The Crying of Lot 49

So my first impression of the first chapter in this novel is that it is trying to epitomize the essence of the 1960s with the three characters that are established within it. First of all, Oedipa is presented to the reader in a curious manner, and she is shrouded with bits and pieces of a very eclectic life. For instance, her trip home lands her in a million different places that are none alike, but she all seems to be a frequent visitor to all of them. She goes to the market downtown to buy cheese and listen to Muzak, but on the way she takes a route to hear a concerto, then she ventures to an herb garden, and reads book reviews in a scientific journal, then she makes an Italian dinner. Oedipa's trip home and the different cultures she experiences along the way seem to form a collective sense of unity, while at the same time being totally diverse aspects of very different cultures. This type of unity in a world of ever-differing culture is what I think of most when I think of life in the 1960s. It seems that this era was the embodiment of rapid and progressive change, that cultures, languages, music and food were shared by everyone, no matter where you came from. The idea that everyone could enjoy variety seems to be prevalent in this first chapter and there exist people in it that are in a sense jack of all trades. For instance, Oedipa's husband Mucho is an ex-car salesman turned disk jockey, which seems to be an unlikely progression of a career path. Also, Pierce's conversation with Oedipa where he uses many different voices and characters seems to be rather eclectic and free-spirited. Overall, I feel like the rapid change in the 60s had a profound effect on people settling down, or choosing to be associated with one particular culture, and this is evident by Pynchon's development of his characters in the first chapter. Also, I wanted to point out that the names established in this first chapter are quite intriguing. Perhaps there is a sense of foreshadowing here, and I may be wrong in my assumptions, but I feel like Oedipa is meant to sound like Oedipus, or the tragic hero whose ultimate downfall was his own self. And Mucho, which means much in Spanish, seems like Pynchon is making a point that he is a very overbearing character. Also, Pierce, which has the connotation of action (since it is a verb) seems to be a commentary on his nature to upset or create change. And of course, my favorite is Dr. Hilarius, who seems more a head-case than his patient, is maybe a humorous satire of psychologists or therapists in general.

"There Was a Queen"

I feel like in this work, Faulkner is presenting his reader with some very interesting ideas about both the condition and the character of women. For one thing, the title of this piece suggests a forgotten brilliance and importance of a woman, though the reader is really never able to identify whether the "Queen" is a figure in the story or a more broad representation of women worldwide. The fact that there was a Queen, suggests a sort of fall from grace, or a diminishing quality. To me, though Faulkner is a bit ambiguous in this text, the Queen seems to be Miss Jenny, a woman who never married and seems to be the matriarch of the household. In fact, in the very beginning Faulkner makes note of the entire Sartoris family tree, but defines the men of that family as the sons of mothers, and the husbands of wives. This sort of emphasis on the female as the trace of a blood line is pretty unusual. In this piece, it also seems that Faulkner may be alluding to a shift in the character of women over the time period discussed (from 1869 to the early 20th century), and nothing highlights this shift more than when he juxtaposes Miss Jenny and Narcissa. Miss Jenny seems to be steadfast, and believes that women are truly autonomous and in many cases (for instance, when she says "You can thank your stars it was just men your grandfather fought.") more resolute and tougher than men. I think when Faulkner places these two women together, he is making a comment on how the inner character of the woman has changed over time. He inventively does this by having the house servants (particularly Elnora) comment on the characters of both Miss Jenny and Narcissa. For instance, Elnora describes Narcissa as "trash" and Miss Jenny as "quality." Even the stark contrast of the women's two names seems to hint that Narcissa is a product of a more selfish breed of woman. Interestingly enough, the issue of time and change over time seems to be of importance in this piece with regard to how women have evolved. When Elnora is describing Miss Jenny to her son she is trying to tell him that women of Miss Jenny's quality do not exist, or they are slowly becoming extinct. She relays this message by saying to him that "you don't know nothing about, because you born too late to see any of it except her." This statement implies that not only is Miss Jenny of a certain "quality," but that other women joined her in this category; women who are now no longer around. I think it is interesting that Faulkner is making the statement that the character of women is what has deteriorated, not their condition in society. Perhaps this piece is aimed at criticizing those women who would abuse the new-found powers that society afforded them, instead of embracing them genuinely.

