1)overall both comments said my introduction and my thesis were pretty well developed. Therefore i choose to keep my thesis and introduction the same.
However, i was commented on the fact that even though i did use enough evidence on some of my arguments, i failed to provide evidence for one of my arguments. Therefore i will be revising that particular paragraph to add more support to the paragraph as well as my argument. Hence, i will be adding more evidence (quotes) and then analyzing it to add more substance to the whole argument. Therefore i will be adding these changes as well as making a couple other changes that were suggested by the comments i received.








In these poems two different outlooks on love become evident through each of the author’s unique perspectives. John Donne makes his outlook on love clear as he attempts to compare it to a celestial connection. While Judith Minty takes a different yet similar stance on the subject through her comparing of love to some of the “freakish” things in life. Throughout the poems the authors each share their different perspectives on love through the use of Metaphors and selection of detail. John Donne use of metaphors help to evoke the fact that he feels love is like a celestial connection, while Judith Minty’s use of selection of details show that she feels love is a strong attachment that is sort of draining.
Both author express the view on the connection love is but they do so in different ways. For example John Donne says, “ as virtuous men pas mildly away, and whisper to their souls to go, whilst some of their sad friends do say, the breath goes now, and some say, no.” Therefore he establishes that fact that virtuous men will pass away, but no matter what people well always remember their remains their legacies. Hence through the use of this metaphor John Donne actually is comparing the connection of love to something that can never be forgotten. He is expressing the fact that love is so strong, that even when it seems to be no longer physically there, it will always remain in people’s hearts and minds. This quote clearly shows that the author looks at love as a strong bond that is able to endure even when those who it bonds have passed away. On the other hand Judith Minty also shares her outlook on the connection of love but does so in a different way. For example, she says, “ the onion in my cupboard, a monster, actually two joined under one transparent skin….where it pressed and grew against the other”. Through this uses of selection of detail it becomes clear that she feels love is a strong connection yet she doesn’t view it as wonderful as the first author. She clearly sees that love is a strong bond, just as she compared it a an onion which inevitably is actually two pieces under one skin, but the fact that she uses the onion shows here differing outlook on the connection. By comparing the connection to an onion, she makes it seems as if the connection is almost pestering, one cannot t help but to think of action of crying when being exposed to an onion and that is the authors’ intention when utilizing this object. She uses this to show the fact that she feels there is a connection but it is one that is no satisfying, it instead makes the two almost annoy each other and feel dissatisfied.
Moreover both author share different views on the nature of love. For example, John Donne expresses the unique quality of his love through the use of several metaphors. For example he states, “trepidation of the spheres, though greater far, is innocent” and further goes on to say “Dull sublunary lovers’ love cannot admit absence because it doth remove those things which elemented it…we by a love so refined …endure not yet a breach, but an expansion.” Therefore through the use of these metaphors it becomes clear that he sees his love as a celestial connection. Such is seen as he mentions the trepidation of the spheres, he is basically saying that like the heavens tremble and yet cause no harm, his love is just as powerful. He sees his love as being like the heavens, yet no causing harm or falling apart when struggle emerges. Moreover he feels the love he has is on a higher level than that of other “dull” ordinary lovers. This author expresses the strength of the love him and his partner share, and he feels that is it like nothing else anyone can have.
On the other hand Judith Minty expresses her view on the nature of love through the use of selection of detail. For example she states, “ An accident…like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed to live, even make love, together for sixty years.” It becomes evident that she views love as a draining, freakish thing. It is almost as if she feels that love is forced just like two twins that are conjoined. The use of the twins to compare them to love, emphasize the fact that she thinks love is an uncomfortable situation. The words she chooses such as doomed evoke a sense of negative feelings towards love. She clearly feels that love would is something that is binding, but not gratifying. The way she uses the twins’ situation with love give the reader the feeling that love in her eyes is not something people would like to be in.Further more, Minty also ultilizes selection of detail by saying, " an accident, like the two-headed calf rooted in one body, fighting to suck at its mothers teats". hence, it becomes clear that she uses this notion for a specific purpose, she tries to show that this bond of love is more of a struggle. Each person is fighting to receive what they need to be satisfied, therefore, she relates this to the two calfs that are fighting to do something so crucial as eating. Moreover, not only is it a struggle in her eyes, it also shows the awkwardness she sees in this bond. A two-headed calf is something that is rare and not likely to happen, it a weird occurrence.so, by successfully showing this nature in the two headed calfs, she manages to capture the fact that love and the bond created by love is just as strange and uncomfortable.
Over all both authors hold different views on the nature and connection of love. The author of Valediction feels that love is a bond above all, able to overcome obstacles. While on the other hand, Judith Minty portrays love as an awkward and unsatisfying thing. Both authors successfully use their own individual perspectives and figurative tools to evoke their own views.

