And lastly....

Oh last English blog! The fun we've had! Below are some of my favorite moments:

Who could forget this blog post on Elizabeth's Bishop's "One Art"? Not me. This was one of my favorite poems all semester and in turn my favorite blog. I just had fun reading about it. Sometimes I felt like analyzing a poem was sort of burden like I would never get to the bottom of it, nor would I necessarily care once I got there, but not with "One Art", no way.

I really loved analyzing T.S Eliot's "The Wasteland" in this blog post. This poem was way beyond me but it was a lot of fun to dissect the tarot reading. I was so excited to find out that someone else had picked apart the tarot. At the end of the day, I didn't feel as scared of the poem. In class you said that the first key to understanding "The Wasteland" was to find in a way in. I feel like the tarot card reading was my way of getting inside...a little? Hopefully?

I picked this blog because I feel like it talks about a turning point I had this semester. I realized how intimidated I had been my literature. And in turn how close minded I had been.

I picked these blogs because they are the blogs I remember writing the most. I remember writing all of my blogs, except for one at the beginning, but these one I remember feeling the strongest about. The first two were picked because I loved those poems and loved writing about them. I feel like when I get excited about what I am reading it shows in my blog posts. I am not satisfied to accept the answers I have created in my mind. I want to look at other sources, I want to hear what people have to say. I want to be involved in the discussion. Even if that discussion is just me looking around on EBSCO. The third post I picked because half way through writing it I had an epiphany. I realized that I had learned a lot in this class. I didn't plan on talking about my feelings through literature in this blog but it just happened. I was excited to have such a breakthrough, which will be discussed more in the following paragraph.

So, how have my ideas about literature changed since the beginning of the semester and what can I say I have learned? I have learned a lot. Its is almost a little overwhelming to sit down and think about it and try to type it in a blog. So, at the beginning of the semester I was like, "Okay, okay. I don't really care about what these dudes have to say." And halfway through the semester when we had to write midterms essay I was having a major literature break down. I have never had to write an essay like that before and it was hard. It was hard to find sources that were saying what I was thinking. It was tricky, tricky, tricky. But as quarter of the way through the semester I realized that I enjoy knowing about literature. That it makes me really happy to try to understand what is being written. And I feel super smart when I can be like well don't you think that this means that means this. That's the main reason I go to school to feel smart. I think I have gained a nice overview of literature this semester. I feel like I could talk about literature at a bar with someone. And probably sound really passionate. I don't think I will ever be an English major or even seek out another literature class. But I really enjoyed this one. I think I have learned how to analyze literature this semester, which probably sounds really generic, like, duh, of course you learned how to analyze literature. But it was hard! And a lot of work! And I am proud of the kind of reader I have become!

Speaking of the kind of reader I have become, I have become way more appreciative of different types of authors. I am far more open to books. I probably never would have wanted to read The Crying Lot of 49 before this class. I guess I learned not to judge a book by its cover. Literally! Or the author. I am excited to read more classics. I think I might check out another Pynchon novel for my summer reading list. This summer all I want to do is read for fun. That's a new weird goal I never had before this class. I think that by reading things I wasn't so into, I remembered how much I like to read things I am into. As a thinker, I guess I have learned how to think like other people. I usually stick to reading books that are written by someone who shares my perspective on things, therefore it is really easy to think like them. But this semester I had to read things and think about things in a different way. I feel like this class pushed my brain out of its comfort zone by making me think about new things. As far as my writing skills, I think the essay was a really great experience. I know there will be other times in my college career where I have to write essays that aren't like completely fact based and have more opinions and ideas. I'm glad that experience is over and I have it under my belt. The next time an essay like that presents itself I won't be so scared! My weakness is mainly myself. Sometimes I think I am too unimpressed or something. Or I am not afraid to say when I don't like something. I don't know if it is that I genuinely don't like it or I just don't want to like it. This is a weird thing I do that spills over into all areas of my life, not just literature. My strengths and my weaknesses are sort of the same thing. A strong opinion.

I think I should get an A in this class, mainly because I have an A already in this class and I am pretty sure I will do okay on the final. Not to sound overly confident. I also think I deserve an A because I participated. I read the stories, I came to class, I learned, I contributed, I had a good time. I don't particularly like fighting for a grade, so to speak. I guess I deserve whatever letter grade I earned in the class, and I really hope I earned an A. I know I tried my hardest!

I had no idea I would enjoy this book so much! And to answer the question of is it important to know what Tristero is...No, not at all. I mean it is intersting to try to put together the pieces, but it doesn't mean anything. I think maybe Tristero is a metaphor for something else in our culture, but I am not a hundred percent sure. I think for the rest of my blog I am just going to post the the lines I underlined and explained why I liked them!

First of all I love the scene where she is in the gay bar. I think it is so funny that she just goes up to that dude with the muted horn and is like, "What if I told you, that I was an agent of Thirn and Taxis?" That cracks me up! She is just such a little investigative weirdo. I feel like if she was my friend telling me this story I would super love it. And I also enjoy the part where after the conversation with the man and she is alone and Pynchon writes, "Despair came over her, as it will when nobody around has any sexual relevance to you." Oh Oedipa.

I also feel like the line, "With coincidences blossoming these days wherever she looked, she had nothing but a sound, a word, Trystero, to hold them together." This along with many other lines seem to making a statement about the analysis of literature. Like we look for things, sounds, words, to tie some big allusive idea together that we are not even sure exist.

I like how throughout the book it seems as though Pynchon is giving you little clues, or something as to not feel so overwhelmed. Like last week with the "All Oedipa remembered was his his strong nose..."In the reading this week I found it comforting when after her nighttime journey of seeing all the signs in the different places Pynchon writes, "The repetition of the symbols was to be enough, without trauma as well as perhaps to attenuate it or even jar it altogether from her memory. She was meant to remember." It was sort of like Pynchon telling me, "Don't worry, you get the general idea, I have mentioned this horn so many times, you know what you need to know." I also really enjoyed this line, "She also wanted to know why the chance of its being real should menace her so." I was wondering that too. Like why do we care so much about it. Does it even matter. No.

And that's the thing. I have tons of questions, like little questions, but do they matter? I enjoyed the book, I had a lot of fun reading it. What now? 

I feel like in these parts he almost downplays the story. I get the feeling that he might downplay not the story so much, but what people tend to want to do to stories, as in figure them out. Like Pynchon is just telling the reader to lay back and enjoy the story, and you will get what you get, because at the end of the day Oedipa is still waiting for someone to bid on the stamp collection.

