To My Dear and Loving Husband

              To My Dear and Loving Husband is a poem written by Anne Bradstreet. This play seems to be about Bradstreet and her husband’s love for each other. The first line says “if ever two were one, the surely we” (Bradstreet).  This line means that if there were ever considered that two people loved each other so much that they became one person, that her husband and her would be that couple. This really shows how important the two mean to each other. The most influential part of the poem that gives an example of how much their love means to her is lines five and six that say “I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold/ or all the riches that the East doth hold” (Bradstreet).  The sad part is that many people prize money more than their husbands and wives. Bradstreet explains that she prizes him more than anything. I think that line seven is very interesting that she used a type of metaphor to describe her love for her husband. This line says “My love is such that rivers cannot quench” (Bradstreet).  It is hard to think of that much love existing between two people. Bradstreet later goes on to say in line nine that “Thy love is such I can no way repay” (Bradstreet).  This line begins to make the readers think about who she is repaying for this love because she has already described how much she loves her husband. Is she repaying God for this strong love in her life or her husband for loving and caring for her so much? The following lines begin to talk about love in relation to heaven. Line ten says “The heavens reward thee manifold. I pray” (Bradstreet).  We learn here that she is probably referring in line nine to repaying her husband. She believes that her husband loves her more than she loves him and she cannot repay him. I got this idea because of line ten saying “heavens reward thee manifold,” which means God will reward all types or various amounts of love for each other (Bradstreet, line 10). Lines eleven and twelve say “Then while we live, in love let’s so preserve/ That when we live not more, we may live ever” (Bradstreet).  These two lines are stating that while they are living and loving, they should conserve their love so that it will last forever, even in heaven after they die. The line twelve really makes the readers think about what Bradstreet is really meaning by “we may live ever” (Bradstreet, line 12).  Does this mean that as long as they love they will live forever or will they still love in heaven forever?  I found there to be little irony in this poem, but I did find line nine, that speaks about not being able to repay his love, ironic because she just describe how much she loved her husband and how much she cared for him. I believe that this poem was truly written about someone that Bradstreet loved because of all the intense metaphors that are included in this poem to describe their love for each other.

Schilb, John, and John Clifford. "To My Dear and Loving Husband." Making Literature Matter: an Anthology for Readers and Writers. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. 574-75. Print.

A Raisin in the Sun

“A Raisin in the Sun” is a play written by Lorraine Hansberry. Like many writers, she wrote about her real life circumstances and what was important to her. This play starts in the middle of a story. We learn that “Mama” is going to be receiving a ten thousand dollar insurance check from the death of her husband. What is interesting about this play is the fact that no one seems to be sad about the death of Walter’s father (mama’s husband). The whole family is just worried about getting the insurance check and where they are going to invest the money. Walter is the son of Mama; he seems to be very self-centered and only worries about himself. Walter and his mother disagree about where to spend the money. Mama wants to put a down payment on a house in a white neighborhood, instead of living in the “ghetto.” Walter disagrees and wants to spend the money on a liquor business with two of his friends.  His mother objects to investing the money in a liquor store because she sees the fact that liquor will cause more problems in their neighborhood and for ethical reasons. This dispute causes small arguments throughout the play. After Mama invested half of the money into a down payment on a house, Walter gets very angry and cause more disputes and anger within the family. To solve some of the issues between Mama and Walter, Mama gives Walter the other half of the remaining money to invest in the liquor store. Unfortunately, one of Walter Lee’s business partners and supposed friends ran off with the money. This tests everyone’s beliefs and 

Even though the main conflict of the play is between Mama and Walter Lee, there are many other members in the Young family household that gets involved in the arguments and is concerned about the money.  We see in this play that Ruth, Walter’s wife, is very exhausted and seems to have a lot of responsibility in their household. Walter seems to look down on Ruth. We see this even more during the scene where Ruth tells Travis (Walter and Ruth’s son) that he cannot have fifty cents for school and Walter gets angry with her and gives Travis a full dollar, which he could not afford. He claims that he did this so that Travis will not worry about the money issues that the family is having. We can tell from the play that Walter and Ruth are having their own arguments as well. We can tell that she is annoyed with Walter because of many reasons for example she ignores his request for “not scrambled eggs” and scrambles them anyway.  