Valediction vs. Conjoined

Jose Lopez
Per.4

In these poems two different outlooks on love become evident through each of the author’s unique perspectives. John Donne makes his outlook on love clear as he attempts to compare it to a celestial connection. While Judith Minty takes a different yet similar stance on the subject through her comparing of love to some of the “freakish” things in life. Throughout the poems the authors each share their different perspectives on love through the use of Metaphors and selection of detail. John Donne use of metaphors help to evoke the fact that he feels love is like a celestial connection, while Judith Minty’s use of selection of details show that she feels love is a strong attachment that is sort of draining.
Both author express the view on the connection love is but they do so in different ways. For example John Donne says, “ as virtuous men pas mildly away, and whisper to their souls to go, whilst some of their sad friends do say, the breath goes now, and some say, no.” Therefore he establishes that fact that virtuous men will pass away, but no matter what people well always remember their remains their legacies. Hence through the use of this metaphor John Donne actually is comparing the connection of love to something that can never be forgotten. He is expressing the fact that love is so strong, that even when it seems to be no longer physically there, it will always remain in people’s hearts and minds. This quote clearly shows that the author looks at love as a strong bond that is able to endure even when those who it bonds have passed away. On the other hand Judith Minty also shares her outlook on the connection of love but does so in a different way. For example, she says, “ the onion in my cupboard, a monster, actually two joined under one transparent skin….where it pressed and grew against the other”. Through this uses of selection of detail it becomes clear that she feels love is a strong connection yet she doesn’t view it as wonderful as the first author. She clearly sees that love is a strong bond, just as she compared it a an onion which inevitably is actually two pieces under one skin, but the fact that she uses the onion shows here differing outlook on the connection. By comparing the connection to an onion, she makes it seems as if the connection is almost pestering, one cannot t help but to think of action of crying when being exposed to an onion and that is the authors’ intention when utilizing this object. She uses this to show the fact that she feels there is a connection but it is one that is no satisfying, it instead makes the two almost annoy each other and feel dissatisfied.
Moreover both author share different views on the nature of love. For example, John Donne expresses the unique quality of his love through the use of several metaphors. For example he states, “trepidation of the spheres, though greater far, is innocent” and further goes on to say “Dull sublunary lovers’ love cannot admit absence because it doth remove those things which elemented it…we by a love so refined …endure not yet a breach, but an expansion.” Therefore through the use of these metaphors it becomes clear that he sees his love as a celestial connection. Such is seen as he mentions the trepidation of the spheres, he is basically saying that like the heavens tremble and yet cause no harm, his love is just as powerful. He sees his love as being like the heavens, yet no causing harm or falling apart when struggle emerges. Moreover he feels the love he has is on a higher level than that of other “dull” ordinary lovers. This author expresses the strength of the love him and his partner share, and he feels that is it like nothing else anyone can have.
On the other hand Judith Minty expresses her view on the nature of love through the use of selection of detail. For example she states, “ An accident…like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed to live, even make love, together for sixty years.” It becomes evident that she views love as a draining, freakish thing. It is almost as if she feels that love is forced just like two twins that are conjoined. The use of the twins to compare them to love, emphasize the fact that she thinks love is an uncomfortable situation. The words she chooses such as doomed evoke a sense of negative feelings towards love. She clearly feels that love would is something that is binding, but not gratifying. The way she uses the twins’ situation with love give the reader the feeling that love in her eyes is not something people would like to be in.
Over all both authors hold different views on the nature and connection of love. The author of Valediction feels that love is a bond above all, able to overcome obstacles. While on the other hand, Judith Minty portrays love as an awkward and unsatisfying thing. Both authors successfully use their own individual perspectives and figurative tools to evoke their outlook on love.

