Gatsby post 2

Throughout The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald uses colors to show the purity of a certain character. Darker colors often show that a character may not be pure, and lighter colors show very honest, pure characters. On page 79, the protagonist is describing a scene from earlier in his life. He says, "The largest of the banners and the largest of the lawns belonged to Daisy Fay's house. She was just eighteen, two years older than me, by far the most popular of all of the young girls in Louisville. She dressed in white and had a little white roadster and all day long the telephone rang in her house and excited young officers from Camp Taylor demanded the privilege of monopolizing her that night, 'anyways for an hour!'" This quote shows that nearly everything about Daisy is white. Her roadster is white, and all of her clothes are white. Her name is Daisy, a white flower. Fitzgerald went to every length that he could to insure that it was seen that Daisy is associated with the color white. Fitzgerald did so to show that Daisy is the purest, most honest character in the story. This is also shown later in the novel as Daisy confesses her feelings towards both Tom and Gatsby. Although it shows that Daisy isn't necesarrily pure because she has feelings for a man other than her husband, it shows that she has the honesty to confront her husband about it instead if hiding it and just cheating on him. The color white is used to show how honest and pure Daisy is.

Gatsby post 1

On page 55 of The Great Gatsby, the protagonist describes a scene at one of Gatsby's parties. He says that "When the "Jazz History of the World" was over girls were putting their heads on men's shoulders in a puppyish, convivial way, girls were swooning backward playfully into men's arms, even into groups knowing that someone would arrest their falls." Here, the females in the story are acting in a manner that is pleasant. They are partying and acting in a manner that was acceptable and common during this time period. They are also reffered to as girls, not women. Then, on page 105, the protagonist is describing Dan Cody. He says, "Cody was fifty years old then, a product of the Nevada silver fields, of the Yukon, of every rush for metal since Seventy-Five. The transactions in Montana copper that made him many times a millionare found him physically robust but on the verge of softmindedness, and suspecting this an infinite number of women tried to seperate him from his money. The none too savory ramifications by which Ella Kaye, the newspaper woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness sent him to sea in a yacht, were common knowledge to the turgid journalism of 1902." In this quote, the females are acting in a not so acceptable manner. They are essentially gold digging. They are associating with Cody for his money. Also in this quote, the females are reffered to as women. Throughout the novel, Fitzgerald reffers to females who are acting playful as girls, and those who are acting in a manner that may be seen as unacceptable as women. This is Fitzgerald's way of saying that nothing comes good with age for females. It is his sexist opinion that as a female ages, she loses her fun, playful qualities that made her appealing, and becomes much less than appealing by gaining traits like lying and gold digging. Fitzgerald may have written this because as his love interest got older, she cheated on him. To describe that situation Fitzgerald may have described her as a girl as she flirted with the guy, but following the incident where she cheated, he would have quickly reffered to her as a woman because of her actions. The flip flop between females being reffered to as girls or women throughout the novel is based on their actions, and reflect events that affected Fitzgerald from earlier in his life.

Respone to Hemingway Post

Throughout his short story "In Another Country" Ernest Hemingway repeatedly brings up the machines and experiences him Whoa--don't assume the narrator/protagonist is Hemingway and the people he was with in the hospital had with the machines. Personally I think that the machines are a symbol for war in this particular work. This has potential as a thesis. I believe this because of multiple reasons. First off, doing a reading based on Hemingway's background, he went to war and was injured very early on in the war. He criticized war from that point on and really became one of the liberal artists that were extremely prevalent in this era. Hemingway wrote this short story as a criticism of war and how people mindlessly follow what their leaders tell them and go to war, not because they want to, and not because they believe in what the war is being fought over, but just because they are told to go to war. Interesting biographical element here. You could certainly use this to foreground your argument. Secondly, as I have already stated, the people who are using the machines in the short story don't believe the machines work, they don't know what the machines are doing, they are just using the machines because the doctor tells them too. You would need specific textual evidence that supports this claim that the soldiers who follow the doctor are the equivalent of soldiers following orders. Also, with this being a short story based on WWI, there weren't any wars of the magnitude of WWI that had occurred prior to WWI. It is highly likely that the machines are a symbol for not only war, but WWI because, as Hemingway repeats throughout the story, there were pictures that were supposed to be of hands that had been completely restored by the machines, although that did not follow what the doctor had told them which was that they were the first people to use the machines. This is very similar to what the world leaders were saying going into WWI. They were saying that WWI would be the war to end all wars and that after WWI the world would be at peace, but they had not evidence to base those claims on because like the men using the machines, WWI was the first time that the nearly the entire world would be engulfed in war. Like the fake pictures hanging above the machines and the doctors claims, the evidence the world leaders during WWI were using was false and unconvincing, although people still went to war. Hemingway and his friends used the machines because they were told to, and not because they thought the machines would work like people went to war in WWI because they were told to, not because they actually believed it would be the war to end all wars. Interesting conclusion. The key to proving this will be strong, convincing textual evidence. You'll need to find language from the story that supports your interpretation of the machines as a metaphor for war. Last year I had a student argue something similar about Old Man and the Sea. I'll show you her essay, if you're interested; you'd need the same kind of convincing support that she offered.

