Stack of Pancakes

MOTIF: starvation/hunger

EXAMPLES: starving, looking, fix, poverty, hollow-eyed, smoking, cold-water, ate fire, drank turpentine, mouth-wracked, stale beer afternoon, vomiting, hospitals, lonesome farms, lounged hungry, seeking jazz sex or soup, other skeletons, diner backyards, gaunt waitresses, ate the lamb stew of the imagination, digested the crab at the muddy bottom of the rivers, pushcarts full of onions, cooked rotten animals lung heart feet tail and tortillas dreaming of the pure vegetable kingdom, plunged themselves under meat trucks looking for an egg, chinatown soup alley, poverty is the specter of genius….

The motif becomes more specific, and also more poetic as the poem goes on. Throughout the poem the hunger motif seems dirty and poor. Some things are described as rotten, lonesome, and gaunt. I think Ginsberg uses this motif to draw attention to the pathetic aspects of our culture, for example, the line plunged themselves under meat trucks looking for an egg…seems so sad and desperate, but true. Also somehow I get the feeling that he is juxtaposing our advancing society with cultures past, or at least thats what I associate with words such as stew, pushcarts and lonesome farms. He also seems extreme when he says things like ate fire and drank turpentine, it seems so harsh and unfortunate, like these people have no choice but to live off what they can find in a concrete jungle. 

The betrayal of loyalty is so tragic in this play because it came from the worst place (greedy, self interest), it was intentional, and it was a complete reversal of personal and social values for Eddie. Loyalty is extremely important in this play because the community portrayed is so tightly knit and interwoven that it is more like a family. And within a family, certain values must be upheld. For this community/family, loyalty to each other is the only thing that is keeping them a community. The importance of staying loyal to one another, keeping each other safe, looking out for one another…that is what a family is for. For this working class community it is important to look out for one another. 

Loyalty in the 1950s would have been a difficult issue because the government was dealing with the red scare, trying to stomp out communism and constantly questioned people, investigated their lives etc. trying to determine who is loyal and who is not. This all would have hit home for Miller whom I believe was labeled a communist or often suspected of or being affiliated with communist organizations. Once again this could have been true or it could have been someone trying to get Miller in trouble per say, which brings us back to the topic of loyalty. 

For Eddie, I think he really is a loyal person. He did volunteer to house two illegal immigrants. Eddie became corrupted by jealousy. We could speculate that he was suppressing homosexual desires, and obviously that he was infatuated with his niece, and either way the anger he felt not being able to have what he wanted caused him to become a jealous animal. He acted out of complete rage, first when he reported to the Immigration officers and again when he attacked Marco. By letting his feelings control him, instead of sensibility, he betrayed his own value system. 

I think that replying “fine” to anything is just a word used to skirt other words. Just because you feel fine doesnt mean you are…and fine doesnt really mean anything. For example when youve been sick but you have to go to work or something and people ask how do you feel? And you answer “fine.” Well, how do you feel? Do you feel sick or tire or what? Fine doesnt really tell me how your feeling. This situation is exactly like that. She is using the word fine, because she thinks that is what he wants to here, and that he doesnt care about how she actually feels. It might start another fight or she might get really emotional, the best way to dead end a conversation is to deliver a flat “fine” response. I feel like this is why the story ends this way, it is the end of the conversation, its fine, its over, lets ignore it and not talk about it etc. 

I agree with the girl when she says she doesnt feel anything , she just knows things meaning she doesnt have to feel a certain way or the other in order to know one certain thing, one inalienable thing. She knows something whether she decides to tell him or not what that is. There is evidence that he has been trying to manipulate her into feeling a certain way about the situation and also a slight tone of annoyance on her part when he asks “Do you feel better?” And she twice repeats “I feel fine.” By repeating “I feel fine” it seems to say that shes not fine, more than it says she is fine and whatever they were talking about she just wants to ignore. Also, possibly she is ignoring how she really feels. And by saying “I feel fine” rather than “I feel scared” or “I feel angry” etc., she is also trying to trick herself into thinking she knows something else, than what she already thought she knew. 

I would have loved to visit the Armory Show during its run, just to hear the forced interpretations or see the shock on peoples faces. This stuff is modern because it reconstructs everything you previously picture an object to look like. A square room may no longer have lines constructing the door or separating the floor and the wall. Modernists basically take the idea of “form,” be it human or otherwise, that is in your head, they know what you are thinking and then they destroy it, they make you think that maybe you don’t really know what the human form looks like or maybe they allow you to view the human form from another angle, another possibility. The end result is a greater use of imagination. 

