Thoughts on "The Namesake"

Finishing the novel, I had mixed reviews and thoughts. One thought was simply, why would Lahiri write such a story? If it wasn't for the keen attention to detail that Sage implements in the minds of all it's English students, this story could have been the basic portrayal of a standard Bengali life, with really, minimal meaning and purpose.

Kick in that keen attention to detail, and suddenly, there was a whole different story. A story about the struggle of traditions, and adapting to new lifestyles, ideals, and philosophies, along with the importance of a name and its affect on life, family, and also tradition became prominent themes. And suddenly, I thought it was a fantastic book.

To be honest, I haven't been entirely fond of any assigned school readings, whether it was at Sage or St. Margarets. They're all so sad and pessimistic. Yes, "The Namesake" had its sad parts, like his dad dying and Moshoumi cheating on him, etc. etc. But this was, might I say, a good sad. A reasonable sad, with a purpose. Not a sad such as an uncle being murdered by his vengeful nephew who's father was killed by his same uncle who also married his mother. Sorry Shakespeare, but I put that under the unreasonable  pointless, sad. "The Namesake" had an element of honesty and purity that was appealing to me, and ultimately was why I would say I enjoyed this book more than any other book I have read for school. It was an easy, detailed read, and I felt connected to the book to some degree as well, living with multiple traditions and having an unusual name (maybe not as bad as Gogol, but still, you get the point).

Thank you , Jhumpa Lahiri.

Hi, I'm Maxine

Enter: Maxine. A seemingly lovely girl based on Gogol's description's, who has him falling head over heels form the day he first sets eyes on her. From the moment he meets her, Gogol has immense feelings for her. As human nature progressed, and Maxine mirrored Gogol's affection for her, Gogol became significantly involved with Maxine and her family.

Gogol's involvement with Maxine resulted in his integration with her American family, and subsequently with her American traditions. Her traditions in her household are the polar opposite of how he lives and how his family lives. Maxine's mother uses her fingers to eat, doesn't offer more food to Gogol and is more than welcoming to Gogol, who ultimately is a stranger, to her household. The family is, shall we say, laid back-relaxed. They are well of in regards to wealth, and are live life carelessly in a positive way. Gogol is conscious that his immersion with Maxine's family is a "betrayal of his own" (Lahiri 54).

Does this mean Gogol is ashamed of being with Maxine? No, not at all. In fact, Gogol relishes in this time with Maxine, and being away from his own family-which raises the question: How would his family, and Gogol himself, have fared if it wasn't for Maxine and her flip-flopped traditions?

Personally, I believe that if Gogol was to meet and potentially marry another Indian, he would want to stay with his parents and family, and have no desire to go elsewhere. It was Maxine's American influence on Gogol that in my opinion resulted in him distancing himself from his family and ultimately his Indian roots and traditions.

Now, the question becomes, what influence will Maxine have in the future? How will Gogol's reaction to his father's passing affect Maxine's influence from this point forward on Gogol? Should they stay together and have kids, what traditions will they follow?

Stay tuned.

What is a name?

The proper definition of the word "name" is, "a word or set of words by which a person is known, addressed or referred to. Reading "The Namesake", "Notes from Underground", and the short story, "The Overcoat" all have one thing in common that sparked my interest. It was their names.

In "The Overcoat", his name, which I talked about last post, is-well, it's a bummer basically, let's put it that way. He is forced to live with it for the rest of his life. In "Notes from Underground", the only name for reference we have for the narrator or whoever is the main character in the book is the Underground Man, which really is frustrating! Underground simply gives the connotation that he is away from society and lives in his own world of solitude.

Then I thought of this question. What impact does a name really have on our lives? For me, there is none at all.

My name is Milad. No, I promise you haven't heard this name before here in America. It's pretty rare that someone can get my name perfectly right the first time, so I have to explain it to them. No, it does not mean shit, or anything of negative connotation-in fact in Farsi, it actually means an important birth, and the tallest tower in Iran actually is the Milad Tower, so I cannot say I can understand where Akaky Akakievich is coming from. But my name doesn't define ME. To be specific, my name means the birth of Jesus or Mohammed. Well, am I Jesus? No. I'm not. So clearly, my name doesn't define me, based solely on definition.

Honestly, I believe that the same concept can apply to Akaky or Underground or whoever. While you may be referred to as an unfortunate name, it doesn't mean you are unfortunate (sounds like I'm a motivational speaker, but whatever). Ultimately, names are simply how you are addressed as, not who you are or how you life is or will be.

