Fat Is Not a Fairy Tale

Jane Yolen

I am thinking of a fairy tale,
Cinder Elephant,
Sleeping Tubby,
Snow Weight,
where the princess is not
anorexic, wasp-waisted,
flinging herself down the stairs.
I am thinking of a fairy tale,
Hansel and Great,
Repoundsel,
Bounty and the Beast,
where the beauty
has a pillowed breast,
and fingers plump as sausage.
I am thinking of a fairy tale
that is not yet written,
for a teller not yet born,
for a listener not yet conceived,
for a world not yet won,
where everything round is good:
the sun, wheels, cookies, and the princess.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fat Is Not a Fairy Tale is a satirical poem written by Jane Yolen. Yolen
criticizes all fairy tales that have been written saying that they are unrealistic and very cliche.
Yolen is very straightforward in this poem. She doesn't use a lot of figurative language
but is sure to get her point across to the readers. If you look at the first stanza, Yolen says
she is thinking of fairy tales called Cinder Elephant, Sleeping Tubby, and Snow Weight.
All these names have been distorted in some way to make the princess's seem "big" and
not anorexic. The original princesses (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White)
seem very glamorous and skinny, however, this can't be seen as reality. It is
not normal for girls to "fling themselves down the stairs." Yolen wants realistic
princesses; one that people can see in real life. In the second stanza, she uses
parallelism to further express the types of princesses she would like to see. Once again,
she distorts the names of princesses to make them seem less fragile and weak.
Imagery is used in the last two lines of this stanza: "pillowed breast" and "fingers plump
as breast." These describe the type of princesses Yolen would like to see written about.
In the last stanza, Yolen basically is saying that there is not a single fairy tale that is not
written about an anorexic girl. She wants a fairy tale that has not been every been thought
of before, a fairy tale that does not yet have a teller or a listener, a fairy tale that does
not yet exist. A fairy tale "where everything round is good: the sun, wheels, cookies,
and the princess."

She Didn't Mean to Do It

Daisy Fried

Oh, she was sad, oh, she was sad.
She didn't mean to do it.
Certain thrills stay tucked in your limbs,
go no further than your fingers, move your legs through their paces,
but no more. Certain thrills knock you flat
on your sheets on your bed in your room and you fade
and they fade. You falter and they're gone, gone, gone.
Certain thrills puff off you like smoke rings,
some like bell rings growing out, out, turning
brass, steel, gold, till the whole world's filled
with the gonging of your thrills.
But oh, she was sad, she was just sad, sad,
and she didn't mean to do it.


I think that this poem is talking about regret. The subject of the poem seems to have
given up to some kind of "thrill" in her life, maybe a temptation, but is now
regretting ever having done it. The title of the poem is "She Didn't Mean to Do It."
By looking at the title itself, one can tell that the subject has made a mistake
and her actions weren't necessarily intentional. "Oh, she was sad, oh, she was sad.
She didn't mean to do it." These first two lines of the poem shows the subject's
grief. She regrets her actions but it is now too late to turn around and go back.
"Certain thrills stay tucked in your limbs, go no further than your fingers, move
your legs through their paces, but no more." This line shows that some temptations,
you are able to push away from. Although you are tempted by them and may take
a step towards it, "but no more," you don't go any further than that. Although you
reach for them with your fingers, you know how to stop yourself. "Certain thrills
knock you flat on your sheets on your bed in your room and you fade and they fade."
I wasn't sure what this line meant but I thought that it was saying how some of these
"thrills" are so tempting at first, but with time "they fade." This assumption was
supported by the next line which was "You falter and they're gone, gone, gone."
Although you are swayed and allured by this temptation, they are "gone, gone, gone"
sooner than you know it. The next line was "Certain thrills puff off you like smoke rings,
some like bell rings growing out, out, turning brass, steel, gold, till the whole world's
filled with the gonging of your thrills." I thought that this line meant that some "thrills"
are just too tempting to push off and ignore. They are like "bell rings growing out, out,"
getting louder and louder and bigger and bigger, just as the rings get bigger when
they are further away from the center. These "thrills" are worth so much to you that
it seems as if the whole world is urging you to do it and fall for the temptation.
At the end of the poem, the author repeats the first line,
"Oh, she was sad, oh, she was sad. She didn't mean to do it." This emphasizes
the fact that she has fallen for one of the thrills, but she regrets it.