For example, two of my favorite, most dramatic paintings were Marcel Duchamp’s “Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2″ and Francis Picabia’s “Dances at the Spring” and probably were two of the more criticized artists at the show. Both their works were exhibited in Gallery I, soon to be called the Room of Horrors. But in these two paintings we are presenting with something completely unfamiliar. The title leads us to imagine a naked women descending a simple staircase and two people dancing, in bright spring colors, possibly with elements of nature in there. What we are presented with is basically complete chaos. In “Dances at the Spring” at least I can make out two humanish forms, albeit they are chopped up in contrasting color blocks-some are highlight, some are dark etc, that seem to be embracing and dancing. Perhaps the strange circular shapes surrounding them are the elements of nature I was looking for. But I like it. 

In “Nude Descending a Staircase” there is even less “form” and I can see why people held contests to find the staircase or the nude. But I think part of the intention is to find those things, in your imagination. I do see the nude figure, in motion, descending a staircase. To me, the figure moves from dark to light to give us that impression that it is in motion. Also, I feel like its “descending” is like dancing and it has shifted from a frontal view to a side view at the bottom. And while it may not be a classic human figure, the imagination lets you place those traditional constructs on top of this painting to interpret it on a personal level. 

I also loved the sculptures by Constantin Brancusi, in particular “The Kiss” and “Mademoiselle Pogany.” ”The Kiss” is just a square, and how can people make a square? I think this artist plays in the idea that the human body it made to fit another and create a whole. The two halves of the kiss look equally alike except for the female side has a slightly different hair wave and a little belly pouch as well.

I love “Mademoiselle Pogany” because I cant even understand the back side of it. Its a little woman head, but kind of alienish and the side of it is left raw and I cant see why an audience back then would not like it, I believed they called it “a hard boiled egg balanced on a sugar cube.” The audience only saw a hard boiled egg because they know the form of a hard-boiled egg, they saw a sugar cube because they know what a sugar cube looks like. But just because you’ve never seen a head like this, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. We have to stop seeing hard boiled eggs and sugar cubes – thats why I like this sculpture. 

In review, what we have learned from modernists at the armor show is that they believe reality isn’t just what you see in front of your face and we must find a new angle to observe reality with. I dont think they are trying to redefine art, because art is constantly being changed and shaped, and the modernists view reflects just one aspect of art’s ever shifting form. 

My excerpt is when Drouet suggests that Carrie should take part in the play. At this point she has become accustomed to her comfortable, money centered life. I feel like for the most part this is a male narrator commenting on Carries inner thoughts and reactions to acting. The narrator seems to poke fun at Carries ambitions and condescend her talents. There are some parts where I feel like Carrie is speaking in an empowered voice, as if the acting will make her grow stronger, “it was a delightful sensation”  but that seems to be the only place i could find her voice. The rest is the narrator commenting on Carrie and her abilities to imitate. Some examples, “she possessed an innate taste for imitations and not small ability,” “she was created with that passivity of soul which is always the mirror of the active world.”

It was really hard to find and separate the voices but mostly I kept asking myself if this line was something Carrie would say, or something Drouet would say, etc, but it just revealed that the characters dont have as much voice as the narrator, so I wasnt sure if I was missing something. 

I think this scene is victorious in two ways. First, for us (and her) because we (together sort of) prove that yes, she was sick in the head, not in the body. This is proof and you have fainted. Your wrong. It is also a victory for her, in the sick part of her mind, because she has come out of the wall paper “I’ve got out at last!”.

But this is also a defeat for the narrator because she has gone insane. She actually believes she has come out of the wallpaper. Obviously she’s too far gone now to go back. She’s just insane. 

There’s a certain slant of light,

There’s a certain-a bit cheeky, secretive, maybe Ill be let into the secret too. Certainty of statement/secret and comfort in certainty, warm afternoon sun, slanting through the window, slipping through the trees. 

On winter afternoons,

Winter afternoons are my favorite. But what’s going on, on a winter afternoon? Winter is cold, but the light is shining through a window in the afternoon, warmth inside and coldness outside. but its a winter afternoon, hopefully there’s snow and the sun is shinning on it making it glitter. Afternoons are relaxing, leisurely.

That oppresses, like the weight

That oppresses sounds omnipotent as if all things oppress at once. But what exactly oppresses, oppress like the weight on your shoulders, changes weighing down on you and decisions weighing you down. 

Of cathedral tunes.

Of is reminiscent, reminiscing of cathedral tunes loud, vibrating and foreboding, earth shattering, choirs singing higher and higher (ahhhh ahhhhhhh) like going through the gates of hell or something. Cathedral is old, but structurally sound and beautiful, gothic and dark, musty but secretive as well. Tunes makes me think like tuning in, paying attention but also tunes like young, hip (listen to some tunes maaaan) which doesn’t fit well with the rest of the line. Thinking about the oppression, and weight, it makes me think that the cathedral isn’t a happy place or a good memory. 

