The Lottery

" 'over in the north village they're talking of giving up the lottery' " (565).

Depicted in this scene of the lottery is an old man, the oldest man in town, talking with two other villagers about the lottery--how other towns are giving it up. Old Man Warner claims that this idea is stupid and nothing good can come of it, but the other villagers don't seem so sure. They aren't as quick to bash the idea. Maybe they don't see the point in it anymore, and indeed, Old Man Warner's reasoning is flawed. Based on what he says, "There's always been a lottery" (565). So then why say, "next thing you know, they'll be wanting to back to living in caves"? His argument is flawed and doesn't make sense. The people who are giving up the lottery are progressive and are moving forward, yet Old Man Warner sees them as moving backwards. No one voices their agreement with him because of this. He only makes his case worse. The only real argument he has for keeping the lottery is, " 'lottery in June, corn be heavy soon' " but we don't even know if this is necessarily relevant to their towns society at the moment. They don't seem to be that worried about food. Why do they still need to sacrifice someone for a good harvest? I think times are changing and Old Man Warner is another Emily.

"Hills Like White Elephants"

"I'm perfectly willing to go through with it if it means anything to you" (555).

By this point he should know it means something to her. And it is fairly safe to say that he does know this. Does he only tell her this to make himself look better? The whole goal of his conversation with her seems to be to get her to have the abortion. I think the girl thinks that he is not interested in having kids with her, but merely continuing the fling they are having. Yet, in the end it seems that he changes his mind because the girl ends up smiling, seemingly happy.

This is a classic Hemingway story because of the minimalist style of writing and fast paced dialogue where the speaker can be confused. Hemingway does a great job of mixing up the dialogue and creating a sense of ambiguity in the reader, which forces him or her to go back and check more closely the details of the story. Focused in on the story, the reader can find many hidden meanings. One of my favorites was the idea that the different sides of the railroad station represent different endings for this couple. Do they have the kid or do they go through with the "operation?" If the side they're originally on represents having the abortion, because it is barren, devoid of trees, hot, etc. then in the end, when the man says, "I'd better take the bags over to the other side of the station," this must mean he is going to have the kid because they are going to the more fertile side, and after he says this the girl smiles at him. This was my interpretation of the story.

Young Goodman Brown

"A stern, a sad, a darkly meditative, a distrustful, if not a desperate man did he become from the night of that fearful dream...Often, waking suddenly at midnight, he shrank from the bosom of Faith; and at morning or eventide, when the family knelt down at prayer, he scowled and muttered to himself, and gazed sternly at his wife, and turned away" (Hawthorne 547).

The entire last paragraph of this story is an example of what can happen when you become an extremist of your religion. You go down a different path than what the founder of that religion intended. Given Hawthorne's family background he knew this best and learned from his ancestors mistake. I'm sure he had his Grandfather(?) in mind when writing this piece. It was yet another way of distancing himself from him. Young Goodman Brown becomes a terrible person to be around. He distrusts everyone and thinks himself better than them because they are not as extremely religious.

I am noticing a trend with a lot of the authors we have read. They are all touching on topics that seem to be well ahead of their time (maybe because history repeats itself). The ending of this story makes me think of extremist regimes today. Sects of people who claim to be of a particular faith, but who violate the teachings of that religions bible. Take for example the extremists in the middle east, who suicide bomb in the name of Allah, when in reality, the teachings of the Muslim religion would never condone such action--it is supposed to be a peaceful religion. Young Goodman Brown is a good example of people taking religion too far, to the point where it is no longer what was originally intended.

The Yellow Wallpaper

"I never saw a worse paper in my life. One of those sprawling, flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin. It is dull enough to confuse the eye in following, pronounced enough constantly to irritate and provoke study, and when you follow the lame uncertain curves for a little distance they suddenly commit suicide--plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard-of contradictions" (Gilman, 488-89).