Oh and this line reminded me of what we were talking about in class last week about original version of stories and do they die when the author dies, " Though she could never again call back any image of the dead man to dress up, pose, talk to and make answer, neither would she lose a new compassion for the cul-de-sac he'd tried to find a way out of, for the enigma his efforts had created."
I feel like that is hardcore talking about what it is like to read a book and trying to make sense of it.

I'm pretty excited for class discussion on Friday! I like what I think Pynchon is getting at.... And I really don't want Oedipa to be on LSD or crazy! I just really like her, and I don't want it to be in her head, even if she does. And what else is so weird is how she is so scared that Tristero exists. So what if it does?

Okay The Crying Lot of 49 (hey, what do I do here underline?) it is just you and me now.
Anyways, I like this book. Stoked we are reading it. Here are some thoughts.
So, the girl who lent me this book told me that it was basically all about analyzing literature and I can see it, I can see it. Oedipus is looking for clues and trying to put together the pieces to the puzzle, she fears though that all she will be left with is, "compiled memories of clues, announcements, intimations, but never the central truth itself, which must somehow each be too bright for her memory to hold; which must always blaze out, destroying its own message irreversible, leaving an overexposed blank when the ordinary world came back." I think there are several other times in this book so far were you get the feeling that no matter how hard you search and search and think and think you may never come to an exact answer. Once you think you have one thing figured out, another clue pops up and your whole perspective is changed, or seemingly heightened. Everything is open to interpretation and exploration. While reading it seems as though revelations tremble "just past the threshold of understanding." Her conversation with Driblette when he is in the shower seems like one giant metaphor for literary analysis. Take for example the names in the this story. No matter how many scholars have tried to figure out what exactly Pynchon meant by these names, no clear answers have been found. I heard about that last fact in this lecture from Yale University.

Another thing that I learned from this lecture, I started watching it before I read the book, is about why Oedipus is the perfect character for the job. The professor in this lecture mentions that although critics at the time thought of Oedipus as a lightweight, Oedipus is sort of a trickster, people may underestimate her as just a women, and she plays into this role to find specific clues. Take for example when she runs into Koteks and the conversation runs into trouble she bats her eyelashes, "figuring to coquette her way off this conversational hook." Later when she goes to Vesperhaven House she approaches Mr. Toth in a granddaughterly manor. She seems so innocent, perhaps people will give her details, thinking she is just a simple old housewife who won't be able to connect any dots, really. Also Oedipus takes on another role as motherly when she goes to see Cohen and finds him a mess. I'm also intrigued by the line "changeless salt hatchings of her identity."Also Oedipus is a smart lady. She is constantly looking for patterns from the battery on the radio to the houses of the Southern California landscape. She trusts her intuition in when clues may be important. Copying the bathroom message at The Scope and then at the play she senses something "peculiar, and a gentle chill, an ambiguity" beginning "to creep in among the words."

So, the clues we have so far: their is something going on with the postal service. We know that Thurn und Taxis is a underground mail carrying system who used the post horn as their "coat of arms." This single looped horn is found on stamps used by Thurn und Taxis. However, Oedipus has stumbled upon a double looped horn, the second loop suggesting the mute, trumpeters use to play quietly. This muted horn was on the ring that Mr. Toth had from his grandfather, who got it when he cut off someones finger, it was also the symbol Koteks was drawing and it was also in the ladies room at The Scope. We also know at this point in the story that we do not WASTE, we say W.A.S.T.E and bones are also a reoccurring thing. They were in the play, a cemetery has just been ripped up, also the false Indians, and bones is the whole reason that Di Presso is being followed. And we also know that perhaps the characters in the play know something about Trystero, because as Oedipus put it, "all those people, are so obviously onto something."

Things I would like to discuss, Trystero, I do not know what this means exactly? This also plays into the play which I would like to discuss more because it was hard for me to follow while reading? There has also been two references to kissing of feet. Does this mean anything.

Welp. Small group discussions are over. Thank goodness. One more grade in the old grade book. I was not very nervous about small group discussions until I sat down in class that day. I prepared more for small group discussion than I normally do for class. I went to the library, got some books, read 'um, marked 'um up, thought about each question, and then completely forgot everything intelligent I had wanted to say the moment we started talking. I always overestimate my memory.

I didn't particularly care for small group discussion. I really like discussing things in class and always walk away understanding what we read a lot better. I feel like with small group discussion we stayed pretty top-level. I think it is nice to have he instructor be part of the conversation because then he can kind of guide it. I feel like a lot of the questions got off topic and we kept going back to main ideas that had already been covered. It was kind of frustrating to have a time limit because when the discussion did get off base or someone was rambling I got really anxious feeling. Like I just wanted to move on to the next question. I feel like we didn't get to discuss some really interesting things. There was no time to compare and contrast Washington and Baldwin, which I think would have been a very interesting conversation. All in all I found the experience nerve racking. Maybe because I felt extra out of control. At least when the teacher is leading the class I can relax because we are in good hands, but left to our own student devices I don't think the experience was particularly rewarding. Okay, so here are my three things I learned from this discussion/experience:

1) My memory has and will probably fail me again. I need to take down more organized notes, for presenting my thoughts.
2) I learned that student lead discussion do need leaders, I feel like no one wants to take on this role because they are not sure if they will be stepping on anybody else's toes.
3) I leaned about the race riots and how perfectly they seemed to embody everything that was going on Baldwin's mind.

My Note on "Notes of a Native Son"

I am just going to use this blog post as an opportunity to get my answers to the question in class tomorrow sorted out. I read "Notes of a Native Son" last night and then read several different essays on it. I as hoping I would have crazy dreams that like connected dots and opened doors and I would be all like, oh, I get it. But my dreams weren't about "Notes of a Native Son"....

The thoughts below are just the beginning. I just want to make sure I have my basic footing under me for all the questions, so I can stop worrying about it...

1. Well the way the essay is structured in three parts also goes for the argument I plan to make for five as well. Baldwin structered this essay in three parts that could almost take on the title of the three parts from Wright's "Native Son," which are, "Fear," "Flight," and "Fate." Also Baldwin sets up this essay to mirror the story of the prodigal son. In the first section we read about the bitterness and fear that Baldwin's Father puts in him. His Father warns him of the dangers of white society, but Baldwin does not listen and moves to New Jersey where he experience extreme prejudice for the first time. In the second section Baldwin comes home, although he may be too stubborn to realize it at the time, he has realized the importance of what his Father has said. He realizes more and more about his father in the third section. Something interesting happens in the third section which, I plan to read more about later today, but he uses cinematic effects to draw the reader in.