Heavenly hurt it gives us;

Heavenly hurt-an alliteration, but a very sad statement. Heavenly is good, pure, beautiful, light, but to combine is with hurt-maybe its so beautiful and pure it hurt. It gives us- first of all who is “us” not addressing some deity (i think that would be more specific and direct) but the speaker is referring to us as in perhaps a lesser form (humans maybe). It gives us-giving is caring, sharing something will someone, its free, its supposed to be free from obligation. Maybe the heavenly goodness is given unconditionally but its intense too, its so intense it hurts. The semicolon; leads us into another thought, we are left thinking about the hurt but the semicolon breaks it up and its sort of just in the back of our minds. 

We can find no scar,

Its the “we” again, “us” and “we.” Is we the reader and the speaker? Joined together? We can, makes me think the “we” are able in some way, they are trying – sure they didn’t find anything but they were trying, its positive, its a good thing…if the “we” were passive it would say “we found no scar,” its somehow more definitive, but has a negative tone, like failure. But the air of this line is questionable, the “we” is almost questioning why they find no scar, as if they expected there to be one, or they know there is a scar but they cannot find it. Maybe the scar is mental, a mental scaring experience that did happen, but no visible mark is left. 

But internal difference

The work internal always makes me think of internal injuries, internal bleeding, secretive and painful, slowly attacking you, something inside harming you, turning your insides red, filling them up. Its kind of a yucky word. Difference is opposite, its change, contrast and controversy, like two magnets. Combining those things doesn’t sound very good- internal difference is like fighting insides, things not meshing like their supposed to. “But” internal difference sounds like a conflict between the gut and the mind, the mind says one thing but the internal difference disagrees and says another thing. Or the scar could be internal, the only scar left is that difference between mind and gut. 

Where the meanings are.

Where are the meanings? Why is meaning spelled “meanings,” why has the writer made it plural? There must be multiple situations or experiences and therefore multiple things to define/give meaning to. This line makes me think of the saying “where the heart is” and in a way it sort of relates…where the meanings are=where the heart is. Wherever meaning is, is your heart, or the meaning is inside your heart. Something means the world to you, its in your heart. But it also sounds like a question, where are the meanings? The writer cant find them, or understand them fully. If you think about the previous line, the meanings are in the internal difference…the meaning could be in the gut, the heart, the insides. 

None may teach it anything, 

None, is no one. May, you may do something, its permission. No one has permission to teach. But what is 
“it,” it cant be taught..or rather “it” as a thing [not a subject, which can be taught ;D ). “It” makes is sound soulless, an inanimate object, you cant teach it anything because there is no life in it. BUt its even more dismal than that, to say “none may teach the tree anything” still sounds more lively that “it.” But the word “anything” makes it feel hopeful again, anything is better than nothing. But maybe “anything” is more dismal than nothing. Anything, when you really think about it, is daunting, its infinite, its almost overwhelming. So it really is more negative…anything ever known EVER and “it” cant be taught any little bit of any knowledge at all. 

‘T is the seal, despair,-

Usually tis can be spelt tis or t’is but this it ‘T is…i think the writer is saying iT is, but I don’t like it, it throws me off. If you read it quickly or you arn’t paying attention it sounds like “tis the seal, despair” as if despair is the seal…but really, when you read it slowly, it sounds like it is the seal (stop) despair (stop)…and could be saying two different things – either way its sad. The seal of despair, or despair is sealed away, its all sad. But the hyphen is used for the first time in this line and highlights a significant break. 

An imperial affliction

Imperial=royal, ruling, oppressing, expanding, conquest, war, slavery, wealth, power, discovery and control. Affliction is worse than sickness, affliction= suffering, tormenting, torture, injure, intensity, pain. An imperial affliction suggests an affliction brought on by imperialism. The greatest amount of pain, coming from the greatest force. 

Sent us of the air.

First of all, I had to check another source, I thought I misquoted the poem…”off” instead of “of” which now doesn’t make sense. But “sent us off” would make sense. Sent, to send something, command it, mail it, direct something. The air, is light, omnipresent, blue, necessity.  Sending air, would be absurd, silly. Sending someone made of air, person of lightness or like God..like air. 

When it comes, the landscape listens,

What is it? It is the air? The air is coming that has been sent. The landscape, vastness, mountains, valleys, oceans, lakes, rivers, fields, canyons, beaches, forests, plains, deserts everywhere…these permanent features listen, so intently because they aren’t going anywhere. They listen intensely because “when is comes” is so fierce,its emphasized by the first line…it’s coming, there’s anticipation, it’s coming, it’s coming and when is comes, you’d better listen, there is nothing better than listening, and truly listening. The air travels from the mountains to the valleys-the air brings a message and they listen. Or, it could be the slant of light. When it comes, the landscape responds, it reacts, it comes alive and (in the case of snow) its becomes beautiful. 

