Ashley Booth
Instructor Holder
English 102
August 4, 2007
Two as One
“Conjoined” by Judith Minty is truly a poem about marriage. While the author doesn’t speak specifically about the marriage of a man and a woman or of body and soul, she does use several metaphors with which she compares marriage. A two-headed calf, conjoined twins, and a deformed onion all compare to a certain aspect of marriage, especially that of man and wife.
In the first stanza, Judith Minty speaks about an onion. More specifically, it is two onions molded together under a single thin layer of onion skin. The onion is made of two, “each half-round, then flat and deformed/ where it pressed and grew against each other” (line 3-4). Once married (or joined), the two onions grew into and away from each other simultaneously. If separated, they would have grown normally, but connected, they developed into round onions except where they merge into one. At their intersection, they are misshapen and flat. In some ways, marriage between two people is like this. Each person continues to grow spiritually, emotionally, physically and intellectually throughout their life, but in a marriage, being so close to another person that you grow to be more like them and less like yourself.
The second comparison is about a two-headed calf that is trying to get milk from its mother’s udder. This metaphor functions better concerning the marriage of body and soul than that of man and wife. While cows typically have four teats, a calf with two heads has a difficult time finding an angle at which both mouths can suckle. Even though there is one stomach, both brains register the need for nourishment and try to satisfy it. Often there are struggles between body and soul that work out in this way. There is refreshment to be had, but the mix of carnal and spiritual is often to awkward to reach the table. Sometimes when searching for rest and salvation for the soul, the body wins out and pulls the entire person in a different direction. This battle of desires and will to win is what Judith Minty is talking about in “Conjoined”. In the fight for each calf’s head to suckle at a teat, neither ends up getting as much as they need. It is often the same in the marriage of body and soul, because while each is warring with the other, neither gets to enjoy what they have or reach for what they want.
Chang and Eng, the two famous Siamese twins from the 1800’s, are the third comparison. Joined by their body trunks throughout their life, they nevertheless married and fathered a total of 22 children. This conjoining of two lives is possibly the most obvious of the three metaphors used in Judith Minty’s poem. The metaphor’s significance deals with the conjoining of two lives in a marriage. In a marriage, two people “live, even make love together” (line 8), just as the original Siamese twins did. The man and wife are, as the twins, connected in a way. The husband and wife are connected throughout their lives. Every action one makes affects the other.
In the final stanza of the poem, Judith Minty refers to the woman and her husband, “together as [they] move” (line 11) through their home. If they are separated, they might be free, but they have just as big of a chance of dying from the separation (line 12-13). From the woman’s perspective, it seems that her husband doesn’t know that she feels like they are too closely attached. She says “men/ Don’t slice onions in the kitchen, seldom see/ What is invisible” (lines 14-16). The man she is “joined” with does not seem to notice that they have become deformed and flattened where they have pressed against each other, like the onion.
Works Cited
Minty, Judith. “Conjoined.” Handout.
Conjoined
By Judith Minty
The onion in my cupboard, a monster, actually
two joined under one transparent skin:
each half-round, then flat and deformed
where it pressed and grew against the other.
An accident, like the two-headed calf rooted
in one body, fighting to suck at its mother’s teats:
or like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins
joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed
to live, even make love, together for sixty years.
Do you feel the skin that binds us
Together as we move, heavy in this house?
To sever the muscle could free one,
But might kill the other. Ah, but men
don’t slice onions in the kitchen, seldom see
what is invisible. We cannot escape each other.
Comment:
This piece was my greatest challenge because finding 750 words worth of explanation about a 75 word poem is quite difficult. I found it really hard to analyze enough about this poem to make the essay long enough. Maybe you all didn't have this problem, but it is really hard for me to write about poetry because it's difficult to form a coherent sentence about what I really think. Most of the time when I analyze poetry, the answers I come up with are a mix of colors and feelings and memories and ideas, not typically a complete thought.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The Love of Hamlet's Life Essay #3
Ashley Booth
Instructor Holder
English 102
July 29, 2007
The Love of Hamlet’s Life
Hamlet is the story of a young Prince in Denmark who has returned home to discover that his mother, Gertrude, has married his uncle Claudius barely a month after his father’s untimely death. Several nights after his return, Hamlet sees his father’s ghost atop one of the battlements of the castle. The ghost tells Hamlet that he was poisoned while sleeping by Claudius in order that he might marry Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother. The ghost then goes on to tell Hamlet to get revenge against Claudius for his murder. The rest of the play involves Hamlet’s attempts to discover whether Claudius actually murdered his father and how to go about exacting his revenge. There are many questions that arise while reading Hamlet, one of which is whether Hamlet truly loved Ophelia, one of the King’s advisor’s daughters.
