"I want the baby, he said." I've read this story about four times and still don't completely understand what's going on. They're splitting up, that's understandable. And it seems like he's leaving her. But she seems to have issues, so I think it's the girl's fault that he's leaving. I say this because she's hysterical at the beginning, like she knows it's her fault, but is trying to make him stay. Also, the fact that he doesn't think the baby will be safe with her makes me think it's her fault. But where I get confused is at the end. I think that the baby dies. I didn't realize how until I read question number seven. But a baby being split in half seems a bit unrealistic, so what happened then?

"I knew a dog who could do that" (357). I absolutely love Zoe. I feel like if I were her student, I'd actually really like her as a teacher. Plus her sense of humor is great. The only part of the story that I don't understand is the possible-cancer part. I don't really see how that connects with the rest of the story. The whole story is relatively humorous, dry as it may be, and the cancer thing just puts a damper on it. I don't really see what the author is trying to achieve with it, if anything.

"You were his guardian angel" (351). I love how ironic the mom's reaction is. Common sense would say that if a teenager, came home drunk, that their mother wouldn't be very happy. So it should be needless to say that if a child comes home drunk, that the mother would be furious. So her reaction is very ironic. She thanks him, and says that he saved his father. So I'm assuming that this means that the father realizes he's been a bad influence and decides to never drink again. I'm also assuming that the father follows through on this promise because I think that the narrator would have mentioned it if his dad took up drinking again.

"It wasn't fair" (269). I really don't know what to think of this story. All of the other stories that we've read haven't had a flat out bad ending. Some of them have ended weird, or interesting, but never just bad. This one has a bad ending, I mean, a random woman is stoned to death, and the whole town isn't the slightest bit upset about it. I guess this story reminds me of another class I'm taking, Human Geography. In that class, we learn about other culture's beliefs and ideals. Some people in the class will flat out say, "That's just stupid" or "Why would they even do that?" Sometimes we just have to step back and realize that it's a cultural thing, and it just something that they do.

"Yes, I have been an actress for a long time" (185). Miss Brill definitely reminds me of Bartleby. They both have Augsburg's-like mind sets. They're awkward, interesting, and like to just watch others. This story is sad though. She gets made fun of by some random girl, who comes off to me as a complete ditz. Miss Brill just wants people to like her the same way she likes them, but she's just ridiculed instead. It obviously upsets her deeply because at the end, she's crying.

"He was masked; it could not be said if he was black or white, and therefore proved the property owner was no racist" (233). Once Upon a Time is seriously a great "fairy" tale. Well, anti-fairy tale. The satire is so prominent, that at times its almost humorous, but the kind of funny that you know you're not really supposed to laugh at. To begin with, the author right off the bat says she doesn't want to write a children's book, but then does The family is so afraid of the rioters and bumbs, that instead of the others going to jail for what they do, the family jails themselves in. They keep building up and up trying to keep people out, then build a Nazi-like barbed wire fence, but still they get hurt. The satire of the society in it really shows what the time period was like.

"But Phoenix only waited and stared straight ahead, her face very solemn and withdrawn into rigidity" (229). This story, A Worn Path, is so sad. This woman does what she's always done, not thinking about it, and never questioning it. But only then realizes that this is all she does now, and really for no reason at all. There were a few parts that I had questions about, however. Why does she steal money from people? Does she feel bad about it? What time era is it? In the woods, it seem civil-war, but in the town seems modern day.

"She felt her cheek pale and cold and out of a maze of distress, she prayed to God to direct her, to show her what was her duty" (221). In Eveline, a woman must decide between the life she knows so well, and a new life with her boyfriend. This story is very much ironic because Eveline wants to leave her life so much. Her father is abusive, her mother and brother are dead, and she has nothing to look forward to each day. Her boyfriend, however, would be a new adventure, and she would never have to be with her father again. However, the irony is that she can't leave. Her old life is what she knows so well. If she were to leave, she would feel guilty leaving her dad and family life. By not going, she isn't doing what she wants, but is doing what she thinks is right.

"But he was wrong. They had taken a different turn a long way back" (201). Different? Not wrong? To begin with, Frank and Tub made two stops after Kenny was shot in the stomach-a very obviously fatal wound. The first stop is to get warm, and the second was so Tub could eat without being regretful. This whole time, Tub and Frank are bonding, while Kenny is in the back freezing and shot. They weren't very nice to him when his was shot (e.g. lifting him gently, keeping him warm) and they didn't care too much that they stopped so often. Then when it says "different" it makes me wonder if they want Kenny to die. Kenny was mean to them both, and almost shot Tub first, so maybe they meant to go a different way and let him die.