H.D. and Sappho

I thought it was interesting that one author in particular (Eileen Gregory) decided to connect H.D. and Sappho. Having read quite a lot of Sapphor recently for a Classics course, I can certainly see how the two females' work might be compared. Sappho was generally known for her tenderness of words and her ability to capture emotion in the lines she wrote. Nature was also a resounding theme in her poetry and the imagery she creates with nature is astoundingly convincing. Similarly, H.D. is trying to create an image with the "Sea Rose" that reinforces the nature theme. However, in Sappho's poetry, much of her imagery and content was so florid and emotional that I found myself getting lost in the nature part of the poetry and not focusing on the metaphors she used. But I think that H.D. has solved the problem of too muchnature my making those images almost acidic in a way. She represents the beauty of a blossoming rose, but also its ability to fade and wither away. Also, H.D. takes the literal meaning of the rose and transforms it so it almost becomes a human in a way. The bad things that happen to it are things that we would think might happen in our own lives. For instance, being "marred," "lifted," or "flung" seems improbable for a rose, and more probable for a human. I think H.D.'s word connotations serve the purpose of making the reader humanize the rose in a very emotional and intimate way. This certainly seems like a progression from Sappho, whose Ancient way of writing was in effect a masterpiece, but nature was so totally offset from the human form and human emotion. I find it interesting that H.D. wrote a poem about Helen of Troy and then did such a florid poem like this to possibly imitate and expand on Sappho. Perhaps she has a fascination with the classic realm, but it seems she takes the themes of that realm and infinitely expands upon them in her own way. My only wish is that she would have done that for all Classical works, to make them entirely more interesting and relevant for young students like me.

Charles Waddell Chesnutt

In both of these pieces by Chesnutt, literacy plays an important role for the author in the way that he establishes his characters and ultimately his plot. For instance, in The Passing of Grandison, Colonel Owens makes some interesting observations about the slave Tom’s interest in reading. He says that he doesn’t think that Dick should take Tom with him on his journey to New York because “I strongly suspect him of having learned to read, though I can’t imagine how. I saw him with a newspaper the other day, and while he pretended to be looking at a woodcut, I’m almost sure he was reading the paper.” It seems that Chesnutt is making a connection between literacy and freedom in this passage that was most likely based on prevalent ideas throughout the South at this time. Frederick Douglass famously learned to read from his mistress, but when found out by the master, he was forbidden to ever pick up a piece of print again. I thought it was interesting that Chesnutt included this piece of information in a story that was about passing because it is true that often slaves who were able to learn to read were capable of forging passes that helped them to escape to freedom. Chesnutt also presents black literacy to the reader in The Wife of His Youth. In this story, Mr. Ryder, who is widely regarded as an intelligent and upstanding mulatto is an extremely avid reader, who collects Tennyson’s poetry and other famous American works. In this situation, literacy seems to highlight that Mr. Ryder is a class above the normal ex-slave, which is evidenced by the Society of the Blue Veins. This society comes across as somewhat haughty in the eyes of some blacks, and Mr. Ryder is well-respected by those within the society for his voracious literary appetite. Overall, it seems that Chesnutt’s own background in literacy has carried over into the themes of his writing, particularly his views on literacy as a motive for freedom and as a distinguished trait within the black community.

Huckleberry Finn

I was thinking today about what Menna said on Monday in class about how superstition and secular thinking were generally attributed to the African-American race around the time that Twain was writing about in Huck Finn. That statement really resonated for me when I looked back at the beginning of the work and saw that Huck and Jim's relationship was largely successful because they were both so superstitious. I also thought it was interesting how Huck and Jim are juxtaposed against Miss Watson and what this might say about religion and civility. When Miss Watson tries to turn Huck on to religion, he refuses to see the utility of prayer when he says on page 79 that he "couldn't see no advantage about it - except for the other people - so at last I reckoned I wouldn't worry about it any more, but just let it go." It seems to me that despite Miss Watson's efforts, Huck did not pick up on prayer or religion because he failed to recognize that prayer served any useful purpose for himself. On the other hand, when Jim presents his ideas about superstition to Huck, he quickly attaches to the idea because it is based on principles of individual action and personal gain or loss. For instance, when Jim warns Huck about him picking up the snake skin, Huck seems reverent towards Jim for imparting this advice on him that will be entirely useful in the future. For me, it seems like Miss Watson's attempts to convert Huck were a part of a larger effort to civilize Huck and make him a respectable piece of the whole of society. I think that Twain here is recognizing the link between religion and popular society and is somewhat satirizing the multi-functional duties of religion in the antebellum South. When you look at the overall work, I think that Twain is certainly attributing the superstitious to the African race, but he is also making important observations about how both blacks and whites manipulate the institution of religion to serve their own interests.

