My final project is going to be based on a devastating work of art by Franz Kafka “Metamorphosis.” I believe that writing a final project in the way of a board game is a tremendous idea which will force all students to think in a different way. I believe that the best choice for me will be an association game. First of all, this type of game would have been the most interesting one to play, for me obviously. Secondly, I believe that association game will bring the biggest amount of avail for the audience. I will create my game for college students, or seniors of high schools because, in my opinion, younger kids will not understand “Metamorphosis” or get any deep meaning of it. I will pick “key” words of sentences and paragraphs, and ask the audience to analyze them and think why the author chose this particular word. Then students will have to pick a better synonym in their opinion and defend their choice. The winner will be selected by the vote of all participants.

A Non-Monogamous Manifesto
​In her poem “Wild Nights” Emily Dickinson describes a scene shrouded in mystery. As a woman, Dickinson understood the repression of female sexuality all too well. This poem starts with an elated and enthusiastic cry of “Wild nights – Wild nights!” in reference to a mysterious other that is never clarified. If the words, images and symbols of her poem were to be interpreted in a certain lens, it may give this poem more meaning and clarity. I took this poem to be about repressed sexual desire. Wild nights are never completely described in full detail, but only a hint at something that is not being fulfilled for the narrator. There is also a sense of exasperation in the poem with words such as “futile” and the repetition of “done” throughout two lines. Dickinson’s trademark use of the hyphen can be used in different ways, but in this poem it seems to indicate a longing breath or silence between the words that highlights its dramatic effect. There is a wish for an abolishing of rules, especially with the commands to do away with a compass or a chart; it is as if Dickinson wants to lose herself in this moment of ecstasy. Lastly, the image of mooring, or docking a ship into land, specifically a blessed paradise in Eden, seem to be a yearning for intimacy. Mooring has been known to be a euphemism for coupling, and I enjoyed seeing Dickinson use it in a form of gender reversal. In general, I think this poem excelled in its use of vague symbols, and in its playful structuring and imagery.
​I chose the Futurist Manifesto of Lust as my model of the manifesto that I would write largely because of the way it interacts with Dickinson’s poem. The poem seems to express a sexual desire whereas the Manifesto explicitly demands the presence of lust, and transforming it from a sin into something of a right. The Manifesto then makes the bold claim that rape is the logical conclusion of lust, especially in times of warfare, when the weary soldiers are in need of sex. There is a clumsy analogy trying to be made here between lust being a force of creation, and war being a force of destruction and death, whereas Dickinson’s poem was masterful in obscuring her sexual intent. The Futurist Manifesto speaks to an entitled masculine sexual desire, one that has continued in various forms to this day; it is not that the manifesto disgusts me, but that its principles are indeed followed in some respect. When the author of the manifesto uses “we” to address others, it is a “we” entirely engrained in the male world. This “we” does not include women, but speaks solely for men. Lust is described and reasoned through biblical imagery, through biological necessity, and lastly a need for contact with the sacred female image, which is then contradicted by a willingness to rape and conquer the female body. Though written persuasively, the Manifesto falls victim to a clamoring for male sexual fulfillment at the expense of others.
Manifesto on Non Monogamy
A non monogamous relationship is the culmination of free will and trust within a relationship, a willingness to explore the boundaries of love by sharing the body with others, and not holding our mutual lover in the confines of a monogamous relationship.
A monogamous relationship is bound in the conventions of patriarchal institutions which dictated the norms and means of female sexuality, and condemned the sexual desire both sexes or genders have for people of other sexes and genders.
A non monogamous relationship functions on the trust and open communication between both partners in order to illustrate that life is more than just one other person, and that we are not the sum of all, or omnipotent in our ability to love.
A monogamous relationship relies on insecurities about ourselves, perpetuated via masculine-fueled concepts of owning women, and a presumption that being in a relationship allows ownership over another body foreign to our own.
For these reasons and edicts, a non monogamous relationship, built on pillars of truth and communication, is the only declaration of love that can aspire for both partners to be sexual equals.
​I formatted this manifesto over the declarative form of the Futurist Manifesto on Lust, with its logical reasoning and abstract imagery. I made sure to repeat some of the necessary language as I had seen happen in the Futurist Manifesto, but I wanted to advocate for the principle of sexual equality. I made sure to include a reasonable structure that would give three lines to each of the five miniature paragraphs, and I wanted to have my final paragraph be a firm statement on the way that my manifesto will enact change.