I think the way it is written is to bring you on his journey. You learn the lesson as he learns the lesson. I also think the voice of wisdom that Baldwin brings to this piece, he was around thirty when he wrote this, gives it a nice feeling. Although the story is dealing with anger, it does not feel hostile to read. I think if he had structured the essay differently or maybe didn't tell it in first person it would have been more aggressive or had more tension. Even though bad things are happening, like the race riots, the extreme prejudice he faces in New Jersey, and his Fathers death you still feel safe because you are with Baldwin and its sort of like he is telling you it is going to be okay and were going to come out of this alive, and better people for it.

2. The biggest thing that the race riots and his Father's death that I see is that the race riots happened because of fear and bitterness and anger and Baldwin felt that his Father's own heart was filled with these things towards whites, and is actually the reason for his death. The riots are "Harlem's collective black rage monstrously personified" and in a way Baldwin's Father's death was his Father's own rage personified. Also the shambles that the riots leave Harlem in could also be signifying how Baldwin feels after his Father dies. Although one may argue that he is indeed free, just because you are free doesn't mean that there aren't shambles left behind that you have to pick up and make sense off. I think the race riots stand for his Father in a way, and the desperate things people can do when they are oppressed and how hateful the act of trying to free yourself can be. I wonder how the Father would have reacted to the riots. Like, I said before these are just baseline thoughts. I am excited to discuss these topics in class tomorrow.

3. Well right off the vat the three men have something in common because they are all men who project themselves onto their children. They are all men who seem to be driven from some kind of fear. They all come from underprivileged conditions. There was a passage in "Notes on a Native Son" that described the Father and sort of reminded me of the dad in "Barn Burning" it was, "He could be chilling in the pulpit and indescribably cruel in his personal life and he was certainly the most bitter man I have ever met; yet it must be said that there something else in him, buried in him, which lent him his tremendous power and, even, crushing charm." I just think that the Dad in "Barn Burning" would have been described by his son in the exact same way. I think that the Dad in "Barn Burning" is more similar. The Grandpa in " Invisible Man" didn't seem to have a sort of power that was asserted over many people, just his grandson and also the way the boys and sons reacted so differently. I feel like the kid in "Invisible Man" let his Grandpa words haunt him and they drove him in a more productive way, like he really wanted the acceptance of his Grandpa, where as the other boys, not that they didn't want the acceptance of their fathers but they had more anger towards them. I think all three men were driven by bitterness and anger and fear. I think all of these men left a sort of inheritance upon their children or grandchildren that can "cripple and destroy, particularly if that inheritance is defined by bitterness and rage." They left each one of these boys with a burden they are going to have to figure out on their own.

4. Yes. I think this is a modernist piece of literature. I wasn't sure if it was but then I looked up the definition of modernist literature and this just fit in so well. I really liked these words used to describe modernism on a blog,"Exile, loss of innocence, greed, violence, movement." The author of this blog then precedes to say something to the extent of these things are the ingredients in modernist writing. This essay has all of them, literally all of them.

5. Considering that "Notes of a Native Son" is pretty much a whole play on "Native Son" I am going to have to go with Richard Wright. There are a couple essays in this book I have to read that deal with this comparison, so I should know a lot more before the discussion tomorrow. Although earlier today I thought the comparison to Richard Wright was going to be an easy one to make because they write stories that are so seemingly similar. Just in the subject matter being about being black and oppression and the struggle and the rage. However, Baldwin was not that into Wright. I mean he was really into him, he sort of looked at Wright as a version of his father, Wright greatly influenced Baldwin, much as a dad would. Baldwin who was obviously really into his own father and being very open about all aspects of his being, was also very critical of Wright. Baldwin didn't want to be "just a black author" and he felt like Wright had put himself in that corner. I feel like much with his father Baldwin spent a lot of time trying not to be Wright, which is impossible because he loved Wright and admired him, so he would have some of his qualities.

6. I think this question goes hand in hand with question 9, considering what Baldwin writes after that sentence, "I imagine that one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once the hate is gone, that they will be forced to deal with the pain." With the hatred for his Father masking any sort of love or compassion or sadness he feel upon his death it is easier to shrug it off with a , "I hate that dude." I think everyone does this. All the time. Everything I hate is because I at some point loved it, and the loosing of it is something I would just rather not morn. I think hate is an easy emotion to have because it requires no accountability or understanding. Hate is black and dense. It is an empty void. Baldwin's views towards his father changed in the way that he almost felt sorry for the man for carrying around this hatred. He remembered a time when his Father wasn't cold or mean. He becomes much more empathetic towards his father. He understands how his Father must have felt so sad and frustrated because his own fear and hatred and bitterness got in the way of him loving his own children.

7. So, I read about this in one of the essays but I just didn't get what they were talking about. So what I can figure if that all the text and all the things his father taught him and left him, they were empty and completely up to Baldwin to do what he was going to do with him.

8. I think when he says no one is interested in the detail, he is almost talking about his own disinterest in realizing where his father is coming from. His father is mean, case and point. He does not care, I mean he does eventually care, to go back and explore, but at first he is hesitant. I think the narrative can leave things out when it chooses. It can also bring these things back into the light when the writer finds it appropriate. I think this essay almost beckons you to look deeper. The facts are not what they seem and facts are rarely so black and white. It is sort of like the hate thing though, if you dare challenge the facts what are you going to learn. Sticking to the facts of what you believed happened is very easy to do.

9.And I scratched all my notes for this on a piece of paper, and I'm kind of tired of typing. So I'm going to go ahead and end this long winded, poorly edited blog.

The villanelle.

And I've been working so hard on not having obsessive thoughts...
But right now, there is only one thing I care about and that is ending the semester and starting my summer! Writing a villanelle was pretty hard. All those rhyming words. Okay, so here's is my first attempt to write a villanelle knowingly.