Dickenson's "The name - of it - is Autumn"

The first thing that struck me about this poem was its almost lyrical quality. The short stanzas coupled with the meter and the pauses in the lines lend itself to a musical interpretation. But then you look deeper, at the text of the poem and you realize that this would be a pretty disturbing song if you put it to music. After reading Civil War poetry for a couple of weeks now its evident that some of the poetry is violent (Whitman), some is observant (Horton), and some is more flowery and imaginary (Timrod). In contrast to all of those readings, I would have to say that Dickenson's sense of the Civil War is deeply embedded in the people, not the presidents or Southerners, but rather the everyday American. I say this because she uses common objects of the day and describes how they are upset in one way or another by the war. For instance, she says the war has "upset the Basin" and "It sprinkles Bonnets." I would also characterize Dickenson's elucidations about the war as pretty ominous. I think the strongest indication of this portentousness is found in her allusions to bad weather. In particular "Shower," "rain," and "Winds" conjure a sense of foreboding misfortune. Another interesting feature of this poem is its connections between the body and the war. In the first stanza Dickenson refers to "Blood," "An Artery," and "A Vein" in her observations on the war. I think that the use of these parts of the body is an implication that Dickenson is making a connection between the inner workings of the body systems and the inner workings of the soldiers and the armies. Overall, for me Dickenson's representation of the war has by far been the most resonant. The overall theme of this poem is that the war is devastating to many things, and I know that Whitman refers to that effect in the poem ''Beat! Beat! Drums!," but I feel that Dickenson presents the effects of war in a more poetic and less demanding tone. Therefore, her poem is more emotionally identifiable and has way more impact on me than any of the other poets' interpretations of the Civil War.

Whitman

I feel like the sheer dynamic way in which Whitman is portraying the Civil War in this poem is evidence that Neely's claim is valid. For me, the poem is extreme in the sense that it seems Whitman cares not what the effects of the war will be, but merely that the war should be fought in any way necessary, so long as it preserved the Union. I found the passages "Into the solemn church, and scatter the congregation" and "Make no parley-stop for no expostulation" to be the best evidence for his elevation of the entire cause (the preservation of the Union) over smaller, more unexciting things (like church and marriages). The way that Whitman seems to devalue all these institutions in light of the greater cause (the war) makes me think that he would not have been at all concerned with the Emancipation Proclamation, since it was mainly a tactic to get the North back on the winning side again. It seems that throughout the poem Whitman is advocating for the tactic of "any means to an end." Furthermore, it seems like Whitman is denouncing anything and everything that has a connotation of innocence and is upholding things that have connotations of cruelty and violence in the poem. For instance, he says things like "Mind not the timid," "Let not the child's voice be heard, " and "Mind not the old man." In light of these assertions, Whitman is consistently saying things like "rattle quicker, heavier drums - you bugles wilder blow." It seems that by denying the innocent and favoring the violent, that Whitman holds the cause of reinstituting the Union at heart, and that the more benevolent consequences of the war (i.e. abolishing slavery) are minor and insignificant details that come out of the greater cause. Overall, this poem by Whitman is more aggressive than the other two pieces we've read by Horton and Timrod. In fact, up until I read the Whitman poem, I thought the other two pieces had pretty violent portrayals of the war (now Horton seems like a casual observer of a small battle, and Timrod seems like a flowery southern sympathizer) and I think that my viewpoint changed because Whitman's piece is so much more proactive than the other pieces. While Whitman is encouraging the fervor in men to fight with their all, Timrod and Horton are taking a more descriptive and objective view toward the war. In the end, this go-getter kind of attitude makes Whitman's work more passionate and almost border-line sadistic for me.

