A Poison Tree

I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I watered it in fears
Night and morning with my tears,
And I sunned it with smiles
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright,
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine -

And into my garden stole
When the night had veiled the pole;
In the morning, glad, I see
My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

“A Poison Tree,” by William Blake, is an extended metaphor commenting on how people can react to anger and the consequences it creates.  It discusses the idea that if emotions, specifically anger, are kept to one’s self, they will only grow inside to cause a destructive force.  Another way of interpreting the poem is saying that it is simply about the idea of passive aggression.  The poem is pretty simple, consisting of four stanzas, each with two couplets and lines 1 and 3 having trochaic trimeter with a spondee at the end and lines 2 and 4 having iambic tetrameter.

In the first stanza Blake talks of how he removed his anger with his “friend” by talking of it, and how he let his anger sit and grow with his “foe.”  This stanza sets up the rest of the poem by identifying the lingering emotion that builds and builds with every coming line.  In the second stanza, Blake begins to develop the metaphor more.  He describes how he “watered [the tree] in fears” and “sunned it with smiles,” making a direct reference to the similarities between his growing anger and the things necessary to grow a tree.  But, although he says he “sunned it with smiles,” it is obvious that the smiles are only insincere and a cover of his true feeling.  He also discusses the time period as being “day and night” in the second stanza which implies that his emotions had dwelled for some time now, and it is clear that his anger is erupting by this point.  It grows to a point in which it creates a product of hatred—the apple.

Blake is trying to prove a point in the third stanza when he says “and my foe beheld it shine” that his building of emotion had finally produced something tangible in which the foe could clearly see.  He is trying to show that eventually dwelling emotions will come forth.  In the last stanza, when Blake discusses the “garden” and the “apple” together, he is making a strict allusion to the Bible.  He is referencing the Garden of Eden, and the sin that Adam and Eve committed can be related to not only the foe’s eating of the apple, but also the speaker’s creation of the apple.  Is Blake trying to show that by passively expressing emotions, one is committing a sin and relating to the snake in the Garden of Eden?  Is he making some distinction between the acts of God and the acts of the devil in terms of emotion?  By killing the foe and finding him outstretched beneath the tree, Blake is proving the severity and problems caused by not expressing emotions.  His use of figurative language and extended metaphor creates vivid imagery and does not prove the importance of passive aggression, but rather condemns it.

A Hard Learned Lesson

An important lesson learned from the Magistrate's experiences is the idea that when the structured government that is retaining and suppressing the "evil" force is, in itself, corrupt and no-good, then the line between what is good and what is bad is very thin. He realizes that the Empire is doing what they think is best, which, in fact, is only best for them, and is harming the other people. When morals come into play, it is obvious which force is doing the right thing. Although the Colonel and the rest of the Army may think that beating and torturing these people is simply right and what they deserve, they are driven by twisted motives and their sense of right is actually a sense of empowerment.

Another important lesson that the Magistrate learned is the idea that no matter how hard he tries to associate himself the barbarians and disassociate himself with the ways of the Empire, he cannot escape. Although at times the barbarians may sympathize with the Magistrate, they overall see him as a commanding part of the Empire, and for the most part treat him coldly. The torture and abuse that his own people inflicted upon him proves the idea that trying to escape his Empire's principles will provide no gain and only harm him. It is morally right and selfless what he is trying to do, but if he were to look from a purely selfish point of view, the betterment of himself would only come from the ways of the Empire. His history and looks cannot be changed and the barbarians may never accept him for who he wants to be and will rather only label him with the same bullseye that they put on the other members of the Empire.

Emergency in Turkey

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2529853.stm

For fifteen years, and ending in 2002, the provinces Diyarbakir and Sirnak in Turkey had been under a state of emergency do to a Kurdish separatist uprising. Over 30,000 people were left dead after a decade and a half of riots and protests against the Turkish government. Finally, in 2002, military rule proved the Turkish Democratic Republican Government to be effective in suppressing the opposing forces and stopping Kurdish uprisings.

Tave's New Look

- Tave's thesis is that although Austen's work might be characterized as being confined to a small space and time period, it allows for immense life-changing and meaningful situations/actions.
-He says that the book is confined to where Elizabeth can walk and the time period of a year.
-He proves the point that these small dimensions actually derive important decision making that may alter people's lives and the entire course of the book.
-He proves his thesis by saying it would be worse for the characters to actually "dwell" or not act within the dimensions of the book because then they would not experience or learn anything that may change their life for the good or bad. It is just good to move forward.
-He also proves his thesis by saying that these confines allow the reader to look at the important and small details/qualities of life that decide the actions, decisions, and paths of the characters in the Austen's work.
-This gave me a new understanding of Pride and Prejudice because I now understand why Austen created such a small setting with such ordinary lives. Without the small dimensions, she would not have been able to fully develop any situations or personalities, thus sacrificing the overall meaning and resolution of the story.

Shakespearish Love

Everyone can relate to Shakespeare. He has a way of doing that; creating stories of which people can love because of comparisons and similarities. When discussing Twelfth Night, the ultimate love story, I, personally, can very much identify with. I believe that Shakespeare's message of love in this play is that nothing will stop true love.

Some people gawk at the idea of "true love" and think that love of that likeness is not attainable. I for one, do not identify with these people, and rather, I agree with Shakespeare in the idea that true love is very present and soul mates do exist. In Twelfth Night, the perfect examples of true love are Olivia and Sebastian and Viola and Orsino. Although Orsino had been enamored by Olivia for most of the play, Shakespeare shows that in the end, Viola and Orsino prove true love and, therefore, should be together. Even when Viola was thought of as "Cesario," a man, for the majority of the play, Orsino still is attracted to him/her. This shows that true love can prevail even with the obstacles of same sex. Orsino was attracted and in love with Viola, no matter her appearance or nature.

