"Smile, Smile, Smile" by Wilfred Owen

What caught my attention in Owen's "Smile, Smile, Smile" was how the sound of the poem as it is read out loud elevates the meaning of the poem. I thought i sounded bouncy, like a song, since all of the lines are decasyllables. The rhyme scheme was somewhat confusing to me, because it does not follow a specific pattern. For example, the first eight lines follow and ABBA CDDC pattern. Lines 9-12 follow an EFEF pattern, while 13-16 follow a GGGG pattern. I think both the rhyme scheme and the syllable count add to the slightly jovial way the poem sounds when it is read out loud, which in turns contributes to the sarcasm Owen uses while trying to point out the ignorance of the people and paper.

I find that these patterns empower Owen's poem since the sarcasm is his way of approaching the public's view of war. The newspaper focuses on the superficial things such as the "Vast Booty", while undermining "the casualties" which are "typed small" (2, 3). It speaks lightly about the "dead" and how "Victory" is the only thing "worthy" for the ones "who fought" (9, 13, 16). The soldiers also know that when the newspaper speaks of the "integrity" of the "nations" that it is simply for the public and that they know the real "secret" - all of the England's "integrity" "had fled to France" (17, 20, 22). The last three lines also demonstrate the superficiality of the newspaper and its readers, while it prints "pictures of...broad smiles...each", and the people who say "How they smile!" (24, 26.) Owen uses the rhyme scheme and the syllable count to make the poem sound cheerful, just as the civilians who read the newspaper feel towards the veterans - "They're happy now, poor things" (26.)

A Field of Silence

I'm sorry for posting so late, it has been an awful day.
Kelsea, unlike you I did not feel a sense of holiness until she actually says that "There are angels in those fields." Even then, I don't know if I sensed the spirits previous to that. She says that she felt 'self-concious' and aware of herself and of things looking at her.
What I am curious about, though, is the significance of the rooster through the passage. The rooster is mentioned at several different times, such as when he is described as a "lone and maniac" bird. Dillard also describes several of the things which he is doing while he clucks in a desperate manner, "gagging" and "scream[ed]". She also describes their clucking as "interrupting" and "arhythmically". She also describes when the "roosters stopped", where "all the things of the world" seemed to be "self-concious". The rooster is also said to be "frozen looking at [her]". I am not sure what the rooster is meant to represent or mean, but I do think that he is put there to contrast with the silence and holiness of the fields. Perhaps the rooster represents the common day humanity, busy with their lives and crowing out "arythmically." What do you think, Kelsea?

A Field of Silence

As a result of her sleepless nights, Annie Dillard is able to recognize an almost unrealistic detail of the farm she lives nearby. The vast fields that cover her surroundings are completely silent and motionless at the time of dawn. Formerly, this silence had been unknown to her since the Earth is on the move day by day. By being awake at such wee hours of the morning, she’s suddenly able to recognize that silence does exist. I could tell that the speaker was stunned by this discovery because she had to convince herself that “the silent fields were the real world” and not a dream.
Since everything around her lacked motion, Dillard felt conscious of herself. I compared this to the concept of holiness. In the first place, I believe the way the author describes the scenery is calm, serene and beautiful. Furthermore, the words she implements directly relate to Heaven; Dillard confirms that “the farm seemed eternal”. All these descriptions of the fields represent their purity, as if nothing else in the world could possibly compare. However, in all this greatness, Dillard feels uncomfortable in the midst of this. I believe she feels oppressed by all the sacredness around her, since she knows she personally can’t manage to compare to it. As she admits, she felt “self-conscious, and wishing to die”. The former statement verifies her fear of being inferior in contrast to all the superior beauty around her.
In the end, Dillard directly admits this concept of Heaven. She begins to think that the fields are roamed by “thousands of spirits”, “angels”. Therefore, these opinions she has about the farm confirm why she’d felt like an outsider earlier, because she couldn’t compare to these spirits of Heaven

