Fate.

Fate, the ability to control one’s future, is a common theme amongst songs and novels and is also a common and controversial topic in conversations around the world. The idea that people by nature have free will, as carm.net puts it – “freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes” – is a very popular belief. Perhaps equally popular; however, is the opposite belief, that people do not have free will at all. Illustrated by the Hermetic Philosophy Glossary: “All there is is Consciousness, there is absolutely no free will; everything is God’s will, the impersonal functions of Consciousness, manifesting as destiny, individual or otherwise; decisions have to be made so one makes them as if there is free will – the result is God’s Will.” Both sides have powerful arguments, and neither side can prove that they speak the truth.

            Slaughterhouse-Five and Forrest Gump both convey the idea that human will isn’t completely free. Slaughterhouse-Five argues that the book of life has already been written and that humans just exist on the page of today unable to foresee the pages to come and unable to change them. Forrest Gump implies that there are multiple hallways to go down, but in the end they all lead to the same place and that the only things that humans can change are the paths from major event to major event.

Evidence of the “pro-fate, lack of free will” outlook is easily evident in the quotes scattered throughout both works. Perhaps the most famous fate-related quote is found in Forrest Gump: “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” This quote is both very similar and very different to the outlook in Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. In Slaughterhouse-Five, the Tralfamadorians are the authority on fate. They let Billy Pilgrim know what the truth is: that the future is going to be how it’s going to be, and there’s nothing that Billy, or anyone can do about it. The future, past and present are all happening at the same time, and since the future wasn’t changed, it can’t be changed. These outlooks are essentially the same, but are surprisingly different if dissected. If there were absolutely no free choice at all, as the Tralfamadorians would promote, choosing a specific chocolate out of the box would not be a possibility because choosing exercises free will. Both outlooks have the end result the same: eating chocolate, or getting to the end result. To apply the box of chocolates analogy further: in Forrest Gump, it doesn’t matter what choices are made, i.e.; which chocolate is chosen, because the same end result will always be achieved, i.e.; eating chocolate. In Slaughterhouse-Five, choosing to do things differently is impossible, i.e.; picking a different chocolate, and obviously, the ending will be the same, i.e.; eating chocolate.

Comparing the feather in Forrest Gump to the ‘Poo-tee-weet’ by the bird at the beginning and end of Billy’s story yields similar results. The feather in Forrest Gump can float and twist any which way that the wind takes it, and it will always get to where it needs to be, but Slaughterhouse-Five’s birds will always say exactly ‘Poo-tee-weet’ at the same time, at the same place, and in the same pitch. The idea of the end result being destined shines with both the feather and the birds, but the ability for the pathways leading to destiny is only evident with the feather.

Forrest himself agrees with the analysis presented in the previous paragraphs, and he says so. “I don’t know if Momma was right or if, if it’s Lieutenant Dan. I don’t know if we each have a destiny, or If we’re all just floating around accidental like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe its both. Maybe both is happening at the same time.” Maybe it’s both happening at the same time – the ability to choose ones own path to get to where one must be. Agrees with the box of chocolates quote. Agrees with the feather. Partially agrees with Slaughterhouse-Five. They’re similar in that, they both recognize that free will is not present in every aspect of life, and they’re different in that Forrest Gump gives more power to the people – suggesting that people do indeed have some free will.

Is the future set in stone? Can it be changed? The answer depends on who gets asked, but Forrest Gump and Slaughterhouse-Five agree on one thing – that some things are indeed set in stone, and will always happen. Be it, eating chocolate or floating around in the wind people will always be where their destiny needs them to be. Can humans choose which doorways to go through, even if all them lead to the same place? Forrest Gump says yes, Slaughterhouse-Five says no.

The argument over the truth about fate, destiny and free will shall likely be an endless war because there is no way to know if choices can be made to change the would-be future. Is it possible to influence the future? Or maybe just change how to get from A to B? Or does nothing change at all regardless of the choices that are made? The truth is unknown, but there will always be great novels and song as well as persuasive arguments on every side of this volatile topic.

Will You Take the Effort to Cook at Home?

Will You Take the Effort to Cook at Home?

            Anyone enjoys dinner out on the town – whether it is fast food or at a fine restaurant. The stresses of our fast-paced lives make eating out an easy, convenient, and trouble-free alternative. However, does this mean that cooking at home is more demanding and less convenient than going out?  Indeed, eating at home might take some effort, but is it worth such effort? Absolutely! Food is essential to the growth of our bodies and to function in the everyday world. Without food, we would ultimately die from lack of nutrition. By reforming the way we approach food and getting a better glimpse at the positive side-effects of cooking at home, we can improve the hectic aspects of our daily lives. A study by Iowa State University stated: “A simple [home-cooked] meal, eaten with others while sharing conversation is worth more than the most elaborately prepared meal” at any restaurant. Cooking at home provides many more advantages than eating out. Taking the time to prepare a meal for your family will be beneficial to you in more ways than one. Obviously, saving money and time is the primary reason. However, there are additional, more subtle benefits. By eliminating eating out you can gain advantages to cooking at home and take you one step closer to improving your overall life.