Olivia, on the other hand, demonstrates true love, but in a different nature. She possesses the idea that the idea of a person can be loved truly. She is obsessed with the icon of Cesario and vows to stay with him forever. But when she realizes Cesario is actually a woman, she is relieved to find Sebastian to fill the place. During the entire play, Olivia is in love with the idea of Sebastian, but only finds him at the end. For Olivia, this is a real sign of pure, true love.

Shakespeare plays with the idea that true love with always prevail. Whether it is the idea or person we are discussing, love will always bring soul mates together. This is why most his plays end with resolutions of all sorts. I can greatly relate to Shakespeare's idea of love because I believe that true love will always be attained. I believe that no matter the track of one's life, he/she will always end up in their true lover's hands. If they get married to another, divorce is imminent, because that person will search for their real significant other until the end of time. A sign that one has found his/her true love is happiness. Viola, Orsino, Olivia, Sebastion, Sir Toby, and Maria are all left happy in the end of Twelfth Night, all having found their soul mates. I think Shakespeare's message is that he is trying to prove that the happiness of these characters is achieved because they have settled, finally, with their true love; and he is attempting to convince people to search for their heart's desire, if it kills them. In this aspect, love is concurrent with happiness, and while I am entirely happy, I am convinced I have found my soul mate. (498)

The Darkness Envelops

Darkness, to me, is the essence of twisted people, scary stories, and terrifying remarks. It not only literally can mean the absence of light, but also, at the same time, take on a metaphorical and abstract form. Whenever I think of darkness, I think of secretive, wretched, or simply scary things. Many poems and stories can be classified as "dark". For instance, I would consider all of Edgar Allen Poe's work dark.

The word "darkness" always brings me back to my favorite episode of the show "Dexter". In describing his killing habits and urge, Dexter refers to his violent pressure within as his "dark passenger". To me, this was extremely significant and embodied every sense of the word "dark". The drive that brings the most innocent to commit crimes as terrible as murder can only be described as one thing: darkness.

I already know that "darkness" takes on two different meanings, but they can be also considered the same. Although its abstract meaning (gloomy, pessimistic, tragedy) is entirely different from its literal meaning (no light), both can describe each other. "Gloomy" things generally are seen as having no light, while things containing no light are usually classified as scary or pessimistic.

The idea of darkness interests me. Although the word does not define me, I find myself relating to aspects of it. I can be a cheerful person, but at the same time, I consider myself "out-of-the-ordinary". Dark things seem to break the norms of society, and through my research so far, I have found that, generally, darkness is associated with outcasts. For instance, in Shakespeare's "All's Well that End's Well", he refers to the black prince, that no one likes, and being enveloped by darkness. And although Shakespeare associates evil with darkness, he also identifies it with unfamiliarity.

Also through my research so far, I have learned that the meaning of "darkness" has drastically evolved over time. For hundreds of years, darkness was only seen in the literal "absence of light" sense of the word, but after a while, it slowly became more and more abstract. The most recent definition merely is "obscure". Does this mean that the word "darkness" has entirely transformed to mean "different"?

A Questionable Pardoner

Now, goode men, God forgeve yow your trespas,
And ware yow fro the sinne of avaryce.
Myn holy pardoun may yow alle waryce,
So that ye offre nobles or sterlinges,
Or elles silver broches, spones, ringes.

These lines from the Pardoner's Tale really interest me because they demonstrate the Pardoner's hypocrisy and ability to easily not practice what he preaches. He just finished telling a story of how terrible it is to lie, swear, drink, kill, and gamble following a sermon on how these things can only get you in trouble. And now, he is telling the pilgrims to donate to his greedy self in order to receive a good trip to heaven. So my question is:

How can someone so easily deceive and teach people lessons that he, himself, does not follow?

It is remarkable how he does it and the only person who catches him and objects is the Host. Afterwards, the Pardoner feels very embarrassed. I think the answer to this question is that after have living a life fueled by greed and lies, the ability to deceive his disciples is second nature to him. Without thinking, the Pardoner is able to teach people about the consequences of misbehavior, and immediately misbehaving afterward. He said in his Prologue that his entire life was filled with greed, which is an honest thing to admit and therefore he can be somewhat respected for it. But, at the same time, it is hard for me to understand how people can hear of how I man is fueled by greed and then almost simultaneously give him money. If the Pardoner needs the money, it might be smarter for him to not admit his faults. He also should be reluctant to tie this misdemeanors of his stories to his own life. The Pardoner's deceptive nature makes him a good, interesting member of the Canterbury pilgrims.

I think that this can relate to everyone as well though. Not anyone always practices what they preach. Although everyone knows what is right and what is moral, almost nobody always does the right thing. Because the thing is, everyone is always driven by a motive; and whether good or bad, big or small, these motives guide people's lives. Incentives have almost driven people to do good and bad things. The Pardoner tells a story about what happens when three people's greedy incentives lead to their doom: an almost premonition of something that might happen to him. That is why it is hard to blame the Pardoner. Yes, he is greedy and could seem evil, but he is just fueled by incentive like everyone else.

I am not saying at all that one should follow the ways of the Pardoner. I'm just saying that hatred of deceit towards him should possibly not be the first reaction when reading about him. Sympathy might be a better approach. Because in the end, the corruption of all these pilgrims can be translated into our lives, and I think Chaucer is trying to prove a point that they represent all the aspects of us, whether good or bad. (517)