Wallace Stevens

For some reason, I've been struggling with Steven's poetry. I mean, everything i read sounds very beautiful. I just struggle to piece a meaning out of it. However, I certainly appreciate what I read about Steven's literary theories in his introduction. According to Stevens, "poetry [exists] to illuminate the world's surfaces as well as its depths" and the reality depends on the human observer...the sense of an inescapable subjectivity in everything we know [demonstrates that] Stevens clearly shared a modernist ideology."

The Emperor of Ice-Cream
When I read this poem, I imagine a small town in the summertime. Everyone has their role and every role provides something beautiful for the town. However, the most important role is played by the ice cream man. I'm not sure whats going on in the second stanza, but I think its supposed to be sad.

If anyone can elaborate, that would be cool.

Sunday Morning
This poem is very beautiful and intriguing. The real meaning of the poem is clearly hit upon in the fifth and sixth stanzas, particularly in the following lines:
"Death is the mother of beauty; hence from her,
Alone shall come fulfillment to our dreams"
The speaker claims that the fact that we will not live forever gives our lives meaning. She wonders whether nothing changes in heaven and if that is the case, whats beautiful about that? I take notes in my textbook, and next to these stanzas, i simply wrote "wow."

Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird
I think this is the poem I was the most lost on. I thought it offered very pretty observations and imagery, but I wonder if the blackbird is supposed to symbolize something deeper then pretty pictures. Either way, I liked it still.

Crane and London

I loved loved loved these readings. They both captured, in the span of a day, the brunt of survival and everything that might go through a human's mind in such circumstances.

Both readings also carried a lot of obvious symbolism, which as we know, I like. For example, the fire represents man. It is born as a weak flame, with so much potential to grow and to help or hurt. However the fire is still very fragile, like man. And of course all fires will go out.

Both pieces were realist and naturalist in nature; very Man vs. Nature. In theater, the rule is that a play is never about moments in time that are ordinary and I think that rule goes for books too and these readings were definately about extrodinary instances in time and how the characters respond to their environments. (If only Dreiser had followed it. Carrie's opening moments=ordinary to the point of dull.)

In Crane's piece, I also observed that it appeared as though the characters were going through stages of grief.

Denial:
There's a house of refuge just north of the Mosquito Inlet Light, and as soon as they see us, they'll come off in their boat and pick us up.

Anger:
I'd like to catch the chump who waved the coat. I feel like socking him one, just for luck.

Bargaining:
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.

Depression:
If I am going to be drowned, why, in the name of the seven mad gods who rule the sea, was I allowed to come this far and contemplate sand and trees?

Acceptance:
It's merely occur to him that if he should drown it would be a shame.

What's in a Story?

For me, it's all about the characters and the symbolism. And when a story fails to satisfy one of these, I am simply appalled with boredom. So then of course, I have to dig. Otherewise, what was the point in reading the stupid piece of literature in the first place? And obviously, I'm made to read this literature for class so it can't actually all be stupid. However, this is how I felt about Dreiser's piece.

So, not only did the characters in "Sister Carrie" suck, but the story did too! We'll assume that Dreiser is simply trying to make some Naturalist remark on society and it's ways, but God how depressing! It's like Carrie had no real purpose. The only point I felt any sort of drive in the novel was when we were introduced to that asshole Drouet. But I am grateful that Drieser manage to evoke any sort of emotion out of me other then appalled boredom, even though the reading went down from there. He also managed to fit in some very honest observations about humanity. I just wish that if that were his purpose, he wouldn't have wasted our time with petty little girls and douche bags.
The following is one example of an honest observation.... though I hate to admit it.

"There is an indescribably faint line in the matter of man's apparel which somehow divides for her those who are worth glancing at and those who are not." 
^^I'll tell you why this is true. Within the inherent psychology of Man and Woman, we have caveman instincts which explain the laws of attraction. Men are instinctually attracted to women who have a baby-making figure. Female's cave man instincts dictate that they be attracted to men who appear successful, financially or otherwise, and could fulfill the role as provider.