Retreat

Retreating from society is a way of hiding yourself, and to prepare yourself in the meantime to face whatever you need to face. Or to hide others away from the danger that you have, are, or contain. I believe that a person should be able to hide whenever they want. But they're just little felines if you ask me. Unless it's the latter, (the one where you are hiding something away so that it won't hurt other people) then you are a true feline. People might lack self confidence to confront society, since the all mighty and scary society is something that takes courage to face. I believe it's just simply human nature to want to keep the ugly part of ourselves hidden - so that you can seek out potential mates to hide the flaws that might be with you genetically. That's why we always see ugly people wearing baggy things. Unless they're of self confidence (where does it come from) then usually people will in some form or another hide themselves from society.

Free Write

Free write, I love free writes. The reason I love free writes is that I can fill up the whole entry with words that don't really even matter. But the amazing fact is that nobody reads this so I'll do it anyway. First of all, what the hell is homophobia? And why do people "frown" on people for being homophobic? Racist, too? Why can't I use an out of date pejorative term (or used to be pejorative, I mean) however I want? Why is there even censorship? I don't understand why people feel the need to correct other people to be more "politically correct." We are all so caught up on this "politically correctness" nonsense that we try to correct each other and conform that we have lost all freedom of expression and creativity. I want to swear. I want to express my emotions with words that way. Frankly, I don't give a damn if someone feels insulted. Why should they feel insulted if I had not meant to insult them? I don't get this. Do people think they're better than other people for correcting people? This is my way of rebelling: swearing, and using discriminating words in my own way. Of course, I do not mean to insult these people - of course, I am a very articulate person so I shall couple these words with a dapper style. But no thanks, please don't correct me, you conformists.

I Hate Poetry

I hate poetry. Simply because poetry is just so meaningless. It's like contemporary art. Actually, don't even get me started on contemporary art. I detest the fact that it even exists. Why people even brand it as "art." It tarnished the word "art" by calling that, which is comparable to bovine excrement, art. Art itself is supposed to be a beautiful thing. An accurate representation of something for a purpose. Contemporary art, someone putting a toilet on a bed. Art? I think not.
Poetry is a different little pickle. If the author/writer/poet whatever they want to call themselves want to express a feeling, then why not just say it? Why not just go, "I'm feeling sad, and this is my story..." rather than trying to sound deep and evoke some sense of feeling that does not exist in the reader? If I really wanted to read meaningless words that are not coupled together in a grammatically or comprehensible manner then I'll go on my computer, press a bunch of random keys and read that. But no, they try to teach this junk in class. I'm insulted and I feel disgusted. I hate poetry. I hate it with a passion. People ask, why do you hate poetry? And I shall retort with that.

Horror

What a scary story needs... Hmm, a scary story must appeal to the reader's specific reads - therefore, dividing it up into separate genres. First of all, these genres all appeal to specific readers. One might find torture porn exciting, while another might be repulsed by it. There are those that find suspense stories hair tingling, while another would find it boring. I believe a scary story needs elements of all nature to appeal to this. One important element is suspense. The reason I say this is because if there is no suspense then why not just reveal the whole story in one page. Or just give a picture of what's happening. Then the reader doesn't have to read through all your crap to get to the point. That's why suspense is needed. It builds up the reason to read through that crap. I believe (pardon my french for the previous sentences) another element needed is some sort of shocking detail. Such as gore, etc. This is what makes a horror story, well.. horrifying.

A Journey

Prufrock is no model for such thing. First of all, he is simply the passenger in his life. He does not take control nor does he even drive this car, the car that is the metaphor for life. He is simply a little gay man. I cannot help but stress the fact that, in part with my homophobia, that he is a gay little man and that gay men cannot do such things (take life on as the driver.) Sure, there are exceptions - but I doubt that the majority of gay men are the drivers of their lives. Prufrock is no hero, he is not on a journey, if he were he wouldn't know where he was going. He's simply remaining on the same plane - rock bottom. The same level. He is just a man that is so self conscious that he worries about a tiny little bald spot on his head. He is no hero. He is not on a journey... so the journey cannot even begin if he cannot even drive his own car (that which is his life.) Oh well, Prufrock's a sad case. T.S. Eliot, you've made your point.

Prufrock Revisited

T.S. Eliot writes that, in the thoughts of Prufrock, that HE is a spiritually empty man. What does that say about humanity? It gives it a nihilistic taste and tone to the poem. It adds flavor and character to the poem, because I've realized that all great poems invoke some sort of thought that questions an abstract and deep thing that humans cannot really put a concrete answer on. Maybe that's the secret ingredient to great poets - just writing about deep things. An example would be like Emily Dickinson's poems that invoke the feelings of death and the such. Prufrock says he'd rather be a pair of lobster claws - that just says he's a man that's in the passenger seat. He can't do a thing to save himself - he's the observer and the watcher of his life. He does not do, he watches. He lets things happen. That is why T.S. Eliot writes about him - a helpless man just contemplating shallow subjects.

Anti-Hero

He does not fit into the theme of an anti-hero. He is simply an apathetic person who does not care much about anything else other than the daily triviality of life. Vanity, looks, etc. He is a person who is so vain he cares about himself before he walks into a room. He shouldn't even be included in the category of an anti-hero because he simply is just too ordinary to be an anti-hero. We are simply tapping into his thoughts. An ordinary man who used to live a lavish lifestyle (maybe he still does now) but is simply too concerned with himself and appearance now because he has grown old. He's just a man of vanity. He's gay if I could say it, a gay and depressed little man that used to fit into the elite of society (and probably still fits in) but is just so self-conscious and absorbed into his little mind and society that he'd rather be a pair of lobster claws. What a pathetic man. Is he even a man? Those are the thoughts of a woman, or a gay man. Perhaps this poem should be changed to the "Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, the Gay Man". Nonetheless, it does not take away from the greatness of the poem and it does not diminish the level of admiration I have for T.S. Eliot, (whether he is a poet or not, he is a brilliant man)