Pound's Views on America

Within the poem Salutation by Ezra Pound, I first thought the content was just the narrator's observation on society. But after learning more about Ezra Pound's absolutely crazy life, the poem definitely represents Pound's hostility toward America. When he did not know any better, Pound thought America had the potential to achieve perfection, especially when it comes to lyrical poems that consist of art. Yet, during post-WWII, Pound was declared insane. His reaction to America being cruel to Germany and Japan is reflected within Salutation. For example, the very first line consists of "O generation of the thoroughly smug and thoroughly uncomfortable," one can instantly see Pound is speaking to an audience that includes America and her undesirable qualities. Hence, the negative connotation of the words "smug" and "uncomfortable". Although, the people that habitat in America are ignorant of the corrupt engagements going on in their country: "I have seen their smiles full of teeth". Pound thinks society could care less which is why they still go on in life acting pleasant. But Pound knows the truth about America which is why he has the illusion that he is better than everybody else in this country, given the line "And I am happier than you are". Basically, Pound addresses the Americans who are full of fake laughter and Pound gains a persona of righteousness. This short poem concludes only a small part of the unhinging that is happening within Pound's disabled mind. Soon after, Pound is declared legally insane after broadcasting anti-American propaganda in some European countries. Obviously, Pound has an attachment to America's society as reflected in the Salutation poem. Given the title itself, Pound is making a farewell to America's morals and standards. Luckily for Pound's readers, this is only one of many, many, many poems that represent this author's wonderful and depressing feelings toward America.

Why Ezra Pound, Why?

Because of Ezra Pound's declared insanity in 1945, he has forced me to declare insanity too. His poems often consist of inconstant ramblings about how America could be oh so perfect if poetry was taken more seriously. Pound had many economist theories. Funny, considering he was a very controversial POET, not an ECONOMIST. Yeah, makes total sense. Pound participated in both Imagism and Vorticism. Which, morally are completely different from one another. One is about how language should create a clear-cut example of art while the other is employed in abstract art. Just like his brain, Pound has no clue what to do. He wants to be everything, yet be absolutely nothing. This is killing me. How am I suppose to find common themes in his poetry when he is not consistent? It doesn't even say WHY he became crazy. So dead end there. Can I change my poet? I can't write a five page paper about Ezra Pound before I leave for Germany in 18 days. I would like to graduate, get a job, and be in my mid-50s when I become crazy, just like Ezra Pound, not when I'm 17 years old. *Note: this is just a rant, not an actual blog so please don't grade this because I can't afford anything under a B. Otherwise I'll loose my scholarship to college. I blame Ezra Pound for my current problems so just like Ezra Pound blamed America for his problems (maybe?). Who really knows for sure why he became crazy- crazy people don't have a sane basis for what they believe in. He was hardly a poet, definitely more of a critical analysis of other poets. HE COPIED SO MANY POEMS, THERE'S NO ORIGINALITY TO WRITE ABOUT. I should just write about Robert Browning instead since Pound paralleled so many of his literary techniques and imagery in Cantos. So yes, it's only been two hours of researching Ezra Pound and I hate him. The end.

The (Passive) Jungle

The use of pathos is extremely relevant in the infamous novel The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. As many people should know, the publishing of this book caused the United states government to create stricter rules for running a healthy and clean meat factory. Why? It was Sinclair's obvious appeal to make the readers feel emotion. In the historical story, Jurgis has just immigrated to Chicago with his family of twelve. Work is hard to find among the thousands of homeless people during this age. Yet, Jurgis is still full of energy, strength, and youth when he first arrives at the slaughter houses and therefore, easily finds an unskilled job as a day laborer with cheap wages. Before landing this "wonderful" job, Jurgis takes a tour of the meat factory- this is where the pathos argumentation appears. Sinclair's use of loaded images such as "The meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw one—there were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit." This inhumane and gruesome description is only a minuscule activity compared to the rest of the detailed explanation of the working conditions at the Chicago meat factory. Doesn't this statement just make one want to barf? The fact that rats are the least toxic thing being blended in with the meat, is a troublesome worry. Who knows what worse objects land in the mixture- poison? Lard? Pieces of human flesh? The list of possible bulk of contamination is infinite and just outright disgusting. There is seriously no surprise why the government had to create a healthier environment for the workers and for the production of meat. Personally, if I wasn't already a vegetarian, I would definitely become one after this. Even if I didn't buy from this specific Chicago meat market, what makes any of the other production markets any better? Especially considering the meat monopolies are competing with the top firms in the nation and must make a larger quantity for an increased profit. Sinclair's use of pathos in the novel is definitely a perfect case of argumentation that upturned my already bad view on meat production. So I'm sure these images had a profound affect on other citizens in the United States who have read the novel. Thus, this is truly a fundamental pathos work of literature.