Response to Huck Finn Post

Cam, My apologies for not finding you before I left school Friday. Long story, but the gist is my ninth graders ran over taking a test, and I ran out of time before I had to get to daycare to get my kid. Anyway...
Huck Finn is a story full of satire and repeated images worth mention and further investigation. Above all, the recurring theme present throughout Huck Finn that really deserves investigation and analyzing is the developement if Huck Finn relative to Tom Sawyer throughout the novel. In the beginning of the novel, Huck is seen as Tom's sidekick. Tom creates ridiculous adventures based on stories that he may or may not have read and Huck follows along as Tom creates his imaginary adventure that Huck doesn't understand because he looks at things from a non-romantic, realistic perspective where Tom looks at things from a very romantic perspective. This contrast in ways of thinking was a dimension of the novel that Mark Twain added as an acknowledgement that writers in his time period were moving away from romanticism and towards realism. As the story progresses, and Huck procedes to have many adventures with Jim, he develops into what he saw Tom as at the beginning of the novel. He becomes the adventurer that Tom always was in his imagination. As the novel begins to wrap up, and Tom and Huck come in contact with each other again, Huck reverts to his position as Tom's sidekick, but only in the manner that he acts. Tom is allowed to create the plan to free Jim, but instead of just mindlessly trusting Tom as he did in the beginning, Huck constantly speaks out and questions Tom. This is different because in the beginning of the novel, Huck would wonder why he didn't see the elephants that Tom did I don't recall--does Tom actually say he sees the elephants? , for example, but he wouldn't come out and tell Tom that there were no elephants and his plans were ridiculous. At the end of the novel, as Huck has developed into a wiser, more experienced adventurer than Tom, Huck constantly questions Tom and his romantic ideas. In the end, Twain not only shows the development of Huck relative to Tom based on the adventures that Huck experiences, but he also shows the progression of realism past romanticism based on the progression of Huck, the realist, past Tom, the romanticist. You're going to have to use some stellar evidence to suggest that Huck has in fact surpassed Tom. The stuff I put in green is a grammatical FYI: one goal for you is to tighten up your prose. You pair a lot of words when one would do. Also, watch those passive verbs.
This will certainly work as a topic. The way you'd structure this would likely be to show the evolution of Huck's responses to Tom. But what do you do with the fact that Tom is ultimately in charge? Huck may protest, but he still follows.

Ernest Hemingway Post

Throughout his short story "In Another Country" Ernest Hemingway repeatedly brings up the machines and experiences him and the people he was with in the hospital had with the machines. Personally I think that the machines are a symbol for war in this particular work. I believe this because of multiple reasons. First off, doing a reading based on Hemingway's background, he went to war and was injured very early on in the war. He criticized war from that point on and really became one of the liberal artists that were extremely prevalent in this era. Hemingway wrote this short story as a criticism of war and how people mindlessly follow what their leaders tell them and go to war, not because they want to, and not because they believe in what the war is being fought over, but just because they are told to go to war. Secondly, as I have already stated, the people who are using the machines in the short story don't believe the machines work, they don't know what the machines are doing, they are just using the machines because the doctor tells them too. Also, with this being a short story based on WWI, there weren't any wars of the magnitude of WWI that had occurred prior to WWI. It is highly likely that the machines are a symbol for not only war, but WWI because, as Hemingway repeats throughout the story, there were pictures that were supposed to be of hands that had been completely restored by the machines, although that did not follow what the doctor had told them which was that they were the first people to use the machines. This is very similar to what the world leaders were saying going into WWI. They were saying that WWI would be the war to end all wars and that after WWI the world would be at peace, but they had not evidence to base those claims on because like the men using the machines, WWI was the first time that the nearly the entire world would be engulfed in war. Like the fake pictures hanging above the machines and the doctors claims, the evidence the world leaders during WWI were using was false and unconvincing, although people still went to war. Hemingway and his friends used the machines because they were told to, and not because they thought the machines would work like people went to war in WWI because they were told to, not because they actually believed it would be the war to end all wars.

