempt to conform and assimilate into the white society. It is impossible to overlook Ellison's genius in this novel.

Player Piano

As I look back on Vonnegut's Player Piano, I happen to come across something I hadn't given much thought to while I was reading the novel. Noticeably missing from this attempt at a utopian America was the strong presence of any female characters. This America is clearly a patriarchal society. All men run the major corporations and machines, and women are not participants in the games at the Meadows, nor are they even allowed on the same island with the men. Although betrayal is the main downfall of this utopian society, I believe the lack of femininity also plays a role. Women don't necessarily need to be running the works, however, they seem to have barely any type of role in the society. This seems to prove that there is a balance necessary, one between the strong, toughness of men and the softness and sensitivity of females. Just how it is best for a child to be raised by both a mother and father, to generally obtain the toughness from their father and sensitivity from their mother. When a child does something wrong, they admit it to their mother first, knowing she will not punish them as harshly as the father. This is simply nature, the reason why men and women are so different. It certain situations it is to one's advantage to be tough and perhaps, thick-skinned, yet it is also imperative to take it down a notch, and get in touch with one's emotions. The men in Player Piano have been able to turn off their emotions completely and become machines themselves.
This leads into my choice of quote, "Anybody that competes with slaves, becomes a slave." (Vonnegut 281). The men in Player Piano have tried so desperately to create this perfect society that they are becoming machines themselves. They lack emotion, and are losing their human qualities, such as being able to love, and their identities because they are so intent on keeping up with this fast-paced mechanized lifestyle they have created.

Player Piano was definitely a book that I enjoyed. After reading The Handmaid's Tale, I was relieved to read a book such as this. It was a little lighter subject, and the ending was finally one that I enjoyed. The past books we have read all had very disappointing endings, but I am pleased that Paul stood up for himself and wasn't completely demolished by the society he lived in.