            Over the years, cooking at home has proved over and over that it saves money and time that could be spent on more important matters. Iowa State University states eating out requires you to pay for your food as well as the service provided by your waiter. This adds up extremely fast if you go out as a family. Restaurants and fast food chains that buy the ingredients and provide the service have to sell their product for more so they can make a profit after paying all their expenses.  Staying at home provides you with the option of cheaper ingredients and subtracts the money needed to pay for your service. You are your service. When you cook at home, you usually cook in large quantites which produce leftovers. Leftovers serve two purposes: saving you money by stretching your dollar into not one meal, but two meals and saving you time the next day by not having to prepare another meal. Leftovers wait for you in the refrigerator calling your name, just begging to be reheated. Time is definitely a factor when preparing and eating food. Most people want to eat their food as fast as possible to focus their attention on other things they deem more important. Sitting in a restaurant twiddling your fingers while someone prepares your food is a big waste of time. By replacing eating out with cooking at home you can cut your time spent on preparing food, therefore giving you more for other matters.

Promoting quality family time and communication is a big indicator that cooking at home is beneficial in terms of improving family ties. Although family time could be spent in a restaurant, the quality of the time is often not the same. For example, if you are constantly on the run and are always eating out, you are rushed at dinner and focus more on the moment than time with your loved ones. This highlights the lack of concern family members display after a long day of work or school when hearing personal stories, therefore causing tension and the further divide between one another. An article at MissouriFamilies.org states that it invokes “togetherness, communication, and learning”... It breaks the barrier put up between family members, giving them an opportunity to communicate their real feelings and reach a better understanding of one another as individuals and the role they play in the family. Whether it is cooking together, eating together, or cleaning up together, cooking at home gives you a chance to reconnect with your family. Cooking at home is an activity that the whole family can join in on. Each family member can discuss their day’s events while helping prepare the chicken for a nutritious stir-fry with vegetables or cutting the fish into filets for a protein-packed fish sandwich with a salad as the side-dish.

Supporting a healthy, nutritious lifestyle is another benefit that is credited to cooking at home.  Foods consumed at restaurants typically have a lot more calories, fat, and salt than food you have prepared at home. Concern is arisen due to the increase in these additives because they are considered detrimental to your life. An article in Frugal Living simply states: “If you can eat meals at home and adopt a healthier lifestyle, you are less likely to develop health conditions.”

Most restaurants offer portions that are two or three times the size and calorie intake our bodies need. When eating out, you are less likely to eat fresh vegetable or whole grains which are essential to the development and functioning of your body. Cooking your own meals at home allows you to have full control over the ingredients: the amount of fat added, how many vegetables are incorporated, and smaller portioned sizes giving you the opportunity to go back for seconds. This helps you to create healthier food options, in turn providing positive outcomes such as living a longer healthier life and having more energy in your everyday ventures.

            Cooking at home lowers health care costs, which may be a problem for many individuals around the world. People don’t have the money to pay for several visits to the doctor’s office because of lack of proper nutrition. When you eat out, you are pressured to clean your plate because you paid for it, but when you’re at home you can store your leftovers in the refrigerator. This eliminates the excess calories and reduces your temptation for other foods, consequently cutting down on your visits to the doctor. According to organization AARP, cooking at home helps reduce the risk of becoming obese, therefore decreasing the likelihood of developing “serious diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.” By developing these diseases you could pay thousands in health care and as a result take money away from other things like rent for your house or entertainment on the weekends. In addition, many servers promote dessert which most people would not normally eat in their own home. This can lead to high blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol scores. “Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese and that costs and estimated $117 billion in health bills” (AARP). Cooking at home provides more nutritious value and saves you from ruining your life by contracting terrible diseases related to the bad nutrition of eating out.

By cooking at home, you start to appreciate and savor your food more. When you cook at home you have the opportunity to enjoy the wonderful aromas emanating from your pots and pans on the stove top while having the added benefit of being able to eat it afterwards. By cooking food yourself, you begin to appreciate the time put into the food and enjoy it more overall. A sense of accomplishment is developed with every single heart-warming dish you create in your kitchen filled full of wonderful memories. As you cook a healthy nutritious meal in the comfort of your own home you tune into all the sensory stimulus of smell, sight, texture, temperature, and taste floating around your kitchen. By tuning into the stimulus you fully experience the process of cooking and become more satisfied in the end.  The act of preparing and cooking your own meals helps everyone who is involved appreciate and enjoy food. According to Cooksaid.com, “mindless munching” is a problem acquired through eating out. In today’s world it’s easy to fall into routine of eating out and participate in eating food without thought. Cooking at home helps you learn to savor your food and become more in tune to what you’re eating and the act of eating.