"I would prefer not to" (649). Bartelby is legitimately insane. Like, not the insane-asylm-in-a-straigh-jacket sort of insane, but more like a quiet, eerie, weird sort of insane. The latter-to me- is more scary. Talking to him is like talking to a two year old. They have their own way of thinking that is 100% right to them, and if someone else doesn't think like they do, they just grow annoyingly stubborn and refuse to be told otherwise. It's completely horrible. What's weird is how stubborn he is, he refuses to do anything at all. And ultimatley this is the cause of his death.

"'You're kidding!' Frank leaned forward considering. 'That Kenny. What a card'" (201). Kenny in the story seems to be the antagonist of the three. He eggs people on, plays horribly cruel jokes on others, and eventually points a gun at his friend. Tub is a very interesting character, he's a binge eater, and lies to his friends and family about it. He hoards food, and is passive-agressive when it comes to being teased. Frank is Tub's true friend, but is with a 15 year old girl, and is going to leave is wife for her. All three men are really messed up, but they still seem to be pretty good friends.

"Maggie smiled; maybe at the sunglasses. But a real smile, not scared" (181). The character of Maggie in everyday use is one that is relatable, but also seemingly distant. She's relatable because many people in life have set backs that make them feel not as good about themselves. She's also rather distant, however, because the narrator is Mama, not her, so it's hard to know what she is thinking. Mama is a very tough character on the outside. However, it is very obvious how much she loves Maggie, and will do anything for her. Dee is a very selfish, unloving character. She wants the quilts as a sort of shrine to her heritage, whereas Maggie wants them because she wants to use the quilts she helped make.

"No letter was ever going to come." "How I Met My Husband" was my favorite of the three stories, but is still left the most unanswered questions. Why was Chris such a drifter? Did the war do that to him, or is that just who he is? Is Alice stalking him or actually engaged to him, but following him around everywhere? Why is Chris running? Why is Edie the help? Is she lying to her husband by never telling him the real story? Why did she even marry Carmichael? How long did she wait for the letter?

"...The women mostly went out of curiosity to see the inside of her house..." This quote is from "A Rose for Emily." To begin with, as weird as is sounds, this story reminds me a bit of high school. The gossip and rumors in this story remind me of it, not the creepy sleeping with dead people thing. Because this story is said by an unknown speaker that just refers to them self as "we" this story can have absolutely no truth to it. It could actually be an exaggeration of what really happened, or it could just be a silly scary story with little to no truth to it. It starts out believable with the tax audit, but the ending was not only just weird, but somewhat unrealistic. And what does a rose have to even do with this story?

"He glanced up from his paperback tour book, which said 'INDIA'..." The story, "Interpreter of Maladies" is full of Irony. To begin with, the whole story is about a young Indian couple. They were both born in America, but first generation. The irony is that they know nothing about India, and in fact, the tour guide says they are more American that Indian. Another irony is the misinterpretation of what the tour guide's other job is. Mrs. Das thinks that he can cure her for keeping this secret from her family. When in fact, Mr. Kapasi just interprets between the patient and the doctor, he himself does not cure. He does, in the end, sort of cure her, but really only makes her realize that she just feels guilty and should tell the truth.

"I was fifteen and away from home for the first time." This quote is from "How I Met My Husband." There are not very many metaphors or silimies in this story. However, she does have flashbacks to her home. One of which included talking about her schooling and how smart she is. From what she says, she tells the reader that she is not particularly bright, but good at other things. I find it interesting that she was even allowed to go to school in the 1940s, but also very glad that she at least attempted. She says that she didn't like school because she was shy, and because the work was too hard.

"I do not think he's right" (handout). This is from "Elegy for My Father, Who is not Dead" by Andrew Hudgins. This poem is completely relatable to many in high school, especially seniors. I am, like many other seniors right now, looking and applying to colleges. My one and only requirement for the college I go to is that it is not in state or a bordering state. It's not that I don't love my family, because I do, more that anything else. But in my opinion, college is a time to find oneself and be on one's own for a bit. Which is exactly what I plan on doing. My parents are ok with this, but they still do really want me to stay some what close to home, or at least go to a state with other family in it. I fell like the man who wrote this poem knows that after his dad dies, he will finally be able to be on his own. To him, he wants this, but does not know how to tell his father this, who thinks he will come with him when he dies. The man needs to live his own life before he dies and meets up with his dad again.