Before She Died-Karen Chase

Before She Died-Karen Chase

When I look at the sky now, I look at it for you.
As if with enough attention, I could take it in for you.

With all the leaves gone almost from
the trees, I did not walk briskly through the field.

Late today with my dog Wool, I lay down in the upper field,
he panting and aged, me looking at the blue. Leaning

on him, I wondered how finite these lustered days seem
to you, A stand of hemlock across the lake catches

my eye. It will take a long time to know how it is
for you. Like a dog's lifetime -- long -- multiplied by sevens.

http://www.loc.gov/poetry/180/026.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The poem, Before She Died by Karen Chase, is a poem written by the author to someone she had dearly loved but has now passed away. To take a more technical look at this poem, I will like to look at each line of the poem to see what the author meant in this poem. The first line of the poem is “When I look at the sky now, I look at it for you.” The author is possibly reminded of the one that died. She is reminded of the person whenever she looks at the sky. The second line is “As if with enough attention, I could take it in for you.” Here, the author means that if she thinks about the person with enough attention, she is able to find the person. The next line is “With all the leaves gone almost from the trees,” which shows that it is autumn. Just like the leaves are falling from the trees, so is her memory of the person that died. “I did not walk briskly through the field” is the next line that shows that the author is moving with a heavy heart. Although her loved one has died, she is unable to let her go in her heart. The next line is “Late today with my dog Woo, I lay down in the upper field.” In this line, the author introduces her dog.  In the line “he panting and aged, me looking at the blue,” I am able to imagine a girl and a dog, an old dog, together in an open field looking up at the clear, blue sky. The author mentions that the dog is old, possibly showing that time has passed since her loved one died. “Leaning on him, I wondered how finite these lustered days seem to you” is the next line that shows that although life for the author seems endless and long, to the dead, time has no meaning. “A stand of hemlock across the lake catches my eye.” A hemlock is a poisonous plant that may have reminded the author of her loved one. In the last stanza, the author says, “It will take a long time to know how it is for you.” She compares how different it is for the dead and for those alive. “Like a dog’s lifetime-long-multiplied by seven” is the last line of this poem. The author means that never in her lifetime would she understand how her loved one is living because she is dead. There is no rhyme in this poem which can show how the author wanted to show a more informal type of speech, holding some kind of freedom.  

The Collar-George Herbert

I struck the board, and cried "No more!
I will abroad.
What, shall I ever sigh and pine?
My lines and life are free; free as the road,
Loose as the wind, as large as store.
Shall I be still in suit?
Have I no harvest but a thorn
To let me blood, and not restore
What I have lost with cordial fruit?
Sure there was wine
Before my sighs did dry it; there was corn
Before my tears did drown it.
Is the year only lost to me?
Have I no bays to crown it?
No flowers, no garlands gay? all blasted?
All wasted?
Not so, my heart: but there is fruit,
And thou hast hands.
Recover all thy sigh-blown age
On double pleasures: leave thy cold dispute
Of what is fit, and not. Forsake thy cage,
Thy rope of sands,
Which petty thoughts have made, and made to thee
Good cable, to enforce and draw,
And be thy law,
While thou didst wink and wouldst not see.
Away; take heed:
I will abroad.
Call in thy death's head there: tie up thy fears.
He that forbears
To suit and serve his need,
Deserves his load."
But as I raved and grew more fierce and wild
At every word,
Methoughts I heard one calling "Child!"
And I replied "My Lord".
The Collar by George Herbert is a religious poem about a man who feels like he has
had enough of being submissive to the Lord's Will. The man is very "fierce and wild" as
he questions the Lord, wondering why he has to live like this. However, when he
hears the Lord calling him, he is able to return to the Lord. I am able to directly relate to this
poem because at times, I also face difficulties in my walk as a Christian. At times of trouble,
I feel like letting go and living a free life. Herbert says that "My lines and life are free,
free as the road, Loose as the wind, as large as store." There are times when I believe that
if I didn't live my life as a Christian, I would feel like my life was free and I was free to
do whatever I wanted. Herbert also says, "Forsake thy cage, Thy rope of sands."
I sometimes feel as if I am caged and roped, restrained from doing what I desire.
When my spiritual walk becomes tough, I want to break free from it (free from the cage). Just like
Herbert says in the poem, the time that I spend with God can sometimes seem as if it
was "all blasted" and "all wasted." I doubt God and wonder if what he trying to work
within me is actually happening. When things don't go my way, I become enraged and
put the fault on God, questioning why He didn't let it flow my way.
There are times when I yell, "No more" and promise myself that I will not follow God's
way but live my way. There is frustration and I become more aggressive
towards life, wanting to block out what God is trying to tell me. This is exactly how Herbert felt.
However, when I remember the first time I heard God's voice,
the first time I felt him come inside my heart, warming me and renewing me
(a spiritual rebirth; going back to innocence), I choose to go back to God. This is similar to
Herbert, who was in conflict between living a secular life away from God because
of the constraints he felt and continuing to live a religious life. However, at
the time he "raved and grew more fierce and wild at every word," Herbert
was able to hear God calling him, and allowed himself to once again be submissive
to God's authority. Another poem I was able to relate this poem to was John Donne's
Holy Sonnet 14. In Holy Sonnet 14, Donne pleas to the Lord that He will "make
me new." Donne confesses that he loves the Lord but is confused because of "your enemy"
whom we can say is Satan. Just like in The Collar, Holy Sonnet 14 is a poem
about instability within someone's life, but ultimately continuing to love the Lord.