What is Wrong with Society?

I just finished reading the famous short story called A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner. Even though it was written and based in the 1930s, one can see all of the hypocrital gossip that is still in the modern world. Except, during this past decade, it is not nearly as bad as the current times. During this short story, the reader receives all of the information through the mouths of the neighbors: "Emily did this" *speculate* "Oh crap! She did this!" *speculate*. Yet, their imaginative educated guesses were never correct. Want to know why? Because they never heard from Emily's own mouth what was happening in EMILY's world. (Ironically, Faulkner's dry sense of humor shows up at the end of the story with an amusing cliffhanger.) Either way, the endless chattering of the noisy neighbors that kept inquiring about Emily's exclusive life, relentlessly annoyed me the entire eight pages. Probably because I find it very relative on a personal level. When I first transferred to St. Mark's in the middle of sophomore year, I did not expect this type of social atmosphere. See, I have always gone to public school since kindergarten, so at the time, a "Catholic" education was beyond my level of comprehension. As a transfer, I didn't have many friends at first, so I just sat around and listened to the conversations going on around me. Man, I was so disgusted. The nerve some of the kids had at this school, just put me into disbelief. They called themselves Christians, yet they did so many unholy things, that it became totally hypocritical. As I have just now realized, even though I might have thought they were the contradictions in the beginning, I was really the hypocrite at the end. I didn't know these strangers on any personal level; they might have misbehaved this way because they were going through their own troubling times. Who am I to judge? This is the epiphany I wished Emily's neighbors would have come to realize. Obviously, Emily knew they were slandering her actions, but she had the right mind to not saying anything. And for this, I respect her strong character. I just dislike the neighbors that didn't mind their own business. If I learned how to be more open-minded and not judge the kids at St. Mark's during this modern world, the neighbors from a century ago, could have grown up a little bit too.

Literature Worthy

After reading The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky over Christmas break, I have realized why I had the urge to read this teenage story instead of As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner. This is because I can relate to the plot way better. Also, because the diction was much simpler to understand. I am not saying that it was a child's book, but compared to Faulkner, it could be considered that way. The modern plot in TPOBW consisted of a high school freshmen's encounter with drugs, sex, making new friends, having a psychological problem, etc. As a high school student myself, I found it much more exciting to read than Faulkner's story about a traveling family in the early 1900s whose mother just died. But then again, a different reader's view might find my opinion unintelligible. More than likely, it would probably be because the other reader thinks diction and literary devices make a book seem more appealing and award worthy than a book based more on the physical actions that a character decides on. Which comes to my question: what makes a book more literature worthy, plot or diction? Personally, plot creates a spell of enchantment over the reader that only lasts in the short run. How many other modernist plots do you know today that have also written about the same subjects such as sex and drugs? Tons. Yet, diction makes the book more memorable. Trust me, I will never forget my frustration when I first started reading AILD and had no clue what the narrator(s) were discussing. And that is exactly the reason why I will always remember the fifteen contrasting narrators that Faulkner entered into his novel. These specific reasons may be why Faulkner is considered to have wrote many classics such as AILD or A Rose for Emily and why Chbosky is on the New York Times Best Sellers List for writing TPOBW. Even their bragging rights are from a different era. Who knows, maybe Chbosky might be considered a classic author one day, but in reality, he will probably be a nobody after a year or so. These modern books that go through fads, do not have elaborate enough material to make them deserving of endless praise. So even though I thoroughly enjoyed The Perks of Being a Wallflower and stayed up until the edges of dawn reading it, Faulkner will always have a more everlasting impression. Therefore, Faulkner wins.

