The American Dream

What really is the American Dream? When one thinks about the American dream one thinks of something that can be achieved through hard work, but with the Industrialization the wealth gap between the rich and the poor has expanded beyond measurable limits with extreme tycoons rising out with big names such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, while employing thousands of workers on minimum wage. Can these people hope to achieve the massive amount of wealth that Rockefeller has? No. The brutal truth of reality has set upon them and pessimism is everywhere. They reject the traditional ideas of the previous eras of happy-go-lucky attitudes and take on the truth. They lost faith in the American dream. They reject sentimentality and artificiality. The American people, of which the majority work in factories, have lost faith in the roots of which this country was founded. That greatness is destined for everyone. What really is greatness, if everyone can be great? The modernists face the truth and harsh reality that life isn't so happy and that the American dream can only be achieved by those wealthy and affluent individuals: it is not for everyone. It is a dream only available to a small sector of people in America.

Better Things?

The question of the dilemma of the modern age is a large and ambiguous question that deserves to be viewed from all facets of life and opinions. I think the dilemma of modern life is whether or not we should choose the ethical or unethical route. It applies in all directions of life. Whether or not you should eat that trans-fat loaded butter replacement called Margarine and perhaps risk your health, or buy the pure butter that has been made from pasteurized milk that came from a free range cow. It all depends, and it can come from recycling too, whether or not you should buy the box that's made from recycled corrugated cardboard or that other box that's made in China with non recyclable materials. That's the modern dilemma we face, ethical or unethical. Unethical will give you a selfish gain, while ethical will help those around you. Environmental issues, etc, all fall under this category.
It's all a matter of altruistic behavior or greedy needs. Greedy needs come from the need for self-sustenance and the most efficient way at staying alive: it seems like most of us has chosen that path when we do not have an ample amount of resources to spare.

On Impulse

Impulses just pop out. They are impulses because they cannot be controlled. I have impulses all the time, whenever something in my head that snaps together and makes that synaptical connection, I say it. The connection has to be funny or is clever in some way, I'll say it. I can't control it. It's a really hard urge to control and once I say it I cannot retract the statement: since I had already said it. The more I think about something the less chances of me saying it will be, so I think I'll lose all of my comedic creativity and originality if I think about it too much. Sometimes something is funny to me I'll just tell people straightforward the funny thing. I can't help it. It doesn't feel like anything, that's the thing. If it had some sort of evil and ominous feeling to it, I'd stop myself dead in its tracks. But I can't. That's why I'm known for my facetious comments and flippant humor in class at school. 

I think to people with self-restraint, they simply think over the things they are going to say before saying it. I do this a lot, but not with these funny comments (they're funny, at least to myself.)

Romantics v Realists

Romantics loved to emphasize on the perfection of nature and all its little intricacies that the romantic writer found to be "correct". The realist found the ordinary things in nature, the things that aren't worth pointing out to be the things that are worth writing about. They viewed nature as it was, instead of emphasizing their stories and novels around little unrealistic perfections. If they envisioned a tree to be perfect, then the realist would imagine it as real as it could be. A romantic tree wouldn't have any flaws in it, while a realist tree would have all the ordinary characteristics that a romantic tree lacks except are found all elsewhere in the real world.
Romantics also emphasized on heroes, while realists emphasized on ordinary people. Sure, ordinary people can be heroes too but the romantic hero consisted of an odd combination of a pure and innocent soul growing up in the natural world and living a vigilante lifestyle of fighting evil. The ordinary hero is one who comes from an ordinary life of the times back then (such as the slums of New York City) and then doing his work and saving other people. Something like that.