Having the ability to cook according to your tastes and allowing you the knowledge of knowing what you’re eating provides for another solid advantage of cooking at home instead of eating out. Do you ever get worried about who chooses the quality of your food, who cooks it, and how they do it? The kitchens in many restaurants are largely unseen to patrons and are behind closed doors. When you cook at home you are in charge, not some underpaid cook or so-called executive chef. You choose the ingredients and you determine your own cooking methods. It provides you with more flexibility by having the opportunity to omit ingredients you don’t like or add ingredients that you absolutely love. Journalist Joseph Devine states that cooking your own food at home alleviates any doubts as to what you are truly eating, in his article “The Benefits of Cooking Your Own Food”. Do you ever wonder about the sanitary practices of the restaurant? When you cook at home, you are responsible for the cleanliness of your kitchen.  At a restaurant, we have no idea who is behind the curtain: How do we know that the cook washes his hands?  How do we know if the dishwasher really washed that pot? You could get ill from eating a meal if the chef didn’t properly clean a cooking utensil. Even worse, it could be harmful to your health if you have a food allergy.

Yes, cooking at home requires effort. By reforming the way we approach food and getting a better glimpse at the positive side-effects of cooking at home, such effort can improve the quality of our lives. Besides saving same time and money, cooking and eating at home is healthier because we can control the amount of additives such as fat, sugar, and salt. It lowers health care costs because healthier eating reduces the risk of acquiring deadly ailments or diseases. It promotes family interaction and communication which enables us to build and maintain quality family relationships. It helps you savior food and appreciate your shopping and cooking efforts. And it alleviates concerns about how others may mishandle your food. All these benefits are important because they help you to appreciate cooking and provide positive outcomes in your life. In short, the choice is yours: Will you take the effort to cook at home?

Works Cited

"8 Benefits of Eating at Home – Other than Saving Money." Passive Family Income. Frugal Living, Web. 9 Nov 2009. <http://www.passivefamilyincome.com/2009/03/26/8-benfits-of-eating-at-home-other-than-saving-money/>.

"Eating Out, the Healthy Way ". AARP. Nov 9, 2009 <http://www.lifeclinic.com/fullpage.aspx? prid=529131&type=1>.

Devine, Jospeh. "The Benefits of Cooking Your Own Food ". ArtLib. November 9, 2009 <http://artilib.org/20002418-the-benefits-of-cooking-your-own-food.html>.

Forthun, Larry . "Family Nutrition: The Truth About Family Meals". University of Florida. November 9, 2009 <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FY1061>.

Lempert, Phil. "Is eating at home better for your health?." Today. 07/12/2006. Web.

9 Nov 2009. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16084487/>.

Leon, Kim. "Family Meals ". University of Missouri. November 9, 2009 <http://missouri families.org/features/parentingarticles/parenting2.htm>.

Marino, Martha. "Background: Research on Family Meals ". Washington State University. November 9, 2009 <http://nutrition.wsu.edu/ebet/background.html>.

"Public Health Scene ". University of Minnesota. November 9, 2009 <http://blog.lib. umn.edu/sphpod/news/2009/03/more_about_the_benefits_of_hom.html>.

Steiner, Patricia. "Eat at Home: It’s Inexpensive, Nutritious and Promotes Family Communication." Iowa State University - University Extension (2009): n. pag Web. 9 Nov 2009. <http://www.extension.iastate.edu/news/2009/aug/110601.htm>.

"The Benefits of Cooking Dinner at Home." Cooks Aid n. pag. Web. 9 Nov 2009. <http://www.cooksaid.com/articles.html>.

 

Love?

Love?
 

Love is the strangest emotion. It is the only emotion able to bring humans to both extremes of the emotional spectrum, from the tip of the tallest mountain to the bottom of the deepest cave. Haddaway, in their popular song “Baby Don't Hurt Me,” sings: “What is love. Oh baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me no more” (Haddaway). These lyrics go hand in hand with how Atwood portrays love in her poem “You Fit Into Me.” She uses vivid imagery of hooks and eyes to make the claim that love is both enduring and painful, both harsh and everlasting.

To fully understand how she can portray love in both a positive and negative light in only four lines requires a line by line dissection of the poem. The poem begins as a typical love poem, saying “You fit into me / like a hook into an eye” (Atwood 1-2). Obviously a reference to a button-type mechanism, it brings forth thoughts of two things that were made specifically to be together, to hold each other. These lines also evoke thoughts of that one special person for the reader—how perfect everything seems, how the two lovers feel as though they were meant for one another. The speaker is obviously profoundly in love with someone.