King Lear-Feminist Lens

Today I would like to apply one of the critical lens to an insightful interpretation of King Lear.
This is one of the 4 options for our final analysis essay. I am going to be looking at King Learin the perspective of a feminist critic. The feminist lens examines the language and plot of
the story in order to find things that are gendered. Many of the female critics look at the
female characters and sees how they are stereotyped. The feminist lens looks at the
relationship between female and male characters and their different roles in society.
 Almost half of the main characters in this novel are
females. They include Cordelia, Goneril, and Regan. Overall, the females are represented
as evil and selfish beings. Goneril and Regan are portrayed as the two daughters that bring
Lear into the pitiful state he is in. However, at the end, these two are destroyed by their
own selfishness. On the other hand, Cordelia is portrayed as the pure and innocent one.
Like many of the women who were favored at that time, Cordelia stayed quiet and absent
for most of the play. She was introduced in the first scene and then banished from the kingdom,
absent for most of the play. Cordelia is finally brought back in the last few scenes of the play.
Although she was gone for most of the play, she played a major role in the play.
Cordelia was the one daughter was faithful to her father. Unlike the bad reputations
Goneril and Regan gave to the audience, Cordelia was shown as a very loyal daughter,
forgiving her father for all the wrong he did to her.
Feminist critics would be outraged while reading King Lear because the females are
portrayed as very wicked characters. The three daughters were forced to answer the
question of how much they love their father. Even when Cordelia answers truthfully,
she is punished for her honesty just because Lear does not appreciate her answer.
Two of the main characters are also portrayed as liars and selfish self-centered
beings. Goneril and Regan are two women whom Shakespeare described as daughters
that cannot satisfy with what they have. First they try to take over their father's kingdom.
They don't care if their father is killed or goes insane as long as they get what they
want. Regan also takes part in plucking Gloucester's eyes, characterizing her as
cruel and unforgiving. Later, these two sisters cannot satisfy with the husbands they
have, both eyeing the same guy, Edmund. They go as far as killing each other because
of him. Because most of the women are not shown in a positive light, Shakespeare is
portraying the females as very selfish people. The women who are honest and think
of others are either punished for their honesty or made to stay quiet. Cordelia, the only
"good" female in the play was ultimately put to death, symbolizing that the good
females do not always survive at the end.

