Journal #43: Jazz Imagery on a Blue Train

The song Blue Train by John Coltrane was pretty cool. Made even cooler by the fact that the song title rhymes with his name. That's a pretty ringing endorsement from me considering that I usually don't go for music that doesn't have any words. This song made good background music as I did this blog and my many other subjects of homework.
As for imagery in this song, I obviously thought of a train as I was listening to it. Given the title, I'm sure that's only natural. It also made me think of being in a really classy restaurant/ blues club and listening to this song. I have a really good imagination, so it was easy to imagine myself there as this was being played way back when. This song also made me feel nostalgic for my childhood. I used to watch the two Fantasia movies all the time when I was younger. This song just seems like something that would fit in perfectly with the other songs in the movie. That means that, in addition to the two other images mentioned previously that I had in my mind, I also had this little cartoon version of the song running through my head in true Fantasia style. The cartoon was a messy thing about workers in a train yard. The workers look vaguely like the cartoon character Popeye. Towards the end of the song, when my little cartoon has played out, this song gets me thinking of street performers. Last winter in Chicago, I stopped to listen to this one performer that I found. He was really good, so this song brings back a pleasant memory of that time for me.
This song also seems like it would be good elevator or lounge music. Like I said earlier, it's easy to listen to it and do other things like homework, so it would be ideal to put in a lounge-type area or an elevator.

Modernism vs. Realism

Modernism and Realism are very similar and slightly different types of American Literature. Both reflected the vast changes undergone by society at their times. Realism was brought on due to the aftermath of the Civil War and the changes that it caused when people needed something solid or "real" in their lives. Modernism was brought on by the two World Wars, as well as other wars and changes in society such as the Prohibition and the roaring twenties. Society during the Modernism period wanted to create something distinctly theirs so as to again have a solid foundation amidst all the change. Both literary isms also share a focus on individuals and the psychology of the individual. They are also similar in that, for the most part, they both focus on things that could actually happen. This is true for Realism especially. Also, both Realism and Modernism authors considered each piece its own work of art that could be studied as a unit ("Introduction"). The language of the two literary periods is also the same. Both used the common language of the people, particularly that of the middle class, which was greatly expanding during this time period.
For as similar as Realism and Modernism are, there are also some major differences. While Realism and Modernism were both very descriptive, Realism was more into a stating of facts and Modernism used more of an image approach, particularly with the Imagist subcategory. In modernism, the description of (and use of images in)the event was just important as the event itself and what was happening in the story. In Realism however, the happenings of the story often got lost in the sea of detail (a.k.a. boring facts) that were used to describe the events. The authors apparently were just fine with that, and the aspect of boredom that permeates many Realism works has become a defining characteristic of Realism. Also, Modernism often places its ordinary hero in extraordinary situations, while Realism wouldn't dream of such things. One example is "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" by James Thurber, Walter, a painfully ordinary man, has vivid fantasies of extraordinary situations. While he isn't actually in them himself, the imagery (which is a major characteristic of Modernism) is enough so it seems that he is. The last difference that I want to mention is that for as much of the change that went on right before the Realism period, I think that Modernism had much more change that went on in its time. That just makes Modernism more legitimate in my mind.
While I'm on the topic of personal differences, I much prefer Modernism to Realism. Realism gets boring really quickly for me. That's not to say that I don't find Modernism boring at times, but Realism is boring practically all the time. I think the only Realism work that I can remember that was not boring for me was "The Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" by Bierce. In Modernism, it was easier for me to find stories/poems that I liked, which I appreciated.

Job Shadowing Reflection

I had a great time at my job shadowing experience. I went to the Illinois State Library. This was a good experience for me because I had never even thought of being a research librarian before, let alone heard of the Illinois State Library before. I thought it was going to be really boring, but it was actually really interesting. I saw so much of the library that most people don't get to see. This job shadowing definitely made me consider being a research librarian. I knew I wanted to be a librarian, but this gave me more options. It was really helpful because I went around to all the different departments and got a broad view of what they do there every day. I also got good advice on possible colleges from the people who work there. They were all really nice, and I'm glad that I was able to on this job shadowing experience.