$H*# Son of $H*#

Imagine having that name. Basically crappy son of the crappy (not sure if I'm allowed to say what it really means, but that's pretty accurate). Having that name would be absolute torture. I shiver just thinking about it! What's interesting about "The Overcoat" to me, is that the narrator always refers to him as Akaky Akakievich. Never does he simply say Akay, or Mr. Akakievich. It's like adding salt to a wound or oil to fire. Over and over.

So, it got me wondering. Why do that? Why would author, Nikolai Gogol stress his absolutely terrible name repeatedly? So I started thinking of the general purpose of this passage. Sure, Akaky does his job perfectly over and over again, but he is so underdeveloped that when he is asked to do work which "consisted only of altering the heading and in places changing the first person into third," (Gogol 308) he opts out because it would take "so much effort".

So clearly, this guy isn't the most motivated. But, I try to understand all sides of the story. Should Mr. Akakievich be repeatedly referred to as his full, dismal, name, every time? Maybe not. But through this action, Gogol does give the connotation that Akaky isn't necessarily a great man.

In conclusion: yes, the repetition does implement the idea that Akaky is basically a loser to put it bluntly, but not, he I wouldn't think that he should be called his name repeatedly.


Come on, father of Akaky. That's not cool.

Knowledge is Power

Over the break, I took an SAT class, and had to write an essay. I don't remember the question down to the very last word, but the gist of it was basically if great knowledge was necessary in order to challenge conventional ideals.

It made me stop and think for a second. Yes, knowledge is always necessary, but these ideals must be conventional for a reason. But then I realized that in fact, everything at some point will be questioned.

For example, no one would have every thought we could fly back in the 19th century. That was the conventional way of thinking. But the Wright Brothers, with their extensive knowledge on aerodynamics, proved them all wrong.

The point is, knowledge is power. Thoroughly and clearly understanding a topic is the only way to give yourself a chance to fight against conventional ideas. No, not all of what is challenged can be altered, but by all means will it be considered if it is presented with knowledge.

Whoever made the quote, knowledge is power, wasn't simply saying it to be famous or whatever. He/she said it with a purpose, and it is what allows society to continue to grow and change the way it has in the past.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"-Albert Einstein

Underground?

"Notes from Underground", "The Underground Man". Common denominator? Underground. What is the purpose of the use of the word?

Underground-contrary to prevailing culture: separate from a prevailing from a social or artistic environment, and often exercising a subversive influence.

According to that definition, provided by the services of bing, underground seems to be a pretty accurate description of what Dostoevsky is trying to portray in the novel, contrary to how we believe the word "underground" as simply beneath the surface.

This Underground Man is definitely influenced in the ways he operates. He seems to run his life trying to impress and be accepted, clearly influenced by the desires of society.

So this whole "Underground" concept really does work. It's an interesting use of words, and it really fits the description of this man like a piece of the puzzle.

But then, there's the "notes" part. Notes-aren't they those things you write during class when the teacher is giving a lesson? Well, specifically, "notes" means a jotted record or summary. So, in conclusion, the title technically means the jotted record of someone separated from society who often exercises a subversive influence to society.

I would say that's impressively accurate, and on its own, gives quite the overview as to the personality of the main character in this novel.

Underground

Well played Dostoevsky, well played.

The Reality of an Underground Man

In Notes from Underground, author Fyodor Dostoevsky writes of this "underground man". This man is portrayed as one who is independent, strong, and powerful, but in reality, he is isolated, weak, and not necessarily powerful. The thing is, the Underground Man is not prepared to accept this reality. He uses scapegoats on himself to make it seem as if he is in complete control of his life. The first line of the novel states, "I am a sick man...I am a spiteful man" (1). It is as if he wants to gain an upper hand on the reader by beating the reader to the punch in calling himself a sick and spiteful man.

Reading this though, I came to a realization of sort. It's interesting to me how we all are bagging on this man for being the way he is, but let's face it, we all have a little bit of the underground man in us. We all strive to be independent, but for this generation, are we really with all the rules, guidelines, and eyes watching over our every move. It raises this question: Are we all underground men and women?

We all do things here and there to come off as strong and independent, and not to seem so "spiteful" and "wicked". We all want to be accepted into society, but in many cases, the reality of ourselves prohibits us from letting go the way this Underground Man does.

