“I seize a corpse by the hand; the fingers close tightly around mine. I pull back with a shriek and stagger away. My heart pounds, jumps up to my throat. I can no longer control the nausea. Hunched under the train I began to vomit” (706-707).

In this example, an S.S. officer commands the narrator and fellow captives to unload the train. The officer whips the narrator and he most likely stumbles and catches the hand of a corpse. He is then struck by terror and vomits over the rails. This incident has a strong impression because the speaker has handled so many corpses of men, women and infants that he is tragically accustomed to it. However, he has not been so appalled by dead bodies that he has the urge to vomit. This example shows how truly horrific the experience has been for him. Additionally, I believe there is some sort of significance in the corpse’s hand tightly grasping the speaker. The notion of grasping a person’s hand is usually an inviting or a confining gesture. I interpreted this as a possible revelation that the speaker feels close to death and has no hope. The narrator states that he could “no longer control the nausea” (707). This quote leads me to question: has the speaker kept all this horror and disgust to himself in order to maintain his sanity? It seems that he did not adamantly oppose the Nazi officers, or did he encourage his fellow captives to do so. In fact, he is disinterested in talking to Henri about wine and even says that there will be no way they can smuggle anything through.

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is solemn in its use of diction. Prufrock talks about the night sky, deserted streets, fog and smoke, which highlight the negative connotation of the poem. With this analysis, Prufrock as a character is overwhelmed by the environment around him. The poem is a monologue, potentially inside Prufrock’s mind as he voices out inner conflicts and leads the readers along with him. At the beginning, he compares the evening sky to a “patient etherized upon a table”. My understanding of Prufrock is that he is entirely listless and unable to advance, thus requiring something to numb his mind and carry on his mundane lifestyle. He frequents the red-light district, goes to cheap hotels, goes through ominous half-deserted streets, drinks liquor, and eats oyster shells, which are actually aphrodisiacs. The women that Prufrock sees talks of Michelangelo – my understanding is that the women are ostentatious, which is a characteristic that drives Prufrock to behave in order to fit in. No matter how much he tries to impress by putting on expensive clothing, he is criticized by others’ opinion (or so he believes). In a sense, Prufrock is also superficial and materialistic (he cares a lot for his clothing and how others view him). His imperfections make him lonely, discontented, and vulnerable, and his high expectations stray him away from being satisfied in physical relationships. Prufrock serves as the epitome of frustration pent up inside the human mind, even inside a modern, complex environment with endless entertainment. Prufrock is a relatable, yet very unlikeable character because he does not opt for change, even though he dreads his current self.

“There will be time, there will be time

To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;

There will be time to murder and create,

And time for all the works and days of hands

That lift and drop a question on your plate;

Time for you and time for me,

And time yet for a hundred indecisions,

And for a hundred visions and revisions,

Before the taking of a toast and tea.” (lines 26-34)

My interpretation of this section is that Prufrock is concealing his true personality and faking his disposition for social gatherings. He repeats “there will be time” to distract himself from doing the things that he desires. He insists that he can revise what he hasn’t done, because there is plenty of time to do it in the future. Because of this, his existence is meaningless. This pointlessness is reinforced by the footnote which alludes to the work of the Greek poet Hesiod – it states that it is a contrast to the productive labor emphasized in Works and Days. Prufrock, on the other hand, is entirely stagnant. I believe Prufrock wants some sort of change, but is unwilling to take the risks.

Questions:

The phrases ‘you and I’ and ‘you and me’ are often repeated in the poem. To whom is Prufrock addressing to by ‘you’?

Towards the end of the poem, Prufrock talks of mermaids singing to each other. He includes “I do not think that they will sing to me” (line 125). Why? What does this mean?

Why is this titled a ‘Love Song’ when Prufrock clearly does not have a proper grasp on love?