Journal#42: Dickinson or Whitman?

If I lived at the same time that Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson were writing, I really don't think I would like either of them very much. The time period has nothing to do with anything. The only bearing it would have on my opinion would be that it was new poetry, rather than the "classic" stuff that it is taught as today. Sure, it might have been shocking to some people, but whether it was shocking or not, it doesn't really effect the overall quality of the poem. Personally, I don't think that I would have been able to read the poetry of the time. If I was actually in that time period, and that poetry was really considered that shocking, I doubt that my mother would have let me read such things. I doubt that anyone's mothers would approve. Especially because Whitman's topics include such things as homosexuality and incest. My mom doesn't even like me reading anything like that nowadays. I can't even imagine what she would be like almost a hundred years ago. I have a feeling that I would still find them boring. I would probably have to say that - if I really had to choose - I would like Whitman better. I think I enjoy reading maybe five or six of Whitman's poems as opposed to three or four of Dickinson's. Also, Dickinson's subject matter seems boring to me. Honestly, how much life experience can a shut in have? At least Whitman was out in the world doing things. Dickinson was just watching the birds in her garden. They were both pretty pompous in their writing though. They probably thought they were so cool, being a bridge between Realism and Modernism. In the words of Shania Twain, "That don't impress me much." Also, the fact that I was forced to read their work in class puts a damper on my enjoyment of their work. Had I read them of my own volition, I might have actually enjoyed them.

"I Know Some Lonely Houses off the Road" Analysis

"I Know Some Lonely Houses off the Road" by Emily Dickinson is a poem about thieves robbing a house. She is saying that she knows some ideal houses for people to steal from. The houses she describes are back from the road, and they are inhabited by elderly people who would not notice right away that someone had been in their house. She describes how such a theft might take place and what the robbers might steal, such as "Tankard, or spoon, earring, or stone, a watch, some ancient brooch" (Dickinson). This poem is a typical Dickinson work in some ways, but it is different from her usual works as well. She uses lots of descriptive words and really paints the scene so that it is easy to imagine the robbers peering in the window and creeping through the house. She also uses personification often, which is a common element in her poems. The last line is a great example of personification: "While the old couple, just astir, think that the sunrise left the door ajar!" (Dickinson). Since sunrises cannot, to the best of my knowledge, open doors, this is an example of personification in "I Know Some Lonely Houses off the Road". These literary techniques are characteristic of not just Dickinson's poems, but Modernism as well. Her word choice is very careful, which is important in any writing, but especially in Modernism. I personally like how she used the word "chanticleer" instead of rooster in the line "The sun has got as far as the third sycamore. Screams chanticleer, 'Who ’s there?'" (Dickinson). Using that word gives the poem a more classy air, not to mention it sounds more lyrical than just saying "rooster". She also writes about a realistic occurrence that could have actually happened in real life. This is a characteristic of Realism. A characteristic of both Realism and Modernism that Dickinson uses is that she does not use any particular meter or rhyme scheme. The fact that Dickinson had characteristics of both makes her a sort of in-between poet, given that she does not fully fit into either category. An analysis of the setting in Dickinson's poems by Douglas Anderson stressed the importance of the setting. The setting is very important in this poem, as it is with others by Emily Dickinson. Had the houses been not so far off the road, the thieves would have had a more difficult time of stealing from their elderly inhabitants. Also, had it not been night time, said elderly inhabitants would not have been asleep, also making it harder for the thieves to take their valuables. I thought this poem was pretty good. It actually made sense to me, unlike half of Dickinson's other poems. I also thought that she picked a somewhat interesting topic for once. Instead of a snake in the grass or a robin on her lawn, we get all the action of a robbery. Also, unlike some of her poems, "I Know Some Lonely Houses off the Road" is pretty literal and straightforward. Not a whole lot of hidden meaning to be found in the robbery of an elderly couple.