"Do more bewitch me than when art/is too precise in every part" (979). This line is from "Delight in Disorder" by Robert Herrick. The pattern of this poem is a sonnet, but one that Shakespeare would write, not like a normal sonnet. The man in the poem is talking about how a woman looks. He describes everything about her in the first 12 lines. Then, in the last two he says that when there is a little bit of disarray to something, in this case a woman, it is much more beautiful that perfection. I think I agree with him. When things are too perfect, they're almost off-putting in a way. When there's a flaw, it becomes much more approachable and comparable to ourselves.

"'Alas, and woe is me, O" (978). This is from "Edward" by anonymous. Why are anonymous poem always more awesome? And in this case, really creepy. I think I like this poem because a) it actually tells a narrative in it and b) it has a what-the-heck-I-wasn't-expecting-that moment. Both, to me at least, always makes a poem more interesting. In the first part of the poem, Edward lies to his mom about who/what he killed, but she finds out he killed his dad. What is interesting to me about this is that the mom doesn't at all seem upset. In fact, she's encouraging him to run away and everything will be fine if he goes somewhere else. But the what-the-heck moment comes at the end when he pretty much tells his mom to go to hell. That's not very nice.

"Can someone make my simple wish come true?" (973). This line is from "Lonely Hearts" by Wendy Cope. This line is actually part of the pattern of the poem. This and another line alternate back and forth at the end of each stanza, then they are both said at the end of the last stanza. This is the same pattern of "Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night." This poem I think talks about how everyone is looking for their someone. It reminds me of a dating website, but in poem form. What makes me laugh most about this poem is the irony. This person is literally looking for anyone, but in the last stanza says: "(with photo)" so they're saying that they want to be with someone, as long as they look nice. Which seems to me a lot like today's world.

"And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die" (972). This line is from "Death, be not proud" by John Donne. Is he completely bashing death in this poem? Because to me, it sounds like he is. Is he asking to die? I think what the poet is trying to say is that death isn't actually the bad guy. Not only is he not the bad guy, he's not as tough as everyone makes him out to be. Actually, the poet says, it's men who are death. Death has to follow man's bidding.

"A verier ghost than I" (889). This is from "The Apparition." I do not understand this poem at all. Is the speaker already dead? Who are they talking to? Why are they leaving this person a creepy message? Is the speaker threatening the person that they will haunt them? Or are they trying to be romantic, and it just come off really weird? What is the tone in the poem even?

"When I have crossed the bar" (886). This is from "Crossing the Bar." Is he traveling or dying? My vote is dying. But what does all the other stuff have to do with dying? It's a really weird extended metaphor. I have never thought of dying as a trip or new adventure, but I can see where he's coming from. His tone is very relaxed and accepting of the fact that he will die soon.

"I love to hear her speak, yet well I know/ that music hath a far more pleasing sound" (885). This is from "My mistress' eyes." The tone is completely filled with satire. I think that he is making fun of every love poem every written. Which is a hypocritical considering Shakespeare wrote many cheese love poems himself. However, it is really funny. He, in a way, criticizes her and critiques her through the poem. But, at the end he says that he does love her, I think. It is a sort of cute poem.

"me/a princess" (handout). I absolutely love this poem, "Hazel Tells LaVerne." It's sweet in a way, and actually really funny. Which reminds me of another movie, "The Princess and the Frog" aka the best animated movie ever. The language and diction, however, remind of of the book "Of Mice and Men." I don't know whether to call the diction illiterate or just creative. Also, the tone is very southern to me, not because of the messed up spelling, but it just sounds southern. The only thing I don't understand is the title.

"We held on tight, and let go" (896). This is from "Getting Out." The tone in this poem makes me think that the speaker wanted to break up with who ever it was, then didn't when the time came. It reminds me of the movie "The Break up." It's almost the exact movie in a poem. Or poem in the movie. I think that neither person in this poem really wants to break up. However, neither wants to talk. The tone at the end is really sad.