Henry Timrod - "The Cotton Boll"

I found Timrod's poem to be a classic work of Southern pride and boastfulness. As he describes the beauty of the "crimson hills and purple lawns," I could not help but think that this man was in denial about the ensuing war. But then I went back and read the poem more closely and I understood better where he was coming from. It seems that in his descriptions of the Southern plantation that he sees, Timrod is trying to evoke a certain sympathy from the reader in support of the South. There is an underlying sense that Timrod's descriptions of all the beauties of this scene are meant to invoke a feeling of etherealness and a god-like land. In fact, it seems that Timrod is exclaiming that the South indeed was ordained by God. On page 318 he says "His be the meed whose pencil's trace / Hath touched our very swamps with grace / And round whose tuneful way / All Southern laurels bloom." I think the fact that Timrod feels that the South has been ordained by God is an indication of his feelings toward the war, and that God will be on the side of the South when the fighting commences. I also feel like the highly descriptive passages about the land is in deep contrast with the last page of the poem, and that Timrod is kind of warning his fellow Southerners that their beautiful country will soon be tarnished if they do not seek an end to the fighting. I think it is interesting that while Timrod is sympathizing with the South and describing her glorious beauty, he is also being an advocate for peace. At the time, most Southerners' feelings about the North were far beyond the realm of peace, and most of the Southerners were very conscious that the fight between the North over slavery and states' rights would have to end in bloodshed. I feel like Timrod in a way was one of the first real pacifists (or in his case, a kind of a hippy) in regards to war. While everyone else is off busying themselves for the fight, he sits and contemplates the essence of nature and how to bring peace to his land. It is no wonder the guy fell apart after the war, seeing as how he is so sensitive to beauty and peace.

Melville - Benito Cereno

After going over the text again for Friday's class, I found myself focusing on the last parts of the story, where Don Benito and Captain Delano are talking to one another about the events that transpired on the San Dominick. Specifically, I found it remarkable that Cereno is so downcast at the thought of "The negro." This was obviously a ploy by Melville to show that the Spaniard had witnessed what the negro was capable of in light of severe and hopeless oppression, and in a sense he did not blame Babo or any other slave for the mutiny of his ship because he understood their plight (furthermore, I think he sort of regrets the position of domination he was thrust into as evidenced by the first full paragraph on page2726). When I was finished reading this piece again, I noticed that some of the aspects of the story regarding the hostage situation with Benito Cereno were very similar in nature to aspects of the slave trade itself. That is, Cereno's act that he was forced to put on for Captain Delano so that the latter would not suspect what was really happening on the ship in a lot of ways mirrors the act that slaves and masters had to put on in the presence each other during slavery's reign. I can't assuredly say that this was Melville's intention when he altered the events of the story, but I think it presents an interesting view of slavery as a contrast to domination, but at the same time it can be inferred that in the contrast of a particular subordinate/dominate relationship (in this case, the particular relationship between the slaves onboard the San Dominick and Benito Cereno) that there can exist a lot of similarities between the two groups in the way they dominate. I guess what I am trying to say is that domination in this piece is similar no matter who fulfills the position of the dominator or the subordinate. For instance, the tightly-knit and intricate act put on by Babo and the other slaves on board the ship is reminiscent of the tightly-knit control system that masters used to dominate their slaves. I think the most common thing that both the slaves on the ship and the general masters of slaves employ is the control that they acquire by violence. Overall, for me, the similarities between these two examples serve the function of creating a certain kind of understanding for what Babo and the other slaves did, which I feel Melville seeks to convey to the reader in the last lines of the narrative.

Mercy Otis Warren

To begin, I would like to discuss Warren's use of language and metaphor throughout the play The Group. In class on Wednesday we talked about how her writing was so full of metaphors and specific language that it clouded some of the meanings of the text. I can certainly see this as a valid point, but I would like to offer some suggestions to why I think Warren decided to write this play in the obscure way that she did. First of all, if you look at many of the metaphors in the play, they are generally references to things that existed in the classical world. For instance, she refers to Brutus and Caesar in part of play and uses examples from Plato's works in her dialogue between the characters. In fact, most of her metaphors have a lot to do with the Roman Empire in general. We discussed in class that these metaphors were likely to have resonated most profoundly with a highly educated audience, but after reading the play again I think that the metaphors do much more than get the audience she was writing for interested in the play. For me, the metaphors seem to add a sense of opulence to the play in general, but they also add a sense of grandeur to the events contained within the text. By this I mean that is seems that Warren's references to Rome within the context of a bunch of Tories talking about the American colonies and their actions places the events happening in America into a context of greatness. It is like she is almost equating the possible Revolution in America to the power and glory of the classical Roman world. I thought this was an interesting way to give weight to the struggle in America without actually comparing it to Rome directly within the text. I also thought it was interesting because in modern times, America is often compared to the Roman Empire because of our unyielding dominance and power over the rest of the nations of the world.