Think About…

How did they respond to the civil war? Well, photographers go onto the battlefields, reeling in their giant machinations of taking these things called "photographs" that captured the light and then further published them into local newspapers. I believe these writers then look at these reproduced images and take thought and inspiration from that. The basic characteristics of realism I find usually deal with the realistic scene rather than the naturalistic scene. It may seem obvious, but by realistic scene I mean the realistic environment they had to face everyday of their lives. Things such as the slums, battlefields, diseases, etc, were all the things that they wrote about and more. They depicted humans as humans, an average Joe going through the grueling and arduous journey that is Life. Whether it be on the battlefield or in the shantytowns, life seemed terrible and it gave these realism writers a chance to blossom and flourish as they spread knowledge of the existence of such conditions worldwide. It's quite an interesting flow of information. I find that these realism writers that are able to accurately portray others' lifestyles as amazing and spread awareness.

You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby

The differences I've noticed from the time of Kate Chopin was that women were all concerned with their outward appearance. Atleast the women who would be potential wives, that is. They had little silk gloves and things like corsets, while the women of today such as feminists believe that they are strong, etc, and shouldn't conform to the rules of modern society. There are women who remain single their whole lives, are they celibates? These women are the ones that do not care about their outward appearance, but I've noticed that the women of yore cared a lot more than the women of today. I've noticed that the women of today, the fashion that they adhere to, focuses more on being tall and slender while before, accented the natural curves of the voluptuous female figure. The busty shape of an hourglass, I find much more attractive. Perhaps if the two extremes were mixed together then there would be the perfect balance, a slim and tall woman with a little bit of curves. That is the difference of women today. Before they usually only existed in the kitchen, but for some reason over the past hundred years they have evolved to accommodate cars or even get a job! How insane is that!

A Reprieve

What I fantasize about to escape reality is being an astronaut. I imagine myself floating through the classroom carelessly, picking up a pencil or two, writing on the ceiling while chomping an apple I found floating around that came from someone's brown paper lunch bag. I find this relaxing because being able to float through air, ignoring the deteriorating effects it has on your muscles, feels very relaxing. To just imagine it calms me. I imagine myself floating up to the whiteboard, drawing inappropriate pictures, of perhaps, say, genitals, and then floating back to my chair. I won't even need a chair, but I feel like sitting in one just because I'm a boss. Maybe to be more realistic, I would actually probably end up just falling asleep to escape reality. It makes perfect sense, as you sleep you leave reality and enter a dream-state world. It makes perfect sense. That's what I would do, as you dream you are taken away by your own thoughts and a world conjured by your brain itself. I love dreaming, and yes, it is the perfect way to escape reality. The humdrums of daily life.

A Change of Heart

The way I view this change is that the Romantic poets or painters etc actually went out to the world and saw what really existed. They thought that nature was the best and to follow emotions. Well, they sat at home and followed emotions. Now these photographers are going out and taking pictures of the event, so they now realized that what really happens outside is cruel and get a peak into the lives of ordinary people. They worshiped heroes in their Romantic ideal. Very in touch with nature, etc, but instead, they saw that the real heroes were not these archetype Romantic heroes. The real heroes are those who fight for freedom, such as the ordinary folk who fought against each other in the Civil war. The ones who fight for what they believe in. They also witnessed the scenes of these battlefields etc, so they probably thought of it as an opportune moment to draw upon the ideas. Because Romanticism gets boring after a while. Also, not to mention the fact that they opened their eyes, they also changed their heart and feelings in regards to this. This is all I can say about this.

I Exist

What the sense of obligation the universe is referring to is that it does not owe mankind anything. The world will not bend to mankind, and mankind is on its own. It made man, but it does not care about man. That is what the quote means. The civil war means that they're on their own. Man's existence is insignificant. The United States had felt as if the universe was on their side, until turmoil struck and that they're trench deep in a warfare against their own brethren. That is what caused the statement of, "Sir, I exist!" because the man is trying to get the universe to acknowledge him.
We are our own trailblazers of fate. We control our own destiny, not the universe. The universe does not owe you anything. To follow an idea of Mao Ze Dong, he says that we are not obligated in responsibility towards the next generation or anyone for that reason, and the universe would defend it. It does not owe anyone anything. We are our own method of survival, our own tools, and our own resources. The universe was generous enough to give us life, and now we must (on our own) preserve it.