Lenses

I came to a very different conclusion than the one you did about the short essay "Lenses". To me, the essay followed the previous themes about cruelty and appreciation of beauty, like "The Deer at Providencia" and "Into the Jungle", respectively. For example, she says how she "set up and staged hundreds of ends-of-the-worlds", "apocalypses", and "loved" them. This connects to how cold she was in relation to the suffering of the deer, where she acceepted the fact that there had to be suffering in the world for some people. She did not care about the suffering of the miniscule bacteria and algae. Afterwards, she appreciated the simple beauty of the simple beauty of the swans as "they flew" "in clockwise elipses", just as she enjoyed the simple beauty of being away from the chaos of the world while she was in the jungle.
Although Kelsea, the theme you bring up seems to make much more sense and fit accordingly. The different 'lenses' you learn to look at life through demonstrate a different level of maturity which you've reached after you learn how to manage the previous 'lense'.
I have several questions though.
What do you think the 75 Watt bulb symbolizes ? At the end of the essay she also says "my eyes burned", but now referring to the sun. Might the light symbolize a new stage or realization ? Like a new idea or self-recognition?
Also, why do you think she describes her microscope and bacteria for the first half of the essay, but then aburptly change the subject and even say "But oddly enough, this is a story about swans." Do you think it might be parrallel to 'abruptly maturing?'

Lenses

Through this short essay, I believe Annie Dillard intends to recreate the life process of maturing. She is able to accomplish this by comparing an individual’s perspective at different points in life, to “lenses”, as the title illustrates. At the beginning the author states that viewing through lenses “is an acquired skill.” This means that the ability to successfully observe isn’t immediate, and rather requires of further development. I think Dillard is trying to compare this first experience to that of an infant. As toddlers, we don’t really have a personal point of view. Since we’re so immature, we follow our elders every step of the way, listen, imitate. In these early stages of growth, we’re still trying to make sense of the world. Further on, Dillard reveals her encounter with science through the use of a microscope as a grown child. At this point in time, she’s already developed the skill to observe through complex lenses; in other words, she’s already developed her own perspectives. Just like any other child her age, she’s attracted to all that’s amusing and fun. The author admits that she “loved that deep, wet world where the colored algae waved in the water and the rotifers swarm”. These descriptions enhance what children focus on at such a young age. Their points of view entail most of what’s amazing entertainment, like the reduction of bacteria. But once Dillard reaches adulthood, the lenses of her binoculars center on more profound visions. As a grown woman, she’s “excited […] to see whistling swans in Daleville, Virginia”. This image represents what’s mostly in the mind of an adult. Rather than focusing on play, her perspective reaches out to meaningful aesthetics instead. Now, she takes interest in the serene flight of two swans, which express her maturity. In conclusion, I think the lenses represent the evolution the author takes as time passes by.

Response to Total Eclipse

Kelsea, I am amazed at how simply you put the argument. I was confused if the author thought the eclipse to be a positive event in her life or a negative event in her life due to the fact that she described it filled with death and horror, like when she describes that "from all the hills came screams." The contrast to this is when the college student compares the ring to a "Life Saver" and she says "it was good to back among people so clever." Why would she describe something so incredible, which she wants people to appreciate as a wonder of the world, as death and doom?
I also do not understand when she says that the boy was a "walking alarm clock." She says that the only thing we teach our children is "to wake up," but she goes on to say that we become like "will-less dolphins". Clearly, she wants to communicate that people do things out of routine and do not appreciate the important things, like you mentioned Kelsea, by using the example of the cars going to work. Why then, I ask myself, is the boy the "alarm clock"? Why has the total eclipse "all wrong" when it should be the wakening moment of appreciation? Is she trying to convey the same idea as "you never know what you have until you've lost it"? Did she try to compare it to death because she felt like she could no longer appreciate what she would have if she were alive?
She declares all of the observers dead, "alone in eternity", "remember[ing] [their] living days wrong." Why, I ask again, has this shocking moment killed them instead of bringing them to life? Why, did all of them "hurr[y] away" and "never look back"? I understand that she says that people do not want to leave their comfort level, that "one turns [...] even from glory itself [... to] hurry for the latitudes of home." But why did she do it as well? Why did they not appreciate that last sliver of eclipse, which they will only have a chance to see again in 2086, if they were ever to live one hundred years...? She is so confusing in trying to transmit her emotions, but at the same time does a wonderful job at creating imagery.