In Act I scene iii, Laertes, Ophelia’s brother, is leaving for France and in his parting speech, he tells Ophelia to “hold [Hamlet’s professed love] in a fashion, and a toy in blood; / A violet in the youth of primy nature, / Forward, not permanent-sweet, not lasting; / The perfume and suppliance of a minute; / No more” (I.3.7-11). Laertes seems to think that Hamlet’s love for Ophelia is just a “crush”, a passing affection that will fade with time. He continues on to tell Ophelia that Hamlet’s flighty affection will pass away in time if ignored (I.3.14-17). Laertes seems to confidently believe that Hamlet has no true affection for his sister. After learning of Laertes’ advice to her, Ophelia’s father Polonius tells her that Hamlet is merely playing with her and his affections and advances are not worth nearly as much as they seem to be (I.3.112). Ophelia seems to take her brother and father’s advice to heart for the moment, at least, and thinks of Hamlet’s tenders toward her as passing.
In the next Act (Act II), Ophelia rushes to her father’s side to tell him that Hamlet just came into her room distressed and disheveled, apparently fascinated by her face, not taking his eyes from it even as he left the room. Polonius takes this to mean that since she has denied Hamlet her affections following Laertes’ departure, Hamlet is desperate for her attention. Polonius then goes to the King and Queen (Claudius and Gertrude) to tell them that he has discovered the cause of Hamlet’s madness: denied affection from Ophelia. Going on to prove his point, Polonius reads from a letter Hamlet wrote to Ophelia that states that Hamlet truly loves Ophelia and would have her believe it (II.2.124-130). Polonius believes that Hamlet is out of Ophelia’s class and therefore could have no reason to care for her. Some people would argue that Hamlet knew Ophelia would tell her father about the letter and that everyone would assume that her resistance to advances was the cause of his madness. Personally, I think that while Hamlet’s letter may have had a two-fold purpose (one of which was convincing his mother and uncle that the cause of his madness was slighted love), I still believe that Hamlet was being truthful when he said that the recipient is indeed his “soul’s idol, the most beautified Ophelia” (II.2.117-118).
As the story progresses, the King, Queen, and Polonius persist in their attempts to discover the true cause of Hamlet’s madness, since they do not seem convinced that slighted love is the catalyst into madness. In the first scene of Act III, Polonius attempts to set Ophelia in Hamlet’s path in a place where both he and Claudius will be able to listen in on the conversation. When Hamlet approaches Ophelia, she attempts to return all his letters and gifts. At this, Hamlet seems to realize that she has been convinced that she should no longer reciprocate his affections. He continues to speak in what can only be called a “jealous rage” and tells her that he never loved her. Trying to protect Ophelia from further hurt, Hamlet tells her that rather than be caught in love with a scoundrel like himself, she would be better off in a convent, chaste for eternity (III.1.131-139). At this point, Hamlet seems to know that Polonius and Claudius have set him up and that they no longer believe he is distraught about Ophelia’s refusals or that he is truly mad. He knows that he is not fooling anyone and he reveals hints of his plans to Ophelia and all who may be listening. While Hamlet professes to despise her, his actions to protect her from hurt and his letter in the previous Act provide ample evidence that he really does love her and wish for her to be happy.
Following Hamlet’s confrontation with Ophelia, Claudius realizes that Hamlet means to kill him and sends him away to England for execution. Hamlet understands what King Claudius is attempting to do and escapes. Upon his return to Denmark he discovers that, in his absence, Ophelia has drowned. He secretly watches her burial and when they are about to cover her body with dirt, he reveals himself. Laertes, who believes Hamlet to be the root cause of Ophelia’s death tries to strangle Hamlet, but some of the king’s attendants drag them apart. After Laertes speaks his accusations, Hamlet, in his grief, professes that “forty thousand brothers / could not (with all their quantity of love) / make up my sum” (V.1.270-273). When he and Laertes have been dragged from Ophelia’s grave, Hamlet, rife with grief, asks his mother, Queen Gertrude, how he should act and what he should do to handle his sadness at Ophelia’s death. Despite his earlier profession to the contrary in Act II scene i, Hamlet truly does love Ophelia, which is shown in his actions at her graveside.
Following Ophelia’s burial, Hamlet returns home and agrees to fight Laertes according to Claudius’ wishes. At the match, Hamlet contests with Laertes and they are both cut by Laertes’ poisoned blade. Even when he knows of his impending death, he fulfills his dead father’s wishes and murders Claudius. In the final pages of the play, Hamlet, Laertes, Gertrude, and Claudius die because of the King’s treachery. It seems that Hamlet isn’t distraught at his coming death, he just accepts it as though there is nothing left to live for. I think that Ophelia’s death was the last stone on Hamlet’s chest. After he learns of her death, he seems to become reckless and not care whether he lives or dies in his quest to murder his Uncle Claudius. His actions in the last Act are all the proof that is needed when asking whether Hamlet truly loved Ophelia and had her best interests in mind.
Work Cited
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. 7th ed. Ed. Edgar V. Roberts and Henry E. Jacobs. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2004. 1307-1406.