Throughout the play we find that Ruth is pregnant. The family has many more arguments and they are threatened by the white neighborhood for putting the down payment on the house. This play shows that Mama is still the head of her household. We also see that many of the other members of the household is very self-centered, not just Walter. In the end, the family turns down Linder (a person form the white neighborhood that tries to bribe the Younger family not to move to the white neighborhood) by turning down the bribe and moving anyway.

My Father, In Heaven, Is Reading Out Loud

My Father, In Heaven, Is Reading Out Loud is a poem written by Li-Young Lee. In this poem Lee speaks of his father in a unique way. We can tell from this poem that Lee’s father was very religious and read the bible often. We know this because lines 1 and 2 say “My father, in heaven, is reading out loud to himself Psalms or news.” I like that in this poem that Lee resembles the father’s study to heaven. God is in heaven and only comes down when he is needed. In this poem, Lee’s father comes down from his study to help the children when they need him. We get a feeling by the middle of the poem that Lee’s father seems to be strict and he seems to have a grudge against him.

The part of this poem that has the most metaphors and really makes the readers think in lines 9 through 15. It states “Because my father walked the earth with a grave, determined rhythm, my shoulders ached from his gaze” (Lee lines 9 – 11). I get the feeling that his father was very determined and was tough on his children as well. “Because my father’s shoulders ached from the pulling of oars, my life now moves with a powerful back and forth rhythm: nostalgia, speculation” (Lee lines 11-14). I believe that these lines of the poem mean that his father worked hard to get his family where they were and he does let his family forget their past or where they can be in the future.

Closer to the end of the poem, Lee begins to see that his father isn’t so “Godly” after all. He is actually quite normal. We know this from lines 29-36. In these lines we find that his father was a scholar that looked up to God, but not only God. We find that his father looked up to God to know what to do when he had to pack up his family, but he also listen to the radio. This is when Lee finds that his dad is just like him. Lines 32 through 36 say “ At the doorway, I watched, and I suddenly knew he was one like me, who got my learning from under a lintel; he was one of the powerless, to who knowledge came while he sat among suitcases, boxes, old newspapers, string” (Lee lines 32-36). These lines are where Lee really sees who his father is. He doesn’t see him as this strict God that stays in his study reading the bible or a news paper, but another human being.

The last stanza of the poem relates how normal his father is compared to a God that he idolized him to be in the beginning. “He did not decide peace or war, home or exile, escape by land or escape by sea” (Lee lines 37- 38). He used to see his father as a person that could decide war or peace as God would do. He used to see his father as this powerful and scary man that he now sees is not real.

I found this poem to be inspiring.  It gave us the insight that most children see of their fathers to be strict and powerful, but truly they are just human trying to get through the hard times of life.

Shooting Rats at the Bibb County Dump

             Shooting Rats at the Bibb County Dump is a poem written by David Bottoms. I found this poem to be interesting, yet disturbing. This poem makes the readers wonder why the kids are attracted to shooting the rats. Why are they so violent?  The answers to these questions are not specifically told in this poem, but we can make some assumption by what is said and described in the detailed words in the poem.

            In the beginning of the poem we find that the kids are drinking. This means that the parents are most likely not in the picture very much, which could be one reasoning for them shooting the rats. We know this because line 1 says “Loaded on beer and whiskey, we ride.” We also learn that it is not just a very small group or just a couple of children, but many of them going to the Bibb County dump. We know this because line 2 says “to the dump in carloads.”  I found the line that talks about the groups of people getting to the dump turning on their headlights is meaningful in more than one way. I see this light as a way to show the vulnerable rats in the waste field. It also can relate to how the groups of people that are engaging in this activity are shown as vulnerable like the rats. This poem shows that the darkness seems to be where it is safe, for the rats and the people alike. I kind of get an idea that they may live in a ghetto neighborhood. 