In her novel Adam Bede George Eliot establishes realism as a genre by using various aspects throughout the narrative.  I believe it is a fair assertion to believe that realism arose in literature because of a need to represent the middle class that people like Eliot belonged in.  There was a need to not just be romantic, but to illustrate all the nuances and details of ordinary life.  In a way, Eliot treats this kind of lifestyle as being noble, because it is a reflection of the wealth and success of the middle class.  However, realism does have its limits in both aesthetic and social terms; it is an attempt to illustrate the world as it exists to these authors, but it does not necessarily mean that the books are still “realistic.”  As stated by G.H. Lewes, a heroine must be “evangelical and consumptive…but she must be individually a dressmaker,” portrayed with enough recognizable traits (evangelical for example) but still “realistic” enough to fit the standards of the genre (Freedgood 325).  Furthermore, realism expects to capture life as it is, which can prove to be too challenging a task, “Realism is responsible for representing social and individual experience as it really occurs in the world outside of the novel” (326).

Here is where I think some of the limits of realism can come into effect; the characters are inherently fictional.  How could something fictional ever be as real as what realism attempts to be?  For another matter, why must characters even contain these generalized traits that Lewes mentions?  Doesn’t this take away from the originality of the character?

George Eliot’s writing is perhaps the foundation for realism as she carries on in critiquing art and literature within her novel; Eliot’s narrator also has an opinion of his/her own regarding events that happen in the story.  This is an example of the ways in which realism has aesthetic limitations.  In reality there is no narrator that expresses his/her opinions as events go on.  Likewise, Eliot’s characters all reflect people of different classes, but it does not reflect people of color, nor can it be truly effective in giving an objective viewpoint of the world.  As a middle class woman, Eliot has limitations by the lens she sees the world through.  Therefore, realism is impacted by the experiences of an author and cannot objectively provide a view for the world that is all inclusive.

Ultimately however, Eliot acknowledges this limitation, “The mirror is doubtless defective; the outline will sometimes be disturbed, the reflection faint or confused” (326).  What is important about realism are not just its limitations, but how truthful this reality is for the one writing it. Eliot attempts to show the reality that she knows and experiences in her writing because it is the only one that she knows.  Therefore the paradox of realism as a genre can be understood and resolved (at least somewhat). So long as the author’s representation of reality adheres by this example that Eliot sets, then it can pass for a realist novel.

In class we learned that intersectionality is an idea that different social forces combine to form an effect on an individual(s).  This helps to explain how certain people in a society experience different social factors.  A black woman for example, may have a different mindset when it comes to feminism or racism, since feminism can so often be applied only to white women, and the male privileges that exist (even in colored men) would not be in effect for black women.  Intersectionality is how we can understand individuals in these positions, since an umbrella-term like racism or feminism does not convey the same image for this type of person.  In Jacob’s narrative, we see a close and personal account of slavery as a woman, and the particular things that went with this, such as rape.  Jacob’s narrative differs from documents such as the “Seneca Falls Convention” or “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro” in terms of its accessibility and rhetoric; the other documents are written for broader audiences and in a strict, formal structure, whereas Jacob’s narrative is written in the informal personal tone, and depicts an experience that the other two cannot convey-  that of an African American woman.

The Seneca Falls Convention and the principle document announcing equal rights for women holds one crucial flaw – it does not necessarily advocate for those same rights for women of color.  There is a notable distinction between the two, even in the way that Jacobs was treated by her white owners, “My mistress had been accusing me of an offence, of which I assured her I was perfectly innocent; but I saw, by the contemptuous curl of her lip, that she believed I was telling a lie” (19).  This incident is indicative of the racist and oppressive attitudes inflicted on blacks during slavery, but it also suggests that this treatment holds its origin in the perception of blacks; how could white women understand the situations of black women across the country if they could never be in their position, or if they were owners of slaves before the Civil War?  Where the Seneca Falls Convention issues forth a declarative statement on the rights of women, it is also flawed in the same manner of the Declaration of Independence; it was not written with women of color in mind, “He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men—both natives and foreigners.” This passage demonstrates a clear disregard for foreigners, “the most ignorant and degraded men” and this contempt could trace its origins to a belief that one race is superior to the other.

As for Douglas’ work, Jacob’s narrative again differs because it is highly involved with the intimate experience she held; furthermore, Douglas is speaking to a specific audience – black and white men.  Douglas makes his sentiments known through declarative language and addresses people who are in a position to understand and read his ideas.  His words may have been controversial during his time, but it would have caught the attention of white men.  It is, in other words, a document solely meant for men, and not inclusive of women.

