Heaven-Haven

Heaven-Haven A nun takes the veil  I have desired to go      Where springs not fail,  To fields where flies no sharp and sided hail     And a few lilies blow.     And I have asked to be       Where no storms come,  Where the green swell is in the havens dumb,     And out of the swing of the sea.

                                      Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844-1889)

The main interesting thing I noticed was that the poet is a man, but the heading of the poem is "A nun takes a veil". Why would a man choose to write about a poem that speaks of eternity in heaven, yet the heading refers to a nun. I do not know whether or not to refer back to the heading when I make my analysis. Because if the heading is taken into account, then I would say that the speaker is a female. But looking at the heading by itself, it describes the moment when a woman decides to give up her life in society and become married and bound to the church. She is giving up the life of having a husband, children, and family in order to serve God. Oh! I will say that the speaker is a woman and that the heading carries a heavy weight for the poem. The title "Heaven-Haven" is similar is spelling and connotation. Heaven is the eternal Christian 'haven' like refuge where believers of Jesus Christ will ascend to after death. Haven can be both worldly and spiritual. It is a safe harbor and a refuge for people in danger, and it can also be the whole heaven becoming one's safe haven from the world. Therefore, a nun will seek the haven in church as she serves God and will ascend to heaven after death. Consequently, once she takes the veil, she will forever be in the presence of God, which is comforting. Moving on to the first stanza, the speaker wishes to go "Where springs not fail". Spring is when everything in nature comes back to life after the harshness of winter, which means that the speaker wishes to experience rebirth continuously. For Christians, the concept of rebirth is important not just in baptism, but in everyday life because you are supposed to allow Jesus to live through you, so you have to kill the 'old Adam' and let the 'new Adam' (Jesus) live everyday. In this sense, it is clear that the speaker wishes to be cleansed everyday and never deter from the Christian life. The whole poem describes what the speaker wished and asked for in the past. The illustrated picture is where life is calm, peaceful, and perfect. Therefore, the speaker is describing a place where heaven and haven co-exists. Through taking the veil, the speaker's prayer will be answered because of the life she will lead after detaching herself from society. After she leaves her haven, church, she will enter heaven where all the things she hopes and wishes for will be in full scope of her reach. Heaven will be a place "where no storms come" and where only perfection resides. The poem is hopeful because to the speaker, there is such a place of eternal life, and she will one day be taken to live there.

Speaking

Speaking

I take him outside
under the tree,
have him stand on the ground.
We listen to the crickets,
cicadas, million years old sound.
Ants come by us.
I tell them,
“This is he, my son.
This boy is looking at you.
I am speaking for him.”

The crickets, cicadas,
the ants, the million of years
are watching us,
hearing us
My son murmurs infant words,
speaking, small laughter
bubbles from him.
Tree leaves tremble.
They listen to this boy
speaking for me.

Simon J. Ortiz                                                                                             

I am not going to research the poet this time and just see what I can come up with without any background information. The title of the poem "Speaking" is a present tense verb that signifies an action being taken place, which suggests that the poem is a sort of ever-lasting 'experience' or happening. The poem is told in first person where the narrator is definitely older than the person he takes outside. This hypothesis is made based on the line "have him stand on the ground". The speaker takes a small child who is not fully capable of walking out by himself and helps him make contact with the ground. The pronounce "I" changes into a "we", suggesting that since the child and the narrator are both standing on the ground, they are one and together. The fact that they are outside but are able to listen to the cicadas, whose sounds are million years old, depicts a scene that is within nature. In that setting, the speaker talks to ants, a very unusual thing, and uses the word 'speaking', which highlights the quote as it holds a larger meaning. Changing to the second stanza, the roles reverse and it is the crickets, cicadas, and ants that watches and listens to the people. This isn't really a personification because animals and insects can hear and watch, but the context gives the insects a greater role in the poem as they are in the position of being observers. However, it is interesting to note that the insects actually listen to the small child who doesn't actually know how to speak and are engrossed in what he is saying. Even the trees show a response by trembling. The role reversal is, therefore, not only with the insects and humans but also with the speaker and the child. The child who cannot or does not know how to speak the language is able to communicate with nature through his innocent and pure laughter. He is transmitting the pureness of society, something that his father cannot convey. Although I am not confident in the message of the poem, I think the main essence involves nature and innocence. The speaker also gives importance to insects, something that people don't give a second thought to. The stressing of the 'million of years' heighten that importance of insects because long existence connects with accumulation of wisdom. The speaker, I think, values insects a lot and the fact that he takes his child out to see the insects and talk to them shows how he wants the child to grow up having value for insects. Therefore, the poem incites the message of a connection between the human world and insects, a connection that needs to be valued and kept. The father-son generation illustration also shows the continual cycle of the meeting between nature and humans. Also, as an additional note, the reason why nature is listening to the speaker through the son may be because the child has not be influenced by society yet and can communicate the purest form of message to nature. 