Franklin, Part Deux

In the second installment of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, he delves much more deeply into the notion of piousness and moral perfection than he ever did in part one. Most of the pursuits in the first installment were business like in nature, but Franklin makes the transition from business to personal rather quickly in the second part. For me, this is an interesting transition, because it implies where Franklin's true passion lies. By this, I mean that it seems that his notions of perfection in business translate into his notions of perfection in life. Therefore, maybe Franklin equates doing well in his business to doing well in life. I cannot help but wondering if this notion of the American dream has both faults and virtues. The faults might be that someone who wished to do well was not able to school him or herself the way Franklin did, and therefore they might never make it. Overall, I think that Franklin's pursuit of perfection can be a tough road to follow, with many a disappointing turn. Franklin himself talks about how difficult a time he had adhering to the virtue of "order" and how discouraging it was to him.
Having said this, I would like to turn my attention to the ideas of religion that Franklin presents in the text. It seems to me that his concepts of religion are somewhat fluid and forgiving, which is a rarity considering the devout nature of Christianity during his time. However, it seems like Franklin is more of a dedicated Christian that what he lets on. From my experiences with the Christian faiths, there is a lot of time and energy focused upon the pursuits of bettering oneself, both spiritually and internally. There is also a resounding emphasis on redemption and imperfection. These tenets remind me so much of Franklin's insistence on keeping a book with his daily errors, and the fact that he strives every week to perfect his shortcomings. The notion of redemption in Christianity is based upon the idea that everyone on Earth is innately flawed to be a sinner, but one can ask God's forgiveness to rectify these imperfections. It seems that while Franklin has made his own sort of religion, his basic principles are mimicking (sometimes exactly) the aspects of Christianity that make that religion so unique. Therefore, I find it a little conflicting that he chooses to assert his independence from the church when he is really conforming to the principles of that institution. Maybe he feels like he is his own God at times, which (if it is at all possible) might be even more vain than writing this autobiography in the manner that he does.

Jefferson's Queries

I know that I've already done a post for this week's readings, but I could not resist bringing up a topic within the Jefferson piece that baffled the hell out of me. So Jefferson, in the beginning of Query 6, talks about how the Native Americans who were in America at the time were terribly misrepresented. He takes the side of the Indians by trying to explain that, they are not a backward and primitive culture as most Americans undoubtedly thought at this point in time. His main argument is that their natural surroundings, or "barbarism" has leant itself to develop traits within the Indians that differ greatly from those traits that one might find in a European. For instance, their need to scavanger food has led to the empowerment or dependency upon their women. Because of this dependency, women are forced to gather food as well as tend to many other tasks for the sake of their survival. This he explains, is why the Indian women tend not to produce as many children as Europeans do. Jefferson goes on about how nature has shaped their culture in many different ways, and that just because they are different does not mean they are inferior. Similarly, they cannot help that they are different because their dissimilarities are a product of an instinctual response. Jefferson even goes so far as to say that if Americans were reduced to live in the environment that Indians live in, that we could do no better than they have done for themselves. I have no problem with this argument until Jefferson later totally contradicts himself. And by contradicting himself, I mean he switches from being a protector of the Indian name to a defier of their very essence. Specifically, the bit where he talks about digging in their burial grounds to see how they positioned their dead. Plus his assertment that most of the land taken from Indians was not by force, but by contract. These two occurances, when propositioned with his argument that they are not a savage culture seems to me to only prove that the Europeans/Americans are the ones who are savages. I mean, who doesn't recognize that digging in a probably sacred burial ground and denying the obvious way in which Indians gave up their lands (by our force and threats) is a savage act?