Lu Xun’s “In The Wine Shop” and Tolstoy’s “Death of Ivan Ilyich” both share a connection of realism. The works focus on the unembellished lives of individuals who have dealt with difficulty. The two individuals that bear a resemblance are Ivan Ilyich and Lu Wei-fu. Although the circumstances of Ivan and Wei-fu are vastly different (Ivan agonizes over his illness whereas Wei-fu reminisces over past experiences), both characters highlight futility. An example is that Wei-fu has once taught Confucian classics to his pupils, but no longer cares for the true purpose of his teachings. When the narrator questions Wei-fu about it, Wei-fu replies with “their father wants them to study these. I’m an outsider, so it’s all the same to me. Who cares about such futile affairs anyway? There’s no need to take them seriously.” Wei-fu furthermore shows the meaningless progression of his life by the comparison of bees and flies – they always fly away but come back to the same spot. Wei-fu revisits the town and tells the story of his deceased brother and his neighbor’s daughter possibly to reflect on the things that have changed, and how he is still tormented by the past. In Tolstoy’s work, Ivan llyich also supports the idea of futility because he has been conforming to society his whole life, but does not realize what he should have done until he succumbs to his illness. A fundamental difference is that although Ivan Ilyich and Wei-fu are both unable to change, the narrator from “In The Wine Shop” keeps trying to move forward: “As I walked alone towards my hotel, the cold wind and snow beat against my face, but I felt refreshed.”

Despite their similar solemn tone, Lu Xun’s and Tolstoy’s works differ in point of view. The first-person point of view of “In The Wine Shop” and the third-person point of view in “Death of Ivan Ilyich” is very significant in getting their messages across. “In The Wine Shop” feels very personal; readers can sympathize with Wei-fu because they feel a connection with the thoughts of the narrator. “Death of Ivan Ilyich” on the other hand is not as sympathetic because readers know from the beginning that the protagonist was going to die. This detaches many readers from understanding the thoughts of the character.

The portrayal of the characters plays a fundamental role in comparing the film and the text of Hedda Gabler. We can see a more dynamic interaction between Tesman and his Aunt Julie in the film. Although the text gives a noticeable bond between the two characters, the film captures the unmistakable fondness that Tesman and Miss Tesman have for each other. Their way of speaking to each other is significantly less formal in the film, which tends to support the notion of familiarity. Additionally, films depict a character’s expression and we see that Tesman has a very cheerful disposition. On the other hand, Hedda remains stoic and bad-tempered. The contrast between the groom and the bride is obvious by Hedda’s lack of acknowledgement for Miss Tesman. Both the film and the text portray Hedda to be unapologetic for her rudeness.

The pace of the piece tends to be quicker in the film. Often, some details are omitted in the play such as in the scene when Tesman comes back from escorting his aunt out the door. In the text, Hedda says, “But where did she (Miss Tesman) get her manners, flinging her hat around any way she likes here in the drawing room. People just don’t act that way” (789). This was left out of the play an Tesman simply tells his wife to be more affectionate toward his aunt. Additionally, the film leaves out the part when Hedda is seemingly dissatisfied with the piano in the room. Personally, I believe the text brings out Hedda’s personality more clearly. She is depicted as more materialistic and selfish in the original text, primarily because the small details that reinforce her self-indulgent personality is not as apparent in the film. Although the film does not entirely capture the essence of the characters, it does provide a dynamic insight of the relationships between them. The actors’ tone and their expressions make it easier to understand their interactions.

Harriet Jacobs’ experience as a slave is undoubtedly filled with agony. As a female slave, she has been subject to dehumanization by being sexually exploited. A major difference between Jacobs and Douglass is that Jacobs has a familial bond. Her attachment to her children is a strong motivation to endure pain and to gain the courage to go into hiding. Her narrative is a direct message to readers to understand her anguish: “Pity me, and pardon me, O virtuous reader! You never knew what it is to be a slave…” Harriet Jacobs’ diction in Incidents in The Life of a Slave Girl is more emotional in contrast to Douglass’ narrative. Readers can discern that Jacobs’ tone is bitter and at times, scorns the freedom of non-slaves: “But, O, ye happy women, whose purity has been sheltered from childhood, who have been free to choose the objects of your affection, whose homes are protected by law, do not judge the poor desolate slave girl too severely!” On the other hand, Douglass’ narrative is more detached emotionally; he describes the events that he has undergone, but he does not emphasize his feelings to a great extent. Harriet Jacobs induces empathy from the readers in a blatant disrespect for slave-owners, whereas Douglass incorporates rationale and detail to show how he has fought against the injustice of slavery.