Exciting things are close at hand
My very best friend lives overseas
Her skin glowingly tanned

I'm so ready to go to Thailand
Not one feeling of unease
Exciting things are close at hand

Horizons will surely expand
In thick sweet equator breeze
And my skin glowingly tanned

The language I won't understand
Air full of spicy food's potpourri
Exciting things are close at hand

We will go the beach, sit in the sand
Eat so many lemon icees
My skin all glowingly tanned

Negative thoughts surely banned
Spend lazy days as I please
Exciting things are close at hand
With my skin glowingly tanned

There. It's surely no "Mad Girl's Love Song" but it will do.

But it's not really a disaster...

So, I automatically liked Elizabeth Bishop's "One Art." For two reason, first it reminded me of my favorite Sleater-Kinney song "Good Things". Second I can relate to this poem. I feel like a lot of the poems and stories we have read this semester were important to read because they are historical or historically important. However, nothing beats reading poem and getting it, because it expresses feelings you have felt. And I'm really into feelings.

After reading Bishop's poem and deciding that I wanted to blog about it I logged onto Ebsco to see what other people were saying about "One Art." The first article I read titled, "Bishop's ONE ART" by Jonathan Sircy shed some light on how Bishop uses irony in this poem. So post-modernist, right?

In the fist stanza of the poem Bishop writes, "The art of loosing isn't hard to master; so many things seem filled with the intent to be lost that their loss is no disaster." This alone isn't ironic but when taken into account with the rest of the poem, this beginning thought that loosing things is easy, so many things just seem intent on being lost, it isn't earth shattering. Things leave, things go, and when they do you just pick yourself up by the boot straps and move on. After all it is no disaster.

The next two verses of the poem as Sircy suggest almost seem like a manual on how to loose things. Bishop writes, "Loose something everyday" (Step one), "Accept the fluster" (Step two), "Practice loosing farther, loosing faster" (Step three). See! It's easy to loose things, surely no disaster.

In these two verses as well, the tone of the poem shifted for me. The first two verses are almost cute. You just sort of read along thinking yeah loosing stuff isn't a disaster, especially when it is just some keys or an hour of your time. Those seem more like small inconveniences as opposed to disasters. Then in the third verse and with the introduction of "step three" the poem takes on a serious tone. That line, "Practice loosing farther, loosing faster" kind of breaks my heart in a good way. Especially when she adds, "places, and names and where it was you meant to travel." That's heavy. And sure loosing those things isn't a disaster like a tornado or an earthquake, but it still hurts. After listing off those things she once again states that "None of these will bring disaster."

At this point in the poem she switches over to first person. She begins to recount the things she has lost grouping her "mother's watch" and "three loved houses" as things that went. Of course the houses are not lost but like the "cities," "rivers," and "continent" of lines 13-15, she no longer owns claim over them. I have lived in a couple different cities, and I do feel like I have lost them. The street where you old work is, is no longer your street. Your old houses, are not your any more. New people have moved in, been hired, taken your spot and you lost it. You can go back and visit, you could even move to the same city again, but you can never have that time back. It is intact lost, and all that remains is memory.

Although she misses these places, loosing them was not a disaster.

In the last verse, Bishop is no longer addressing places and things, she talks about a person's memory. She seems to try to make light of the loss she feels towards this person by remembering a "joking voice" or beloved "gesture." In this verse she also admits that the "art of losing's not too hard to master thought it may look like (Write it!) like disaster." I think the use of the "(Write it!) makes this poem take on an even heavier feeling. People are the hardest thing to loose, and if she has been trying to associate small loss with big loss to downplay the importance of the big loss, perhaps realizing that a big loss is a disaster somehow makes all those smaller things disasters too.

I can't help but feel like the irony in this poem is sort of like forcing yourself to believe something as true. Like you so desperately don't want to care, don't want to hurt, don't want to miss and by just shrugging it off as something that happens, just like loosing your favorite t-shirt or hat, you can minimize just how disastrous it is. By lumping big loss with little loss it all becomes interchangeable.

Perhaps Bishop is being a little bit of a trickster as well. Trying to pretend like loss doesn't hurt, it is all small and easy to master. At the end of poem I think her true feelings are reveled, as it seems like it gets harder to write as she realizes intense feelings created by the collectiveness of everything every loss.

Disastrous is a big word, with lots of negative connotation, but it could just simply be when everything falls apart or ends. When you move, your previous life is gone. That is sort of scary. That could technically be disastrous, but I think the art of loosing is easy to master. The art of dealing with the loss is a whole nother story.

Really fast, is nother even a word? I say it all the time, but don't think I have ever typed it. Weird.

Now this poem kind of reminds me of this Vivian Girls song. I'm going to go head and make this comparison, because I feel like in this Vivian Girls song they are trying to convince themselves that they feel a certain way through loss. "I Believe in Nothing" and "One Art" both seem to take semi-casual approaches to the very heart breaking reality of loss.

And Then We Started Talking About Post Modernism.

After last weeks class I was very excited to tell my friend Tara that according to post modernism, when we visited a replica of Stonehenge in West Texas, it was just as real as seeing the real thing.

Whitney's blog this week was amazing as per usual. I loved how she seems to go into the reading so prepared. I feel like she embarks on this reading with a little guide, being like don't forget to look for the trickster, don't forget to look for irony.

I suppose there is a reason we learn about all these different themes in literature, because they are just that, themes!

I really appreciated her examination of the trickster in this story. I feel like the boy in this story and Grandison were almost the same. The grandfathers advice to yes them to death, sounds like the same strategy Grandison employed.

I guess there are several times in "Invisible Man" where the situation turns out different than one was expecting. First, he goes to the whole event just to give a speech, which he does not end up giving. Also, at the end you think he is just going to leave with some coins, but he ends up leaving with a scholarship.

Right? That's how it ends. Even though he dreams it is a sick joke, it isn't....

This little tasting of "Invisible Man" makes me want to read the whole novel.

Wasteland Reading Response.

What I really like about reading Whitney's and Dennis's blogs is how differently they perceive things from me. I really appreciate Whitney's eye for picking up on details. Sometimes when I read poems I just sort of read it at face value. I walk away with a pleasant sense of huh? and I never really questioned it before this class. I thought poetry was suppose to leave you feeling like you had just been hit over the head. Dissecting it is kind of fun, though. Fine literature, you won!

Back to Whitney's blog though, her observations about it having WW1 themes and the clashing of high and low culture. I feel like I missed both of these things! Sometimes I might get too caught on one thought when I am reading and do not explore any other ones. I get so fixed that a poem is about one idea, that I just miss the rest because I assume I already got it.