Or is she? After a line of whitespace Atwood drastically changes the image by saying “A fish hook / An open eye” (3-4). This causes a significant shift in image—from the lovey-dovey-two-things-that-were-meant-for-each-other to suddenly one of pain, anguish and probably lots of blood. The very thought of a human eye with a fish hook through it is enough to turn the food in stomachs of even the most battle hardened people. Atwood makes use of this shift in image to make a deep statement on the nature of love itself. She makes the point that any relationship, regardless of how perfect, can turn into pain.

The juxtaposition of these two very different statements on love, separated by whitespace implies that love has a beginning and love has an end. In the beginning the two lovers feel as though they were meant to hold each other for all of eternity. In the end, they’re stuck together as a fish hook is stuck in an eyeball. It was painful for the love to turn to that; however, it would probably be more painful to yank it out. This raises the age old question: “do I take it out or do I leave it in?” just as before any breakup it is wondered if it removing the “hook from the eye” is worth the pain of a breakup, or if living with the hook in the eye is something that can be dealt with. Of course, a very interesting aspect of the fish hook into the eye is that the removal of the hook would leave a horrible scar, just as a bad relationship can scar a heart.

Love really is the strangest emotion: it’s the only emotion that can go from a feeling of perfection to the feeling of immense pain. Atwood’s use of the hook/eye imagery in You Fit Into Me shows how one feeling can be both enduring and painful, and can be both harsh and everlasting. Everyone will likely, albeit unfortunately, experience this at one point in their life. Everyone will have that one bad relationship that they don’t want to let go of. Atwood doesn’t say if it’s better to let go, she leaves that decision up to the reader.

Conformity? THIS. IS. MADNESS!

Conformity? THIS. IS. MADNESS!

                Conformity is an issue that is confronted by every member in our society every day of their lives. It’s something that is unavoidable, and is very negative as it weakens us as individuals and breeds hatred and discrimination. In their poems, both Dickinson and Villanueva show disgust for conformity at the cost of individual freedom. This viewpoint mirrors my own, and affirms my distaste for conformity. While they both go down very different paths to get their points across, their opinions merge along with my own in the end.

                Dickinson is very direct in her poem. She uses the line “Assent—and you are sane—“(Dickinson 6) to mock society by saying that all it requires to be sane is submitting to the will of majority. She follows it up with “Demur—you’re straightway dangerous / And handled with a Chain” (7-8) which continues her mocking tone by questioning why if someone disagrees, acts differently or refuses to conform to the group, they’ll be kept locked away from normal members of the community, just for being different. She points out with “To a discerning Eye— / Much Sense—the starkest Madness— / ‘Tis the Majority” (2-4) that any observer who looks objectively can see the madness in this “submit or be pushed away” style of society that we have.
I make no claims of having the most discerning eye, but I see it the same way. It doesn’t matter who I am as a person. I can be the nicest guy in the world, but I’m still going to be judged instantly by who I’m friends with, what I’m wearing, how my hair is cut, if I have my glasses on, if I remembered to shave that morning and who knows what else. If I pass the initial test and am considered normal enough to talk to, I’ll be judged again by my diction. If at any point I fail any of these tests, I’m labeled abnormal. Why? Because society says that I should have contacts and not glasses? That my arms are supposed to be bigger than they are? It is this very process that Dickinson mocks in “Much madness is the divinest sense.” It happens every day, and by and large, we accept it. I know I do it. You have purple hair. Why are you talking to me? Though, thankfully I’ve learned to put the initial thought aside, and get to know what a lovely individualist miss purple hair is—and be glad that I did.

Villanueva uses an example much more extreme than purple hair. She takes a classmate who’s a cross dresser to show the beauty of individuality. She says “Was I moved in the face of / such courage (man/woman / woman/man). . .” (Villanueva 6-8) to show how moving it is to see someone who doesn’t care to conform, how empowering it is to see someone who doesn’t care what others think, if only we all had that courage. She uses the imagery of the rose to symbolize exactly how beautiful individuality is.
To me, Villanueva’s poem brings up memories of my first best friend and my first kiddy peck-of-the-lips kiss. I was in fourth grade, and grew up living next store to a lovely girl who was a year younger than I was. We hung out all the time, since when I was probably two years old, maybe even sooner than that, but long before I can remember regardless. She was black. Who cares? Apparently, there are tons of people that care. And they care a lot. I was called every name under the sun, my other friends’ parents wouldn’t let me over their houses, It was like I was the spawn of the devil.
The three of us agree. Conformity is evil. Conformity is pointless. Conformity is a mutual agreement to all act insane. Through Villanueva’s examples, through Dickinson’s blunt mockery of the system, through my own personal experiences, we all agree that the wanting to be accepted leads to a society that punishes those who don’t care to be accepted.

Metress on The Open Boat

In His editorial, “From Indifference to Anxiety: The Knowledge and the reader in “The Open Boat”, Christopher Metress makes the argument that Crane uses the structure of the story to move  the reader “from indifference over epistemological  frustrations to a point of unresolvable anxiety” (Metress 1) . He goes on to state that key moments in “The Open Boat” create an inequality in the amount of knowledge that is known by the crew versus the reader; thereby, creating anxiety for the reader.