Parallelism in The Hobbit

So I just came back from the midnight premiere of The Hobbit and it’s currently four in the morning. Let me just say, it was so freaking amazing and lived up to my expectations. Yet, the events were predictable. Not in a boring way, more like parallelism at its greatest. Obviously, it was similar to The Lord of the Rings, considering it was the prerequisite to the trilogy. The stereotypical characters, the reason for the quest, the quest itself, and certain events are all correspondents to the first Lord of the Rings epic: The Fellowship of the Ring. For example, the main character is a hobbit: Lord of the Rings= Frodo, Hobbit= Bilbo. There is a king that accompanies the quest, who is on a search to save their ruined city: Lord of the Rings= Aragorn, Hobbit= Thorin. Kili and Fili in The Hobbit resemble Pippin and Meriadoc in LOTR because both sets of people are brothers that also attend the journey. In a closer depth of Kili, he is equivalent to Legolas in LOTR because they are the only bow and arrow shooters in the company of men. There are also the evil enemies that have great revenge planned for the company: LOTR’s enemy is Sauron, The Hobbit’s enemy is Bolg. Then there are the same exact people in both epics that appear including: Gollum, Saruman, Elrond (Lord of Riverdale), and Gandalf (duh). The reason for the quest in both epics is to solve a conflict. In The Hobbit, it is to restore the dwarf’s homeland; in the LOTR it is to destroy the ring that is found within The Hobbit movie. In the quest itself, both involve the same amount of men in the company (14), both involve the great Wizard named Gandalf, and the framing of the movie is setup in similar ways because they both start and end with the Book of Adventures that Bilbo Baggins writes. In both movies, Gandalf always comes to the rescue and saves the company by doing some wizard awesomeness. For example, in The Hobbit when the company of men are about to be eaten by the trolls, then the goblins, and then the Orcs, Gandalf magically reappears! (Do you see the pattern?) Similar happenings occur in LOTR also. Another important event is when the main hobbit character saves the king from an enemy. In LOTR, Frodo puts up a fight when Aragorn is about to die. In The Hobbit, Bilbo saves Thorin from one of the antagonist’s murdering schemes. Both hobbits end up becoming more beloved by the kings after their heroism. If the reader knows anything about these J. R. R. Tolkien’s books, they know that Bilbo is Frodo’s uncle and reside in the Baggins family. So the parallelism represents how Frodo basically follows Bilbo’s footsteps when they each go on a dangerous quest with a group of strange men and face specific dilemmas on their journey. In a way, The Hobbit almost foreshadows all the events that happen in LOTR. Either way, both epics are amazing thus far and I will forever be obsessed with the trilogies. LONG LIVE THE HOBBITS.

A Role Model for Young Girls

In Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, the narrator goes on a journey to find her purpose in life in the early nineteenth century. Yet, she’s expecting both love and integrity to not collide against each other during the events. For example, Jane finds emotional substance and love when meeting Mr. Rochester. But right before the marriage ceremony, Jane discovers that Mr. Rochester is still married to his lunatic wife. Even though the wife is certifiably insane, Jane refuses to still marry Mr. Rochester because it would be a disgrace to her. To marry someone who still has a wife, Jane would consider herself a mistress and wouldn’t be able to be happy with a clouded conscious. A year down the road, Jane is offered a marriage proposal by her cousin, St. John Rivers. During this time, Jane is teaching children of the poor and doing God’s substantial work. Yet, she does not love this man and will therefore, not marry him. As one can notice, Jane finds love, but not integrity; Jane finds integrity, but not love. Obviously, she has high standards and intends on sticking to them. This is a very noble aspect in her personality that I greatly admire. In modern times, girls no longer have respect for themselves. On a daily basis, one often hears the scandalous happenings to either someone they know, a famous person, or television events. Often, it’s disgusting events such as having sex with strangers, being arrested for illegal substances, filling out welfare paper work, etc. Unlike Jane Eyre, they do not fight for a healthy job or for true love. They want the easy way out for everything without integrity or emotional attachments. What will become of them? Nothing of importance; just a long list of psychological problems, minimum wage jobs, and death. This is why I personally think that Jane Eyre should be a required reading in schools across the country with an in-depth teaching of Jane’s integrity and how to settle down with only one person: your true love. In this way, maybe young girls will learn how to keep their standards high and only to choose healthy options in life. Jane Eyre is a role model for many young people in the modern world.