Total Eclipse

In the very beginning of the essay, Annie Dillard mentions how tiny, insignificant occurrences manage to grasp her attention easily. She offers an example of this by mentioning the odd clown, made out of vegetables. Out of all the ideas she wished to retain in her mind, after two years, this clown was one of the few. The author mocks this trend by communicating that humans are barely able to remember what’s of great importance; in fact, they aren’t really interested in what’s of great importance. The total eclipse was an event that greatly affected Dillard’s life. It was the first time she viewed the world from a distinct perspective. As she says, “the sun was going, and the world was wrong”. All that was around her seemed strange; nature’s bright colors were dim, the people around her were unknown, and even time lapse didn’t seem to be in the present. This peculiarity in all the darkness terrified her! Dillard’s fright is transmitted when describing the “awful” and “wrong” scenery as a complete “devastation”. By being in the presence of this darkness, she was practically exposed to death. This exposure completely marked her; it was significant. Though she was horrified, it’s as if the author required of this in order to make sense of the meaningful things in life.
However, there aren’t many people that know how to prioritize the significant things. While she was witnessing this life-changing event, others were off to work in their cars. The author wonders if businesses simply aren’t capable of giving “their employees an hour off” to observe this worthy even. Through this essay, Dillard wishes to highlight this disregard to prove its incorrectness. Humans should pay more attention to the important things, rather the irrelevant.

On a Hill Far Away

I agree with you, Kelsea. I also felt loneliness throughout the essay.
Mr. Pruzinsky, not only do I feel like God is not enough company for the boy, but I also feel like God is not enough company for the mother either. When the speaker had approached the house to ask for permission to run through their property, the mother was "nervous". The speaker clearly felt her loneliness. She says "my heart went out to her" and "I wanted to make her as happy as possible", even taking a few "pamphlets." I think that Dillard is trying to convey the message that sometimes God is not enough in our lives. I also suspect that the great passion for the Lord that the mother and the son feel is imposed by the father.
The father is depicted as a strong figure, who comes home from work and cannot set the table because 'that is not a man's job.' In contrast, the mother and the boy seem to always be nervous, doubtful to ask people about "knowing the Lord" and such. If this was something they wanted to do are were not forced to by anyone else, they would be confident, boldly asking rather than having to muster "courage". Therefore I feel like the father is an imposing religious man, placing "eight-foot alumninum cross[es]" and a sign which reads "Christ the Lord is our Salvation" around the house, and further on forcing his religion on his wife and his child.

Teaching a Stone to Talk (answer)

I have to admit that I had a very hard time understanding the argument throughout the short story/essay (I'm not really sure what it is), up until the end, and it has made a lot more sense after reading your post.
I agree with you that her argument is that humans do not appreciate nature as much as they should. She gives humans credit for giving value to nature. She says "if we were not here, material events like the passage of seasons would lack even the meager meaning we are able to muster for them." But let's not forget that she is also saying that we are not fulfilling our purpose; we were brought here to appreciate nature, not destroy it with "our own act[s]."
For some reason I felt very disapointed after reading this essay. I expected it to be more about Larry "Teaching [his] Stone to Talk", and have a message about determination or a different value. I think that the organization of this essay was also confusing, the fact that it was divided into six parts and the redundancy of the argument. I also did not understand the contradiction in between the "humming" verus the "silence". She says "nature hums" a unified sound, but in her conclusion, or part six, she says that "silence is all there is."
The other essays we have read by her have left me with a questioning thought, wondering about what I do with my life etc., but rather this one has not impacted me, and I have felt the urge to nit pick at the negative things I have found about it.

On a Hill Far Away

A sense of loneliness is what came across me, as a reader, of the little boy’s character. Belonging to a devoted Christian family, the boy was raised in the Lord’s presence. His father and mother had leaded him His path throughout his life, and even a sign on their property read “CHRIST THE LORD IN OUR SALVATION”. Although this companionship must have been enough to ride his solitary ways, the boy in fact was very solitary. As an only child, he lived “on the hilltop” surrounded by “horses” and a “foal”, as far as “120 miles” from the nearest Christian church. When the speaker met him at the barbed wire, the boy kept arousing conversation to avoid her departure. Every time she would mention “I have to go”, he would commence a new topic in order to prolong her stay. This behavior just proves this little boy’s loneliness. Contrary to what we’d like to think, the company of God, although magnificent to have, isn’t our only need. Of course we need Him to provide us the proper guides to life; however, in His abstractness, we require of someone more concrete with whom we’re able to converse, play and hug. As the speaker noticed, “the accustomed gesture of his lips resembled that of a person trying not to cry”. The boy is lonely, so “miserably” lonely. Though he has God and his family by his side, he has no one else, and this makes him sad.