                    Metress is absolutely correct in his argument. It is clearly evident that Crane purposely wants the reader to sit wondering exactly why he neglected to explain what the crew could then be interpreters of. To show how obvious this is, Metress uses the narrator. Early in the story, the narrator steps in to inform the reader that there was indeed no life-saving station, a key argument between the crew, within twenty miles of their location. Granting the reader this knowledge “severs the epistemological equality of the reader and the crew: the two no longer share the same anxieties over the problems of knowledge raised by the crew's struggle.” (Metress 2) He goes on to state, that this severing of the equality, as the reader had only know what the crew had known up until this point (and nobody knew the color of the sky), causes the reader a feeling of privilege. Classic irony. While the crew wastes time arguing over a life-saving station, the reader knows that it doesn’t even exist. This feeling persists until the final sentence of “The Open Boat”. In the final sentence, Crane manages to switch the inequality completely. Ending the story with "When it came night, the white waves paced to and fro in the moonlight, and the wind brought the sound of the great sea's voice to the men on the shore, and they felt that they could then be interpreters" (Crane) shows the reader that they really know nothing. Metress explains how this causes frustration in the reader: “Stripped of anticipated knowledge and anxious about their own epistemological inequalities, readers must now ask why it is that the characters (and not they) have achieved interpretation.” (Metress 3) Crane likely left the reader in frustration to show them that they really have no idea what the crew went through, and reading a story about it would never allow them to fully understand the situation.

 

The Only Side

The Only Side

                One of the countless downsides of war is the emotional baggage thrust upon the soldiers involved in the war. This baggage has been the topic of many literary works, for example: Tim O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried” and Thomas Harding’s “The Man He Killed.” In “The Things They Carried”, O’Brien uses the literal items that soldiers bring to war as metaphors for the negative impact that war has on the war-fighters. He uses these metaphors as windows into the minds of the soldiers in his story. Similarly, Harding explores a soldier’s psyche in “The Man He Killed.” Harding uses this poem to give the reader a glimpse into the mind of a soldier, and to let the world know how killing a man can have long lasting effects on that soldier’s mind. Both of these works address how mentally challenging it is to go to war and have to kill people in the name of your country. When these two works are read together, they create a chilling feeling for the reader who now has a slight understanding of the minds of the warriors, and an ever so slight understanding of the emotional baggage that our service members must carry with them.

                “The Things They Carried” lists off the physical objects that soldiers “humped” through Vietnam. These physical things that they carry are certainly metaphors for the emotional things that they are forced to heave through this foreign land. The items they carry represent emotions that they also carry, and the emotions are always heavier than the physical weight of the item. A perfect example of this is the character Henry Dobbins. Dobbins carries his girlfriend’s pantyhose, but with them he also carries the want for affection, compassion and comfort. This longing for love is much heavier than the twenty-three pound machine gun and the ten to fifteen pounds of ammunition that he carries. It is the same for every character in this story: Cross, who carries the maps and a compass, which are symbolic of his desire for order as well as a general longing for an understanding of the mission in Vietnam, has to carry the responsibility of the lives of the rest of the soldiers in the Alpha Company. There is no burden heavier than this. Through these items, O’Brien opens up the characters in his story. The reader is now able to (begin to) understand what’s going on in the soldier’s minds.

                “The Man He Killed” makes similar claims, though does it in an entirely different way. Hardy supplies the reader with an unsettling monologue that gives a unique view into the mind of a soldier. This poem tackles the nature of war—that war is dirty and makes men do things that they wouldn’t do in any other circumstance. Hardy uses that realization to open up the mindset of a soldier and really shows how harsh the reality of war is on the psych. Take “I shot him dead because— / Because he was my foe.” (Hardy 9-10) for example. The dramatic pause, then the repetition of “because” is as if the speaker is trying to convince himself that he did nothing wrong. He goes on to say “Just so: my foe of course he was; / That's clear enough; although” (Hardy 11-12), in a further attempt to convince himself, albeit unsuccessfully. The speaker’s inability to convince himself that he did nothing wrong is evident by ending the stanza with the word “although” then going on to say “Off-hand like—just as I— / Was out of work—Had sold his traps / —No other reason why” (Hardy 14-16) he basically means “well, he was only there because he was out of work, same as me” in more poetic words. This questioning of his actions, however long after-the-fact shows that the speaker has deep psychological issues due to the emotional baggage of war.