"Demur-you're straightway dangerous-/And handled with a Chain" (830). In "Much Madness is divinest Sense" the paradox is in the author's view of what makes sense. The author says that madness makes more sense than sense does. Having a grasp on everything all the time isn't a good way to live. Part of a paradox is realizing that it does have truth in it. Being a bit off isn't totally a bad thing all of the time. It adds a bit of excitement to everyday life. When everything always makes sense all the time, then there's no curiosity or wondering in the world.

"Not one false note was struck-until he died..." (848). People like "Mr. Z" annoy me. This man in this extremely ironic poem is a very wishy-washy kind of person. One with out many, if any opinions on racy topics. He's not much of a risk taker at all. He's just a person who flies under the radar so he doesn't cause a stir. The irony in the entire poem is that during his whole life, he's been as politically correct as possible. Then, at his funeral, a race comment is made about him, which goes against all that he worked for in his life.

"Dear Mom, sure rains a lot here" (846). This poem, "APO 96225" is like "Barbie Doll" in the sense that it too is very relatable. Not the whole going off to war, killing lots of people thing, but it's relatable because out parents what to know about our life, but when they find out things, are upset or disappointed. This poem, too, is both ironic and understated at times. It's ironic due to the mother's reaction. It's an understatement due to his letters he writes. It's something that happens all the time too, parents ask a question, get the honest answer, then don't know what to do with that information. Both the irony and understated replies add to the tone of the poem.

"The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;" (839). In this poem, "Ozymandias" there is a story told by a traveler to another person. The story is of a king who has nothing. It's very ironic through the whole poem because the reader is expecting for the king to have all sorts of riches, but he had nothing. The reason he has nothing is because he was an unkind ruler. Words such as: "sneer" "cold command" and "mocked" show that he didn't have many followers. But because of what was written on the sign, he obviously felt very highly of himself. This was probably his ultimate downfall in the end.

"Doesn't she look pretty? Everyone said." (836). "Barbie Doll" is a very relatable poem to many girls. In the poem, there is a little girl who seems to be an over-all, well rounded individual. But one day, she is told she has a big nose and legs. She does what she can to ignore it and make herself look and feel better, but it's not forgotten. The earlier quote is from her funeral after she has died. It's relatable because, in all honesty, there's a lot of pressure on girls to look their best at all times. Also, it's relatable because it makes one realize how one comment can change a person's outlook on life forever.

"Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath/ And so live ever-or else swoon to death" (792). I think this poem is about the sun. What I noticed first was the weird language. I think it is about the sun because it is the brightest star. Also, in a way, the sun does kind of look down on all of us. The writer says it is "gazing on" certain part of the Earth. But after about line 8, I just get lost. Is it about a woman now? Or still the sun? In any case, it is an interesting poem.

"My brother's heart barely feeds two" (handout). This poem made me giggle. The speaker has a sort of whimsical, "if only I could" sort of tone. What I'm getting from the poem is that she doesn't like what her sister says. Maybe they have differing opinions, or maybe her sister just doesn't say nice things. But then in the second stanza, the tone changes a bit. There is still this whimsicalness to it, but also a bit more serious. Maybe her brother is not at all a nice person in the slightest. She seems to be more playful about her sister's stanza. In the brother's stanza I get a "I really don't like him" kind of vibe.

"Dress up! Dress us and dance at Carnival!" (799). What the heck is up with this poem? I get that it's at a Mexican festival, but that's about it. Who or what is the dog? A chiwawa? Is it even a dog at all? Is this poem just a stream of consciousness? It's really chaotic and weird. Does the speaker feel bad for the dog or like it? Also, the 6th stanza is just completely out there and makes no sense at all.

"Or does it explode?" (805). I read this poem last year, and I still love it as much as I did then. It's about how having a dream or goal and not reaching it can have many possibilities of outcomes. One thing the speaker says that can happen is that it is forgotten. The person with that dream no longer cares, nor remembers it. But what the speaker alludes to really happening is in the line I quoted earlier. The speaker says that the will for that dream or goal to be reached only gets stronger over time. It's sort of an inspirational poem.

"To see the little Tippler/leaning against the-Sun-" (797). I like this poem. When I first read through it, I didn't really understand why she was writing about a drunk guy. Then when I read through it a second time, I came to the realization that she's not talking about a drunkard, but rather how being outside makes you feel drunk. The third stanza was what made it most clear to me. I can relate to this poem because I love being outside, so I know what she feels like. I think the speaker isn't biast towards one season like the other poets we read, but instead she likes all of them.

