Heart of Darkness #2

As Marlow continues to delve deeper into the jungle, elements of racism within the company are quick to shine through. When a colleague grows ill and has to be carried in a hammock slung under a wooden stick by African natives, a minor injury occurs. The "heavy pole had skinned [the man's] poor nose" (88) and he expects Marlow to kill a carrier to make his suffering right. The fact that the feverish man forces African workers to carry him around the jungle shows that he, and the rest of the company, believes that the natives are lesser people. If he had become sick back in Europe, it is not likely that he would force his white employees to carry him around. Even if he did, it is less likely that he would demand the end to a white man's life for a minor mistake. The company treats the African natives as their slaves, rather than their employees because it does not view the workers as uneducated equals. Racism is prevalent among the Europeans in Africa, and they do not try to hide their feelings towards the natives.

Marlow has not yet taken a strong stance on the racism issue within the company. Although he uses derogatory terms when speaking about the natives, he only uses degrading language because of the time period of the novel. Early twentieth century Europe was not a place of acceptance and equality, and Marlow is just conforming to society. He sees nothing wrong with his language because it is a social norm. When his colleague requests the murder of a carrier, Marlow's explanation for why he did not kill a native is that "there wasn't the shadow of carrier near" (88). Rather than admitting that killing an African worker for no real reason would be completely unnecessary, Marlow brushes past the incident like it was nothing important. His explanation makes it sound like he would have killed a carrier if there was one present. His insensitivity shows that he is not looking to stand up for better treatment of the African natives, but he is not looking to mistreat them, like other members of the company.

Heart of Darkness #1

Within the opening twenty pages of Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad walks through the process in which Marlow decides to journey up the river for his life changing exploration. To begin, Marlow discusses his childhood dreams of delving into the unexplored territories of his empty maps. As he grew up, blank, unknown places on his maps were discovered and his dreams of exploration became more realistic. His attention is drawn to a specific river, "resembling an immense snake uncoiled, with its head in the sea, its body at rest curving afar over a vast country, and its tail lost in the depths of the land (71)." Here, Conrad creates a metaphor of the river to a snake to illustrate the dangerous and exotic nature of Marlow's trip. Typically, snakes are not the safest creatures to interact with. Some are poisonous and it is impossible to know if a snake is deadly without prior knowledge. Conrad's comparison of the river to a serpent highlights the risk that Marlow is taking in order to follow his childhood dreams and explore the compelling waterway. His route is not well-explored but he still wishes to journey down the river. Marlow does not know the dangers that lie ahead, but he is not extremely concerned at first because "the snake ha[s] charmed [him] (72)." Here, Conrad uses an alternate understanding of snakes to display Marlow's adamance towards adventuring down the river.

Although Marlow appears fearless and anxious to start his journey, the explorer does not get by without revealing some concern. When getting examined by the doctor, the physician asks, "Ever any madness in your family? (76)" and Marlow is quick to grow annoyed. Conrad uses the doctor's question to focus on the risks of the journeyer's trip. The doctor is pointing out that venturing out into dangerous and mostly unknown territory can be detrimental to mental health. Marlow does not know what he will be forced to face, and his annoyance with the physician's question shows that he realizes that there are risks with his trip, he is just unwilling to accept them. The explorer goes on to say that he "ha[s] a moment, [not] of hesitation, but of startled pause (77)." Although he says he is not hesitant, a moment of "startled pause" is a euphemism for hesitation. Marlow is worried about his trip up the unexplored river, but admitting his fear to himself would make the danger overwhelming. He has wanted to journey through the waterway since childhood, and he does not want his distress getting in the way of his life-long dream.

To Walk Away or Stay?

To live in Omelas, a resident is forced to make a moral sacrifice. In order to receive the benefits of comfort and happiness that come with residing in the Utopian city, a person must accept the cruel and unusual torture of an innocent child. The child has done nothing wrong, but it is essential that Omelas keeps the young person to torture in order to maintain the picture perfect order of things in society. Every citizen knows of the medieval mistreatment, and some choose to see the abused child. While some return home in disbelief and rage, others chose to leave the community because they cannot accept the terrible paradox of the tortured child.
I would not be able to accept the unjustified cruelty towards the innocent child, so I would choose to leave Omelas. I could not live with myself, knowing that the one person would have to suffer an indescribable amount, in exchange for my happiness. My main issue with the paradox is that the tortured person is a child that has done nothing wrong; they have not yet had the chance to make mistakes deserving of punishment. Although it would not be acceptable to torture anyone in such a disgusting and twisted manner, the use of an undeserving youth makes the city's policy a heightened degree of sick. I understand that with choosing to leave, I would have to venture out into the unknown and unexplored world on my own, with no guidance. I would accept this intimidating condition without hesitaion, because I would not be able to live among people that encourage the misery of an innocent child.