King Lear-Ending

We finished King Lear in class last week. We also had a seminar last friday
discussing the final scenes of this play. I think that it went pretty well although
there was some controversy over some of the topics that we covered. One of the
biggest debate was about Lear and if he should be classified for evil or good.
At first, I thought that Lear should be classified as evil. In my critical article, the
author wrote that Lear deserved his daughter's betrayals because he was choosing
favorites among his daughters, he was rash, selfish, violent, and prideful. The author
of my critical article found the daughters' betrayals justifyable and thought that Lear
deserved the fate that he got although it was a little extreme. I also thought that same.
Although Lear was pitiful and I sympathized with him, I did think that choosing
favorites among daughters was unfair. However, after discussing about this with
my classmates, I started to think that Lear wasn't as "evil" and "selfish" as I thought
he was. I remember when I first started reading this play, I thought that it was
normal for a king like Lear to be prideful and live the way just as Lear did.
Lear was a typical king full of ego and pride. It's seems reasonable that the
ruler of a nation have some pride. I also found out that Lear didn't pick
favorites as much as I thought he did. He was going to split the kingdom
equally among his three daughters and the reason why he asked the question
to his daughters was just like a "game" to him; it didn't mean much. This made
me think that Lear wasn't evil nor good. However, he brought the consequences
to himself and even though his actions were reasonable for a king during that time,
it wasn't able to stop him from falling. One of the discussion questions were whether
banishment brought enlightenment or alienation to the character. I said that
thought the alienation Lear received, he was able to become enlightened to the
truth. Lear was able to finally see the truth even though he lost everything
he had.
I thought that the ending would be a lot more sad because it was a tragedy. However,
honestly I thought that it was kind of funny. (?) Every single character started to
die in the last scene, from Gloucester to Goneril and Regan, Edmund, Cordelia,
Lear, etc. The only three characters that seemed to survive in the entire play
was Albany, Edgar, and Kent. The three good guys. Even though everyone
died, at least the three good guys are still alive. That means that at the end,
the good was able to win the evil, which is basically all that matters. People's lives
were sacrificed, but at least the ending result is good. Even though it
seemed like Shakespeare stretched it a little by killing almost all of the characters,
I thought the ending was pretty good.

King Lear-Sight

In class today, we read Act 4 Scene 1 of King Lear. This scene was after Gloucester loses
both of his eyes by the cruel Cornwall. Gloucester is now blind and has no eyesight. However,
a very important line in this scene was when Gloucester said, " O dear son Edgar, the food of thy
abused father's wrath, might I but live to see thee in my touch, I'd say I had eyes again." (pg. 173)
This line shows that Gloucester desires to touch Edgar again, and be with him which would
make up for his lost eyesight. I thought that it was very ironic how Gloucester was able to claim that
he can see and understand the truth better without his eyes. He is able to concentrate more on
what people are saying and feel the truth instead of seeing it. King Lear is also a character who
was unable to find the truth among his daughters although he was able to directly see them tell him
either lies or the truth. In King Lear, there are many characters who are in disguise to either hide their
personalities or their identity. Kent and Edgar are two of the characters who disguise themselves
to keep their identity a secret from everyone else while characters such as Edmund, Regan, and Goneril
disguise their personalities for self-gain. As we can see, all these characters are hiding who they
truly are which shows that sight is fallible. By believing in only what you see but not what you feel or hear,
you are likely going to miss what the truth is. Although everyone was able to clearly see Kent,
Edgar, Edmund, Regan, and Goneril, they weren't able to know who what their hidden intentions were.
This is a lot like the saying, don't judge a book by it's cover. Just because you see the cover of the
book doesn't necessarily tell you if the novel will be a good novel to read or not.
Shakespeare tells us that we should not trust sight. Just like Gloucester, who was able to
understand what truth was more quickly when he wasn't able to see, maybe sometimes closing
our eyes to the worldly things and focusing only on one thing will show us what the truth is.
I thought that this point was very ironic while reading Act 4 Scene 1 of the play.
Another point I found interesting in this scene was why would Edgar not reveal himself to his father?
We are able to see that Edgar and Gloucester finally meet, and Edgar sees his father blind and in pain.
However, even when Gloucester cries that he would wish nothing more than to see his lost son,
Edgar doesn't go and reveal himself to Gloucester. I didn't completely understand Edgar's actions
but hopefully this point will be answered in the next few sections.
We are already 3/4 way through the novel and we are now reading the falling action of the play.
Although I know that this novel is supposed to have a tragic ending, I still hope in one part of my
heart that it would have a happily ever after. :( It doesn't make sense that the already-insane Lear
would wake up and go back to his senses, the blind Gloucester would find his eyesight, however,
I still don't wish for a tragic ending.