               The middle of this poem tells about the violence of killing the rats. The first line that speaks about the actual violence of murdering the rats says “Shot in the head, they jump only once, lie still/ like dead beer cans” (Bottoms, lines 5-6). The poem then begins to depict what would happen to the rats that get shot, but do not die instantly. Bottom describes a vivid picture of the rats crawling into the darkness (where it is safe). He does this by saying

“Shot in the gut or rump, they writhe and try to burrow

into garbage, hide in old truck tires,

rusty oil drums, cardboard boxes scattered across the mounds,

or else drag themselves on forelegs across our beams of light

toward the darkness at the edge of the dump” (Bottoms lines 7-11)

               Again in this section of the poem, Bottoms speaks about the importance of the light and dark. This has a great symbolic reasoning in this poem. Bottoms makes the ending of this poem very interesting and makes his readers begin to think.

              

               “It's the light they believe kills.

               We drink and load again, let them crawl

               for all they're worth into the darkness we're headed for” (Bottoms line 12-14).

              

               I begin to get the feeling that the characters in this poem are lonely or not believed in. They see the darkness and avoiding others is a way staying safe. I see the rats in this poem as a type of young children that do not know what is in store for the future. The children shooting at them see themselves as powerful for once and are teaching the “children” (the rats) what is in store and that the world that they live is not so great.

"The Elephant Man"

“The Elephant Man” is a playwright that was written by Bernard Pomerance. This play was written about a true story and a real person, John Merrick. John Merrick is a young man that has a terrible, crippling disease that changed his life from the beginning. In the beginning of this play, John is part of a traveling circus. In this circus, John is advertised as part elephant and part man. He has to expose himself for others to view and gawk at for money. He was able to do this for a place to live and have someone to care for him.

            When the circus travels to Belgium, the police say that he is indecent for others to view. When this happens, Ross sends him away. The police that take him find a card that was given to him by Dr. Treves that works at London hospital. Dr. Treves takes John Merrick in and begins to study his anatomy. He hopes to help John be as normal as possible. He tells John that he can live at the hospital and call it “home.” While Merrick stays at the hospital, he is introduced to many of the highest people in the land. As we read the play, we find the Merrick is actually very intelligent and religious. While he is in the hospital, Merrick builds a model of St. Phillips. This helps him pass time while he is alone. He is also visited by an actress named Mrs. Kendal. She actually grows fond of Merrick and visits him often. She understands his want to be normal and to see a beautiful woman naked, so she reveals herself to him. As soon as this happens, Treves walks in and demands her to leave. This I think is the most tragic part of Merrick’s life. Mrs. Kendal saw John as a real person and had intriguing conversations with him. This made the last times of his life more lonely and sad. In the end Treves realizes that he was wrong to make her leave, but he does not have her come back because he claims he doesn’t want her to be there when Merrick dies. Merrick lives out the rest of his life at the hospital until he dies from his head falling backward in his sleep, crushing his air way.

            I believe that Merrick was lucky in a way to live safely in the hospital, but I think that Treves begins to act the same way that Ross, the circus director, treated Merrick. He tries to tell him what he can and cannot do. Treves claims that he is protecting him from being seen and humiliated by viewers and gawkers, but he shows his photos to everyone and invites others to come and meet him (see him and the affects of his crippling disease). This playwright was very eye-opening to me. It helped me to see how others with mental and physical disabilities may feel because others stare and gawk at them every day. I think this play was also educational about the beliefs, debates, and life that took place during the time period that Merrick had lived. I think this play touches more people because it relates to the life of a real person. I encourage others to read this playwright and look deeper into what you read. Consider feelings and research the time period to get a better understanding of the play.

"Trifles"

            “Trifles” is a play that was written by Susan Glaspell. This play is mainly about the murder of Mr. Wright. The men in this play are trying to look for obvious hints to the fact that Mrs. Wright murdered her husband. In the beginning of the play, Mr. Hale tells the Court
Attorney what he observed the day that he arrived at the home to find that Mr. Wright was murdered. The women, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, try defending Mrs. Wright. As they investigate the crime scene, which is Mr. and Mrs. Wright’s home, the men just look for obvious things that would make Mrs. Wright a bad wife. An example that the men find would be her bad housekeeping and the women observe her bad sewing. The women look for more sentimental reasons for why Mrs. Wright would murder Mr. Wright.