Wow, who would've thought that I would do so much self-reflection on my Week 10 blog 2? But I am starting to read things differently and in a way I hate it because it is a huge responsibility. It's easier when something seems big and scary to just tell yourself you never really wanted to understand it because it would probably be lame. Well, I kind of sort of care now and am starting to see how even literature that I wouldn't go out of my way to read, or read on vacation, can still be worth my time. And maybe I shouldn't corner myself by what I assume I like or don't like.

And this is what school is all about I suppose. Learning new ways to think and new things about yourself.........

Just Some Things I Thought About "The Invisible Man"

First of all, even since I watched, "They Shoot Horses Don't They?" last semester I have been obsessed with the idea of writing a paper about dance marathons. It is crazy to think about the things desperate people will do in desperate times for money. What is even crazier to think about is the people who will pay to see desperate people do desperate things. The boys in the Ellison's "The Invisible Man" were forced to put themselves in bodily harm when it comes to the Battle Royal. At what was all the battling for? The chance to grab money off of an electrified rug. It emends me of the scene in TSHDT when they have to run really fast around the dance floor after dancing for days on end and all the rich spectators will throw money or bet on who they think is going to win.

So, I am going to try to make this a point eventually in this blog, so bear with me. The men who have arranged for this evening of entertainment are powerful obviously. We are given little insight into the life of these men aside from their constant yelling and the fact that they are "the town's leading white citizens." So, who exactly are the town's leading white citizens? And what do they like to do? Eat cucumber sandwiches?

NO! They like to watch little boys fight and women dance. How powerful these men are, seeing as they are not women and they are not black.

It seems as though it is a common theme in life to define your power by amusing yourself with the less fortunate. Everything from the red light district in Bangkok to dog fights. Defining your power by capitalizing on the lack of power others posses is common not only in life but in literature as well. Remember "A Worn Path"? And how we talked about the white characters in the story were only defined when put up against a black character. A character who they considered at a disadvantage. The hunter in that story with the dog, totally got off on being all creepy and mean to that old lady. Without even knowing her, he tried to define himself by taking her power away.

A bigger question I have after reading this story is what kind of people do this and why is it socially acceptable?

I guess this is where my psychology class this semester is coming into play. First of all the powerful men in this story are indulging two of the four f's found in the hypothalamus, which is the pleasure center of the brain. No doubt, fighting and fornicating are very prevalent in this story and although the men are just watching from a distance, I'm sure they are pretty much turned on the whole time, which is super gross considering they are like all sweaty and packed really close to each other trying to feel like men. Ugh.

I also can't help but wonder how it came to be like a cool thing to do. Was it a collective consciousness one day between a bunch of humans when we figured out how much better we felt when we were taking advantage of the people were perceived as disadvantaged. I mean in a much more constructive sense, this is not really that much different from like missionary work. This may seem like a stretch but, it is just going around to people who we view as animalistic and help them so you can fee better about yourself.

So going back to why people oppress others...

I just watched a video on the Stanford Prison Experiment and I feel like maybe one of the "town leading white citizens" like thought it was a good idea to have that kind of fun and everyone else just sort of followed lead. Like Nazi Germany!

I guess the main question I still have is who are these sadistic creeps who throughout history and literature strive to define themselves through other people's disadvantages?

For the Love of Tarot.

I think I bit off more than I could chew here, but oh well, it was fun!

How excited I was to discover that "The Waste Land" included a tarot reading. The footnotes in the book go a little into what these cards could possibly mean, but I was still curious as to why T.S chose these cards and what they mean. Lucky for me I was not the first one to wonder why he included these cards and I was able to find a very helpful article on ebsco by Max Nanny called, "'Cards are Queer' A New Reading of the Tarot in The Waste Land." A couple of the cards had familiar names such as the wheel, man with three staves (three of wands) and the hanged man.

T.S Eliot must have had a pretty decent understanding of Tarot, for he invented two cards, the Phoenician Sailor and Belladonna, the lady of rocks. The things that the Phoenician Sailor and Belladonna represent fit perfectly with T.S's current position when drawn in the Celtic Mode. Celtic mode focuses not just on the card that is drawn but the sequence in which they were drawn. Celtic mode is the way I was taught to read and commonly do read cards. This would mean that the Phoenician Sailor represents Eliot as the questioner and Belladonna represent his ex-wife, Vivien. Although Eliot never comes straight out and says this is a tarot reading about my future, there is an argument that perhaps he is!

So first card one pulls in a reading usually represents the significant. This card is used to place the questioner in his present position. This card is the questioner. So Madam Sosostris pulls the drowned Phoenician Sailor. This is not a card in the deck although the use of it could not only be alluding to the death of the Phelbas the Phoneician in part IV, it may be representing something much bigger, surprise surprise. Death in the tarot is usually a good thing. It means rebirth, new beginnings. I like how Nanny brings up all the times Eliot writes about crying in this poem. At this time in Eliot life's he was having a mental breakdown. He has lost his marriage, his father, a close relationship with his family and was constantly burdened with finical stress. Phelbas when translated to Latin actually means, 'to weep." Perhaps Eliot was in fact Phelbas, drowning not in an ocean but his own tears. This idea fits in with the next line were he write, "Those are the pearls that were his eyes, look!" Perhaps after dosing himself in tears, Eliot is looking forward to a rebirth, where his teary eyes will have dried, not longer resembling pearls.

The second card drawn in the Celtic mode crosses the questioner. This card is laid directly on top of the questioner. This card is weighing on the questioner. This card is Belladonna, Lady of the Rocks. The contradictions several of these things represent, could be suggesting the love/hate relationship of Eliot and his wife. Belladonna means a lovely lady, but it is also the name of a poisonous plant. Rocks can cause shipwrecks but also can be a solid stable thing. Also if the following lines read with situations meaning being sickly, this could also help support the idea that Belladonna is Vivien, for Vivien had many health problems. Why though is she the Lady of Rocks? Perhaps Eliot is referring to the Vivien from Arthurian romances who was the Lady of the Lake. Eliot seems to want to write about himself a lot during this tarot reading, but chooses to hide it from the reader. The placement of Lady of Rocks on the Phoenician Sailor along with the card drawn next could suggest that Eliot's artistic spirit is being smothered by his wife.