Teaching a Stone to Talk

Through this essay, Annie Dillard wonderfully communicates the crisis humankind has driven upon the world. Our selfishness has leaded us not only to disregard God’s blessings, but to destroy the land He has so graciously provided for us. Humans build over nature, but are unable to build what is of worth since it’s utterly abstract. This involves all the Earth has to say; hence the title, “Teaching a Stone to Talk”. In the past we considered everything of holiness, but we have released that concept and therefore, the holiness to ourselves. In that sense, we have turned a blind side to God and in response; He’s taken speech from nature. Nature does have something to say, so much, but it’s contained due to human disregard. As Dillard says: “you feel the world’s world as a tension, a hum, a single chorused note everywhere the same”. The sounds are trapped within their beauty, and we’re missing out on a great opportunity to learn about them, about the true value of life. Rather than listen, we’re always in action. Hence, Dillard concludes that if she’d be born again, she’d like to reincarnate into a “palo santo” tree off the coast of the Galapagos. These holy trees she’d never noticed before, blocked by the sight of the sea lions playing. But Dillad noticed that being in constant action, moving from one thing to the next, is not the essential. Instead, being still and able to aspire to the splendor that occurs before our eyes is what makes us reflective people.

Cristina, I must say that you're right. In that context, it definitely relates to the tragedy of Alan McDonald since both cases represent suffering. Furthermore, at the end of the essay, the speaker refers to the deer by "Pobrecito", but then confesses "it was a ridiculous thing to say". She knows that some creatures must face this anguish not purposely, but naturally. Though the sight of a trapped deer may cause her sorrow, she understands it must follow its course.

However, I can't manage to release the comparison of her to other women. I believe the way she reacts differently make her unique. One can tell she's much more of a listener than a speaker, since she takes time to absorb everything before taking action. This, I admire about her; it defines her profoundness.

The Dear At Providencia Response to Kelsea 1

I agree with you, Kelsea, but I think of it a little differently. I do believe she cares about the suffering of the dear and that she reflects it by herself, but I do not think she does it to avoid being a 'woman who makes a scandal', as I believe you said (I don't recall perfectly and cannot go back to view your post.)

I think she cares about the dear and reflects upon its suffering, but does this to further understand the concept that there are some things in the world which need to suffer. She silently questions the men from the big city, she says "...what surprises you? That there is suffering here, or that I know it?" Clearly, she is aware of the suffering which the dear goes through, and she deliberately does not want to help it because she knows that there is suffering in the world.

The same goes for the newspaper clipping she reads "every morning". The man who was burnt and his wife declare that "it just isn't fair." I think the speaker does not agree with this statement, because a few sentences further on, she asks if "someone [could] please explain to Alan McDonals [the burned man] in his dignity, to the deer at Providencia in his dignity, what is going on?" Therefore, she understands that this suffering cannot be called "unfair" or "unjust", and that these creatures need both to understand that this is their life. I also believe that through her last sentence, she conveys the message that not one should feel pity for them, that that would just be "a ridiculous thing to" do, because this is the role they carry in life, and thus, should not be pities upon.

Now, I cannot say I agree with her in the sense that we should simply let suffering individuals suffer because it is their role, but I do believe that this is the argument she is trying to bring to light.

The Deer at Providencia

The speaker’s response to the deer’s situation is what I found most essential of it all. In the first place, she didn’t do much anything but stare at what was occurring to the defenseless creature. The Americans and herself “watched [the deer] for fifteen minutes,” while it struggled, but she didn’t even budge. Though most readers would interpret her as a hardhearted individual, I actually think oppositely. The fact that she did nothing about it doesn’t necessarily mean she doesn’t care but that she cares even more. Rather than having to express her personal feelings through dramatic actions, the speaker actually takes it to the heart and mind to reflect upon instead. As one of the Americans confessed his wife would move “from here to there to there” to find the culprit, she had more subtle actions to prove her solidarity. For example, while the tourists were eating she would look towards “the sunny spot where the deer was still convulsing.” She describes the setting around the deer by applying an emphasis on how normal it was, by saying “there was even a breeze.” By highlighting this, it proves she’s confused about how everything is being handled ordinarily while the deer is suffering. These subtle thoughts that stay within her mind, show that the speaker does feel pity for the dear. However, she doesn’t feel the need to act like other women who make scandals over everything. Instead, she reflects to herself…

Essay #1 Living Like Weasels

This is a test