Author: Sophia Torres

As Amichai’s “Diameter of the Bomb” poem progresses, distances become larger. It starts with centimeters, then goes to meters, kilometers and all the way to God. After the circle reaches God, Amichai says the “circle [has] no end and no God.” By increasing the diameter of the circle, everything inside becomes bound or trapped. In addition, the poet questions the existence of God by saying there is none. Does the poet consider God to be within or outside of the circle? If God is within the circle, the poet may be telling the audience there are limits to what God can do. The orphans and bombings of this world may be the speaker’s proof of that. If God is outside the circle, Amichai could be telling the audience that the existence of bombings and orphans are proof God does not exist. If he did, those would not. Does Amichai consider everything outside the circle infinite? What could this mean for the circle?

The main theme of Bishop’s “One Art” seems to be that loss is something everyone must come to terms with even though it may be hard to handle. It teaches us valuable lessons in life no matter how small or large the loss. In the first stanza, Bishop states, “so many things seem filled with the intent to be lost that their loss is no disaster.” If ‘things’ will be lost, why have things you value or create meaningful relationships if you know they will be lost? One answer could be Bishop is telling the audience you never had ‘anything’ in the first place. Another answer may be loss is inevitable and something you should expect to deal with in order to move on in life. In addition, the word ‘disaster’ connotes both catastrophe and failure. Also, the opposite of ‘disaster’ is a blessing. By making it clear loss is not a ‘disaster,’ Bishop lets the audience know loss is not a catastrophe nor a failure, but a blessing. It is part of life. This would therefore connect back to the main theme of loss being a lesson and something everyone has to face.

In Gabriel’s perspective, the dead lived and the living is dead. When Gabriel compares his life to Gretta’s ex Michael, he comes to the realization that his life is fading and ‘dwindling’ as he ages, whereas Michael’s life remains strong though Gretta’s memory. Gabriel also realizes that he has not experienced what Gretta had in her past. In Gabriel’s speech, one of his messages is to sort of live in the moment and not in the past. In a way, by Gretta living in the past she is holding herself back. Could that be considered her being ‘dead’? In what glorious ways have people have passed to be considered to have lived?

In Roman Fever, Wharton wants us to consider the fact we never truly know anyone in our lives. We have this idea of them, but we only know what they want us to know. For instance, Mrs. Ansley and Mrs. Slade’s relationship. They knew they were both in love with the same man, so their relationship’s foundation was primarily built on jealousy. Additionally, the way Mrs. Slade spoke about Ansley gave the audience the idea that Ansley tries to portray this idea of innocence (when she is not). Their relationship was phony in a way, and may push both characters to question how much they really knew Delphin. Do relationships exist where people truly know who each other are (friendships, partners, family)? Could the way we do not know people in our lives mean all of those relationships are phony, or be some sort of reflection upon ourselves?

 

The ‘gilded coin’ in Hurston’s story is symbolic of infidelity. When the coin is mentioned throughout the text, it is spoken about in relation to the state of Missie and Joe’s marriage. When reading the word ‘gilded,’ it relates to something gold plated. For the coin to be gold plated could stand as some sort of statement on Slemmons’ character. He may have all the shiny stuff and be successful, but it is what is on the inside that matters. When looking at Missy and Joe’s relationship, Joe took the coin from Slemmons when he caught his wife cheating (so the coin reminds him of that event), later on he slips it under his wife’s pillow (indicating it is still an issue between them), but then he spends it on kisses at the end of the story. By finally letting go of the coin, he tells the audience he has forgiven Missie.

In Dickinson’s perspective, to have “divinest Sense” may be a godlike understanding of the world society calls madness. This paradox is significant because Dickinson is telling the audience that if people are capable of developing and making their own judgements they are thought to be threats to society. Could this divine sense be the equivalent to enlightenment? Why does having this ‘sense’ have to be considered dangerous? Could the loss of control society has over those people be the reason they fear them, or are there more factors that contribute to that fear? How could this compare to Kant’s ideas in his What is Enlightenment essay?