"What did I know, what did I know/ of loves austere and lonely offices?" (782). This poem is so sadly sweet. There are tons of poems, stories, essays, ect. out there about Moms, but very few about Dads it seems. This poem is sad in the fact that the writer (during the poem) felt animosity towards the dad. But, now that he is writing the poem looks back, and realized everything his dad did for him. In the poem, he says there is a "chronic anger" in the house, maybe the dad just wanted to be appreciated. The last lines, the one I quoted previously confuse me. Was the dad mad at his son for his relationships and job? Is that even what the last lines mean? In any case, I think I do actually like this poem.

"The descending blue; that blue is all in a rush/with richness;" (774). Well this poem is...interesting. Is it about spring, Jesus, or neither? I really liked it, until the end. The end just didn't seem to fit into the poem. Did the author think "hey, I should probably mention something about that Jesus fellow. I'll just tag him on."? It just seemed a bit random. In any case, it was interesting in his word choice. His descriptions and alliterations make it intriguing.

"In every cry of every man/In every Infant's cry of fear/In every voice, in every ban/the mind-forged manacles I hear" (handout). I think this poem is literal, mostly. It talks about the different aspects of London, none of which seem to be very positive. I think it is about the Black Death. To begin with, everyone is crying. Also, it mentions a plague in the last stanza. Or maybe it's just the author's personal feelings about London. He doesn't seem to like the city, but he also seems intrigued by it.

"The plumtree is white today/with masses of flowers" (775). This poem makes me depressed. I think it connects to many things that are happening in our world today. So in this poem, there is this woman who has been without a spouse for 35 years. She has a little boy, who seems to be relatively happy, but she is obviously not. At one point, she says she wants to die. But I think it connects to today because of all the women who have lost husbands in Iraq and Afghanistan. I bet that they have children too who don't understand why they are so sad all of the time. The only thing that doesn't make sense is that she's been widowed for 35 years, but still has a son who seems to be young. In any case, the woman is obviously not happy with her life, but goes on for her son.

"And hit the World, at every plunge/ And Finished knowing-then-" (776). Well, I think this poem is addressing her craziness. At least she admits to it. When I read it the first time, I thought that it was a legit funeral, but when I reread it, I realized that it doesn't make any sense to be about a poem. To begin with, why would it be in her head? Also, it would make her the dead person. So I think that her house is the coffin, and she's trapped in it. But it almost seems like she's trying to jump out of her house...especially due to the 4th and 5th stanzas. The third stanza is what confuses me, however. I don't think it contradicts any points I've made, so I think my theory still stands.

I don't like this guy. He seems like one of those egotistical people who a) like to hear themselves talk and b) like to be told that they're right. In any case, if it isn't obvious enough, I completely and totally disagree with him. The truth of the matter is that things, depending how you look at them, can be interpreted differently. It's like a kaleidoscope, however you turn it, and depending on what you're looking at, there's always a new picture. Saying that only one person is right and only one interpretation is correct is almost an insult to the poet. Why would a writer only mean to say one thing? Poets have to be incredibly creative to come up with the stuff they write about, so it doesn't make sense to only have one bland and uncreative answer.

To me, almost everything can be interpreted differently. I feel like this guy is trying to squelch every ounce of creativity people have. Why does there only have to be one right answer? Why can't everyone be right? What if no one is right? What if, crazy thought here- when Blake wrote about a rose and a worm, he was writing about a rose and worm. There are so many different possibilities to everything, so I don't see how one person is more right than everyone else. Poetry is about being creative, throwing out new ideas, and (often) not making any sense at all. I think that people can have as many opinions as possible, there is no one right answer.

"But think of it. You were lucky pawns" (266). So Hailsham isn't the only school like this. There are other ones, run by the government, but are completely horrible and inhumane. I guess Miss Emily is more optimistic about the whole thing, yes they will die very soon, and no they won't have a normal life. But hey, at least they didn't grow up in awful living conditions, and at least they didn't have a mindset of "I'm being raised just to be killed." Because isn't that what they're doing? Slowly taking away what they need to survive to give to another human-who for some reason, is more important than them-and by doing so, slowly killing them from the inside out. Apparently, some don't deserve the organs they're given and need to donate them to others. The way this world works doesn't seem like it'll be in the distant future for us. Cloning has already begun, and it won't take us too long to understand the possibilities it will bring.