King Lear-Climax

We have finally read the climax of King Lear. In class today, we were talking about the turning
point of the play. Our group thought that the lines from 108~120 on page 141 was were the turning
point was. We thought that Lear's shedding of clothes represented his going back to innocence,
his rebirth. Throughout the whole play, Lear was a very prideful king. He had lived with everything
he wanted because of his title. However, in this scene, we see that Lear is letting go of his title and
going back to a more humble state. Our group previously discussed how we thought it was
very curious that as Lear grew older, he seemed much more like a baby. Him becoming naked shows
this baby-like state because when babies are first born, they come out of the mother's womb naked
and without any clothing. Lear also strips himself from all of his clothing, connecting to nature.
We also thought that this passage of the play was important because up to this point, Lear
had identified himself similar to God. However, he now saw and realized that he was nothing but
a man, a very insignificant man. He became a lot more humble and less prideful than before.
He didn't see himself as king but as a single man in the world.
I was surprised to see that in the beginning, every group thought that this passage was the turning point
of the play. With the whole class agreeing that this passage of the play was the turning point, I was
positive that Lear's stripping of his clothing showed the turn in the play. However, when Ms. Graham
said that there was a passage in the section before the one that every group had chosen, I was
taken aback. I didn't think that the whole class could actually be "wrong."
Depending on how the play is read, I think that there can be some (not many, but sometimes maybe more than one parts) in the book that people can classify as the turning point. For now, I still think that
the passage our group chose was more dramatic than any other passage in the section. I am
excited to hear why Ms. Graham has a different thought than us tomorrow!
Honestly, I don't think that there was a clear and very dramatic climax to the play. (Maybe if the play was
acted out, it would seem different because of the setting and storm going on outside) It seemed like
Lear was angry the whole time in the play, since the beginning (when he was angry with Cordelia
for not answering the way he wanted her to) until the end (when Goneril and Regan both betrayed him).
However, although to me, the climax isn't that clear, I can see a clear difference in Lear's attitude
which shows a clear turning point in the play. Although we were not able to find the exact passage
that indicated the turning point of the play, we were able to see the clear change in the play.

King Lear-character analysis

We were able to see conflict between Lear and his two daughters, Gonerill and Regan, in the
scenes we read in the past week. Lear finally sees that the two daughters he trusted were just
putting up a show to get what they wanted. Shakespeare portrays Lear as a very complicated character.
Lear was a powerful ruler who did everything he wanted and got everything he wanted.
He took things for granted such as Cordelia and he wasn't able to see what what were truly precious
to him. Lear is very rash in making decisions and it seems like he has some anger management issues.
When he is offended, he doesn't know how to control his anger and acts without another thought.
Basically, he is blinded by his anger and his pride. However, his actions aren't all that strange.
For one, he is of old age and he doesn't have as much sense in him than he did before. Lear is also
a king, one who was always treated with respect and as the most highest figure of his time.
To him, it was only normal to receive all the respect from everyone including his daughters, his
closest friends, and his servants.
When he realizes that he is growing too old, he decides to divide his kingdom equally among his
three daughters. However, because he wants to feel the power and be shown the respect and love,
he asks his daughters how much they love him. The expectations he has for his three daughters
are so high and to him, it seems obvious that they would praise him with all of their hearts.
However, because of this expectation and his rash and violent personality, Lear slowly loses
his mind. All his misfortunes are the results of his expectations and his need to be respected.
One little scratch and attack from anyone was unacceptable to him. As the play progresses,
and his two daughters quickly reveal their true selves, we are able to see Lear become more and
more insane. In page 117, Lear says how he has all the reason to week and cry because
of his daughters' betrayals and how they belittle him. He is sorrowful and he acknowleges that, however
he says that he will not weep even if his heart is broken into a thousand pieces. He doesn't
want his daughters to see him break down and fall from power although it is already obvious
that he has lost everything he had; he lost the trust he had for his daughters.
Lear is a character that is slowly deteriorating because of his own actions. He is a very pitiful
character who seems like he doesn't know what he is doing. And although he tries to hold
onto his power and senses, he is blocked by age and irrational decisions. I wonder how different
everything would have been if he kept Cordelia and didn't banish her from his kingdom. How
would she have made things different for him and would she have been able to stop her sisters
from anything? It's a shame that Lear is only able to see what is right infront of him and not the whole
picture.