Anderson, Douglas. "Presence and Place in Emily Dickinson's Poetry." The New England Quarterly 57, no. 2. (June, 1984): 205–224. Quoted as "Presence and Place in Emily Dickinson's Poetry" in Bloom, Harold, ed. Emily Dickinson, New Edition, Bloom's Modern Critical Views. New York: Chelsea House Publishing, 2008. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=1&iPin=MCVED03&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 22, 2011).

Dickinson, Emily. "15. "I Know Some Lonely Houses off the Road." Part One: Life. Dickinson, Emily. 1924. Complete Poems." Bartleby.com: Great Books Online -- Quotes, Poems, Novels, Classics and Hundreds More. Web. 14 Apr. 2011. .

Journal #41: Analyzing Dickinson

For this journal's purposes, I will be analyzing "Unto my books so good to turn" from Part One: Life of Emily Dickinson's works. Basically, this poem is talking about how Dickinson escapes into her books at the end of the day. She spurns the company of her "retarded guests" at their banquets, and the time that she spends waiting to escape to her library just makes it that much sweeter when she can actually get away. I'm sure Dickinson did not mean retarded in the offensive way that the word is commonly used in speech today, but, given Dickinson's contempt of most people, she very well may have meant that she thought they were slower mentally than everyone else.
Like Dickinson, I love to read. I am not a hermit; however, so books are not my only friends like they apparently were for the speaker in this poem.
Like many of Dickinson's other poems, "Unto my books so good to turn" has individual thoughts represented by each stanza that are similar throughout the whole poem. The first stanza is about how Dickinson likes, at the end of the day, to relax with a good book. The second stanza's idea is a metaphor comparing the speaker's small library with a feast with many merry guests. The third stanza basically says that no matter how ugly the world looks or what may be going on outside, books can always provide an escape to a happy place. The last stanza is about how the speaker cherishes the books as on would a friend, despite how plain they may look.
If one were religiously inclined, one could substitute the Bible for the books that are present in this poem. I know of many religious people who cherish the Bible and would therefore experience the emotions that Dickinson presents in this poem.
This poem was one of Dickinson's more literal poems. Except for the metaphor of stanza two, most of the language can be taken at face value.

Journal #40: Self...Again

Self from my perspective is basically a convoluted mess of little importance. Whitman even said himself that it was very near impossible to try to find out exactly what makes up Self. Considering that he actually cared about and spent years looking for the elusive "Self", and I have neither the desire nor time to spend on such a thing, I think I'll leave the Self-analyzing to Whitman. There is no way that I will ever know everything about myself, and I usually fail at guessing what other people think, especially when whatever they are thinking of involves me. You really can't analyze chaos.
Personally, I kind of hate the idea of Self, at least Whitman's definition of it. It annoys me that he could be so egotistical, but then turn around and be self-depreciating in the same sentence. Personally, given that I only enjoy a handful of his poems, I don't think Whitman is a good enough writer or poet to feel entitled to this discovery of Self. It's one of those mysteries in life that mere human beings are not supposed to be able to solve. That's the main reason this journal has a rambling, ranting sort of tone. No one will ever figure this stuff out, so I say, "Why try?" All it will do is make me feel again how insignificant I am in the grand scheme of things.
I also don't like Whitman's view of the Holy Trinity. I think that he doesn't fully understand it himself. Then he goes and writes that since God is in everyone, everyone is God. I don't know where exactly I stand on Self, but I know that's not a part of my definition. To say that is arrogance to the extreme. It's even worse than the scenario presented by the saying "everyone is special, so no one is". If everyone is God, then God loses much of His power. That's not even accounting for the atheists of the world. I'm sure that they would disagree with Whitman on this point.