Comment:
This piece is my best work because I spent a long time on it, and I had a lot of evidence to support my argument. I did not really enjoy writing this essay because Hamlet is one of my least favorite Shakespearean plays. However, this essay was fairly easy to write because I had an ample supply of examples to support my claim that Hamlet did indeed love Ophelia.
Instructor Holder
English 102
July 29, 2007
The Love of Hamlet’s Life
Hamlet is the story of a young Prince in Denmark who has returned home to discover that his mother, Gertrude, has married his uncle Claudius barely a month after his father’s untimely death. Several nights after his return, Hamlet sees his father’s ghost atop one of the battlements of the castle. The ghost tells Hamlet that he was poisoned while sleeping by Claudius in order that he might marry Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother. The ghost then goes on to tell Hamlet to get revenge against Claudius for his murder. The rest of the play involves Hamlet’s attempts to discover whether Claudius actually murdered his father and how to go about exacting his revenge. There are many questions that arise while reading Hamlet, one of which is whether Hamlet truly loved Ophelia, one of the King’s advisor’s daughters.
In Act I scene iii, Laertes, Ophelia’s brother, is leaving for France and in his parting speech, he tells Ophelia to “hold [Hamlet’s professed love] in a fashion, and a toy in blood; / A violet in the youth of primy nature, / Forward, not permanent-sweet, not lasting; / The perfume and suppliance of a minute; / No more” (I.3.7-11). Laertes seems to think that Hamlet’s love for Ophelia is just a “crush”, a passing affection that will fade with time. He continues on to tell Ophelia that Hamlet’s flighty affection will pass away in time if ignored (I.3.14-17). Laertes seems to confidently believe that Hamlet has no true affection for his sister. After learning of Laertes’ advice to her, Ophelia’s father Polonius tells her that Hamlet is merely playing with her and his affections and advances are not worth nearly as much as they seem to be (I.3.112). Ophelia seems to take her brother and father’s advice to heart for the moment, at least, and thinks of Hamlet’s tenders toward her as passing.
In the next Act (Act II), Ophelia rushes to her father’s side to tell him that Hamlet just came into her room distressed and disheveled, apparently fascinated by her face, not taking his eyes from it even as he left the room. Polonius takes this to mean that since she has denied Hamlet her affections following Laertes’ departure, Hamlet is desperate for her attention. Polonius then goes to the King and Queen (Claudius and Gertrude) to tell them that he has discovered the cause of Hamlet’s madness: denied affection from Ophelia. Going on to prove his point, Polonius reads from a letter Hamlet wrote to Ophelia that states that Hamlet truly loves Ophelia and would have her believe it (II.2.124-130). Polonius believes that Hamlet is out of Ophelia’s class and therefore could have no reason to care for her. Some people would argue that Hamlet knew Ophelia would tell her father about the letter and that everyone would assume that her resistance to advances was the cause of his madness. Personally, I think that while Hamlet’s letter may have had a two-fold purpose (one of which was convincing his mother and uncle that the cause of his madness was slighted love), I still believe that Hamlet was being truthful when he said that the recipient is indeed his “soul’s idol, the most beautified Ophelia” (II.2.117-118).
As the story progresses, the King, Queen, and Polonius persist in their attempts to discover the true cause of Hamlet’s madness, since they do not seem convinced that slighted love is the catalyst into madness. In the first scene of Act III, Polonius attempts to set Ophelia in Hamlet’s path in a place where both he and Claudius will be able to listen in on the conversation. When Hamlet approaches Ophelia, she attempts to return all his letters and gifts. At this, Hamlet seems to realize that she has been convinced that she should no longer reciprocate his affections. He continues to speak in what can only be called a “jealous rage” and tells her that he never loved her. Trying to protect Ophelia from further hurt, Hamlet tells her that rather than be caught in love with a scoundrel like himself, she would be better off in a convent, chaste for eternity (III.1.131-139). At this point, Hamlet seems to know that Polonius and Claudius have set him up and that they no longer believe he is distraught about Ophelia’s refusals or that he is truly mad. He knows that he is not fooling anyone and he reveals hints of his plans to Ophelia and all who may be listening. While Hamlet professes to despise her, his actions to protect her from hurt and his letter in the previous Act provide ample evidence that he really does love her and wish for her to be happy.
Following Hamlet’s confrontation with Ophelia, Claudius realizes that Hamlet means to kill him and sends him away to England for execution. Hamlet understands what King Claudius is attempting to do and escapes. Upon his return to Denmark he discovers that, in his absence, Ophelia has drowned. He secretly watches her burial and when they are about to cover her body with dirt, he reveals himself. Laertes, who believes Hamlet to be the root cause of Ophelia’s death tries to strangle Hamlet, but some of the king’s attendants drag them apart. After Laertes speaks his accusations, Hamlet, in his grief, professes that “forty thousand brothers / could not (with all their quantity of love) / make up my sum” (V.1.270-273). When he and Laertes have been dragged from Ophelia’s grave, Hamlet, rife with grief, asks his mother, Queen Gertrude, how he should act and what he should do to handle his sadness at Ophelia’s death. Despite his earlier profession to the contrary in Act II scene i, Hamlet truly does love Ophelia, which is shown in his actions at her graveside.