Poetry Day 4

In Sharon Olds' I Go Back to May 1937, the speaker uses diction to create an atmosphere that would suggest a bright future. Olds introduces her parents when she writes, "I see them standing at the formal gates of their colleges [...] they are about to graduate." Recent college graduates are typically optimistic and hopeful regarding their future. Her parents have just completed a major milestone in their lives and are looking forward to the next stage. The speaker is setting her parents up to fail. She later reveals that her parents' marriage eventually falls to pieces and they lead a miserable life together. Olds describes the colleges she sees: "ochre sandstone arch, [...] pillars made of tiny bricks, [...] wrought iron gates." Her language is meant to emphasize the prestige of the colleges and point out the expected bright future ahead. The speaker creates the serene and hopeful image of her parents' graduation to wildly contrast their disaster relationship that is to come.

Poetry Day 3

In Thomas Carew's Ingrateful Beauty Threatened, the speaker feels as though Celia has lost sight of who she truly is. Assuming that she has moved up in the rankings of society though marriage, the speaker (and husband) notices unfortunate side effects from her elevation in class. He believes that she has become pretentious and ungrateful. The speaker wishes to remind Celia who she was before marriage and how she got to where she is now. Carew's opposing diction throughout the first stanza is used to represent the vast differences between Celia's life before and after marriage. In the opening lines of the poem Carew writes, "Know, Celia, since thou art so proud, 'twas I that gave thee thy renown." Although the word "proud" is meant to show that Celia has become stuck up and unappreciative, it is also used to illustrate the atmosphere of the upper class. Paired with "renown," Carew is pointing out that members of the higher ranks of society often feel more important than they should. Because they have money and status, the wealthy have power and influence over society. Celia has fallen into the unfortunate tendencies of the upper class and the speaker uses contrasting language to remind her who she was. Phrases like "forgotten crowd" and "common beauty" are meant to show Celia that she was nothing special before her marriage. The speaker is trying to bring his wife back down to earth by making her realize that she would still be nothing special had he not chosen her to be his wife.

Poetry Day 2

In Sonnet 30, Shakespeare reveals his self-inflicted punishment through discussion of his personal failures. Diction and repetition illustrate the speaker's inability to forgive himself and move forward from the past. After explaining his habit of reminiscing, Shakespeare admits, "I sigh the lack of many things I sought, and with old woes new wail my dear time's waste." The speaker is disappointed that he wasted the prime of his life and did not achieve everything he desired. Repetition of vocabulary like "woe," "moan," and "grief" throughout the poem shows that Shakespeare is unable to rise above his failures. He consistently dwells on his unfulfilling past, causing pain and suffering for himself. Fortunately, a simple change in the speaker's thoughts provides relief from the constant torture of regret. Shakespeare explains, "But if the while I think on thee, dear friend, all losses are restored and sorrows end."

Poetry Day 1

George Herbert's poem Denial uses repetition to provide an explanation for the speaker's denial. The poem walks the reader through the process that leads the speaker to such rejection of personal issues. At first, the speaker seems willing to confront his problems, but the tone of the piece as a whole becomes increasingly hopeless as the poem progresses. In the last lines of the third and fourth stanzas, Herbert includes, "But no hearing," to display that the speaker tried to face his issues before falling into denial. The speaker was seeking relief from the chaos of his thoughts but was unsuccessful in his endeavor. It became easier to ignore his broken spirit, and so denial was introduced. Herbert's use of repetition highlights the turning point in the poem, displaying the transition from desperation to hopelessness.

A Strong Friendship

From the introduction of their friendship, it is clear that Antonio and Bassanio have a strong bond that runs deeper than a typical relationship. The two men love and care for each other and the question of one-sided homosexuality arises as the play progresses. It is clear that Bassanio is not attracted to Antonio in a homosexual way because he is on a quest to win Portia's heart, although it can be argued that Antonio is attracted to his best friend. The merchant risks his own life in order to obtain funding for Bassanio's trip to Belmont, he makes a deal with his enemy in order to give his friend what he needs, and all Antonio requests before he is killed is to see Bassanio. It isn't rational for Antonio to risk his life in order to help is friend, and a logical conclusion is that he has homosexual feelings for Bassanio. It is easy to make this assumption, but it is important to remember that Antonio is a strong believing Christian with a sense of morality. His generosity towards Bassanio can be connected back to his religion, rather than homosexuality.

