stay what?!?!

solo-dolo

Marriage isn’t exactly what it seems to be in the poem entitled Conjoined by Judith Minty. As she peels back the layers on a seemingly happy marriage we learn the neither person is happy with their life. Feeling that they have just become the mold of what the other wants. She uses such literary devises as diction, similes, and metaphors to express the unhappy couples marriage.

The couple feels like their relationship is like two onions that have grown together. Growing together, yet apart from each other, with one half being nice and round, and one side being flattened and deformed by the other being constantly pressed against each other. The often disagree and do not get along, but can’t separate due to their marital situation. And through the life of their marriage they have tried transforming one another into what they believe they want. But the only affect seems to be a negative one in the fact that their “onion” becomes more distorted. The two separate onions under the skin grew against each other instead of with each other causing their trapped discontent.

The couple uses specific diction that points out their feelings about the relationship. Using such negative words as “monster, heavy, deformed, and freaks.” The use of these words in a negative connotation towards their marital status is a clear indicator of the feelings that are felt towards one another. Like the fact that them being together ands weight to their stress level. Calling their relationship deformed and relating it to freaks is another clear mental picture on how they mentally visualize their relationship. They definitely want to find a way out of the relationship that they both feel stuck in.

Judith Minty also uses similes to better visually explain the couples situation. Calling them a two headed calf fighting for milk. Which puts into perspective mentally of what the couple might be going for. Each fighting against the other on every decision, every move. Wanting more, wanting to be apart, but separating would mean death. Death of on or the other, death of the relationship. 

In the end, Judith Minty might agree that the two in the couple would do better apart and on their own. But that would more than definitely ruin the whole point of a marriage. Marriage requires sacrifice for the other. But it seems that is not the case in Conjoined.             

eh.....

Alright so just to establish what i've learned about post modernism i would just like to extend my own ideas in summary form of what i think it's all about. Postmodernism's literal meaning is "after modernism" obviously while "modern" itself refers to something "related to the present", the movements modernism and postmodernism are understood as cultural projects or as a set of perspectives. perspectives such as; style in art, architecture, literature, philosophy. and anything could be or be considered if they just acquire a reaction against principles and practices of established modernism. Postmodernism in a lot of our class readings come by way of irony. Ironic plots, deaths, situations that could be picked apart to even find the irony in the already obvious irony. Which makes it incredibly easy to read cats cradle as a postmodern text, it's full of these weird characters that have different yet profound effects on the earth with their actions. Which in all respect (for these fictional characters) they did not ever mean any harm or real danger, but thats the "irony" i guess. The fact that even though their intensions were good, it in fact turned out to be ALL BAD. And then besides the obvious plot of the whole story being ironic, now we pry deeper and look for more. The title of the book "cats cradle" plays a part in the book that relates to a life style called "bokononism" that is a complete lie but makes it known that it's all lies and it's ok with that! So their view is that their is no real answer...and their ok with that just as long as their conscious lies keep them happy. And so like the cat's cradle which has no end, the bokonon religion, or lifestyle has no real center. So when your not just happy with the way things are and try to look for the truth...you'll never find it...because it's not their. "No damn cats, and no damn cradle!"

another let down

alright.........who said it was ok for all books to get really good towards the ending and then just end up being a giant let down?!?! i guess the rats actually had some significance finally, and now what...he just is a totally committed member just like that?!?! i don't even understand!! a little threatening a he just snaps, he should put on a skirt for not fighting back!! but then it all just ends up being a total mind game, he tried too resist for a while i guess but im just so darn upset about the way things turned out i might not ever read again!! and it was a total set up the whole time, and the guy who rented that room out for them should be punched in the face. i have a lot of pent up anger from all the books that are considered "good literature" that we read throughout our high school career. its almost all a let down, depressing, or weird! what happened to normal, what happened to good times and happy endings? maybe authors are just depressed unhappy people. happy people aren't authors because they're probably out having too much fun in their happy life! anyways...im bummed about the ending, but i guess in a way i should have expected it a little. so 1984, you and i are over.

extreme love

alright alright alright, im not quite finished with the book yet, but i can already tell that its goanna end like one of those many books that i despise. i do love the way that both winston and julia take things into their own hands. not being afraid to take that leap of faith in their love for each other. there are a few things tat i would like to talk about though, like...whats with the rats?? it's been mentioned like twelve times!! it's not important at all!! i think it's a form of foreshadowing or symbolism...but i cant tell. i was starting to love o'brien more and more, until he seemed to good to be true. i believe that somethings up there but i guess i'll find out. it's like this book seems a little all over the place not in terms of plot, but in symbolism. my feelings toward different aspects of the book have been everywhere and i just prepare myself now to be ready to be unsure whenever i put the book down...it's like all the sudden i'm there, and i don't trust anybody! haha it's like an extreme personification tactic written by a genius to make you confused and sketched out. i know that i don't have much to say, but thats because i dont have a central thought on the whole thing yet...is it going to surprise me and turn out victorious...or is it going to dissapoint me and make me upset just like every other book in the world.

1980...somethin'

Alright alright alright, i wanted to be in on all the "big brother" jokes...and im getting there. but basically what i've read so far in my catch up game is that my boy Winston Smith lives in a crazy communistic place called Ociana...controlled and run by these different "Parties" but not the fun kind of parties...like if you sneeze they might execute you, i think the term they use is vaporize. which means much more, theres an entire party thats purpose is to make it seem like you've never existed. it's like they've got a party for everything it seems like. now, because im supposed to dive a little deeper, and i've been trying to, ummm i have been noticing that this book has many similarities with other books of these sorts, in sophomore year in mr d's class we read about a guy named equality, who had a very similar situation. these must be common i guess. but yea, he lived in a crazy place just like this, he even had the crush on the girl thing goin on too. its like this is just a much more detailed in depth version of that book...whose name i can't remember. also, another connection i made with another book that i read last year, "the giver," and in that book they "released" people instead of "vaporizing" them. so i dont know what was going on with everybody back in these times when these books were written, or if they all collaborated with each other, but i was finding many similarities between different authors and their stories.  

im done with tradition

alright, to satisfy the assignment at hand, here is my best attempt to fill in the templates given. so, In discussions of The Tempest, the traditional view is that Shakespeare wrote it with intensions of interlacing a political agenda of exposing the barbaric nature of colonial expansion. However, there may be other ways to think about this text. For one thing, George Will explains that we are to adopt and accept the ideas that have been impressed upon us by our teachers and other supporting literature. And Stephen Greenblatt says that we need to break free from the impressions that others assume or accuse texts of inferring agendas. and that we should read the texts ourselves and judge them personally according to the impression or influence it leaves on us, in other words "think for ourselves". Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that the argument at hand is whether or not to accept this perspective of colonial expansion that has been said to be embedded in Shakespeare's  "The Tempest" that many have written about. so do we accept their views as an actual fact of the text...or are they just opinionated views.
i plan on attacking this argumentative subject by basing a lot of it on the debate between george will, and stephen greenblatt. i would also like to strengthen the topic in question by finding other sources that disprove the point and also agree with the my point in that i do not believe that all of these hidden meanings behind his literature. i want to find others who support the unpopular argument that he wrote just to please. and that in fact it was just the way of life and there was no intended meaning behind it all. so i am attempting to take sides with stephen greenblatt and ironically not side with anyone...if that makes any sense...