The gist of the author's argument is basically that O'Brien uses a very postmodern approach throughout the book the things they carried, but such approach is also seen as a paradox due to the fact that he tries to selfishly tell the truth in such war stories or events that occur throughout the book as well. "O'Brien has been successful at conveying these vital truths about the war, many critics argue, because of his use of a postmodern aesthetic. By "postmodernism" I mean what Jean-Francois Lyotard identifies as "that severe reexamination . . . on the thought of the Enlightenment, on the idea of a unitary end of history and of a subject" (73). Or as Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux explain, postmodernism consists of a "refusal of grand narratives, [a] rejection of universal reason as a foundation for human affairs, [a] decentering of the humanist subject, [and a] radical problematization of representation" (61).
For many critics and theorists, the war cannot be represented adequately through traditional literary modes; only a postmodern aesthetic can convey something of the war's surreal, sense-shattering, media-inflected nature." i thought these views and statements were very useful insights. I agree with the fact that Jim Neilson states that O'Brien has been successful in conveying vital truths in the war, by his usage of this postmodern approach. Such is clearly seen throughout the book as O'Brien talks about several stories that happened during the war, however, it is almost doubtful as to what actually did happen because the way he sets up his stories and tells them, and the turns around to negate what he has just told, leaves the reader in awe of what the truth really is. Hence, O'Brien seems to be using this postmodern approach not seeking the ultimate meaning of the war, or trying to tell the ultimate truth of the war, but rather by adding several different pieces to the puzzle the makes up what the war is. He adds pieces to this huge puzzle, by depicting stories and making the reader see the truth through his words.Neilson criticizes "
O'Brien's focus on his individual experience does not merely result in the exclusion of the Vietnamese. This self-interest, combined with a postmodern aversion to totality, causes him to disregard any larger perspective. Hence he does not place the actions of his platoon within the context of a policy that encouraged systematic terror; does not depict senior officers, let alone military strategists and government policy-makers; and does not view his actions in Vietnam as part of a broad strategy to further American geopolitical aims." IN other words i think what Neilson is criticizing is the fact that O'Brien's postmodern approach seems to exclude the Vietnamese and their side of the war. Neilson feels that be selfishly being focused on telling his war stories and the truth in such, O'Brien fails to show the other side of the stories, the opponents, and their side of history.

The several stories i have read in the Things they carried, have certain themes embedded throughout them. For example a couple of the themes that i feel are apparent in theses several stories are change,truth in the war, finding one's personal self in the war. The reason i feel such them are evident are for several reason. As for example the truth of war becomes a key theme throughout these stories. by reading story "how to tell a true war story" we see how the soldiers established their own personal truths of the war. the tied in their emotions to make the meaning of the life they were living in this war for example when the narrator starts to talk about how the soldiers heard noises, and music, and an opera. Later when the colonel asks the guys what happened " they dont say zip. they just look at him for a while sort of funny like, sort of amazed, and the whole war was right there in that stare. it says everything you cant ever say" such example shows that what the soldiers lived through and there experiences was there own truth of the war. As said by the narrator the moral is "silence" its not about heroes, courage or killing, it about love. Moreover the theme of change is strongly embedded throughout the stories. For example, this aspect is seen when the author talks about how the soldiers changed their vocabulary and they started to cuss, and started to change their ways of how they were at home. This theme is later seen in the story sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong. the theme of change becomes evident because Fossie's girlfriend actually comes to the war, she is described as a young innocent girl barely out of high school, bubbly and with a personality. But later on the war engulfs her and she begins to change her aspect, her way of thiking, the way she sees herself all of it changes. She came in as an innocent girl, and stayed in the war as a girl soldier, addicted to the drug of war, to the rush, and adrenaline, she completely changes the way she was, she became the war.