Following Ophelia’s burial, Hamlet returns home and agrees to fight Laertes according to Claudius’ wishes. At the match, Hamlet contests with Laertes and they are both cut by Laertes’ poisoned blade. Even when he knows of his impending death, he fulfills his dead father’s wishes and murders Claudius. In the final pages of the play, Hamlet, Laertes, Gertrude, and Claudius die because of the King’s treachery. It seems that Hamlet isn’t distraught at his coming death, he just accepts it as though there is nothing left to live for. I think that Ophelia’s death was the last stone on Hamlet’s chest. After he learns of her death, he seems to become reckless and not care whether he lives or dies in his quest to murder his Uncle Claudius. His actions in the last Act are all the proof that is needed when asking whether Hamlet truly loved Ophelia and had her best interests in mind.
Work Cited
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. 7th ed. Ed. Edgar V. Roberts and Henry E. Jacobs. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2004. 1307-1406.
Comment:
This piece is my best work because I spent a long time on it, and I had a lot of evidence to support my argument. I did not really enjoy writing this essay because Hamlet is one of my least favorite Shakespearean plays. However, this essay was fairly easy to write because I had an ample supply of examples to support my claim that Hamlet did indeed love Ophelia.
Eddie's Lessons Essay #2
Ashley Booth
Instructor Holder
English 102
July 6, 2007
Eddie’s Lessons
In Mitch Albom’s novel The Five People You Meet in Heaven, Eddie, a maintenance man at Ruby Pier amusement park, dies saving a little girl from a crashing rollercoaster. The next thing he knows, Eddie meets five people in heaven, all of whom have something to teach him about the life he lived. Whether Eddie knows these people or not, each of them has a story to tell. These five simple lessons help Eddie to understand why his life, and death, was important and had purpose. Through these five lessons, Eddie begins to understand more about his life and about the five people he meets.
The first person Eddie meets in heaven is the Blue Man, the first man that Eddie ever killed. Part of the freak show at Ruby Pier, the Blue Man meets him in the first place they ever saw each other, the freak show tent. Eddie does not understand why the Blue Man is one of his five people, for they have never spoken to each other before. Despite this, the Blue Man begins with the story of the day he died, telling Eddie that he died because a little boy ran out in front of his car while chasing after a ball. Because of his weak heart he had a heart attack and died several minutes later on the side of the road. Eddie was that little boy chasing after a ball. The Blue Man goes on to tell Eddie that “no story sits by itself. Sometimes stories meet at corners and sometimes they cover one another completely, like stones beneath a river” (Albom 10). Even though they never truly knew each other, their stories are still intertwined. The Blue Man’s story shows Eddie that there are no random acts, that we are all connected and “that you can no more separate one life from another than you can separate a breeze from the wind” (Albom 48). The stories of everyone in Eddie’s life are all one, all part of a bigger story.
The next person Eddie meets in heaven is the Captain, Eddie’s commanding officer in the war. After recounting the story of their last day in a prison camp in the Philippines, the Captain talks to Eddie about sacrifice. They both made sacrifices during the war. Eddie sacrificed the full use of one of his legs while trying to rescue a little girl in a hut in the prison camp, and the Captain sacrificed his life to get Eddie and the other men of the company to safety, leaving no one behind. Eddie has always begrudged the loss of the use of his leg, but according to the Captain, “sacrifice is a part of life. It’s supposed to be. It’s not something to regret. It’s something to aspire to” (Albom 93). Because of the Captain’s sacrifice, Eddie lived.
Everything happens for a reason, and everything we do affects others, never just ourselves. This is the lesson that Ruby, Eddie’s third person, has to teach. She is Ruby Pier’s namesake and the woman who stayed by her husband’s bedside in a room he shared with Eddie’s father. Eddie and Ruby have never seen each other, never met, but her existence affected every day of his life. Because of her, Eddie worked at Ruby Pier his entire life. She tells him that “things that happen before you are born still affect you…. And people who come before your time affect you as well” (Albom 123). Her existence and her husband Emile’s creation of Ruby Pier both affected Eddie’s life.
Marguerite, Eddie’s late wife, is the fourth person to visit him in heaven. At the age of 47 she died of a brain tumor and ever since Eddie blamed her for leaving him alone and taking away his love. However, she goes on to tell him that “love lost is still love…. Life has to end… but love doesn’t” (Albom 173). Because of her, Eddie has true love in his life. Without her, he would not have known that kind of love and his life might have been very different.