"And if they did, they tried to convince themselves you weren't really like us. That you were less than human, so it didn't matter" (263). This single statement alone can sum up just about every war, every genocide, and all the slavery that has happened in all of history. Hitler convinced the Nazi party that Jewish people were less than Germans, so it was fine if millions of them died. Our country decided that African American people weren't really humans, because "they looked like monkeys" so they were lower on the evolution scale, so they were less that the white man. In WWII the cartoon industry encouraged children to be mean to Japanese people by making them look completely daft. Today even, we, the general public, are convinced that Muslim people are less than us because they don't have electricity, or running water, or cell phones. Apparently, our possessions make us a "true human being" not our beliefs, not our morals, and not the fact that genetically speaking, we are all the same. Our world functions like this, the way we think is completely disgusting and there is no way to change it.

"You believe this? That you're deeply in love?...Because your art will display your souls!" (253-254). This is a quote from Madame when Kathy and Tommy go to see her. The way she is being so sarcastic with her remarks makes me think that the deferral is not real at all. Then, when Tommy is explaining that he brought art with him to show to her, she says: "Poor creature. what did we do to you? With all out schemes and plans?" (254). "Creatures?" Really? She herself doesn't even consider them to be humans, so why would anyone else? And what "schemes and plans" is she talking about? It's obvious that others have come to her with this idea, because she sounds completely fed up with all of this already. But there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

"The main thing is, I kept you and Tommy apart...that was the worst thing I did...You and Tommy, you've got to try and get a deferral. If it's you two, there's got to be a chance. A real chance" (232-233). I'm onto part three of the book, when Ruth and Tommy are no longer together, and are both donors. Also, Kathy is a carer for Ruth at this point. Finally. Ruth finally realized that she's been mean and manipulative to both of them. And finally Kathy and Tommy can be together. But now Ruth wants them to get the deferral, and they're going to be really disappointed when they can't get it. I don't know if Ruth is doing this to Tommy and Kathy because she actually cares about them being together, or because she just wants to know if the deferral actually exists. She found Madame's address, so she could have just gone there herself and asked, so maybe she actually cares about Tommy and Kathy...for once.

"Do you think she'd have talked to us like that if she'd know what we really were?" (166). Do people on the outside world not know about these clones? I think that some of them do, like the people who made them. Or what about the people receiving the donations? Do they think that a new kidney just magically appears inside of them? Or maybe, everyone knows, but they just ignore it and try not to think about it. It's kind of like how we ignore things in our world. Like the fact that America could be blown off the face of the Earth with a single bomb. Or the fact that pretty soon, there won't be oil left. Or even little, important things, like hunger, and homelessness, and poverty. I'll be honest, if something isn't screaming in my face "I'M HERE!" I pretend it doesn't exist.

"'What they were saying was that some Hailsham students in the past, in special circumstances, had managed to get a deferral" (153). Well this is a big part of the rising action in the plot. Chrissie said this to Ruth in the car on the way to Norfolk. Apparently, if there is a couple, from Hailsham, and they are truly in love, they they can wait a while before donating. No. I'm going to predict right here and now that this isn't true. With they amount of organ donations needed in our world, I'm betting that theirs isn't any different. So why would they let two people wait a few years? Here's my reasoning: 1) They're donors. It's what they were made to do and it's they're job. 2) Why would people care if they're in love? To others, because they're clones, they're not capable of loving each other. I think that this is just a dream, and I don't think that it will work out.

"We all knew no one would stop us if we wandered off, provided we were back by the day and the time we entered into Keffer's ledgerbook" (118). At this point, they know they are clones, and know they will die at a young age, why don't they just buck the system? Has no one thought of doing this? Just my intuition, but I don't think that they were implanted with GPS tracking devices at Hailsham. They have cars, they could just drive off somewhere and never come back. The only problem with that, however, would be their lack of knowledge in the real world. They don't know much about taxes, or leases, or jobs. They could lead a completely normal life if they wanted to, but instead, they chose to donate organs and die at 24. This makes no sense to me.

"Since each of us was copied at some point from a normal person, there must be, for each of us, somewhere out there, a model getting on with his or her life" (139). I don't understand, they are fully aware of the fact that they are clones, but they don't care. So here's my question: If these people are nothing but copies of other people, then are they really people? I get that yes, they are physically human beings. But what about the spiritual side of things? Are they just a shell of a person with nothing inside? Kathy later goes on to describe different theories of who these people could be (babies, parent's age, elderly, ect.). But I have a different theory, I'll be honest, if I lived in this world, I don't think I would be ok with a clone of myself walking around. So what if they were copied from people who didn't have an option and wouldn't be seen on a daily basis? Say, maybe people on death row, or in jail? Just an idea...