What is Postmodernism? what is the ultimate truth? which culture tells the truth? Which stories are the real ones? Postmodernism captures all of these questions in unraveling itself. I think postmodernism is a movement that leans toward objectivity, trying to Show that there really is no supper myth or ultimate truth that unites all of man kind. ON the contrary, postmodernism portrays the fact that are many small narratives from different cultures, people, ideas, and beliefs that all tie together to blend in to one another and only continue to add to the mysterious sense of our world. Not one grand myth is right and not one is the wrong one they all just come together in a hodgepodge of mixed views and perspectives. As in Postmodernism for beginners it is said" postmodern people are inclined to see the world as a kind of carnival of cultures". Postmodern people embrace the differences between cultures, they see such variety as a thing of beauty. in the postmodern sense we are all united under individuality. Who is to say that the way a group of people describes the beginning of our world is wrong? in the postmodern world such thing as one story being right and the other being wrong is not accepted, instead all stories are accepted and they all contribute to the knowledge we gain each day through different resources and different experiences. In the postmodernism sense, there is no need for contempt on the other, or even for the "other" to be used as a term to describe those who are different. There is no need to compete for right and wrong. In postmodernism it ok to stop making so much sense, because what do we gain from proving what we say is the right thing or the only truth to a subject, nothing. Through this view we can take in almost anything and not be worried about what it absolutely has to mean.Postmodernism has come to make us realize that our view of reality isn't as real as it seems, there is no one reality but many contradictory views of what is reality and truth. Postmodernism has given up on the hope to find a supermyth to all that is out there, and maybe we should too.

Maus II Essay

Jose Lopez
Per.4
“Maus II”