               Thomas Hardy and Tim O’Brien would definitely agree that the emotional cost on the soldiers is one of the most tragic parts of war. When O’Brien defines “hump” as “walk[ing] or march[ing], but [with] implied burdens far beyond the intransitive” (O’Brien) he’s not just talking about the just physical weight, but also the emotional weight, that the items that the soldiers have to carry. Similarly the speaker in “The Man He Killed” expresses that war is “quaint and curious” (Hardy 7) meaning that there really isn’t anything quite like it—and that if the speaker had met the man that he killed in a bar, he’d treat him to a drink, or at least help him to “half-a-crown.” This shooting of someone that he had nothing against seems to haunt the speaker, and one can only imagine how burdening that must be.  

               While the two authors may agree in message, their eye opening tales use different styles to allow the reader to understand just how destructive and overbearing emotions of war can be on the psyche of a soldier. For example, in “The Things They Carried” O’Brien uses a wide array of literary devices. The most powerful device is easily the metaphors that he uses throughout the story. He also uses the repetition of the word carried to drive those metaphors home, as evident:

“Dave Jensen carried three pairs of socks and a can of Dr. Scholl's foot powder as a precaution against trench foot. Until he was shot, Ted Lavender carried six or seven ounces of premium dope, which for him was 2 necessity. Mitchell Sanders, the RT0, carried condoms. Norman Bowker carried a diary. Rat Kiley carried comic books. Kiowa, a devout Baptist, carried an illustrated New Testament that had been presented to him by his father” (O’Brien)

The repetition throughout the story serves as the hammer that drives O’Brien’s point home. “The Man He Killed” uses a bit of jargon, when the speaker says “but ranged as infantry” (Hardy 5) it doesn’t flow nearly as well as the rest of the poem, because they’re not really words that the speaker fully understands. This fact alone is very important, because the speaker does not care to understand exactly what the words mean, just as he never wanted to kill anybody. It also uses an alternating rhyme scheme, to help the poem flow, and to make the pauses that much more dramatic.

                “The Things They Carried” and “The Man He Killed” are two different works, by two different authors, but share a very similar view of war. Be it through the use of metaphors or dramatic pauses, these works allow readers to look into the minds of soldiers, and see how they’re emotionally affected by war, and the act of killing. These works share the theme: emotional baggage caused by war is overwhelming and forever damaging.

 

Shakespeare: The Master of Dramatic Irony

The Master of Dramatic Irony

Irony is a very important element of literature. Proper use of irony allows for an audience to know things that the characters in work of literature to know things that the characters in the literature do not know. When used properly, this knowledge is used to create feelings of humor and suspense for an audience. The power of irony makes it a very common literary element, and many famous authors and playwrights have used it to dramatize their works. For example, in Oedipus Rex, Sophocles has Oedipus search for the killer of the king, only to find out that it was himself who did the killing. The audience of course had known the entire time—which of course made for many humorous situations. Shakespeare is considered to be one of the most renowned ironic playwrights of all time.

One of the best examples of dramatic irony is in his play The Twelfth Night, Shakespeare uses irony extensively. The use of irony in this play is the source of a majority of the humor found within the play. More specifically dramatic irony is incredibly important in this play. Dramatic irony is created when the audience knows something that the characters don’t, and this play is filled with it. The dramatic irony is used to create a very engaging and funny experience for the audience. Without the extensive use of dramatic irony, The Twelfth Night would not have been nearly as funny and therefore there are many examples of irony found within the play.

The first and most important example of irony in The Twelfth Night is the most obvious: the dramatic irony that is created when Viola and Sebastian believe each other to be dead, when the audience of course knows that they’re both alive. This situation becomes even funnier, when Viola decides to take on the likeness of her twin brother—calling herself Cesario. This will prove to get the characters into many sticky situations in which they don’t understand what’s happening. One of the best examples of this is the first time that Sebastian meets Olivia. Olivia has fallen in love with Viola (who was pretending to be Sebastian). So in Olivia’s mind, Sebastian is the man he’s fallen in love with, when the audience knows that they’ve never actually met. This causes their first meeting to be not only very suspenseful, but also hilarious.  The dramatic irony doesn’t stop with just that one love triangle, however. Orsino, who is Viola’s boss, loves Olivia. So, Orsino sends Viola to attempt to earn Olivia’s favor for Orsino. He was less than pleased when he first saw Sebastian with Olivia. It’s the perfect example of dramatic irony, and modern writers should take note: Viola is passionate for a man who has no idea she is actually a woman. That very same man is in love with a woman who is in love with a man who is actually a woman!

Even the minor characters have their own bits of dramatic irony mixed into their side story to make it just that much more interesting. Poor Malvolio has the meanest of pranks played on him, and the prank is made even funnier due the presence of dramatic irony. The dramatic irony is created when Malvolio receives a note written in handwriting that looks like Olivia’s. The audience knows that the note was instead written by Olivia’s servant, but Malvolio believes it to be written by Olivia herself. The note gives Malvolio specific instructions to earn Olivia’s love, and is full of things that are out of character for Malvolio. He wears ridiculous clothes and acts like someone that he isn’t in the hopes that Olivia will fall in love with him. His actions instead have the opposite effect: she is bothered by his actions and has him treated like he’s insane instead. The entire time the audience knows what’s up, and every one of Malvolio’s miss steps is funnier than the last.