When Bassanio comes to Antonio requesting a loan, it is not the first time the merchant has lent a helping hand. It seems as though Bassanio has never had success with his finances: "'Tis not unknown [...] how much I have disabled mine estate, by something showing a more swelling port than my faint means would grant continue" (I.i.122-125). Bassanio has built up his debt with many people, including Antonio, and needs a way to pay back what he has borrowed. When he presents his proposition to Antonio, Bassanio comes across as desperate. He tries to make Antonio feel sorry for him, so he will get the money he needs to journey to Belmont and marry Portia. Antonio is not extremely hesitant when offering Bassanio whatever he needs, but some persuasion is required. Although Antonio does not have the money to loan to Bassanio, he offers to help his friend because it is the morally correct thing to do. Christianity has taught the merchant to be charitable throughout his lifetime in order to have a satisfying afterlife. Bassanio appears desperate for money, so Antonio choses to do the right thing and help his best friend.

Since Antonio has invested everything he has into his ships, he is forced to go elsewhere to get a loan for Bassanio. The merchant makes a deal with Shylock, the Jewish usurer in order to obtain the necessary funding. Shylock and Antonio share a mutual hate for one another, so naturally their agreement is somewhat atypical. The usurer agrees to loan Antonio three thousand ducats without interest on the condition that if the loan is not repaid, Shylock receives one pound of Antonio's flesh. It does not make sense for Antonio to make such a barbaric agreement, where his life is at stake, but his friend is in need and he is willing to make sacrifices for Bassanio. Granted, sacrificing his life is extreme, but Antonio fully expects to be able to pay back his debt to Shylock. The merchant never expects all of his ships to sink, and so his agreement with Shylock does not seem as insane. Antonio does not risk his life because he is in love with Bassanio, he just wants to help his friend.

Religious Conflict

A major conflict throughout The Merchant of Venice is religion and the characters' inability to agree. Shylock is the only practicing Jew in the play, which sets him up to be an outcast. All other characters are Christian and unwilling to understand Shylock's beliefs. As a result, they dislike and mistreat the usurer. Although all other characters view Shylock with disgust, this conflict is mainly presented between Shylock and Antonio.

The religious conflict is first introduced when Antonio asks Shylock for a loan. Shylock responds, "You call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog, and spet upon my Jewish gaberdine—and all for use of that which is mine own. Well then, it now appears you need my help" (I.iii.107-110). Shylock is baffled by the fact that Antonio has the nerve to ask anything of him after the way he has been treated. Antonio says hateful things to Shylock at every encounter because he dislikes that Shylock is a Jewish usurer. Antonio does not think it is morally correct to loan out money with interest and he does not understand why Shylock thinks it is right to make a living in such a manner. The fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity is the source of their disagreement. Judaism is a rule-based religion, where if believers follow the rules, they will make it into heaven. Christianity is a moral-based system, where believers must act in a way that is morally correct in order to make it into heaven. Because nothing in Jewish law suggests that usury is wrong, Shylock is content with his profession. He does not understand why Christians criticize his business because he does not care to understand Christianity. Christians, on the other hand, believe that lending money without interest is the morally right thing to do, and so they are not willing to understand Shylock, his practices, or his religion. 

Shylock's morality is questioned again when Antonio is brought to trial. The merchant fails to pay back three thousand ducats and Shylock wants the pound of flesh he was promised. Even though Bassanio arrives offering twice the original loan as repayment, Shylock refuses the money and demands his reward. Even when Portia, disguised as a lawyer, insists that Shylock show mercy, the usurer declares, "My deeds upon my head. I crave the law, the penalty, and forfeit of my bond" (4.1.204-205). Shylock does not care that everyone else in the room does not agree with his decision to punish Antonio because he himself can live with it. He has been mistreated for so long and this is his form of revenge. Others do not understand his decision to murder because they are programmed to believe that killing is wrong.  Christians cannot understand why Shylock refuses to show mercy because they have been taught to be merciful people. In Christianity, God forgives people for their sins and in return, Christians are supposed to forgive others for their mistakes. Shylock is not wired to forgive in this way because he is not Christian. A deal was made and he believes that he should receive his side of the bargain. In other words, rules are rules and must be followed. Shylock's insistence to follow the conditions of his agreement with Antonio connects back to the rule-based system of Judaism. He has been taught to follow the rules of his religion, and so he is just transferring his beliefs to different aspects of his life.