Next she draws the man with three staves or the three of wands. Nanny places this card as another crossing card, where I usually would place the third card above the questioner, but I think our celtic crosses differ. For the purpose of this blog I will subscribed to Nanny's way of doing things. The three of wands drawn as a crossing card can suggest that Eliot wants to explore and have foresight, but he isn't able to achieve it, just yet. I like when Nanny talks about how perhaps the three of wands represents and artist who wishes to turn his dreams into reality. That's how I read it. Perhaps this card was picked by Eliot because he struggled so to get The Love Song of J Alfred Purdock published so. This card could represent his constant desire to break out of his shell and experience new things when it comes to his artistic talents.

The wheel is drawn next and placed above the questioner. This card represent the best that can be achieved with the present circumstances. This card is crowning the questioner. This card is nothing but good stuff! Fortune, luck, destiny. These things seem to come to Eliot in his life time, even is he is not aware of it. I mean he must have been destined to greatness considering I am spending the majority of my day analyzing like ten lines of one of his poems.

The "one eyed-merchant" can be interpreted as the six of pentacles. This card is positioned behind the questioner this is distant past, things the questioner has already made his own. In Eliot's case the six of pentacles could potentially represent Eliot's past with money. Perhaps it is not having money and relying on the kindness of others. Or perhaps Eliot is almost calling himself the Symran "one-eyed-merchant" of the "The Fire Sermon" it could be alluding to not making smart finical decisions and being too focused on material possessions. Money troubles had followed Eliot throughout his whole life. It is arguable that the six of pentacles represents the things in the past he has lacked.

The next card is "blank, is something he carries on his back, which I am forbidden to see." This card is the questioners recent past, like things that are just ending and coming into fruition. and in Eliot's case it is blank. Perhaps this represent Eliot's repression of the past. Choosing to forget at that moment, rather then remember.

The last card that she draws that would be put in front of the questioner is not named. However we do know that it is not the hanged man. This card seems to say that Eliot is going to get no rest from his struggles, despite how desperately his self conscious might want it, as suggested by the wheel. Nanny writes of how perhaps this is why Madame Sosostris chooses to end her reading there, instead of continuing with the nest three cards needed to complete the cross.

I am not a hudred percent sure if this tarot reading sort of predicts the rest of the poem. There are lots of references back to it such as, in line 125 when Eliot writes, "Those are pearls that were his eyes" around line 300 Eliot speaks of new starts, a common theme in his reading and there is also part IV Death By Water in which Eliot easily could be addressing the Phoenician Sailor. Eliot also references two other tarot cards in his poem, he talks about the falling towers in 373. The tower is part of the major arcana and is pictured in the card as falling. This card brings upon sudden change which again fits in well with rebirth.

All in all I've spent so much time looking into this reading that I am not even sure I know exactly what The Waste Land is about. But if it is anything like his tarot reading than I am guessing Eliot is trying to say that rebirth can be found anywhere. And even though a lot of cards have negative feelings right away it doesn't mean that they aren't all in all positive or part of a bigger struggle that is necessary. And perhaps big bad things need to happen, like a tower toppling, for lesson to be learned and growth to occur.

The End.

Dennis and Whitney. Faulkner and Hemingway.

I always enjoy reading Dennis's and Whitney's blog. I feel like both of them offer completely new fresh perspectives. I really liked Dennis's last point in his blog this week, "Another main point of irony in the story is that the only person who really shows any amount of being a good person throughout the story is left alone in the woods and feeling alone and sad at the end." This is a curious ending. I guess it goes to show something about bravery. Being brave and doing the right thing may not always make you the most friends. I think back to playground arguments and if you are the one to tattle, even if you have a really good reason for tattling, you will most likely be shunned. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Sarty's warning of the barn burning did not result in the death of Abner. I wonder what consequences Sarty would have faced had Abner lived.

My first time through reading "Big Two Hearted River" was quite different from Whitney's. I just thought, "Oh what a nice story about being at peace." I failed to look between the lines for what Hemingway was actually getting at. Of course after class discussion I realized that this is not just the tale of a solitary man living the dream, but that of a veteran confronting his inner struggle to make sense of what he has seen and lived. I really appreciate how Whitney picked up on this small detail, "Nick's heart tightened as the trout moved. He felt all the old feeling." That does present a very significant question, "What old feeling?" I definitely think this story is about more than going fishing, and as Whitney's blog post continues, she does too.

Not a boy, not yet a man.

Unprepared boys with weapons acting like men are a reoccurring theme in stories this semester. We most likely remember the small boy leading a platoon of brutally injured soldiers through the woods, disillusioned with the grandeur created by a wooden sword in Ambrose Bierce’s “Chickamauga.” Twain wrote of a Champaign of young men during the Civil War who were untrained to hold up their end in battle. They spent most of the story retreating and fleeing from any form of danger. These men adorned soldier suits to hide the fact that they were just sons, or brothers, fighting for what society thought they should do. This week reading of “Almos’ a Man” by Richard Wright and “Barn Burning” by William Faulkner feature lead characters who like the “soldiers” mentioned before hand are far to young to take on the burdens they cast upon them by others or themselves.

In “Almos’ a Man” it is easy to spot this connection right away. David buys a gun. His mother only gives him the money because she thinks David will purchase the gun and then give it to his father. David, however, is to in love with the idea of being able to “Kill anybody, black er white.” Instead of surrendering the gun to his father David sneaks off with it in the morning and goes to the Hawkin’s planation where he hitches a mule to a plow and rides to a far away field where he figures he can play with his gun and feel like a man all day long. David as never shot a gun before and apparently had no idea about kick back (despite the fact that I am certified to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Oregon, I know little to nothing about gun terms) and with the first shot found himself laying on the ground. David’s fall however, was the least of his worries, because he totally shot the mule! And it died! David is in a real pickle because now everybody will know he was playing with a gun in a field.

After returning home muleless his parents and the owner of the mule, Mr. Hawkins wish to know where Jenny, the mule is. In a round about way David finally admits to killing Jenny with this statement, “Ah swear to Gawd, Ah didn’t go t kill the mule, Mistah Hawkins!” He only says he never meant to do it. Not that he did it. Anyways the whole time Mister Hawkins is pressing David about the dead mule a crowd is gathered. The crowd, presumably all white, are laughing at David squirm and cry. This makes David mad.

I have to admit I feel sorry for David in this scene, he is after all a boy, albeit it almost a man, and he is probably really freaked out. I doubt that a boy in another other class or race would have acted differently under these circumstances.