The final person Eddie meets in heaven is Tala. Tala lived at the prison camp Eddie was kept in during the war. When Eddie was leaving the prison camp, he helped burn down all the huts in the valley, and Tala was in one of them. He thought he saw her through the smoke, but could not get to her. Despite his mistakes and his actions which caused her death she is willing to share with him one of the most important of the five lessons. Eddie thought throughout his entire life that he did not have purpose, that he was worthless. He was ashamed of his life because he had not made anything of himself, he was weary and unsatisfied with where he was in life, but he was too busy to leave and make another life for himself. However, Tala goes on to tell him that he did have a purpose, that his life had meaning. His purpose was to keep children safe while they were at Ruby Pier. Even though he accidentally killed Tala, he spent the rest of his life protecting children like her.
After meeting all five people: the Blue Man, the Captain, Ruby, Marguerite and Tala, Eddie realizes that what the Blue Man said is true. He said “the only time we waste is the time we spend thinking we’re alone” (Albom 50). All his life, Eddie wished he were someone else, someone better. The five people and five lessons in heaven teach him that his life was important, that he affected people he had never even met, and that he kept thousands of children safe on the rides at Ruby Pier. Finally, he learned that stories, like stones in a riverbed or leaves on an oak tree, all touch one another eventually
Works Cited
Albom, Mitch. The Five People You Meet in Heaven. New York: Hyperion, 2003.
Comment:
This piece will surprise people because it is surprisingly good for having been written in a mere hour. As I stated in my Strengths/Weaknesses post, what I write first is typically what I keep in my final draft. I was having a hard time coming up with a good topic for this essay, so I just sat down and wrote what came into my head and this is what I ended up with.
Instructor Holder
English 102
July 6, 2007
Eddie’s Lessons
In Mitch Albom’s novel The Five People You Meet in Heaven, Eddie, a maintenance man at Ruby Pier amusement park, dies saving a little girl from a crashing rollercoaster. The next thing he knows, Eddie meets five people in heaven, all of whom have something to teach him about the life he lived. Whether Eddie knows these people or not, each of them has a story to tell. These five simple lessons help Eddie to understand why his life, and death, was important and had purpose. Through these five lessons, Eddie begins to understand more about his life and about the five people he meets.
The first person Eddie meets in heaven is the Blue Man, the first man that Eddie ever killed. Part of the freak show at Ruby Pier, the Blue Man meets him in the first place they ever saw each other, the freak show tent. Eddie does not understand why the Blue Man is one of his five people, for they have never spoken to each other before. Despite this, the Blue Man begins with the story of the day he died, telling Eddie that he died because a little boy ran out in front of his car while chasing after a ball. Because of his weak heart he had a heart attack and died several minutes later on the side of the road. Eddie was that little boy chasing after a ball. The Blue Man goes on to tell Eddie that “no story sits by itself. Sometimes stories meet at corners and sometimes they cover one another completely, like stones beneath a river” (Albom 10). Even though they never truly knew each other, their stories are still intertwined. The Blue Man’s story shows Eddie that there are no random acts, that we are all connected and “that you can no more separate one life from another than you can separate a breeze from the wind” (Albom 48). The stories of everyone in Eddie’s life are all one, all part of a bigger story.
The next person Eddie meets in heaven is the Captain, Eddie’s commanding officer in the war. After recounting the story of their last day in a prison camp in the Philippines, the Captain talks to Eddie about sacrifice. They both made sacrifices during the war. Eddie sacrificed the full use of one of his legs while trying to rescue a little girl in a hut in the prison camp, and the Captain sacrificed his life to get Eddie and the other men of the company to safety, leaving no one behind. Eddie has always begrudged the loss of the use of his leg, but according to the Captain, “sacrifice is a part of life. It’s supposed to be. It’s not something to regret. It’s something to aspire to” (Albom 93). Because of the Captain’s sacrifice, Eddie lived.
Everything happens for a reason, and everything we do affects others, never just ourselves. This is the lesson that Ruby, Eddie’s third person, has to teach. She is Ruby Pier’s namesake and the woman who stayed by her husband’s bedside in a room he shared with Eddie’s father. Eddie and Ruby have never seen each other, never met, but her existence affected every day of his life. Because of her, Eddie worked at Ruby Pier his entire life. She tells him that “things that happen before you are born still affect you…. And people who come before your time affect you as well” (Albom 123). Her existence and her husband Emile’s creation of Ruby Pier both affected Eddie’s life.
Marguerite, Eddie’s late wife, is the fourth person to visit him in heaven. At the age of 47 she died of a brain tumor and ever since Eddie blamed her for leaving him alone and taking away his love. However, she goes on to tell him that “love lost is still love…. Life has to end… but love doesn’t” (Albom 173). Because of her, Eddie has true love in his life. Without her, he would not have known that kind of love and his life might have been very different.
The final person Eddie meets in heaven is Tala. Tala lived at the prison camp Eddie was kept in during the war. When Eddie was leaving the prison camp, he helped burn down all the huts in the valley, and Tala was in one of them. He thought he saw her through the smoke, but could not get to her. Despite his mistakes and his actions which caused her death she is willing to share with him one of the most important of the five lessons. Eddie thought throughout his entire life that he did not have purpose, that he was worthless. He was ashamed of his life because he had not made anything of himself, he was weary and unsatisfied with where he was in life, but he was too busy to leave and make another life for himself. However, Tala goes on to tell him that he did have a purpose, that his life had meaning. His purpose was to keep children safe while they were at Ruby Pier. Even though he accidentally killed Tala, he spent the rest of his life protecting children like her.