            I believe the most important part of this play is the bird that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters find. First they find an empty bird cage, and then they find that the hinge is broken on the bird cage. Then they find the bird dead in a box, its neck was wrung.  Then women begin to try to come to a conclusion of why its neck had been wrung. As the readers, we have to observe that previously in the play the women were speaking about Mr. and Mrs. Wright not having children and being lonely. We have to relate to the fact that Mr. Wright didn’t want children because they were noisy. The bird could be noisy as well. Did Mr. Wright kill the bird? If Mr. Wright killed the bird, did Mrs. Wright kill him for killing her only loving companion? In the beginning of the play it is stated that Mr. Wright was not a drunk but he was quiet and not much company. We get the idea that Mrs. Wright would be mad that the bird was killed because Mrs. Peters relates to her feelings when a boy killed one of her kittens when she was just a young girl.

            The women come to the conclusion that Mrs. Wright liked the bird very much because she was going to bury it in a pretty box. The women are not certain about who killed the bird or Mr. Wright, but they have an idea that it was Mrs. Wright. Even though they think it was Mrs. Wright that committed the crime, they think that she should not be punished for it because of the life that she had to live with Mr. Wright. They decided to hide the evidence because they knew it was the violent evidence that the men were looking for to prove Mrs. Wright committed this horrible crime. The men think that since Mrs. Peters is the wife of the sheriff, she is married to the law.

            I think that the women in the play are not doing this to make themselves feel better. I believe that they think that they could have kept this from happening by visiting Mrs. Wright more often. If they visited more often, they would have knew the situation and kept her company. If Mrs. Wright felt part of the women society, maybe she would have gotten out more and wouldn’t have only had a bird as a companion, leaving her alone when Mr. Wright killed it.

The Fish

                The Fish by Elizabeth Bishop is a poem with great irony. In the beginning of the poem, the speaker has caught a “tremendous fish” that she speaks of to be victorious. The catch to this is that she speaks how ugly the fish looks and in lines 5 that “He didn’t fight.”  I found this to be very strange.

                In the first part of this poem the speaker caught a big fish, but he is not fighting as he hangs off the boat with a hook in his mouth. The next part says that he didn’t fight at all. To describe his weight and the way that he looks, the fish is described by saying “He hung a grunting weight.” The poem then says that the fish is “battered and venerable”.  The skin on this huge fish “hung in strips like ancient wall-paper.” This helps the reader see how beat up and old this huge fish is.

                Bishop describes the fish in even more detail by saying that “he was speckled with barnacles, fine rosettes of lime.” This poor fish is described to be old and beat up and is even “infested with tiny white sea-lice.”

                The speaker then states that she is thinking of the white flesh, bones, and his entrails as if she is planning to eat this fish. After thinking all of these things, she looks into the eyes of the fish. She describes his eyes as bigger than her but did not return her stare. She then begins to “admire his sullen face.” Then she sees his lower lip. The writer states that in his lip “hung five old pieces of fish-line.”  The writer begins to describe how all of these lines and hooks have grown into the fish’s huge mouth.  One thing that contradicted the beginning of this poem is line 61 that says “like medals with their ribbons.” In this sentence the writer is referring to all of the hooks that he got away from and lines he broke. He used to be such a trophy because he had broke all of those lines that were so much bigger than the speaker’s fishing line.

                At the end of this poem you can then realize that the speaker has seen the beauty of this fish. In the beginning of this poem, the speaker relates to the fish as ugly and raged, but now the speaker sees how strong and rewarding this nice fish had been through the years of his youth. She begins to see that all of those flaws that she saw are just trophy scars that prove how magnificent he used to be. The speaker has realized all of this and has decided to let the fish live out the rest of his great life being this strong warrior.

                The biggest irony of this story is how the opinion of the speaker changes. At the beginning of the story, we expect the speaker to keep this fish and take this ugly fish home to eat but she does not. At the end of the poem, the speaker decides to let this great fish go free.

Bishop, Elizabeth. "The Fish." Making Literature Matter: An Anthology for Readers and Writers. By John Schilb and John Clifford. Fourth Edition ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009. 830-832. Print.