"Eight of us who left Hailsham that summer ended up at the Cottages" (116). I'm on to part two of the book, which i find to be Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy's teenage years. The Cottages are co-ed housing, run by a man called Keffers. To be honest, I find this character more intriguing than any other because the reader never finds much out about him. However, through the whole time, he acts mad at the tenants, but really I think he's scared too. I think that he too knows what is going to happen to these people, and is worried by it. I think he is a symbol to the students of how they'll be treated by some people in the real world. I think that Keffers is trying-though maybe not consciously- to get them to understand that the real world is nothing like their happy-go-lucky world of Hailsham.  

"'Hold on. What did she mean, "evidence"'" (108). At this point in the story, Kathy and Tommy are talking about what Miss Lucy said to Tommy about his art work. She called his art work "evidence." Evidence of what? I think that it has something to do with Madame and the gallery. Maybe it's evidence of the fact that they donors are real people. Or maybe Madame needs evidence to prove to herself something. I still don't see why she takes it in the first place if she is scared of the children. I think that Miss Lucy sees something different in Tommy, and wants to tell him as much as she can. But I think there are consequences if she told him. So instead, she seems to hit at things  like that gallery and donations. Maybe, more than anything, this "evidence" is for people on the outside, people who don't know everything that is going on behind the walls of Hailsham.

"That very evening, Tommy and Ruth got back together again..." (111). Why are Tommy and Ruth together? That's not right, Tommy and Kathy are supposed to be together. Ruth has to know that that's how it's supposed to be, but she's just being selfish. Kathy has always been nice to Tommy, and Ruth has been so mean to him, why would he even date her after all of that? Yet another reason why I don't like Ruth. Maybe Tommy doesn't see it. But I think that he will, eventually. I think that Kathy doesn't actually see it yet, and would rather let Ruth be with Tommy than to make her upset.

"Tommy thought it possible the guardians had, throughout all our years at Hailsham, timed very carefully and deliberately everything they told us, so that we were always just too young to understand properly the latest piece of information" (82). Tommy is smart. I think that he gets what is really going on, with Madame, the gallery, and donations. On the other hand, there's no way for the guardians to know how smart certain students are or are not at different stages in their life. So there are always people like Tommy, who they didn't time perfectly, so now he understands everything. And people like Ruth and Kathy, who they did time properly, and don't totally understand everything. There is definitely something different about Tommy. I think he's another protagonist in the story. He's different because he gets what is going on, and he has random temper tantrums. Which I think stem from the fact that he hates that he has to die at a young age and will never be normal. Every one else seems to accept this, but he wants something different.

"Your lives are set out for you...you'll start to donate vital organs. That's what you were created to do" (81). This is said by Miss Lucy to the students while it's rainy outside. Kathy has already said that they knew they would have to donate organs when they got older. But what I don't understand is what she means by "created." So my theory of them being taken from parents as infants is flawed. But then I guess that means they were made almost like the children in Brave New World. They're clones? Of who? Each other or other people? It can't be that they all look alike, I think they would have noticed that. So they made individual clones of other people. People from the outside world or people who donated as well? And if it is people from the outside world, are they normal every day people?

"We certainly knew-though not in any deep sense-that we were different from our guardians, and also from the normal people outside" (69). So from what I can gather, they're being raised to donate vital organs to other people who need them. When they are still alive. So then this means that they'll die when they're still relatively young. That's so unfair, they'll never be able to get married, or have children, or die when they're 89. I honestly don't see how they can donate something and not die immediately after. But Kathy is talking about third and fourth donations, so some how in this world they've figured out how to survive with out vital organs for a time? Kathy later says that when the students bring up donations, the guardians become awkward, does this mean that they're also afraid of the students like Madame? More than anything, I want to know where these people come from. Are they taken from their parents as infants? Or are they something else entirely?