After meeting all five people: the Blue Man, the Captain, Ruby, Marguerite and Tala, Eddie realizes that what the Blue Man said is true. He said “the only time we waste is the time we spend thinking we’re alone” (Albom 50). All his life, Eddie wished he were someone else, someone better. The five people and five lessons in heaven teach him that his life was important, that he affected people he had never even met, and that he kept thousands of children safe on the rides at Ruby Pier. Finally, he learned that stories, like stones in a riverbed or leaves on an oak tree, all touch one another eventually
Works Cited
Albom, Mitch. The Five People You Meet in Heaven. New York: Hyperion, 2003.
Comment:
This piece will surprise people because it is surprisingly good for having been written in a mere hour. As I stated in my Strengths/Weaknesses post, what I write first is typically what I keep in my final draft. I was having a hard time coming up with a good topic for this essay, so I just sat down and wrote what came into my head and this is what I ended up with.
Everyday Use Essay #1
Ashley Booth
Instructor Holden
English 102
8 June 2007
The “Everyday Use” of Heritage
According to Dictionary.com, heritage is “something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth; an inherited lot or portion.” Heritage is the theme in Alice Walker’s short story “Everyday Use.” In this story, a woman (the narrator) and her daughter, Maggie, wait for Maggie’s sister, Dee, to arrive at their house. It has been many years since either of them have seen Dee, and the narrator dreams of what she wishes this meeting would be like. However, when Dee arrives with a new husband and a new name – Wangero - the narrator feels as though nothing has really changed. Dee is the same condescending, selfish girl that she used to be. When Dee tries to take some quilts the narrator has promised to Maggie, the narrator doesn’t let her. Dee argues that the quilts are valuable, full of heritage, and using the quilts for everyday purposes would be disgraceful, destroying their worth.
When she was young, Dee was ashamed of her family and the way they lived. When the narrator reminisces about their first home catching fire, she remembers Dee standing and watching the house burn as Maggie, severely burnt and permanently scarred, was carried from the house. Other evidence of Dee’s shame is seen by her reluctance to bring friends to the house and her refusal to take a quilt with her to college when she moves out because they’re “old-fashioned, out of style” (Walker 103).
However, when Dee returns to visit her mother and Maggie, she seems to think that everything she hated while growing up is quaint and full of value because of its history. She laughs and flits about, taking pictures of her mother and sister, their house, and the cow that comes into the yard to investigate all the noise. She appears disdainfully astounded at the rump-prints in the bench at the dining table, the milk congealing in the butter churn. When she finds some quilts at the foot of the bed, she moves to take them home with her to use as decoration, but the narrator (her mother) refuses to let her. At this, Dee exclaims that “Maggie can’t appreciate these quilts.... She’d probably be backward enough to put them to everyday use” (Walker 103). She believes that her heritage is better preserved by using it artistically, as something pretty to look at like a centerpiece on a table or a wall hanging.
While the dialogue and characterization in “Everyday Use” most blatantly illustrate the story’s theme of heritage, there are several other ways in which Alice Walker makes the theme evident. One such way is through the setting. The juxtaposition of the life the narrator and Maggie lead and the life Dee appears to lead paint a picture of what heritage truly is. Maggie and the narrator live in a small house in the middle of pasture with a dirt front yard and holes cut in the walls to serve as windows. However, when Dee appears, she is the picture of elegance and sophistication: her dress is different than any they’ve ever seen, her hair is done, she arrives in a car with a strange man, and she casually refers to her apartment in the city filled with more furniture than Maggie and her mother have had in their entire lives. It almost appears as if Dee is from a different world, and it seems impossible to think that they all once lived together as a poor family in a plain house with homemade furniture and clothes.
Another way in which the author uses heritage as the theme is seen through the story’s point of view. This story is in first person, from the narrator’s point of view. The narrator, Dee and Maggie’s mother, begins the story thinking about what it would be like to see Dee again. The strange thing about this is that she doesn’t see Dee changed in her mind, she sees herself changed: thinner, lighter, funnier. Shame at her own appearance and intellect and what Dee wishes she were like are what pop into the narrator’s mind in her vision of meeting her daughter under other circumstances. This daydream illustrates the differences between how Dee and her mother think. Throughout the story we read of what the narrator is thinking, how she views what is happening, but through the current and past actions of other characters, it becomes a little clearer what the others are thinking. Dee’s actions toward her mother and sister, especially concerning the quilts, give a glimpse as to how she views heritage. She appears to think of heritage as something you learn about in books or hear about in college, something that is impressed upon you by other people. Dee’s constant reading aloud and “forcing words, lies, other folks’ habits, whole lives upon [them]” (Walker 100) and renaming herself Wangero because she doesn’t want to be named after “those who oppress her” (Walker 101) are evidence of this. The narrator and Maggie, however, seem to view heritage (though not by that name) as the life that they live. After Dee and Hakim-a-Barber (her new husband) leave, Maggie and her mother seem utterly unconcerned with Dee’s outburst about preserving their heritage and not wasting “priceless” treasures on everyday things. They “[sit] there just enjoying [the evening], until it [is] time to go in the house and go to bed” (Walker 104).