So back to the people laughing, David’s blood is boiling. If there is one thing that doesn’t make a boy feel like a man it is getting mocked by a crowd of people for the misfortune you caused when you were trying to act like a man. Later that night David, enraged with visions of the spectators laughing faces and the debt he must pay to Mr. Hawkins, decided to play with his gun again but David as far more to loose this time. I am a little unclear on what exactly happens at the end of the story but I got the impression that David was going to go try and scare Mr. Hawkins in an attempt to win back some of his integrity and get out of paying the mule killing fine.

The gun gave David a false sense of manhood. He was completely unprepared for the reality of a gun. He probably had an idea of how glamorous it would be to have a gun, to be tough, to be powerful, to be everything a young black boy was considered not. However, at the end of the day David was still a child for not realizing that actions have consequence. Much like the young boy in Chickamauga, who finds his mother dead after gleefully playing war sergeant to a bunch of faceless men.

Sarty is armed with a different type of weapon highly burdensome for a boy of his age and that is the truth. Sarty knows the truth about his fire, that he is a bad man, that he is an arsonist. This is a complicated place to be for in telling the truth he risks hurting his Father and by not telling on his Father he risks other people getting hurt. Sarty behaves as his Father instructs him to behave, like a man, who is loyal to his family, with a head slap. Sarty has, “the terrible handicap of being young, the light weight of a few years, just heavy enough to prevent his soaring free of the world as it seemed to be ordered but not too heavy to keep him footed solid in it, to resist it and try to change the course of events.”

Much like the other boys discussed today, they lie in this weird in between stage where pressures may be getting put on them to act wiser than their years. This forcing boys into the role of manhood by means of power, usually created with a form of violence, never results in good things.

When I Thought About Poetry

The poem I ama choosing to ask myself ten deep question about today is "Black Woman" by Georgia Douglas Johnson. This was my favorite of all the poems because I seem to be really partial to rhyme schemes. I think I like to read rhymes because I imagine that I am a slam poet in my head when I am reading them and making a lot of low flat hand gestures. I'm pretty sure this poem is about not wanting to bring a baby into the world. Or like the anxiety you might have when you pregnant because you are going to like give something life. And being alive and living in the world is kind of scary.

Number One.

The title of this poem does throw me off a little. I don't know why it would have to be the feelings of a black women, but even as I started typing that line I totally realized that it probably was way worse to be alive and be black back then. So I'm guessing that this poem is no the writers personal experience with being pregnant and having fears for her child. This poem is written from the perspective of a pregnant black women. If it didn't have this title it might be harder to tell who or what she was writing about. If it was like "Talking to My Fetus" then umm, well you'd probably think it was Johnson writing to her own child.

Number Two.

I know all of these words. I had to re-read the "of turning deaf-ear to your call" line a couple time through at first. It's just a hard cluster of words to grasp. Especially when the rest of the poem has such a flow.

Number Three.

Yep. I think this is really rhythmic. It seems like each verse is almost broken down into four lines and each one these has a definite flow. She also seems to end each verse with a really strong sentence. She uses an exclamation mark, so it's important.

Number Four.

So in this poem I think a women in talking to her unborn child. She seems to be having anxiety about bringing it into a "world that is of cruelty and sin." And since we know from the title that this women is African American she is probably having heightened anxiety because there were many more obstacles in the way. And I just realized that Johnson was half African American and half Black. I was going to go back and change what I wrote earlier before I knew that, but I figured it helped show the journey. Anyways. So the main character in this story very well could have been Johnson writing about her own personal experience or the ones of close family members. She actually wrote this peace after being accused of not being race conscious enough in her first collection of poems. Johnson had two sons. Even though we don't know if this women is Johnson or a fictional character, we do know that the two main characters are the black women and her unborn baby. This poem also talks about monster men inhabiting the earth, who I'm assuming would be most of the white population. I imagine this is happening in private, most likely in her head. It seems almost like a prayer.

Question 6.

She is a women.

She is black.

She is either pregnant or thinking about having a baby.

She doesn't have a very positive outlook on the state of the world.

She is fearing her child's future.

She is conflicted.

She is of child bearing age.

She is probably not wealthy.

She's had a hard knock life.

She is poetic and I know that probably seems like a no duh, but I mean if she is at a disadvantage she at least seems to have a way with words.

Question 7.

I think that her town is really full of love. At the same time there is this like desperate pleading and extreme sorrow. It seems to a little dark as well. She is not super excited about having a baby. This poem has a really simple element to it. It sounds like it could almost be a prayer or a lullaby. The words are easy to say and remember. At the same time I could also imagine this coming from a woman who is not pregnant and that takes on a whole different tone. Like it could almost be more powerful. If she was like, "I know this world is not a place to be having a baby. So i am just not going too." If I take it from that approach it does seem to be more like sassy. I imagine even then she would have some inner conflict about wanting to have a baby maybe and some anger towards the fact that society can't get its act together so she can do it.

Question 8.

Yes, I think it has a pretty formal structure. A couple times while writing about the poem I have written song. I don't know if that is because I usually talk about songs not poems or if it just really does remind me of a folk song. It rhymes but not in a "Cat in the Hat" book sort of way. It seems more complicated and I wonder if it has something to do with the syllables in each line. Hmm. Well I'm not a syllable counting expert, but I seem to be getting like a 8,6,8 pattern but sometime it will be 7 or 5. I think this structure helps carry it, if you will. It sort of makes it easy to read.

Question 9.

I think there is tension in this poem. There's definitely a conflict in the women's mind. There's sort of a panic in the tone that makes tension. She seems really confused about what to do. She doesn't want to bring a baby into a cruel world and she is obviously upset about it when she says, "Don't knock at my heart, little one, I cannot beat the pain of turning deaf-ear to your call, time and time again". But she is probably a kind women who would make a good caring mother. Or maybe not. Maybe she would make a terrible mother, maybe she's addicted to drugs. Regardless the tension lies in that baby (is most likely) coming and the mom wishes it would just stay in the womb forever. Right away this poem seems full of tension just the first line, "Don't knock at my door, little child, I cannot let you in." Just the words "don't" "cannot" are tension words. She is telling someone no, which is sort of like denying them something they asked (wow, that is a lot of words for one little idea). I feel like because this poem feels like a prayer to me it sort of has that natural tension of pleading. "You do not know the monster men inhabiting the earth. Be still, be still my precious child. I cannot give you birth!" This sounds like she is trying to will her energy and thoughts into her babies mind or something.

Question 10.