Even now as I'm writing this, I don't think I'm any sort of Underground Man, but as I think deeper into the bowels of my brains, I realize I don't want to come off as him, and that to a certain degree, we are all like that.

So maybe, just maybe, I can give this guy some slack throughout the novel, and accept him the way he is instead of judging him. After all, he might just be the genuine person that hides inside all of us.

How Isolated Are We?

Living here, in this bubble called Orange County, going to Santa Ana for Service Learning makes us feel alien from the world we live in-and that's twenty minutes away. We go to their school and learn about their lives and the struggles and differences they have, which most of us a fortunate enough to not understand fully. 

Then take that alien feeling, and apply it from instead of 20 miles away, to 9,000 miles away. Sure, there are places like Orange County in Europe, some in Asia, maybe a few in South Africa, but when you go into the heart and soul of Africa, into Umuofia, it really is a different world. 

When Obierika and Okonkwo are speaking of a white-man, or caucasian, they speak in shock and disbelief. To them, a white man was like seeing a fifty pound yam, minus the glory of the yam. Basically, it was incredible, whether they liked it or not. 

"We have heard stories about white men who made the powerful guns and the strong drinks and took slaves away across the seas, but no one thought the stories were true" (Achebe 140-141). To them, the idea of there being a different kind of people on its own was radical, let alone comprehending the extreme differences we have. 

Yam isn't our currency like it is for them. Winning wrestling matches doesn't make you famous (unless you're Manny Pacquiao or Floyd Mayweather or whatever). The differences are so amazingly significant. And yet, they know almost nothing about it. 

Amazes me. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epdGEhLpReg

This is an interesting video I found. It is a documentary on the village life in Africa today. 

Okonkwo of Africa: How would he fair elsewhere?

The main character in "Things Fall Apart" is a man named Okonkwo. He's that tough guy on the block, but by no means is he that bully looking for trouble. Okonkwo is considered a leader in his village by many. He has had many wives, who seem to be simply chefs and caretakers of his children. Okonkwo is the man of the village in the depths of Africa, but by no means would he be a man in the depths of other continent or countries.

Okonkwo's personality makes himself look wise and manly in Africa. Let's just say marrying multiple wives and almost shooting one of them, along with determining whether or not you are a man through the use of guns and yams, wouldn't necessarily be considered too manly here in the wilderness of Newport Coast.

Through reading "Things Fall Apart", I have learned how different the world is and how much of a bubble we reading. Heck, if I lived where Okonkwo lived, with my yam skills and firing ability, I'd be considered a baby. Here, I'm considered a man simply for growing an each in between visits with the grandparents. It definitely puts things into perspective.

Okonkwo would almost actually resemble a "hobo" living in urban areas, based on the way he lives in Africa. That does not justify the fact that he could not have survived or even thrived by adapting to the ways of more developed areas, but that would be far fetched. His ways are simply too radical in his corner of the world for him to happily live elsewhere.

In order to be a man

Having an Open Mind

Let me just start by saying how much I love TED Talks, and Chimamanda Adichie's talk really made me change my perspective from everything that I've been shown through media about that country called Africa. Before her talk, Africa was what it was, which is a media haven where they can manipulate the rest of the world into having one common perception on this great continent through exploitation.

Adichie's TED Talk

After watching Adichie's talk, I am able to engulf myself in Things Fall Apart with an open mind to Africa and the different perspective of this place brought forth by the author  Chinua Achebe. In reading the first few chapters, I have become increasingly intrigued as to what Africa has kept hidden from the Western eye through the firsthand knowledge of a native African. Not some white guy getting paid thousands to go to the most impoverish areas to make a headlining story in the media.

Chinua Achebe

Adichie has given me a unbiased perspective on Africa, and subsequently, I now am thrilled and open to understanding the true Africa and what they really go through, whether it is good or bad. Already I see myself reading every word with a greater level of curiosity and intrigue to gain an enhanced, and more accurate, more rounded perspective on the continent in which, oh by the way, every human technically originated from.

Rough Childhood

I've found out through now reading four Shakespeare books that this is just not a happy guy. There is never a "happy ending" or any of that. Something tells me he had a rough childhood.

"A Shakespearean tragedy is a five act play ending in the death of most of the major characters" (David Chandler). Even the definition of what Shakespeare does is in line with death. Chandler also does state "Defeat, shattered hopes, and ultimately death face us all as human beings." So I guess Shakespeare may have been one who simply accepted the glum reality of life. Still, not an optimist.