For my post, I decided to turn to the Boris Karloff film Frankenstein that is considered the classical depiction of the monster in film history.  I chose this film because it was the original image of what I thought the monster was, until I read Shelley’s novel.  It’s amazing how much of a difference there is between both versions of the monster, and how the film version has become the prominent view of the monster.  In this adaptation, the monster is a large giant that is somewhat slow and also unintelligent, which is a stark difference to the literary and original version where it is a monstrosity that wants to be accepted.  I think that the film adaptation delivers a faithful account of the story in every other respect, but I am curious as to why the monster was changed into a simple-minded slow monster.  I think the most important and defining difference between the two rests in the fact that the monster is largely unable to communicate using language.  In the novel, the monster is never confused for being Frankenstein, which has become a popular mistake that people make when they refer to the monster.  There is no scene where the monster watches a family and their customs and learns how to speak because of those observations.  There is no dialogue between Frankenstein and his creation about the philosophical nature of the monster’s existence.  Is the difference largely based on a desire to represent, literally, a simpler monster, one that would elicit fear instead of sympathy?  The monster has a keen intellect in the novel and is able to distinguish between right and wrong, along with being able to reflect on his actions, something that the film adaption clearly lacks.  I understand that the monster is also somewhat inspired by the golem myth of Jewish origin; I would have understood if the filmmakers would have tried to make the monster look like it was made of rocks and clay, but they settled on a pale and corpse-like figure that retains the monster’s towering height.  I’m also interested in the fact that people refer to the monster by its creator’s name.  There is a certain unease about there being something without a name, especially if that same thing is actually living; part of what makes the monster so intriguing to me is that it escapes language by not having a name.  I feel like people miss the point about the monster were they to refer to it as Frankenstein.  This is a viewpoint advanced by this film and it is interesting in the sense that it seems like people can only truly understand something if it has a name attached to it.  In general, I think that adaptations of Frankenstein need to address how the monster is a dangerous creature and uniquely different to us, whether it is manifested in physical appearance, in its creation, or in other ways.  In this regard, Boris Karloff’s film certainly meets the standard of a successful adaptation.

Understanding Walton’s Letters
The passage that I will be analyzing is as follows:
​But success shall crown my endeavours. Wherefore not? Thus far I have gone, tracing a ​secure way over the pathless seas: the very stars themselves being witnesses and ​testimonies of my triumph. Why not still proceed over the united yet obedient element? ​What can stop the determined heart and resolved will of man? My swelling heart ​involuntarily pours itself out thus. But I must finish.
This is one of the letters that opens up the novel and it struck me because I thought that it could answer one of my primary questions as I read, specifically why the novel starts with these letters. This passage is from the third letters that Walton sends to his sister, the one immediately before the first sighting of Frankenstein’s monster. As we discussed in class, form is something that is used to convey specific effects that the text wants to display. Why would the novel start off with these letters about characters that are not the primary focus? I believe the novel starts this way because of the context surrounding the creation of the plot, as well as acting as a parallel device to traits that we will later see in Frankenstein.
​I am aware that the novel was written as a response to a “campfire-story” competition between the writers; Shelley was attempting to write a ghost tale that would rival the other writers and to begin with letters by a character far removed from the actual plot suits this purpose. After all, the story is itself an enigma to Walton; he does not witness any of its events and he witnesses Frankenstein’s monster appear, almost like an apparition. This voyage is an ordinary one, which contrasts with the supernatural tone of the book. The backdrop of a normal setting by characters that are not directly involved makes the story that much more eerie, as if Shelley is purposely breaking through the barrier of a normal existence and an unordinary one.
​As for the content of the passage itself, it offers itself as optimistic language that details a mundane voyage. Nothing out of the ordinary is occurring on Walton’s trip, and his feelings are markedly similar to the ways that Frankenstein feels when he attempts to defy the laws of nature. The language speaks to the will of man, that essentially, nothing can stand in its way if it is determined enough. Walton seems boastful here, and indeed acknowledges that his feelings are somewhat involuntary. This is an important trend to notice when Frankenstein and his monster are later portrayed; both characters exhibit outpourings of emotion and behavior that suggest that their will is defiant in the face of nature. Therefore, the passage serves as a foreshadowing and running parallel to some of the trends that the reader will notice later on. In addition to fulfilling the description of a “ghost story” to be shared among friends, it also serves a distinct purpose for the text other than to merely function as an introduction.