1. There is no evidence that individuals are still legally shackled in our contemporary world. However, there are definitely individuals who are being forced to work. “ILO’s report estimates that 20.9 million people are victims of forced labor.”
2. North Korea’s modern slavery is the most prominent with more than 1 million individuals out of its 25 million population.
3. Child labor, forced marriage, and forced prostitution are just a few of the many types of contemporary slavery. Unfortunately, these illegal practices are not easy to investigate.

Passage: “I did not, when a slave, understand the deep meaning of those rude and apparently incoherent songs. I was myself within the circle; so that I neither saw nor heard as those without might see and hear. They told a tale of woe which was then altogether beyond my feeble comprehension; they were tones loud, long, and deep; they breathed the prayer and complaint of souls boiling over with the bitterest anguish. Every tone was a testimony against slavery, and a prayer to God for deliverance from chains. The hearing of those wild notes always depressed my spirit, and filled me with ineffable sadness. I have frequently found myself in tears while hearing them” (page 242).

The context of this passage is in relation to the Great House Farm, which is a grand plantation owned by Colonel Lloyd. Any slave deems it an honor to work in it, because it would signify that the overseer has enough confidence and trust in the slave to reside in the extensive plantation. The chosen slaves would enthusiastically sing to convey their joy of going to the Great House Farm. Often, slaves would compose and sing sentimental songs. To Frederick Douglass, the tone of these songs was not cheerful, but rather filled with anguish. Douglass stated that he did not understand the meaning of the incoherent songs when he was a slave; however, when he went north, he was repulsed by others’ misunderstanding that singing portrayed happiness. Additionally, Douglass compares the singing of slaves to the singing of a man on a desolate island – they both portray false contentment.

The incorporation of this passage to Douglass’ narrative shows us that singing is a way for slaves to cope with the torment. “Slaves sing most when they are most unhappy” (242). Douglass’ diction in this passage shows an intellectual understanding of the meaning of songs. Because most slaves were illiterate, they had very few methods to express themselves. Singing is one way to express their sorrows, but it is unlikely that overseers and non-slaves were able to decipher these songs. Frederick Douglass combats this disconnection by putting it into words so the masses can understand the dehumanization of slavery and possibly sympathize. Douglass’ literary style is very descriptive, and gives a proper insight of what he has endured, as well as his personal thoughts and emotions pertaining to his enslavement.

The Chimney Sweeper is featured as a part of William Blake’s “Songs of Innocence”, which corresponds with a child’s perspective on grim living conditions and adversity. The Chimney Sweeper tells of the young narrator who is essentially forced to work as a chimney sweeper. He and his companion, Tom Dacre, witness the children who work alongside him “locked up in coffins of black” – symbolizing their inability to escape from the harsh lifestyle. Coffins are a symbol of death, which is possibly a metaphor for both salvation and their loss of innocence after having been subjected to years of working.

A stark contrast is made in the third stanza, in which Tom Dacre dreams of an Angel that sets the children free. The children then run off into the field, laughing and with the sun shining upon them. However, the Angel tends to be just a manifestation of the hopes of being liberated from the confinement. He desperately clings on to dreams of meeting an angel that will save him. However, he knows that it is futile – he is, in the end, still a chimney sweeper and the only salvation hinted in the poem is death.

The engraving by William Blake of The Chimney Sweeper is very vibrant with hues of green and blue (which are colors that correspond with nature). Unlike the poem which offers a more direct hint of apprehension through words, the image is hauntingly cheerful. Children are shown linking hands and putting their arms up in the air – usually a sign of celebration (or of captivity, although I don’t believe it applies here). The engraving is subtly ominous because it shows what I depict to be an angel, clothed in a robe with a pink hue. The pink is rather deceptive, as it seems the angel is lowering a child onto a coffin. What I feel is largely different from the engraving and the poem is that the poem offers background insight with a child’s perspective. On the other hand, the engraving features a group of children, which tends to be more detached.

The staged reading of Oedipus the King serves to highlight essential themes ranging from denial and prophetical indulgence, to the downfall of having excess pride. Oedipus, who has killed Laius, the previous king, swears to discover the perpetrator. When the prophet, messenger, and shepherd share their individual stories, the killer traces back to Oedipus. One significant characteristic of Oedipus is his pride. He holds himself in such high esteem that he ultimately tries to cheat fate (which he fails to). The tragedy of this play becomes clear when Tiresias, the prophet, accurately predicts Oedipus’ killing his own father, despite how hard Oedipus has tried to avoid his destiny.

