Monday, April 25, 2011

Conjoined

Marriage can be a union that is looked forward to, or it can be something that has a very negative stigma and feelings connected to it. Generally in today’s society, it is looked forward to as a happy occasion in which two people that love each other are joining their lives together, and will spend many years in wedded bliss. Not all people feel this way however. In the poem “Conjoined,” Judith Minty leaves no doubt about her negative feelings towards marriage through her use of metaphors and graphic diction.  
                Metaphors are used throughout the poem in order to show the nature of the speaker’s feelings about the institution of marriage. The first metaphor used is that of an onion, two parts joined together “under one transparent skin” (line 1). This comparison is showing the feeling of compression and smothering felt by the speaker when it comes to being married. The speaker feels that there are two distinct parts to the onion, each representing an individual, but they are being mashed and forced to be one entity when they may not want to. The transparent skin represents the thinness of the bond of marriage in the speaker’s mind. Instead of being something solid and strong, it is something frail, weak, and easily broken or torn. The next metaphor used is that of a “two-headed calf” (line 5). Just about anything that is “two-headed” in society is considered not normal to say the least. However, the metaphor continues when the speaker points out that they each “fight to suck at its mother’s teats” (line 6). This shows the feeling that each person in a marriage is attached to the other, and they have to fight each other to get what they need out of life. In order to survive, people need social acceptance, and when in a marriage, they each may have to fight each other for that “sustenance”. The following metaphor is very similar to the calf metaphor, in that it compares a married pair to “Chang and Eng” (line 7), who were Siamese twins that were never saparated. This metaphor is used to show how married people cannot do things separate though they may not want to. Just as Chang and Eng could not do anything, even sleep with women, separately, many marriages consist of doing literally everything with their partner.

Each stanza contains graphic diction that shows a very negative stigma towards the concept of marriage. In the first stanza alone, the speaker uses words such as “monster,” (line 1), “flat,” (line 3) and “deformed,” (line 3) to describe the metaphor of the onion. These words make the union of marriage seem scary and a freak thing that should not happen in a normal situation. The word flat in itself gives married life a connotation of being completely boring. Though marriage can be very happy, fulfilling, and enjoyable, the speaker of “Conjoined” seems very stuck on it really being and unnatural, unpleasant, terrible thing that should not happen to anybody. In describing the two-headed calf, the speaker uses the word “accident” (line 5) showing even further the feeling that marriage is not normal and should not have to happen to anybody. When talking about the two calves relationship, the speaker characterizes them as “fighting” (line 6); most married people think of their relationship as a cooperation and a two person effort. When people are considered fighting, they are against each other, both wanting to tear the other down. This contrasts the nature of most marriages which are working towards a common goal. This concept furthers the speaker’s point that marriage is not a “normal” thing. When talking about Chang and Eng, the speaker uses the word “freaks” (line 7), even furthering the connotation of accident and mishap that goes along with marriage in the speaker’s mind. The last line leaves a lasting Impact of impending doom due to marriage. It says, “…we cannot escape each other” (line 15). This line gives the reader a sense that even if the two people wanted to get away from each other, it would not be possible once they are married. Especially the word “escape,” because you do not want to “escape” from somebody you would want to spend the rest of your life with, giving the feeling that at some point, if you marry somebody you will want to get away from that person, which is not always entirely possible in a marriage.
Society today generally things of marriage as a cooperation, a mutual respect and love, a happy union of two people. This is clearly not the opinion of the speaker, due to the extensive usage of metaphors and graphic diction that continually reiterate the point that marriage is an accident, a mishap, a struggle, and should not have to happen to anybody.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Maus II

Maus has many themes inter-twined within it. One being the obvious totalitarian governments are bad, and the holocaust should never happen again, or anything like it. There is also the stand point that is shown time and time again that any recounting of these stories do not represent the entire event as a whole. This is because many different people had many different experiences, and the dead people had a different experience all together and those stories can never be told. This PDF file: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/rpw_center/pdfs/BERLAT1.PDF written about subjects similar to this topic tells how Speigelman is conscious of the ease in which people take narratives such as his, and say that is the entire story. That this is what the holocaust was all about for all people involved. Through the usage of constantly showing his internal conflict with sharing the story at all because of the danger of his narrative becoming the "truth" for people about the holocaust. This is also an example of postmodern theory in that he is rejecting the idea that there is one truth about the holocaust or one grand narrative that can completely tell the whole story. He is also showing this when he puts on the mouse mask. He is making the reader completely aware of the fact that though he is telling this story, and doing his best to represent the feelings and sentiments and hardships of those that were there, he was not one of the pople that was there. He is doing his best to represent the real thing, but he is not in the end the real thing. Making the reader constantly aware of this shows how hard he tries to represent his father's story, but even he cannot fully represent what his father felt because he is not his father.