King Lear Act I

This past weekend, we finished reading Act I of King Lear. So far, I like the play.
I thought that it would be much more difficult and hard to understand because it was
written by Shakespeare, but I was surprised to find it pretty easy.I also like the story.
I'm not sure but I find King Lear very pitiful. Although he has two wise advisors, Kent
and Gloucester, who support him from his side, he is too old to even know the
difference between right choices from wrong choices. His greatest fear is that he is mad.
King Lear knows that his judgement is getting weak. He knows this when he sees
Goneril's true being. He realizes that her doings are so much worse than what Cordelia did
to him. Although he lacked judgement, I understand why he could have been mad at
Cordelia. I also think she could have replied a little more warmly towards her father.
But because of his old age, we see that King Lear throws out the one daughter that actually
gave him a truthful answer, the one that loves him the most. He loses that one daughter he
used to love the most and instead shares his inheritance with the other two. Lear is even
more pitiful because his own two daughters use him for their own benefit. He is not wanted
by either and sent back and forth between the two. One way Shakespeare shows the differences
between Goneril and Regan and Cordelia is through their name. We see that Goneril and Regan's
names aren't as pleasant and melodious as Cordelia's name. Also, sometimes we see Cordelia
talking in rhyming poems which shows that she speaks much more beautifully than her sisters.
It's a shame that Lear is unable to see this true love for him but is instead blinded by false
love and artificial words. However, Kent and Gloucester are able to see this. I find it interesting
that Kent would even disguise himself to go back to work for Lear even after he has kicked
him out. This shows that Kent knows that Lear isn't all that stupid and he isn't such a bad king,
the fact that he has loyal followers such as Kent and Gloucester. If a wise man such as Kent
is able to follow Lear and stay loyal to him, I don't see how Lear can be such a bad person.
Another point I found interesting is the fact that the Fool is one of the wisest characters in the play.
It is ironic how his name is the fool. The Fool continues to advise the king and foreshadows
a lot of the correct things.
The play is a corrected version written by Shakespeare. And unlike the original, this play is
known to have a tragic ending. I wonder how the story will end and although I am not a fan
of sad endings, I hope it will have some kind of bittersweet ending to it.

Flannery O' Connor

It's only been three days since we've been back from winter break but
it seems like it's already been 3 months. We didn't do much on the first AP Literature class back
from break and started real work on Friday. We had our first discussion on the second
day of school and it was on a short story by Flannery O' Connor called Good Country 
People. I really enjoyed reading this short story. I thought that it got more interesting
towards the end. A thing that I didn't get until the end was the role of Manley. I didn't
know that he was only using Joy and the love they shared wasn't true. Because of the lack
of time we had in class, we weren't able to go in depth with the discussion questions.
I want to write some of the ideas that I wasn't able to share during the discussion on Friday.
First of all, i think that what Hulga means when she says to her mother,
"Do you ever look inside and see what you are not?" (pg. 23) is that she knows that
her mother is being "fake" and untrue to herself. She deceives herself and others and acts
to be some kind of wonderful and sweet lady. This is why she also lies to the Bible
salesman, Manley, and says that she has a Bible by her bedside when she does not.
I also thought that the fact that Joy changed her name to Hulga was very strange.
It surprised me that she would change her name to make it one of the most unappealing
name she can change it to. Although she was hurt because of her leg and didn't think
that the name Joy fit her, why would she make herself hurt even more by creating
a name like that?
Even though I really enjoyed the story, I thought it had the most random ending ever.
It didn't make sense that Manley would take away Hulga's artificial leg for no reason.
I think it would have been a much happier ending if they ended up together, Hulga
having lived so miserably all her life. :( (Although I still think the age difference was gross)
A question that still remains is why did Manley take her artificial leg? Why does he
collect these kind of stuff from people? The author didn't tell us the purpose of this which
I didn't like because I like clear endings. But on the other hand, I liked the fact
that there was that twist at the end. If they ended happily ever after, there wouldn't
be much to the story and the title of the story wouldn't have much significance.
It's just that if feel so bad for Hulga, left by herself without her leg and even her glasses,
played by a man whom she finally opened her heart to.
First few days of school has been so long. Thank goodness there's no school on Monday! :)