While Maggie, Dee, and their mother all have the same heritage, Dee never really appreciates its true meaning and worth. To me, my heritage isn’t what I choose to make it or just the bits and pieces that look best to the rest of the world. My heritage is everything about the way I’ve been raised, my family, my ancestors, and the culture I live in. Essentially, I believe that’s what Alice Walker was trying to say through “Everyday Use”: everyone should appreciate their heritage, even the less spectacular and acceptable parts, because all of it helps to make us who we are.
Works Cited
"heritage." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 08 Jun. 2007. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heritage>.
Walker, Alice. “Everyday Use.” Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. 8th ed. Roberts, Edgar and Henry Jacobs. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007. 99-104.
Comment:
If I could do this piece over again, I would write about a different short story. I wrote about "Everyday Use" because I had read it several times before and understood it pretty well. Also, since I haven't taken a class from Ms. Holder before, I didn't really know what her grading criteria was for essays. If I wrote this piece over again, I would know not to use things outside the realm of the story or my own personal experiences.
Instructor Holden
English 102
8 June 2007
The “Everyday Use” of Heritage
According to Dictionary.com, heritage is “something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth; an inherited lot or portion.” Heritage is the theme in Alice Walker’s short story “Everyday Use.” In this story, a woman (the narrator) and her daughter, Maggie, wait for Maggie’s sister, Dee, to arrive at their house. It has been many years since either of them have seen Dee, and the narrator dreams of what she wishes this meeting would be like. However, when Dee arrives with a new husband and a new name – Wangero - the narrator feels as though nothing has really changed. Dee is the same condescending, selfish girl that she used to be. When Dee tries to take some quilts the narrator has promised to Maggie, the narrator doesn’t let her. Dee argues that the quilts are valuable, full of heritage, and using the quilts for everyday purposes would be disgraceful, destroying their worth.
When she was young, Dee was ashamed of her family and the way they lived. When the narrator reminisces about their first home catching fire, she remembers Dee standing and watching the house burn as Maggie, severely burnt and permanently scarred, was carried from the house. Other evidence of Dee’s shame is seen by her reluctance to bring friends to the house and her refusal to take a quilt with her to college when she moves out because they’re “old-fashioned, out of style” (Walker 103).
However, when Dee returns to visit her mother and Maggie, she seems to think that everything she hated while growing up is quaint and full of value because of its history. She laughs and flits about, taking pictures of her mother and sister, their house, and the cow that comes into the yard to investigate all the noise. She appears disdainfully astounded at the rump-prints in the bench at the dining table, the milk congealing in the butter churn. When she finds some quilts at the foot of the bed, she moves to take them home with her to use as decoration, but the narrator (her mother) refuses to let her. At this, Dee exclaims that “Maggie can’t appreciate these quilts.... She’d probably be backward enough to put them to everyday use” (Walker 103). She believes that her heritage is better preserved by using it artistically, as something pretty to look at like a centerpiece on a table or a wall hanging.
While the dialogue and characterization in “Everyday Use” most blatantly illustrate the story’s theme of heritage, there are several other ways in which Alice Walker makes the theme evident. One such way is through the setting. The juxtaposition of the life the narrator and Maggie lead and the life Dee appears to lead paint a picture of what heritage truly is. Maggie and the narrator live in a small house in the middle of pasture with a dirt front yard and holes cut in the walls to serve as windows. However, when Dee appears, she is the picture of elegance and sophistication: her dress is different than any they’ve ever seen, her hair is done, she arrives in a car with a strange man, and she casually refers to her apartment in the city filled with more furniture than Maggie and her mother have had in their entire lives. It almost appears as if Dee is from a different world, and it seems impossible to think that they all once lived together as a poor family in a plain house with homemade furniture and clothes.
Another way in which the author uses heritage as the theme is seen through the story’s point of view. This story is in first person, from the narrator’s point of view. The narrator, Dee and Maggie’s mother, begins the story thinking about what it would be like to see Dee again. The strange thing about this is that she doesn’t see Dee changed in her mind, she sees herself changed: thinner, lighter, funnier. Shame at her own appearance and intellect and what Dee wishes she were like are what pop into the narrator’s mind in her vision of meeting her daughter under other circumstances. This daydream illustrates the differences between how Dee and her mother think. Throughout the story we read of what the narrator is thinking, how she views what is happening, but through the current and past actions of other characters, it becomes a little clearer what the others are thinking. Dee’s actions toward her mother and sister, especially concerning the quilts, give a glimpse as to how she views heritage. She appears to think of heritage as something you learn about in books or hear about in college, something that is impressed upon you by other people. Dee’s constant reading aloud and “forcing words, lies, other folks’ habits, whole lives upon [them]” (Walker 100) and renaming herself Wangero because she doesn’t want to be named after “those who oppress her” (Walker 101) are evidence of this. The narrator and Maggie, however, seem to view heritage (though not by that name) as the life that they live. After Dee and Hakim-a-Barber (her new husband) leave, Maggie and her mother seem utterly unconcerned with Dee’s outburst about preserving their heritage and not wasting “priceless” treasures on everyday things. They “[sit] there just enjoying [the evening], until it [is] time to go in the house and go to bed” (Walker 104).