The Zen principles of balance and unity revolve around the idea that the focus on the breath during meditation allows a person to achieve spiritual enlightenment.  Though this is one area of Zen, meditation has helped me concentrate when I needed to clear my head from stress and anxieties.  Though there isn’t much nature in the city to enjoy, I believe that being in nature is essential to our understanding of ourselves. Basho believed in using the structural freedom of the haiku to enhance his understanding of nature.  His haikus are steeped in structural perfection, and his comparison of it to a “shallow river flowing over its sandy bed” is important in understanding why haikus can act as enlightened “snippets” of life.

Often, I find myself thinking a lot about the time I spend commuting, either to college or work.  In those situations I’m lost in a sea of people I will most likely never see again.  I think about their tired faces and the way mine must look like to people who also notice me.  By adopting the principles of Zen balance and unity, I think I will be able to use this time to think and reflect on my day.  My haikus would be centered around the observations I’d make during my commutes.  Sometimes I get lost in my music or scrolling through my phone on the train, but when I applied actual observation, I saw a world with so many minor variations.  From what people wear, to the ways in which each station is designed in specific ways due to the nature of the city’s geological makeup, I’ve learned a lot simply by paying more attention when I’m on my commute.

While waiting on the

platform, the N train rolled in

fifteen minutes late.

In my apartment I have an Egyptian plant near my sink that has expanded its branches and which I had  to tie up in order to keep from drooping into the sink.  I consider it the closest I get to nature throughout my daily routine.  I regret that there isn’t enough time for me to enjoy parks in the city because of my busy schedule.  This is why I find time to observe the ways in which my plant grows, despite needing very little water.

From the Nile and

laying by the small window

in my apartment.

Last week, when I was starting to feel ill, I decided to make myself some herbal tea.  I find that the drink does wonders for my body and that it must be a remedy that has been in use for hundreds of years.  If I don’t pay attention to these kinds of tasks, I lose missing the connections these activities have to the world and our history.  So, when I think about how much more I can pay attention to, I can begin to feel the balance that Zen offers.

The Herbal green tea

swirling warm in my belly

floods out the disease

Hello! My name is Philip Yusupov and I am a sophomore student. I was born in Brooklyn but grew up in Russia. So English is not my first language.

I believe that Kant’s understanding of Enlightenment relies heavily on how he defines freedom – an escape from immaturity, or the dependency on others for knowledge. Firstly, enlightenment is achieved by a select few who are courageous enough to use their own understanding to deal with the challenges of living. Systems of thinking and the institutions that birth them hold people back from exploring the world and its mysteries through their own understanding. Kant believes that Enlightenment is difficult to achieve in a society where there are obstacles to this journey of self-understanding and its use in the public. We rely on “guardians” to dictate to us when to do certain actions without consulting our own opinions. Kant defines this reliance as immaturity, a difficult habit to break out of. Though Enlightenment can be difficult for those that do break free of immaturity, Kant does believe that the public will be able to achieve an Enlightenment as a whole. However, Kant believes that only a ruler who allows open argument and discourse to occur while demanding obedience, can allow for Enlightenment to occur on a wide social scale. This then creates an effect where, the more intellectually liberated men become, the more society becomes conducive to treating a man with the dignity he deserves. I do not believe that we live in an enlightened age, at least in the sense that Kant definers Enlightenment as a broad social order or change. According to Kant, Enlightenment happens on a large scale when there are rulers who allow for discourse to happen and for ideas to flourish. I believe that we are too dependent on the professional opinions of experts, and that we are not encouraged to educate ourselves on numerous subjects. Education is meant to pave the way for a job and nothing more. We are not being challenged to educate ourselves and think in open and expansive ways. Instead, our concerns are to live out our days in social obedience while those in positions of power make decisions they deem important without, necessarily, our consent. Though I do think there are a limited few people, or a minority, that is Enlightened in the sense that they understand the workings of society and can distinguish between what is good or bad, I do not believe that our society can stand for an Enlightened mass. As Kant states, “a high degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people’s intellectual freedom, yet it also sets up insuperable barriers to it” our own rights for intellectual freedom put those in positions of power in circumstances that are not to their liking. Why not have a complacent society that obeys and carries out its existence in silence, instead of a mass of people objecting to decisions that are self-serving as opposed to utilitarian? Much of what is happening today in politics reflects a yearning to move away from Enlightenment and to establish “machines” in place of “men” to which Kant opposed then as I do now.