Part Two: Love is Like a Box of Chocolates; You Never Know What You’re Gonna Get…

Love is many a splendid thing… for some. Really it is only splendid through some eyes, while others see it as just the opposite. Perhaps one can never really know until they have truly loved? While it seems there is no clear answer, poets Minty and Donne have two very contradicting views on this crazy little thing called love. Both use diction, imagery, and figurative language to describe their own encounters and feelings towards love.

In John Donne’s “Valediction: Forbidding Mourning”, the reader can expect to find the classic stance on romance; a Romeo and Juliet-esque type of reaction. A deep connection between the two lovers is obvious, “our two souls therefore, which are one, though I must go, endure not yet a breach, but an expansion…”. Donne explains that their two souls are really one soul; that they are so connected that they make one person. However, even though they are one person, it does not kill them to be apart because they are so strongly one person. When there is distance between them, it does not rip them apart, the distance is only “an expansion” of their singular being. Minty writes about similar circumstances, but with an entirely different outlook on being apart, “do you feel the skin that binds us together as we move, heavy in the house? To sever the muscle could free one, but might kill the other”. Minty similarly describes her love as something shared between two people that are connected. However, this connection is different than that of Donne’s. If Minty were to separate the two lovers, the skin and muscle would have to be ripped apart. This imagery is painful and would be hard to watch. The break-up, if you will, would also be hard to watch. One cannot live without the other, but the other can live without the one. Very contradictory in comparison to Donne’s expansion of a single being; instead Minty describes a situation where being apart could possibly end one of the two lovers. A physical separation, in reality, could lead to injury, the same is true for the two lovers in “Conjoined”.

This notion of physical-ness, if you will, is a trend that is mentioned quite a bit in both poems. In “Valediction” the love described goes beyond that of a physical love, “dull sublunary lovers’ love (whose soul is sense) cannot admit absence, because doth remove those things which elemented it”. Donne is stating that this love is far beyond the love that is found between others, the “dull sublunary lovers”. Sublunary referring to earth, so in comparison, the love mentioned is one of celestial status. It is not like anything physical on earth; it is not tangible or able to be touched. Instead, they are two souls creating one soul that reaches above the expansion of this earth. So in a sense, it will live on after death, and it will live on even if they are apart. It is more of a spiritual love rather than a physical one and so logically nothing can physically interfere with it. In “Conjoined” however, the relationship remains much more sub-lunar to say the least, “like the freaks, Chang and Eng, twins joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed to live, even make love, together for sixty years”. This tiny portion of the poem is loaded with physical references, very much the opposite in tone and imagery than Donne’s everlasting love. Once again, the mention of skin and muscle comes up in this poem. It is clearly physical and the repetition of it gives the feeling that this relationship does not reach beyond the physical realm. The words “doomed” and “freaks” are more foreboding and helpless terms to describe what is suppose to be a loving relationship. It is almost ironic that Donne’s indestructible and celestial poem describes how his love contrasts the kind of relationship revealed in Minty’s poem. It seems obvious that the two kinds of love are very similar, yet at the same time do not even compare.

Love can be found everywhere, and with all the hype about it, one would think that they would know what it is all about. In reality though, it seems that love can be different for every person. This is clearly revealed when comparing the tones, images, and diction used to describe two settings of love in Donne’s splendid “Valediction” and Minty’s not so splendid “Conjoined”.

Reality.... an objective subjectiveness

Hmmmm..... very much agree with that one guy (the article writer, forgot his name already lol) that O'Brien writes only in the realm of his reality. But I do not criticize him for it. Okay, so he focuses on his experiences, or at least how he percieved the war to be. This narrow focus is needed though, i think, to get O'Brien's feelings across. Because that's what he wanted to do right? Get his feelings across?? I talked about all of this already in my last blog, feel free to retrospect (totally not the right verb, but you get what I mean) if needed. Anyway, I just commented on how he is an unreliable narrator because he twists the truth. But actually it is revealed that he does not really twist thge truth, he just explains what he thinks is the truth; what his reality is. So can you really condemn him for that? How can he describe how everyone feels about the war when he doesn['t know how everyone is feeling. Of course he could generalize and stereotype everyone he comes in contact with, but he does not actually know how everyone is affected by the war. It cuold be different for everyone. Not to mention that the nation ws completely not in agreeance as to what the war is even being fought for! SO really, how can one guy recap everyone's mumbled and jumbled, not agreed upon view on the war?? Impossible! Clearly, he was writing to get the feelings he felt about the war across to the reader. Not neccessarily the feelings as a whole. Bravo O'Brien, i say...

The Things They Carried, Depressing Much?

Super depressing and contradictory. Basically that's how I sum up this book.
It's really hard to trust this narrator. But I always catch myself enveloped in the novel, believing everything he says. Perhaps I'm just a careless reader. Oh well, i'm getting off topic...
So I find trends of major contradictions. "A true war story cannot be believed". WHAT?!?! If it's true, why can't I believe it?? Okay, I'll be honest, I do sorta get it, but it's frustrating as a reader. Because now I have to constantly search for the truth. But actually, I think he means that the truth is what we make of it. It's actually our interpretation. Well that's how I interpret it anyway. Also, I think that he has to add in the depressing, brutal, almost animalistic happenings into his stories, whether they are true or not, to get his point across. Not neccessarily for their truths, but to get to the truth. The excess details, or lies, are there to capture your attention. If you stay interested and really get involved in the story, then you can feel the story. He talks about how war can't be experienced unless you are there, so he tries to get the feeling of war across to people. Also, i'm sure he wants someone to relate to so he tries to get people on the same page. Overall, it's depressing and unbelievable. But i think it has to be for someone to be able to believe it.
Sorry this sucks and I;m talking in circles :( lol

Postmodernism In A Nutshell, I Think...

So the whole mumbo jumbo about the centers and stuff actually makes perfect sense. Well, I mean its easy to understand how it works. Its really not so easy to understand why it is like that though... So centers: One person or group of people believe that one ideal or opinion is the right one, and so that is now their center. But a group of different people don't, so they have different opinions with a different center. Get it? A lot of times, one person's center is an actual whole other group that has another center. Okay, I'll give an example. A large group of people use to think that Jewish people were not the ideal kind of person on this earth. However, obviously the Jews thought differently, so they had a different notion of what this ideal type of person should be. The Jews being the center of a group, are actually also the group supporting another center. Now, all of these centers collide and intermix to make crazy new centers and new groups. It's never ending. Going back to how I think itsw not so easy to understand... Take the Nazis for example. How can so many people believe that the white supremisist "center" is the right one to believe in? But at the same time, I'm sure they thought the same about others' opinions and so-called centers. Its weird when you finally sit down and think about it. Because if there are so many centers, but no one can decide on what one is the right one, how does anybody know what is the truth? How do we know when one notion is right and one notion is wrong? This type of thinking is mind boggling and it's pretty much what postmodernism is in a nutshell; looking outside of the box that makes up one person or group's mind; looking beyond what we know, or what we think we know. I would sum up the ideals of postmodernism as not being afraid to think for yourself.