While Maggie, Dee, and their mother all have the same heritage, Dee never really appreciates its true meaning and worth. To me, my heritage isn’t what I choose to make it or just the bits and pieces that look best to the rest of the world. My heritage is everything about the way I’ve been raised, my family, my ancestors, and the culture I live in. Essentially, I believe that’s what Alice Walker was trying to say through “Everyday Use”: everyone should appreciate their heritage, even the less spectacular and acceptable parts, because all of it helps to make us who we are.
Works Cited
"heritage." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 08 Jun. 2007. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heritage>.
Walker, Alice. “Everyday Use.” Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. 8th ed. Roberts, Edgar and Henry Jacobs. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007. 99-104.
Comment:
If I could do this piece over again, I would write about a different short story. I wrote about "Everyday Use" because I had read it several times before and understood it pretty well. Also, since I haven't taken a class from Ms. Holder before, I didn't really know what her grading criteria was for essays. If I wrote this piece over again, I would know not to use things outside the realm of the story or my own personal experiences.
Strengths and Weaknesses
As a student, I don't write essays unless I'm in an English class because I'm currently taking mostly Veterinary Technology classes. However, in my spare time I often write poems, stories, letters, in my journal, etc.
I have taken quite a few English classes in the past and I help teach a homeschool English class for middle schoolers, but I often forget little things like comma usage and quotations. I think that's the biggest weakness that I have when it comes to academic writing. The specifics of grammar are quite easy to forget if you don't write academically often, so that has been hard for me in this English class.
Writing has been fairly easy for me throughout my life, so I always enjoyed English classes. For the most part, when I write an academic essay the first thing I put down is what will end up in the final draft. I'm not one to write several drafts of the same paper, I just think carefully about what I want to say before I write it down. To some people that may not seem to be a strength, but to me it is. Writing quickly is a strength when it comes to academia and it has helped me out in the past.
Literary analysis is a completely different story. I've always looked deep into the books I read, but it is sometimes to get my thoughts to form into an idea coherent enough to put down on paper. My literary analysis skills improved a lot due to the help and teaching of my eighth grade teacher Mrs. Agnew and my highschool English teacher Mrs. Martin. While taking their classes I've learned different ways to analyze literature and poetry and how to understand some of the more difficult forms of literature like Shakespeare, etc.
My strengths in literary analysis are therefore being able to see into the story behind the words, extrapolating with the data I'm given by an author and seeing into a character's heart.
The difficult thing about literary analysis, however, is that everyone sees something different in a story. Not everyone reads the same thing between the lines. This is a weakness for me when it comes to literary analysis. I often think of odd, random ideas that make perfect sense to me but not to anyone else. When it comes to literary analysis on my own this isn't a problem, but it can become one if a teacher likes more typical answers.
I have taken quite a few English classes in the past and I help teach a homeschool English class for middle schoolers, but I often forget little things like comma usage and quotations. I think that's the biggest weakness that I have when it comes to academic writing. The specifics of grammar are quite easy to forget if you don't write academically often, so that has been hard for me in this English class.
Writing has been fairly easy for me throughout my life, so I always enjoyed English classes. For the most part, when I write an academic essay the first thing I put down is what will end up in the final draft. I'm not one to write several drafts of the same paper, I just think carefully about what I want to say before I write it down. To some people that may not seem to be a strength, but to me it is. Writing quickly is a strength when it comes to academia and it has helped me out in the past.
Literary analysis is a completely different story. I've always looked deep into the books I read, but it is sometimes to get my thoughts to form into an idea coherent enough to put down on paper. My literary analysis skills improved a lot due to the help and teaching of my eighth grade teacher Mrs. Agnew and my highschool English teacher Mrs. Martin. While taking their classes I've learned different ways to analyze literature and poetry and how to understand some of the more difficult forms of literature like Shakespeare, etc.
My strengths in literary analysis are therefore being able to see into the story behind the words, extrapolating with the data I'm given by an author and seeing into a character's heart.
The difficult thing about literary analysis, however, is that everyone sees something different in a story. Not everyone reads the same thing between the lines. This is a weakness for me when it comes to literary analysis. I often think of odd, random ideas that make perfect sense to me but not to anyone else. When it comes to literary analysis on my own this isn't a problem, but it can become one if a teacher likes more typical answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)