The use of all of this dramatic irony helps to create one of the major central themes of the play: the foolishness of mortals.  Dramatic irony is pivotal in the creation of this theme, because it allows an audience to experience what it’s like to be omnipotent. It forces people to realize what it’s like to be all-knowing, and through that, they can realize that outside of the theatre, they are not all knowing, and that they only know a small portion of every story that plays out in their lives. This theme is backed by happenings in the play. Every character makes decisions and judgments without all of the knowledge necessary to make said judgment. Malvolio is one example. Had he took the time to figure out who had written that letter, he would have acted a lot differently. Another example is when Olivia’s friends and family first meet Sebastian. They assume that he’s Cesario, even when he asserts that he is not. When combined with the dramatic irony that’s present, the audience is really able to realize exactly how foolish people can be.

Another central theme that is reinforced by the presence of dramatic irony is that ocular proof is not always enough. Shakespeare tests the old saying that you can believe what you see, by finding a situation in which what you see is false. The Viola / Sebastian situation is the perfect example of this. The characters in the play frequently trust their eyes, and are frequently proven to be foolish because of this. This repeated ‘what you see isn’t what you get’ asserts that what you see isn’t always the truth. The characters see Cesario, therefore Cesario is who it is, even though who they’re actually seeing is Sebastian himself. The dramatic irony allows the audience to recognize this fact, and presses the issue even harder. The audience can understand that just because something appears to be true, it may not be true.

The irony allows for yet another central theme to be possible. Shakespeare questions gender with his play as well. Because of Viola’s adventures as a man, many awkward situations are made. Olivia falls in love with a woman. Would she have been able to fall in love with the woman if she knew it was a woman she loved? Orsino falls in love with a woman who he thought was a man when he met him. These acts raise an important question: how important is gender? If a woman can love a woman just because she thinks he’s a man, what’s to stop her from loving a woman? This questions is enhanced near the end of the play. Orsino continues to call Viola by her boy name. Even in his very last line of the play, Orsino refers to Viola as Cesario. This raises the question of what Orsino finds so attractive about Viola. He may be attracted to her masculinity. Shakespeare never answers this question however, and leaves it up to the audience to decide.

The dramatic irony also helps to identify some of the many motifs present in the play. One of the most important motifs in the play is that of mistaken identity. Repeatedly Viola and Sebastian are mistaken for one another. The repeated cases of mistaken identity help to advance the storyline in a funny and suspenseful way, as the web that’s being woven continues to become more entangled and complicated. The further the story gets, the more the audience can’t wait for the finale: the time in which the twins will be reunited and everything will become resolved and the desire to see that moment of confusion for the characters builds a ton of suspense. Mistaken identity is closely linked to another major motif in the play: disguises. Many of the major characters in the play assume disguises during the play. Viola uses a disguise to convince everyone that she’s a man. Malvolio uses a disguise to try to earn Olivia’s love. Feste disguises himself as a priest to fool Malvolio. The fact that Feste uses a disguise even though Malvolio won’t be able to see him asserts how important clothing is—implying that in order to be a priest, Feste must first look like a priest. Not to mention, in order to become a man Viola only had to change her clothing.

It’s clearly evident that Shakespeare intended for dramatic irony to play a major part in The Twelfth Night. Without the presence of dramatic irony, the plot of this theme would have been many times less funny and suspenseful, and three of the major central themes would have been much harder to detect. The Twelfth Night uses so much dramatic irony, and Shakespeare proves himself to be the unrivaled master of dramatic irony in this play. Dramatic irony isn’t only found in this one of Shakespeare’s works though; there are many other examples of dramatic irony found in many of Shakespeare’s plays. Dramatic irony is very central in most of Shakespeare’s works.

In Romeo and Juliette dramatic irony plays a major part in making the play more tragic. The most obvious example is of course near the end. Juliette takes the poison to make herself appear dead. When Romeo finds her, he believes that she is dead even though the audience knows that she’s alive. The tragedy is that Romeo, convinced that he can’t live without her, decides to kill himself. Juliette then awakes to find her Romeo dead next to her, and realizing that what he had done, decides to kill herself as well. This scene is perhaps one of the most famous examples of dramatic irony throughout history, but this play does contain more dramatic irony than just that little bit. For example, Juliette’s father promises Juliette to marry Paris when the audience knows that Romeo has already married Juliette making the union of Juliette and Paris impossible. Another example is how throughout the entire play, both families swear up and down that they can never forgive, but the audience knows that they will because of the prologue. There’s also the simple aspect: the audience knows that both Romeo and Juliette will die (also because of the prologue) but none of the characters are privy to the information.