Post for week of 1/22-1/26

For this post, I would like to explore the obvious discrepancies between William Byrd's original history of the dividing line and his secret history, which will hopefully illuminate what I feel to be an overwhelming lack of coherence that runs throughout the work. In the beginning of the narrative of Byrd's travels, a history of the Virginia and North Carolina colonies provides the reader with an overall sense of purpose for the work. Accordingly, Byrd's first secret history is of those who will be joining him on the trip to distinguish the border, which makes sense because to understand the progression of the adventure, one should understand whom exactly is making that adventure. Therefore, these two histories alongside one another are largely effective because they play off one another in a way that helps the reader to understand the situation more easily.
However, the next "set" of histories are slightly less coherent when paired with one another. Byrd starts his second real history by discussing where the line for the border should begin, but then he moves into an account of a Marooner he passes which he feels to be the perfect example of a heathen. This didactic account may not seem out of the ordinary, but when paired with the next excerpt of secret history, I feel Byrd's narrative loses all sense of purpose whatsoever. Having said this, his next secret history is about two girls who came to see them and who prompted quite a bit of fantasy on the part of the men it seems, but who remained virtuous only because an old woman guarded them. As if this strange tangent weren't enough to confuse me as to the purpose of the text, then Byrd goes into a strange (yet somewhat entertaining) account of the North Carolinian's continuous diet of hog, which prompts his rather horrifying descriptions of diseases caused by eating too much pork.
Then Byrd goes into another secret history detailing how two more women attempt to wile the men with their "hidden charms." This type of fluctuation between events that actually have something to do with Byrd's mission (to find the best border for the states of Virginia and N.C.) and events that have nothing to do with that mission (entertaining women, bears being the source of female reproductive powers,etc.) is what I find to be the most troublesome about this text. Though it may be good for entertainment value, there are parts of the regular histories and the secret histories that just threw me for a loop. To atone for this lack of coherence I would suggest that Byrd perhaps write a third history, which would include all of the actual events that pertained to finding a border between the states. Then perhaps the reader would not be deceived into thinking they were going to read a history of borders when they are really reading a history of loose women and lazy men. I understand that this sort of writing is effective in engaging the reader, but how far must one go (and how many inane stories must one tell) in order to do so?

Blog for Week of 1/12-1/19

For my first blog assignment, I am choosing to explore the historical and philosophical implications of the ideas expressed in Cotton Mather's The Christian Philosopher. First of all, it is evident that Mather is publishing this text at a time when Christianity was a prominent religion among those who were well educated and generally upper-class. This is made clear in his introduction, where he states that men will "rise into that Superiour Way of Thinking and of Living, which the Wisest of Men will chuse to take." (line 22, page one of Intro) This publication, with its constant reference to Latin, and its scientific basis is clearly meant to be read by a small portion of the very-learned population.

Having said this, it is likely that Mather's text would have been well-received by that population. I say this because Mather continually refers to complex scientific theory in his assertion that God rules Nature, even going so far as to reiterate the theories put forth by Isaac Newton, Dr. Cheyne, and other prominent scientific minds. For instance, in Essay XXI, he chooses to explain that the presence of gravity is a clear sign that God "keeps all Bodies in their proper Places and Stations, which without it would soon fall to pieces, and be utterly destroy'd." (Page 91, lines 102-105) This assertion may not seem valid today, but in the context of Mather's time it seems likely that the perplexity surrounding the scientific theory of gravity could easily lend gravity to become connected to God.

The overall historical implications of Mather's text seem to be consistent in furthering a certain set of ideas. Specifically, the idea that God is in ultimate control of the universe. Another implication of Mather's work is that his evidence most likely substantiated the Christian idea of God as the creator of all things in Nature. This is significant because Mather harmonizes the two conflicting ideals of religion and science, which most likely resulted in conversions of some people who felt the two realms to be irreconcilable. However, Mather's publication could have had the effect of alienating those who split the realms in two and those who felt that his scientific evidence was not strong enough to support his claims.

About Me

Hello everyone. My name is Marlin Earp and this post is meant to tell you a little bit about myself. First of all, I am a Junior here at Carolina. I am majoring in History (concentrating on American history) and I am thinking of double majoring in History and either Political Science or Women's Studies. I want to go to law school when I graduate, and I have recently been preparing to take the LSAT. I live at the Verge Apartments in Durham, but my family is in Angier, NC. Angier is a very small town about 20-25 miles south of Raleigh, so thankfully I am not far from home. I enjoy reading essayist works by David Sedaris and Augusten Burroughs, deep-sea fishing (yes, I was named after the billfish by my sportfishing father), and getting lots and lots of sleep. I look forward to this literature class because one day I wish to write a novel (I haven't decided yet whether it will be fiction or non-fiction), and understanding how previous authors have conveyed their ideas into print is of much interest to me.