Hamlet

Mrs. Clinch warned us that Hamlet is going to be a smart ass and be the over dramatic prince, but I did not expect him to really be all that and beyond. I supposed if one loved his father as much as Hamlet and has not been given the right to throne, I guess one could be as depressed and mad as Hamlet. However, if King Hamlet was so great of a king that he is described as a 'Hyperion', why is the young Hamlet not on the throne of Denmark? Hamlet, as noted by his verbal wit, is very intellectual and far out ranks Claudius in that category. He fits the mold for a king as well as and even better than Claudius. Therefore, a question is prompted to question the authenticity of Claudius's rise to the throne. How did Claudius become so well liked and respected by the servants of Denmark that he was able to ascent to the throne without much opposition? Because this play is a tragedy and has a ghost of King Hamlet, who is not able to rest in peace, I don't think it is a stretch to assume that Claudius had something to do with the king's death. During King Hamlet's reign, Claudius probably started recruiting people on his side because as many people know, you need to have a fair number of servants backing you up for an up rise. If Claudius did kill the king but did it secretly, it would have been easy for him to take the throne through deception. Also, his 'act', as I see it, towards Hamlet is kind and gentle in order to cover up the massive fear and threat he feels from his nephew. However, in order to renegade that, he marries the former queen, which in a way can strengthen his legitimacy to the throne. I thought the marrying part wasn't as scandalous as it seemed because I know that in some cultures, the same situation often occurred in history. However, after reading Hamlet's soliloquy, it became clear that even this time period does not look favorably of such action. Which is weird because Claudius was able to do those things and consolidate his power. How did the people in court  or people of Denmark view the situation? We  only know about Hamlet's point of view but if it is incestuous, then wouldn't other people  view it in the same light as Hamlet? If Claudius has been able to cloak the situation in a natural and undeceiving way and have the people at court accept this ascension to throne, he must be very persuasive and charming. I sort of detracted from what I thought I was going to talk about, Hamlet, and instead  gravitated more towards Claudius. However, it will be interesting to see what Claudius does to Hamlet or vice versa and if Claudius will ever be overridden with guilt due to the way he took over the throne.

Invisible Man

Invisible Man 

It's always significant to read the title of a work inside the work, and for Invisible Man, the first sentence of the prologue reiterates the title by saying, "I am an invisible man" (3), which puts heavy emphasis to the title. Because this book is not a scientific book, the narrator explains how the invisibility has to do with only how society refuses to acknowledge his existence; therefore, he becomes invisible to the eyes of fellow men. Due to his in-existence, he seeks to prove his existence to himself in his "hole", where it is "warm and full of light" (6). However there is a huge irony with the source of that light: Monopolated Light & Power. Monopolated is not actually a word, but I am assuming that monopole is related to it. Monopole, after doing some research, I found that it does not only not exist but it is only a hypothetical assumption that most scientist declare that it is impossible for it to exist. Monopole is where only one of the poles, north and south, exist. Although it is easier to think about a magnet and imagine it not having one of the pole, monopole doesn't really have a lot to do with magnets. However, the connection to the book is that the narrator is saying that he is getting his light, truth, and warmth from this company called the Monopolated Light & Power. Therefore, looking at the word, it causes me to doubt the narrator due to what a monopole really is. Also, to have 1,369 lights in one room, a person would probably die from the heat emitted by the lights. I understand that the literary significance is that the narrator is trying to cover himself with truth in order to escape the loneliness and invisibility by letting the source of illumination cover him, but it may all be a sign of madness. Another interesting thing is the "sense of time" that the narrator explains when he talks about music. It is obvious that he does not conform to the social structure because he 'is aware' of his invisibility. Therefore, he is "never quite on the beat" (8). Of course the strangeness also has to do with the fact that he was high, but I guess the drug helped him realize and illuminated some certain aspects. I am not going to attempt to explain what he is talking about because I don't quite understand it. One interesting thing is that there are a lot of color discussed towards the end of the prologue. The irony is that he is invisible and invisibility does not have a color, so for there to be blue, black, white and red gives another meaning to ponder about. Even though the narrator and other black people are invisible to society's eyes, they have color both physically and figuratively, which emphasizes the cruelty of society. So far, I do not know if what I have talked about makes any sense, but there are so much things I know I missed, and I think I should reread the prologue to get a better sense of what the narrator is trying to portray, especially about Ras the Destroyer and Jack the Bear.