In Othello dramatic irony also plays a very important roll. First and foremost, the audience knows that Iago is the puppet master for the rest of the play when Othello believes him to be a good friend and advisor. The audience also knows that Othello was never cheated on, and they know that Othello trusts someone who isn’t trustworthy. More dramatic irony is also created when the characters step aside to think aloud: this act allows the audience to see into the minds of the characters, allowing them access to knowledge that none of the other characters have. The use of dramatic irony in Othello keeps the story compelling and the audience engaged.

Dramatic irony is a very important story-telling tool, and Shakespeare uses it to its fullest in many of his plays, most notably The Twelfth Night, but also in many of his other works, including Othello and Romeo and Juliette. He masterfully uses dramatic irony in his works to create emotion in his audience, which has a drastic affect on how his plays are taken as well as the messages that they send. His works are time tested examples of how to use dramatic irony to create humor, tragedy, and suspense, and how to keep an audience interested through an entire performance. Shakespeare is truly the master of dramatic irony.

 

War: Countless Downsides.

                One of the countless downsides of war is the emotional baggage thrust upon the soldiers involved in the war. “The Things They Carried” exemplifies the emotional luggage by using literal items that soldiers bring to war as metaphors for harsh emotions. “The Man He Killed” uses a monologue to give the reader a glimpse into the mind of a soldier, to let the world know how distraught he is over the killing of a man he may have been friends with otherwise.  It’s chilling to read “The Things They Carried” and “The Man He Killed” together because they give the reader a feeling of overwhelming pity for the soldiers who now must lug around more than their fair share of burden.

                “The Things They Carried” lists off the physical objects that soldiers “humped” through Vietnam. These physical things that they carry are certainly metaphors for the emotional things that they are forced to heave through this foreign land, and the theme is that the emotional sides of the items they carry are much heavier than the physical weight of the item. A perfect example of this is the character Henry Dobbins. Dobbins carries his girlfriend’s pantyhose, but with them he also carries the want for affection, compassion and comfort. This longing for love is much heavier than the twenty-three pound machine gun and the ten to fifteen pounds of ammunition that he carries. It is the same for every character in this story: Cross, who carries the maps and a compass, which are symbolic of his desire for order, has to carry the responsibility of the lives of the rest of the soldiers in the Alpha Company. There is no burden heavier than this.

                “The Man He Killed” makes similar claims, though does it in an entirely different way. Hardy supplies the reader with an unsettling monologue that gives a unique view into the mind of a soldier. This poem tackles the nature of war—that war is dirty and makes men do things that they aren’t interested in doing, and through that confrontation it opens up the mindset of a soldier and really shows how harsh the reality of war is on the psyche of a soldier. Take “I shot him dead because—Because he was my foe.” for example. The dramatic pause, then the repetition of “because” is as if the speaker is trying to convince himself that he did nothing wrong. He goes on to say that of course the guy he shot was a foe, and the speaker expresses real doubt that this is the case by ending the stanza with the word “although” then going on to say that “Off-hand like—just as I—Was out of work—Had sold his traps—No other reason why” he basically means “well, he was only there because he was out of work, same as me” in more poetic words. This questioning of his actions, however long after-the-fact shows that the speaker may very well have deep psychological issues due to the emotional baggage of war.

                Thomas Hardy and Tim O’Brien would definitely agree that the emotional cost on the soldiers is one of the most tragic parts of war. When O’Brien defines “hump” on page 1173 as “walk[ing] or march[ing], but [with] implied burdens far beyond the intransitive” he’s not just talking about the just physical weight, but also the emotional weight, that the items that the soldiers have to carry. Similarly the speaker in “The Man He Killed” expresses that war is “quaint and curious” meaning that there really isn’t anything quite like it—and that if the speaker had met the man that he killed in a bar, he’d treat him to a drink, or at least help him to “half-a-crown.” This shooting of someone that he had nothing against seems to haunt the speaker, and one can only imagine how burdening that must be.  

                These eye opening tales use different styles to allow the reader to get the reader to understand just how destructive the overbearing emotions of war can be on the psyche of a soldier. Some of the literary elements used in “The Things They Carried” are metaphors, flashbacks, repetition and imagery. These elements used together are very effective, especially since the narrator is third-person omnipotent. “The Man He Killed” uses a bit of jargon, when the speaker says “but ranged as infantry” it doesn’t flow nearly as well as the rest of the poem, because they’re not really words that the speaker fully understands. It also uses an alternating rhyme scheme, to help the poem flow, and to make the pauses that much more dramatic.

                “The Things They Carried” and “The Man He Killed” are two different works, by two different authors, but share a very similar view of war. Be it through the use of metaphors or dramatic pauses, these works allow readers to look into the minds of soldiers, and see how they’re emotionally affected by war, and the act of killing. These works share the theme: emotional baggage caused by war is overwhelming and forever damaging.