In the Story “Maus II: and here my troubles began” by Art Spiegelman a young mouse named Art who is writing a book on his father’s horrific experience as a Jew in wartime Poland. Such experiences have caused this poor man, Vladek, to live a dreadful and irritating life. His past torturing experiences have blended into his current life and have molded themselves into the way he lives his life. It becomes clear that Vladek’s horrible experiences have kept him on a fixed path on which he only continues to hurt himself and maintain a torturing relationship with his son.
Vladek’s past has become his present through the way in which he acts, by doing so he only continues to hurt himself and those that care for him. For example, when Art is at his house Vladek says, “The salt here, it’s half full, and she [Mala] opened anyway a new one!” (spiegelman 19). Later on when Art begins to smoke he tries to use his father’s matches his father says, “Please don’t use from me my wooden matches. I don’t have left so many, and already to make coffee you used one” (spiegelman 20). Moreover, when Art talks to Vladek’s neighbors they talk to him about Mala and his father saying, “She had to erase a hairbrush from the bill because he wouldn’t pay for her personal items” ( Spiegelman 21). It becomes evident that Vladeks is letting his old life take hold of the current life he lives. He acts as a frugal, rude, and selfish person because those are the characteristics that kept him alive and he was faced to use while he was in the internment camps. Sadly, these characteristics that have been embedded in him are not removable, because they shape who he is and what he lives for, and by doing so he only brings to himself the hurtful memories and actions he had to live through. In addition, he is also only contributing to the fact that his close ones are becoming in a way his (cat) enemies. They don’t wish to help him because he doesn’t change, and they wish to emotionally rid themselves of his hostile presence. For example, when Art arrives at his father’s house, his father says to him, “you see how it is now, Artie. She took my money and she ran away” ( Spiegelman 17). It is evident that Vladek has only disturbed those who care for him to the point that they cannot handle his selfish personality. Even though that is the only way he knows how to live his life, he fails to realize that just as he was tortured by the life he led in his past, he is torturing the ones he now shares his life with by enacting the same personality. Hence, Vladek only creates a hurtful atmosphere for himself through his past, because he is living his past in the present and his is engulfing those in his present with the behavior of his past.
On the other hand in the book the author also makes a distinguished relationship between the Nazi’s and the Jews that helps to encourage the hostile relationship between father and son. For example when Art asks his girlfriend Francoise how he should draw her in his book she says, “A mouse of course” (Spiegelman 11). Such depiction by the author pushes the reader to make a mental picture in his head about the way Jews were depicted during this time of torture. By introducing the Jews as Mice they become the lowest of the lowest, he compares them to filthy animals of which people are not very fond of. By doing so the author is able to create a connotation between Jews and all these meager characteristics of mice. In this way the readers are in a way psychologically pressured into seeing these mice as weak, different creatures. Moreover, later on in the story the author further establishes the connotation he wishes to present to the reader as he presents the Nazi’s as vicious emotionless cats. Hence, the reader is compelled to make the connection that these ruthless cats are able to prey on the little weak mice. The author successfully makes a hostile relationship between these two animals. Cats prey on mice, and by depicting his characters as such the author is able to make the readers sense a bad connection between the two animals. This bad connection only helps show the hostility between two such groups, this powerful symbolism creates a tone of hostile relationships which later ties in to the relationship between father and son.
Just as the author has shown the bad relationship between mice and cats, he is able to make evident a torturing relationship between Art and Vladek. For example when Art is about to leave his father’s house, his father insists he take an almost empty box of cereal, but Art says, “Look, we don’t want any ok? Just forget it”, then his father insist that he can’t just throw it away so art says, “Then just save the damn special k in case Hitler ever comes back” (Spiegelman 78). Moreover, the difficult relationship between the two is further seen when Art tries to help his father prepare his bank papers and his father claims, “Acch, Artie. Again you made the wrong addition” and after Artie insist that they did the addition right his father says, “Always you’re so lazy! Every job we should make so as to do it the right way” ( Spiegelman 23). Furthermore, the lack of a meaningful relationship between the two is seen when Vladek calls Art saying he had a heart attack, but At later tells Francoise, “ he didn’t even have a heart attack… he just wanted to be sure I’d call him back” ( Spiegelman 13). Therefore through such instances it becomes clear that Vladek and his son hold a very irritable and annoying relationship between themselves. It almost seems as if Vladek has turned into the “cat” wanting to impose his ways on his son, while he son, the “mouse” literally, is trying to elude the influence of his father way of being. It is clear that both their personalities clash and such happens because Art cannot stand the way his father has recreated his past and made it the way he is now. Art’s touch with modern life have made him lead his life in one way, while his father continues to lead a life that is filled with frugality and remorse, it is inevitable that these two very different ways of life clash into each other. The two have become extremely distant due to their way of life, and it has come to the point that they cannot even call each other without being bothered by the other. Vladek’s lies just to get his son to call him back, and this solely shows the fact that it is almost impossible for them to have a connection whether it is emotional one or a physical one. Years of pain and distress have been embroidered in Vladek’s life, and such characteristics find a way fix themselves on the relationship between his son and him.
Overall, Maus II is successful in showing how dreadful past experiences can have ever lasting effects on those victims. Such effects can lead the victim on a life of constant bitterness, and can even cause the victim to lose those that are closest to him. Art Spiegelman is successful in capturing such consequences throughout his story, and he is able to make clear to the reader the power that rest in such horrifying experiences.