I picked to analyze this song because out of all the ones I read this one was the most moving in my opinion. Some of my favorite lines are, "Wait in the still eternity" I think that is a really neat way to express being unborn. I also really like the line, "Don't knock at my heart little one" I like the mental image of her little fetus knocking on her heart. I know that's not what she means, but its what I imagined. I also enjoyed the mental image that came with the line, "You do not know the monster men inhabiting the earth." I imagined a tiny globe with cave men dragging their fist all over it. Once again, not what she meant, but where my brain went.

The first time I read it "Black Woman" was just so like quick and mysterious. Now I feel like I could have a discussion about it. I still feel like it is about the same thing as the first time I read it. I think the most helpful thing was reading about Johnson's personal life. That really put the poem into context. This poem deals with several rather big deal issues. Such as race and motherhood. These were things that Johnson was very passionate about. I think that fact that she was mother of teenagers probably is where she drew the inspiration for this poem. I'm sure she worried about what her boys. It seems like her childhood might not have been so great. Her parents got divorced and little is known. Perhaps she faced a lot of obstacles in her lifetime and that's what has lead her to her glass half empty take on things. For having such a light easy flow to it, it sure has some real dark aspects.

Okay. So I think I got something figured out...

For my mid term paper I would like to discuss prompt seven which asks to examine the role of identity in multiple texts and then answer question such as "Is identity stagnate?" or "Is it something you can change?" I hope in my essay to show that throughout the semester we have dealt with several characters whose identity has adapted for certain situations. The wording of my thesis is a work in project but I have a pretty clear idea of what I hope to prove.

The first paragraph will be the introduction, but of course then I would like to discuss the following characters as page space permits:
1) Grandison- he played a part of a loyal slave, which ended up not being true
2)Dick- how his identity becomes a question at the end of the story for perhaps he was not as block headed as he seemed
3)Calixta - one paragraph focusing on her role as a wife and another focusing on her role as a women
4) Little boy in "Chickamauga"- he was a so timid at beginning of soldier but became a fearless leader
5) The soldiers in a "Private History"- They too had a similar experience with having to become the identity of soldiers even though they were just young men with no real clue.

I hope this works! This is my first time writing a literary comparison paper so I wanted to do something straight forward. It seems like this type of essay will use a whole different set of skills then your basic research paper. But I am excited to learn 'um!

Washington and DuBois

I think that Washington is far more conservative and DuBois is a militant. Washington's proposal that African-Americans should just work the fields because, "No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tiling a field as in writing a poem." He believed that the key to becoming a first class citizen was not too just demand the vote but educate themselves first and be nice to the white man and once the two sides developed a healthy relationship involving a lot of "bucket casting," the blacks would just get the vote. He urged his followers to simply " deport himself modestly in regard to political claims depending upon the slow but sure influences that proceed from the possession of property, intelligence and high character for full recognition of his political right."

DuBois on the other hand, well, he just straight up does not agree with Mr. Washington on anything. He is defiantly more militant. Militant means "vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause" and the cause DuBois so surely supported was that of civic equality. The main focus of which is the right to vote and proper education for the youth. At the end of "The Souls of Black Folks" DuBois speaks this impassioned statement, "By every civilized and peaceful method we must strive for the rights which the world accords to men, clinging unwaveringly to those great words which the sons of the Fathers would fain forget,'We hold these truths......'" We all it know it from there. DuBois believed that getting the vote should be the first and foremost concern. He seems way more progressive in a stereotypical manor.

To me it seems like DuBois doesn't have as much of a plan as Washington. The two different takes on the situation remind me of my friend Heidi and I when we talk about political government things. I am Washington and she is DuBois. I'm always like, "Just work and be good and obey the law and pay your taxes and thats how things will change eventually." and Heidi is like, "FIGHT THE POWER!" and, "What, Kailie, you think one day 'they' (I have to admit sometimes I don't know who they is) will just hand you big old award for working hard your whole life." She's way more aggressive than I am, I feel like she thinks the government changing is its own reward, while I think working hard is its own reward. Heidi would defiantly call me conservative and herself proudly a militant.

If that last paragraph didn't give away the answer to whose plan I would get behind I'll go ahead and say it here, Booker T. all the way. Well, maybe not all the way, but I understand what he is saying about just getting the natural rhythm of life down and then start making demands. I agree with Washington when he writes, "It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities."

I do think that the upbringing of these two men contributed to their beliefs on how one should rise to power. I think Washington's upbringing as a slave may have made him a little more practical. Also having first hand experience in the South he maybe knew what was the most important issues pressing the former slaves. And in his defense there may have been bigger fish to fry than the vote. He was in no means against empowering his people as we can see in this excerpt, "There is no defense or security for any of us except in the highest intelligence and development of all, If anywhere there are efforts tending to curtail the fullest growth of the Negro, let these efforts be turned into stimulating, encouraging, and making him the most useful and intelligent citizen." To me Washington's first hand experience on the subject probably lead him to have a better idea of what should be done in the little picture, if you will. He knew what should be performed daily to get them on track. I tend to think conservative approaches are usually taken better by those in power as opposed to militant.

DuBois was raised in the North and from a young age was praised academically. To DuBois demanding something high and lofty (such as the voting right?) probably seemed like the only thing to do. He figured once that was taken care of everyday life would fall into place. Perhaps he had a sense of entitlement, which Washington lacked. It seems as though DuBois take on thing was almost opposite of Washington's work from the ground up plan. I think being raised in the North taught him what could be achieved in ones lifetime and then when he moved to the South and suffered injustices he decided to fight.

I agree with DuBois when he writes about how the white population responded to Washington's ideas. DuBois writes, "It startled the nation to hear a Negro advocating such a program me after many decades of bitter complaint;" and then when he continues not the next page with, "the radicals received it as a complete surrender of the demand for civil and political equality; the conservatives, as a generously conceived working basis for mutual understanding." I think that's part of why maybe Washington's plan appealed to me more. It seems like people wouldn't be so quick to write it off.

For example, you know that "Slut Walk" that happens in cities every so often to speak out against how that one dude got off on rape chargers for saying that the girl he rapped was asking for it based on how she was dressed. It also takes on a lot more issues about stuff. Awesome cause in my opinion. Light should be brought to this issue, but I can't help but feel like by calling it "Slut Walk" people will automatically dismiss it because the title has the word slut in it. Sometimes militance seems almost like too shocking or radical and the point (albeit a shocking or radical one) ends up getting lost.