This was one of my favorite quotes because it really made me think and it's beautifully written. After reading this I began to wonder if the wallpaper could stand for anything else because the way Gliman describes it sometimes seems like it could be about something besides wallpaper. I looked into this and found a couple of critics who made a suggestion that I thought was interesting. Karen Ford and Paula Treichler speak of the yellow wallpaper as a possible metaphor for male discourse or writing. Ford asserts that, "The wallpaper, in fact, sometimes appears like male discourse in its capacity to contradict and immobilize the women who are trapped within it" (Ford, 311). In this sense, the wallpaper, which confuses and deteriorates Jane's mental stability, represents the way John, and men at the time, treated women with these conditions. Men dominated language and told the women what was best for them, often times leading them to further mental illness. Both John and Weir Mitchell are examples of this in the way they seclude their patients, make them take all kinds of strange antidotes, and insist that they will get better this way. Jane is never given a chance to seriously speak to John because he treats her like a child and takes nothing she says seriously. John dominates her and traps her in the same way the wallpaper does. In this sense, the wallpaper mirrors the male dominance because of its suffocating and demanding nature.

A Rose for Emily

Page 404, "When the next generation, with its more modern ideas, became mayors and alderman, this arrangement created some little dissatisfaction."

I think a lot of this story is a comment on old world vs. new world and old money vs. new money. We see this immediately in part 1 when the new council demands taxes from Emily. She represents the old world and old money. She refuses to keep up with the times, even refusing to acknowledge in her own mind that the world around her is changing. Her house is a symbol of this, growing old and decaying, while the life around it continues to change and grow. The house was once nice, her family was once prestigious, but now they have all fallen into shambles. Emily is doomed if she does not change with the times and she does not, so she suffers a sad life.

Faulkner published this story in 1930. This story is perhaps a comment on what he saw or was experiencing himself. A lot of people around him were probably going through this difficult transition from old to new, just like older people are today experiencing with technology (especially computers, my dad is horrible with them). Some people make a conscience effort to change and learn the new ways, while others who are more stubborn refuse to accept that the times are changing. I think this story reflects a lot of that sentiment.

Philip Dick

Page 357, "Is an extra-factual memory that convincing?" Quail asked. "More than the real thing, sir. Had you really gone to Mars as an Interplan agent, you would by now have forgotten a great deal; our analysis of true-mem-systems--authentic recollections of major events in a person's life--shows that a variety of details are very quickly lost to the person. Forever."

For me, this brought to mind the debate over things like stem cell research or using prosthetic parts. Or even robotic workers over human workers. Philip Dick brings up a really modern topic for our day--he is way ahead of his time. Mr. McClane is trying to convince Mr. Quail that the real thing is not as good as the simulation or made up version. I don't know why, but I just thought this was a big deal! It was kind of outrageous to me. To think that a fake memory could be better than the real thing, but maybe it's true. That's scary. It is scary how far we have come with technology and I think it's amazing that Philip Dick wrote this in 1966!

"This tower was a giant, standing with its back to the plight of the ants. It represented in a degree, to the correspondent, the serenity of nature amid the struggles of the individual...She did not seem cruel to him then, nor beneficent, nor treacherous, nor wise. But she was indifferent, flatly indifferent. It is, perhaps, plausible that a man in this situation, impressed with the unconcern of the universe, should see the innumerable flaws of his life, and have them taste wickedly in his mind, and wish for another chance. A distinction between right and wrong seems absurdly clear to him, then, in this new ignorance of the grave-edge, and he understand that if he were given another opportunity he would mend his conduct and his words, and be better and brighter during an introduction or at a tea" (Crane, 352).

This is a passage I marked in my book and found to be the best and most important. That is to say, I got the most out of it. I think it is the most direct attempt by Crane to voice his thoughts directly to the reader, in a manner that is straightforward and true.

This tower can be interpreted as representing nature or some all-powerful being or God, which is an embodiment of nature. Nature is refered to as "She," and most importantly is niether cruel nor wise, but "flatly indifferent." Looking at it this way, it is as if no one cares. The God of nature does not care. The correspondent, or Crane, however you wish to look at it, then states that in this situation, a man should want to be a better person.

At first this assertion made sense to me, but now I'm not sure I understand why, "the unconcern of the universe," the Gods, and nature, should make you want to be a better person. If anything why wouldn't it make you not care as well? If you are a mere ant to the Gods, or whomever, wouldn't this make you angry? It is sad to think they do not care about us at all, and that they would discard us, or let us die so easily.

On the other hand, maybe because the correspondent is face to face with death, or close to it, he is looking back on his life--a life that could have been better. I understand this making someone want to change and be a better person.