Shadows hold their breath;

Personification, how can shadows hold their breath if they aren’t real? If the wind is skimming all these places, the mountains, the forrest the plains..it would miss the shadows, it wouldn’t make it to them, they are holding their breath, waiting, wishing for the air to come, waiting for the secret. But there’s also a bit of a dark side to this line. Shadows can be creepy, death like, frightening and to hold your breath is to test death but also if you hold your breath you could be expecting something, waiting for something->waiting for the wind/air. Shadows could also disappear in the light, and in that sense they are holding their breath just waiting to come out again. 

When it goes, ‘t is like the distance

When it…what…the air again? Like the distance doesn’t make much sense. When the wind goes, its like the distance between what and what? Like the distance, obvious distancing, opposition between two points or ideas. It could be breath, when the breath is released, when it goes, when it goes out again. If the “it” is the slant of light, and when it goes away it becomes dark, the landscape becomes shadow. 

On the look of death.

Look on death, on the brink of death. The look of death, is sickly, dark, sad. If the breath is held, and goes out again it is the distance from death, it puts distance between it and death. If the slant of light is “it” then when it goes away, and darkness takes its place, it could look like death. Then there wouldn’t really be distance, there would only be darkness and death. 

List the most interesting, important, surprising discoveries or observations that you’ve made about the poem:

In my word by word reading, and relation, there seems to be a big theme between light and dark, and conversely life and death. Other than that it was really hard to read one line as an individual thought because you wanted to relate the line to the previous line, you wanted to make connections but by waiting until the end, then I went back and made different connections from what I had written. Without looking back over my writing, I would recall, light as life, death and nature. Those are probably the biggest themes. But as for observing the poem, there’s not much else to it, simple rhyme, simple style. I really didn’t like ‘T is because it doesn’t make sense and it throws off the flow.

Also words you could compress the poem and divide it into two parts:

“Happy” words: afternoon, tunes, heavenly, meanings, teach, seal, air, landscape, listen, breath

“Sad” words: winter, oppresses, weight, hurt, scar, internal, difference, despair, imperial, affliction, sent, shadows, distance, death

There are clearly more sad words than happy ones and on that basis its a bit of a sad/dark poem. 

When Whitman “addresses” the tide he says “I watch you face to face” but when he “addresses” the crowd he says “how curious you are to me” its as if the crowd is the inanimate object and the tide is a person. He talks to the crowd likes people talk to babies or animals, or thats how I imagine him saying it – like they are foreign to him (thus the curiosity) but the flood-tide is real and powerful, demanding his attention and respect. Even though the tide and the crowd both seem to overwhelm “I” (1 vs 100 idea) he respects the “I vs. the tide” or he faces it boldly because maybe he cant wonder about it. But the crowd, the “I vs. the crowd,” still outnumbers him.

I don’t know if that makes any sense but either way, the I is singled out, and at the end of the poem everything is one, “not you or I alone. We are one” but also he addresses the river again, but this time its much more mellow, its calmed down and become part of we as well, or it is eternal and therefore is the we, “drench with your splendor me, or the men and woman generations after me.”

This is one of the best episodes ever..too many good lines : )

I tried three other pictures in three other places before settling here. The lines “All goes onward and outward…and nothing collapses, And to die is different from what any one supposed, and luckier,” and this reminded me of another line “To die will be an awfully big adventure” which yes, yes is from Peter Pan. I tried to find a picture of neverland or something like it but try typing that in…yeah lots of MJ but finding neverland came up and so I typed that in and I really liked this image. I dont know exactly why I connected Walt Whitman and Peter Pan but whenever I think of death or dying or anything like that I always think of that line from Peter Pan. I feel like most people are afraid to die but here Whitman is saying the opposite, as does peter.

Death can be a touchy subject and if your easily offended (and happen to be reading this but no one does except the TA’s) then DONT read the rest-whenever I simply bring up this opinion people all freak out and think I wish everyone died or think I don’t “live” or “take life for granted” (neither are true so calm down). All things that live die. Even objects can die. Life ends and everyone knows that. Im not saying grieving is bad and Im not saying that a person cant be sad when a life has ended. It’s very sad to not see something or talk to something you’ve grown accustomed to. But thats all it is. Something you’ve grown accustomed to…feeding the cat everyday and petting it every day, when it dies you don’t have that relationship anymore and it makes you sad because you were used to it, times this by 10 and its human emotion. But eventually it doesn’t bother you anymore and while you still think of that person, they’re more or less replaced by another routine in your life.   Im not INsensitive to another persons loss, and perhaps this will only ever apply to me and my connection with death around me but ever since I was little and I heard that, “To die will be an awfully big adventure,” I’ve always felt a disconnect from it. When someone close to me dies, I cry. I celebrate that life and hope to remember what I gained from it, but I understand it and Im not afraid of it. Why are people afraid to die? I guess this will shift into religion and crap which doesn’t interest me so the rant has to stop.