Hamlet fits into Shakespeare's realm of pessimism by obviously dying, and also by the continuous struggles he is faced with throughout the play. Gertrude's act of incest, Ophelia dying, his inner struggle of not being able to genuinely voice his emotions, along with many other aspects of his life post Old Hamlet's death all fit into Shakespeare's puzzle. 

In my opinion, the most tragic event was the death of Old Hamlet. He seems to have been one of the rare good people in Denmark, and his death lead to the downward spiral for everyone else. The death of all others was, to a degree, understandable or deserved. Old Hamlet on the other hand did not deserve to die, and only died because of the greed of power from Claudius. One thing led to another, and boom, everyone's dead. Horatio was the one exception, but it wasn't necessarily tragic that he had to go with young Fortinbras. It was his death that predominantly led to there being "something rotten in the state of Denmark", and the story only goes down from there.

Shakespeare obviously is a classic author, and his writing will always be remembered, but enjoying his tragic style of writing was something I would rather not endure through again.

http://www.lcurve.org/writings/Tragedy.htm

Rogue and Peasant Slave

"This is most brave
That I, the son of a dear father murdered,
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
Must, like a whore unpack my heart with words
And fall a-cursing like a very drab,
A scullion!" (2.2.611-616)

This sentence is basically the tipping of the iceberg to Hamlet deciding he will kill Claudius. He is fed up with simply speaking his discontent in the scenario he is forced to live with, and sends out his players to kill Claudius and gain vengeance instead of being all-talk. He realizes that he should be taking action for what has been done, almost pumping himself up in this sentence by saying he doesn't want to be a scullion (a servant).

This is important to the play because it is this epiphany that will ultimately depict that fate of not only Hamlet and Claudius, but also the state of Denmark. In general terms, attempting to kill anyone of high power will wreak havoc, and now that Hamlet has set his ambitions to do so with Claudius, it can only result in chaos and tragedy--both of which are Shakespeare's fortes apparently.

Before anything, I am most definitely not a Miami Heat fan. Lakers all the way. But, there's no denying that after all the talk before they even stepped on the court that Miami was going to win not one, not two, not three, yada yada yada, they lost the championship in their first season. Losing that championship was a loss of a season, because the Heat themselves depicted it as a Championship or bust season. In the next year, talking went away for the most part, and the Heat got to work, played hard, focused on the goal, and won it all.
Hamlet now is taking that turn into the second year of the Miami Heat, and is gearing up towards gaining that championship-in his case, revenge for his father's death.

Horatio

Horatio immediately strikes me as a tough guy, and someone who fears nothing and knows everything. He tells Marcellus and Barnardo that this ghost they are seeing is "...but our fantasy" (1.1.28). He is reassuring the others that this "ghost" will not appear and it's simply a figment of their wild imaginations. "Tush, tush, 'twill not appear" (1.1.35). While he initially comes off as nonchalant and a know-it-all, he completely changes after he becomes yet another witness to this mysterious ghost. "It harrows me with fear and wonder" (1.1.51). Exit know-it-all Horatio. Enter the humbled, bewildered Horatio. Immediately he becomes frightened but some of the old Horatio remains within him as he states he is filled not only with fear, but wonder for how this mysterious figure may be.

I think that Horatio wants to obtain knowledge of this ghost in particular and what its meaning and point was. I believe that throughout the story he will be trying to finalize the meaning behind this ghost, and what it wants not only with him and Marcellus and Barnardo, but also with the land of Denmark.

Horatio reminds me of those scientists from Jurassic Park, who are initially shocked at this land of dinosaurs, but are also fearful of their potential, which we all known is grossly displayed eventually. Hopefully this ghost is nicer than those dinosaurs.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwMhKmps1jdIyhrv4_mezvnBi28xQmknZQukG60V5qnF5leXXS82z9ssbOvtA-t25zbc14BGTk1dWSAVQFT3O3XBgppYXSIZHPurpywuEodbTuPnTxEfIrtkH2MbHkMqdf7bvrtHozF3Y2/s1600/JurassicPark.jpg

http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/35.jpg

The Radical Expectations to be Perfect in “Barbie Doll” and “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”

[W2] In the texts read this year, expectations clearly hinder the development of the individual. The radical expectations to be a perfect girl in the poem “Barbie Doll” by Marge Piercy and the expectations to maintain a perfect society in the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin hinders the development of the individual because the universal pursuit of perfection does not allow the individual to be happy just the way he or she is.