One of my favorite scenes involved the prophet Tiresias, in which we can clearly see that she is not willing to stand in the presence of Oedipus. In this scene, Oedipus’ character is clear when he yells at Tiresias, denying that he would ever commit the crime. Jocasta, his wife, tries unsuccessfully to stop his obsession with finding the real killer. Oedipus persisted and the killer was found, thus leading to Jocasta’s committing suicide and Oedipus’ gouging his eyes out.

Having come to watch the play with little to no prior understanding of the play, I was not as immersed in the script as I should have been. The dialogue was hard to decipher at times – primarily due to the characters’ unfamiliar way of speech. However, what was helpful in understanding the plot was the way the actors portrayed their characters. Oedipus, having too much pride, seemed haughty and talked with a rough tone. The actor was authoritative and suited the character very well. The messenger seemed meek and cautious. What surprised me was that there were only a total of five actors, with a few of them acting out different roles. I did not know this until I looked at the pamphlet, which goes to show how adept they were at changing characters. Although the staged reading of Oedipus tends to be a bit detached as opposed to an actual enactment, the tone used for each character gave dynamic to the play.

Akinari’s “Bewitched” focuses on the values reinforced by late 18^th century Japan, which is also referred to as a part of the Edo period. A striking feature in this traditional work is the emphasis on cultural values such as shrines, prayers, and the belief of an otherworldly manifestation. The picture I chose is an artwork that corresponds with the artistic style of 18^th century Japan. The woman in the picture bears a resemblance to the character Manago – with an extravagant style of dress as well as with ornaments that highlight her beauty. It is also highlighted in the tale: “Her features, the way she wore her hair, her colorful robe, the perfume she exuded, made her bewitchingly voluptuous.” I perceive Manago as a deceptive character who gives off an exterior of vulnerability in order to coax her victims. In the artwork, the woman’s expression is one of uncertainty even though she is dressed flamboyantly.

The primary reason why I chose to relate Akinari’s “Bewitched” with this particular artwork is because it fits in with traditional Japanese culture. “Bewitched” gives us hints to its time period with the mention of palanquins, priests, samurai and exorcism – all of which was very common in the Edo period. The tea set that is visible in the picture is also very prominent in traditional homes.

My name is Yanfen Wu and I am an intended Digital Marketing major with a minor in Graphic Design. Truthfully, my career path is an unfathomable maze. I find it difficult to stick with a concentration, not because I’m intrigued by many fields, but because I’m reluctant to fail and restart. Currently, I am trying my best to suppress my inner pessimist, and following the ingenuous aphorism of carpe diem.

I was an avid reader when I was in elementary and middle school. I am honored to say that I have reread the whole book series of “The Boxcar Children” a stunning total of approximately fifteen times when I was in third and fourth grade. My older brother had made a face somewhere in between resignation and pure disgust whenever he had seen that I was reading “The Boxcar Children” for the umpteenth time. He had asked me if I were possessed by the devil, to which I insisted with the best possible diction of a grade-schooler that the series was a marvelous, unparalleled work of art that delved the reader into a different dimension.

After my episodic, possibly unhealthy obsession in that specific book series, I began to frequent my local public library. I ventured into the section of ‘manga’ (Japanese comic books) when I was in middle school. I could frankly spend my entire life talking about the beauty of manga, but what captivated me into loving it was its uniqueness and diversity in terms of genre. From my discovery of manga, my interest in actual novels spiraled downward into oblivion. Nearly a whole decade later, I am still helplessly and conceivably infatuated with manga. I’d say it both ruined and saved my life.

Presently, I would love to set aside some time to get into reading novels once again. I have always especially adored fiction novels because of their intriguing plots that embody fictitious, yet highly relatable characters. (I remember that I loved James Patterson as an author.) However, it is hard for me to manage some time to read as I currently part-time in a Library Services Center in Queens before and after classes, as well as on some of my days off. It is also an excruciatingly long commute from my home to Baruch because I reside in southern Brooklyn. I practically live on the train.

Lastly, my most scandalous revelation is that I have never read Harry Potter.