Huck Finn Post

Huck Finn is a story full of satire and repeated images worth mention and further investigation. Above all, the recurring theme present throughout Huck Finn that really deserves investigation and analyzing is the developement if Huck Finn relative to Tom Sawyer throughout the novel. In the beginning of the novel, Huck is seen as Tom's sidekick. Tom creates ridiculous adventures based on stories that he may or may not have read and Huck follows along as Tom creates his imaginary adventure that Huck doesn't understand because he looks at things from a non-romantic, realistic perspective where Tom looks at things from a very romantic perspective. This contrast in ways of thinking was a dimension of the novel that Mark Twain added as an acknowledgement that writers in his time period were moving away from romanticism and towards realism. As the story progresses, and Huck procedes to have many adventures with Jim, he develops into what he saw Tom as at the beginning of the novel. He becomes the adventurer that Tom always was in his imagination. As the novel begins to wrap up, and Tom and Huck come in contact with each other again, Huck reverts to his position as Tom's sidekick, but only in the manner that he acts. Tom is allowed to create the plan to free Jim, but instead of just mindlessly trusting Tom as he did in the beginning, Huck constantly speaks out and questions Tom. This is different because in the beginning of the novel, Huck would wonder why he didn't see the elephants that Tom did, for example, but he wouldn't come out and tell Tom that there were no elephants and his plans were ridiculous. At the end of the novel, as Huck has developed into a wiser, more experienced adventurer than Tom, Huck constantly questions Tom and his romantic ideas. In the end, Twain not only shows the development of Huck relative to Tom based on the adventures that Huck experiences, but he also shows the progression of realism past romanticism based on the progression of Huck, the realist, past Tom, the romanticist.

Response to Whitman Post

The paragraph from the preface of Leaves of Grass is the strongest paragraph in the whole excerpt. And this would be why it's on a fridge magnet. Although the paragraph does not do an excellent job of using poetic devices or imagery to get it's point across, it does a great job at smacking you in the face with the ideas spread throughout the poetry. The paragraph starts of by flat out telling you what you will do. It does not recommend how you should live, it flat out says, "This is what you shall do." Fits with the second line of the poem: "And what I shall assume, you shall assume." "Assume" is a really loaded verb here-has many meanings. Anyway...This strong language does a great job of setting the author up. It helps illustrate that the author is going to give you guidelines and rules that you should live your life by. The first guideline or rule that is laid stated is, "Love the earth and sun and the animals." It is not shocking that this is the first rule stated because the romantics are all for nature and finding God in nature. Yes; many of the catalogs in sections of this poem that we did not read deal with critters in nature. Therefore it makes perfect sense that the first rule says that you should love nature, because according to the romantics, without love for nature, you will never find God. The next group of rules is "despise riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others." These rules are also strongly rooted in romantic ideals. Despising riches, giving alms, and devoting income are all very typical of romantics because they thought property was basically useless. Therefore you have no need for money so why not give it to others who cherish it much more than you do. If you are a true romantic you have already found God in nature and have no need for money so why not give it to people who cherish it more than anything. Since they haven't found God, let them find joy in the money that is useless to you. Standing up for the stupid and crazy could be a romantic thought because they are not priviledged enough to have found God, and since you are, you should help them in any way possible. Yes, but this sentiment is most specific to Whitman. He was (of the Romantics we read) the most concerned with societal rejects. His nickname "the Poet of Democracy" suggests his interest in societal unity, specifically post-war reunification, which involved ridding ourselves of prejudices. The next couple rules basically say that you should not bow down to any power. There is no man greater than another, and the only person who you should feel inferior to is God. But God is also something you should not argue about because arguements are not peaceful and are pointless. The only thing that matters is going out into nature and finding God. The nest very powerful rule that really stands out is "go freely with the powerful uneducated person and the young and with the mothers of families." Fits so well with Emerson. PLUS, he adds women! This rule is extremely trancendentalist. The important part is go freely with the uneducated. This is very important because an uneducated person is free of corruption. They believe what they think and not what the are taught or is popular in society. This fits in perfectly with the trancendentalist idea that being an individual is the most important thing because without individuals, everything fails. Yup. This also ties in with the next big rules which are, "re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul." This again ties in very strongly with the tracendentalist idea of being an individual. You must examine what you have been taught because if you don't, what you believe is the mush that has been spoon fed to you by society, I like your metaphor here not ideas that you have personally formulated. Dismissing what offends you brings you closer to enlightenment and makes you an individual, not just another ant marching through society. If this paragraph was something we read out of the actual preface in its entirety, this sentence would stand out because it is oddly punctuated and very long. This would emphasize the ideas present and really hit home harder than it does alone. Not sure I get your last sentence, but you did an excellent job connecting the preface to the key ideas in the movement. Neat approach.