Power

I think the people with power are the commanders. They're the ones with power because they contrl the handmaids, the victims of the story. This leads on to make me think that men are the ones in real power too. This feminist author is simply implying that she had forgone her faith in the female society and accepted true dogma. The dogma of human society, where men rule over everything and yet provide for the helpless creatures we know as women who are simply the counter of our gender as reproductive machines. They should all be making sandwiches, ironing clothes, and other things for men. Men offer protection, strength, and are the breadwinners of society, therefore women should give something back by occasionally pleasuring their male counterparts and make a few sandwiches for them on the side. Men are the ones in power, just look at the White House or any other political organization. It feels as if this woman, Margaret Atwood, simply wants to send out the message that men are superior and that women are inferior. It is an awesome statement, that the women of this world are supposed to be concubines. Yes, indeed, it is. Concubines they are and Ofbills here they come.

Slanted Truth

The reason Emily Dickinson or perhaps many other poets tell the truth at a slant, embellish their stories is simply to fit the rhyme scheme or the type of poem they're writing. It might also account for more vivid details or interest from the reader that would make the poem more appealing. It could also serve as some sort of symbolic purpose. I believe it is not telling a lie, but instead a partial lie. I don't understand why people do it, since simplicity appeals most to me. But I believe she tells these half lies half truths for the sake of the reader. When she says that Death carries people off in a carriage, I mean she doesn't know this for a fact but instead she says it like it actually is like that. All in all, she's a little liar and she tells these things simply to make the reader interested (in something false and doesn't exist.) It is also to fit the rhyme scheme, HER unique rhyme scheme. The abab-rhyme scheme-except-not-completely-rhyming rhyme scheme. I think it might add details to the poem but at what cost? Lying to the reader? I think telling the truth is more important and therefore Emily Dickinson should eat some hotdogs and hamburgers because that's what they're made for. She's also a weird woman.

Pessimism

I think the reason why Emily Dickinson always writes about these topics is that she is in such isolation that she doesn't think of any other thoughts other than things that are regarded as "pessimistic." Seriously. She's stuck inside her room/house all day doing nothing other than wearing a white dress. How must her family members treat her? They must treat her like a pile of feces. She's utterly useless, writing a few pieces of poetry (during her lifetime.) She probably barely engages in any sort of housework, as she wouldn't want to get that white dress dirty. She must be contemplating suicide all the time. If there was a person in my house who didn't do anything other than scribble words on a piece of scratch paper all day, I would get mad too. Not just mad, actually. I'd get furious. Then I'm sure that person would start thinking about pessimistic things. Negative feelings. That's how I feel, anyway. Also, she could be mentally ill. Extreme mental illness and seeking catharsis instead of going on a serial killing rampage she writes them out in words. Instead of wanting to try to be like death she instead writes about death, flies, and so on and so forth. She is a strange lady, and I'm glad she didn't leave the house or else quite possibly she would've killed a few people.

Speculation or Sci-Fi?

I think the reason Margaret Atwood uses the term "speculative fiction" is because there basically is nothing else that could describe this novel. It is basically a bunch of different concepts wrapped into one book and is hard to categorize into one genre. I don't understand why people feel the need to HAVE to put something into a box. Anyway, I've come to realize that the whole concept of Handmaid's tale can only happen in the future, thus it takes place in the future and then pieces of information are added to fill up the plot to make it seem as if it was the future. Since the future is believed to be more technologically advanced (I mean, of course, we're in the FUTURE.) and so therefore a lot of the elements of the story are added and thus fall under the sci-fi category. She can't write a novel of the past, it's already happened and it would turn into some sort of witchcraft erotica type story as opposed to a dystopian novel. Margaret Atwood added those elements to make it seem as if we were in the future to set up the scenario for this novel.