            “Barbie Doll” by Marge Piercy is loaded with expectations for a young, innocent girl to be accepted as beautiful. Although she does [W3] everything else accordingly, the simple fact that she is not beautiful hinders her acceptance of herself. “She went to and fro apologizing./Everyone saw a fat nose on thick legs” (Piercy 10-11). No matter what she did, the common perception to who she is as an individual is the fact she has a fat nose on thick legs-the fact that she is not beautiful. Throughout the poem, Piercy describes this “girlchild”[W4]  as a girl who tries to be accepted by being “…healthy, tested intelligent/possessed strong arms and back/abundant sexual drive and manual dexterity” (Piercy 7-8)[W5] . Eventually, these expectations catch up to the girl. “Her good nature wore out/like a fan belt/So she cut off her nose and her legs” (Piercy 15-17).[W6]  She deals with the constant put-downs by simply taking off her legs and nose as an attempt to look pretty. Ultimately, she kills herself for that[W7] , and never gets the opportunity to mold her individuality. “Doesn’t she look pretty? everyone said./Consummation at last./To every woman a happy ending” (Piercy 23-25). [W8] These last, chilling lines of the poem sum up the desire of this poor girl, who essentially kills herself and cuts off the criticized parts of her body in a vain attempt to look pretty. This radical expectation to be a “Barbie” [W9] clearly hinders her development to be an individual, but in “The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas”, the expectations to maintain a perfect, “Barbie Doll”-esque society was what hindered the citizens to mold a personality.

            In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, Ursula K. Le Guin uses a small child to depict the fate of the cite of Omelas. [W10] The child is extremely malnourished, and barely lives each day, but there is nothing the people of Omelas can do. “No matter how well the matter has been explained to them, these young spectators are always shocked and sickened at the sight. They feel disgust, which they had thought themselves superior to. They feel anger, outrage, impotence, despite all the explanations, they would like to do something for the child. But there is nothing they can do” (LeGuin 325).  These expectations to simply accept the dark reality of the child disallows for the citizens of Omelas to be individuals in their respective ways, and to be happy knowing everyone else is content in their own ways. It is the universal pursuit of perfection that the citizens of Omelas have that frightens them to not let the child be happy. “They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them have come to see it, [W11] others are content merely to know it is there” (Le Guin 325). Clearly, the people of Omelas comply with these expectations, and are content with it. They somehow, someway believe that if the child is treated properly, “…all the prosperity and beauty of delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed”[W12]  (Le Guin 325). Instead of helping the child, the people of Omelas opt to maintain perfection and do nothing. Eventually, they leave Omelas instead of taking a risk against perfection to help the child, resulting in a lack of a personality and opinion, which plays along with a lack of solid individuality. “The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness” (Le Guin 326).

            Expectations to be perfect are what hinder the development of an individual, and that is clearly shown in the readings “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” and “Barbie Doll”. The issue to be perfect not only hinders the development in these texts, but it also hinders the development of people today, in real life. If you aren’t perfect, you will be criticized, and that radical expectation is what hinders[W13]  so many people today from having their own, unique personality and be happy with it.

---

 [W1]That’s not even the name of the story

 [W2]This is analytical. Not chat

 [W3]Make present tense throughout whole essay. There’s a lot of past tense verbs

 [W4]Just use girl. Piercy never refers to her as the “girlchild”

 [W5]Incorrect citing. Since you start in the middle of the line, you have to put … to denote that there are words before the part that you cite. Also, its more than three lines so you have to take it out as a separate paragraph. You also cited the lines wrong. Its (Piercy 7-9)

 [W6]Same problems. Need to add that … in. Also is three lines so need to take it out again

 [W7]For what?

 [W8]3 lines, take it out as separate paragraph

 [W9]“ Barbie Doll” capitalize thie d

 [W10]In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”,  LeGuin uses a child to ultimately depict the fate of the city of Omelas.

Some weird syntax here, also Omelas is a city not  a state.

 [W11]What?

 [W12]Add the … at the beginning. Im 100% sure that the sentence doesn’t start like that. OH 100%? ALRIGHT.

 [W13]hinders

The Waking-Post In-Class Conversation

This poem was not an easy read or easy to decipher. Turns out, this is quite the dark poem. Definitely not what I had imagined reading it the first time. I just perceived it as an innocent tale of a boy, comparing the poem to school. After the in-class discussion, I hereby apologize to Sage Hill. You are not death by any means, because that is the gist of the poem by Roethke.

Waking to sleep is his way of saying that basically we are all going to die one day and that it is inevitable. "I feel my fate..." (Roethke, pg. 822). Fate: The development of event's beyond a person's control. Death is beyond our control, he cannot fear it, as he later says.

So, after this in-class epiphany, I definitely realize how dark this poem and Roethke are. Like I said in my previous post, the word "have" in the repeating line "I learn by going where I have to go" gives a negative connotation of living life because he is forced to do so, and he simply wakes up to, in short, pessimistic terms, get closer to the phenomenon to death.

The Waking

"I wake to sleep" (Roethke, 822). That right there is a fantastic line. Pretty much defines me also. Everything in between is just mumbo jumbo to feed my brain sweets while my everything else is being fed brussels sprouts and bell peppers. It shows that Roethke is one without necessarily much of a desire to enjoy each and every second of being alive, and instead wants to just get through the day to sleep (For the record I do enjoy being alive and I like brussels sprouts-not bell peppers though. Irrevelant. I apologize for that pointless reading session you may have just had).

The last line of the poem, "I learn by going where I have to go" (Roethke 822), contains one word that particularly sticks out to me, and that is "have". "Have" gives a negative connotation and one that is forceful and without desire, such as his perspective on sleeping and waking up. He is forced to go where is has to go. Basically, Roethke has no choice but to go and once he is there, he has no choice but to learn. Ultimately, Roethke is learning by putting himself out there even if he doesn't want to go. It's all similar to school. We learn by going to the designated classes of the day and their times, even if we don't feel like going. As we pile up on missed classes and learning, we no longer can go anywhere.

LeGuin's "The One's Who Walk Away from Omelas" was my least comprehended short story of the year. As far as I know, there is a place called Omelas and a little girl who depicts the happiness of the people, some of which walk away. That's the plan-spoken truth. Relating these two isn't easy, but maybe the relationship has something to do with going where he HAS to go, the same way as those who walk away from Omelas. Those who walk away faced no choice, and were forced to do it, even if it was wrong or controversial.

Metaphors

After reading the first line of this poem, "I'm a riddle in nine syllables" (Plath, pg. 717), I thought to myself, what could she possibly mean by that? After reading the poem, and re-reading it, I discovered that each line had, shockingly enough, a total of nine syllables! And to top it off, their were nine lines! After my mind was blown, I asked, why? Sylvia Plath had created an entire beautiful, meaningful and deep poem using nine syllables for each line. Nine didn't necessarily mean to much to me or to anybody else I know-except for how long pregnancy is in regards to months. Feeling like Sherlock himself, I went back and re-read the poem yet again to discover that Plath was indeed referring to pregnancy. Everything in the poem refers to how large she has grown, with phrases such as "fat purse", "melon strolling on two tendrils"-all side affects to the phenomenon itself. 

The image in particular that is very striking is the last line. "Boarded the train theres no getting off". It almost gives a sightly negative connotation, as if she wants to get off the train. She doesn't want to board this train but there isn't a choice for her. The train, which most likely means pregnancy, is one that is not appealing to Plath and there will be no turning back. Basically, it means what's done is done, good or bad, and it's time to simply accept the ride. 

Digging

"By God, the old man could handle a spade, Just like his old man" (Heaney 730). This is a clear indication that Heaney has a feeling of respect for what his father and family can do-specifically his father. The entire concept of digging for the good of the turf and not stopping for anything is undoubtedly very desirable for Heaney. The last paragraph of the poem, "Between my finger and my thumb, the squat pen rests. I'll dig with it" (Heaney 730), shows how determined he is to be like his father and to mimic what his father does. The fact that he will dig with a "squat pen" instead of a spade is a clear indication to his ambition to do whatever it takes in order to follow in the praised footsteps of his father. 

Words Heaney uses such as coarse and rasping exude an understanding to me of how difficult the conditions are in which his father works in. The line, "As snug as a gun" (Heaney 730), is indeed an interesting way to phrase it. Why gun? Why not, as snug as someone sitting next to a fire on a cold winter day? That seems much nicer, doesn't it? That's the point that Heaney is trying to make though. When you are holding a gun, it is by no means a comfortable or easy sensation. There has to be some degree of uneasiness and fear no matter who you are. To put it simply, holding a gun is not easy, and neither is following in the footsteps of his father, which is why this imagery is important.