"All this effort, all this planning, just to upset my dearest friend" (60). This is a quote about Ruth. She seems like she'll be the antagonist, and I really don't like her. She seems more like a frenemy than a true friend to Kathy. She's sickly sweet to some, but underneath she's spiteful and manipulative. People like that don't make for a healthy friendship. She's also really mean to Tommy, and for no reason at all. In a sense, Kathy is no better, with how she handled the pencil case scandal and how she held that over Ruth's head is also very mean. I just don't think that they have a healthy friendship. Then again, a few times Kathy has mentioned Ruth's recovery room, so I think that they will stay constant friends.

"...she wouldn't talk to us and kept us at a distance with her chilly look" (32). This is a quote about Madame. From what Kathy has said, she comes two to four times a year to take certain art work, but only the best. None of the students seem to know why exactly, but the teachers hint at the fact that they know why. When Ruth announces her theory, I don't think that it's true. I think that Madame keeps her distance because she thinks that she is better than the kids. But then later on, when Ruth's theory is proven true, I'm even more confused because I can't figure out why she is scared. Does she just not like kids? Or is she really just afraid of them?

"'Shaking. With rage. I could see her. She was furious. But furious deep inside" (28). This quote is spoken by Tommy, to Kathy, about Miss Lucy. I feel as though Miss Lucy is like a mini anti-hero. From what she said to Tommy, she seems like the kind of teacher who wants to actually teach these kids. The other teachers seem to be content with teaching them what they are told to teach them. Miss Lucy seems to want to teach them about current events, and things outside Hailsham. And more than anything, she seems to want them to know about what will happen when they leave Hailsham and begin donations. I think that Miss Lucy is going to make a lot of enemies because of this.

"...you'd find a tranquil atmosphere waiting, with ducks and bulrushes and pond-weed" (25). Hailsham is creepy, it's too perfect. The setting in the book makes me realize that this is definitely not a normal boarding school. And it's not just the perfect school grounds, but the people there too. The teachers are so nice all the time, and never yell at the children. The kids there almost seem brainwashed into believing anything and everything the teachers tell them, even if it's not true. Maybe it's just how Kathy wishes to remember it, all sunshine and perfection. There has to be something wrong with this place. The way it's described reminds me of a fairy tale, where everything is always bright and sunny to the main character, but behind their back, someone is planning on giving them a poison apple.

"In fact, the herder he tried, the more laughable he efforts turned out" (20). Kids are so mean. I honestly can say that I know this from experience because two weeks ago I went to North Carolina to babysit my 6 year old cousin and a few other children. During the time, I was reading part one of this book, and I was finding so many similarities in how they acted, to how Tommy was treated. I don't know if they feel as if it's their only form of communication or what, but the way they act can be worse than high school stuff. In any case, it bothers me that there has been no explanation for why Tommy is picked on more than others. Or in that perspective, why certain kids at Roncalli are picked on more than others. I guess that sometimes, there isn't a specific reason other than, "because." Tommy seems like he'll be an important character, also with the way that Kathy talks to him, I think that they may become a couple when they're teenagers or even before that.

"My name is Kathy H. I'm thirty-one years old, and I've been a carer now for over eleven years" (3). It's kind of obvious who the protagonist is going to be. But I wonder if she'll also be an anti-hero. Is a carer almost like a nurse? It's an odd term for it, because she doesn't seem to be actually employed per say at the hospital. In this first chapter, it seems as though people are donating their organs before they've actually died. That can't be right, that's completely unethical and would cause them to die. But if they're not donating organs, what else would it be?

"And anyhow, hadn't you better wait till you actually see the new world?" (139). So what did I learn from this book? More than anything, it is very, very much so like our world. To begin with, the use of technology not to improve, but rather retrogress life. We're getting lazier with everything that we do, and there is no connection between people anymore unless it's via text or call. Next, the idea that it's better to buy something new if the old one breaks, rather than trying to fix it. This I think is most like our world, we rarely fix things, instead we buy new and better models of the broken object. Next, the use of soma everyday for the people in the book. Our world today thinks that life is better or more fun if you're not sober. This book, more than anything, has taught me to change my ways of thinking and doing things.

"Slowly, very slowly, like two unhurried compass needles, the feet turned towards the right..." (259). He died. That's so original. I think that the first author who decided that the protagonist would die in the end of the story was original, but since then it's just gone down hill. I thought he would die, but I didn't expect the whole Lenina incident to occur. The way John portrayed himself as by the end of the book I think hurt him more than helped him. He showed the world that you kind of go crazy without all of the soma and conditioning and Ford. In the end, nothing good happened. People were sent away, which I guess is sort of good; But John dies, the government is still intact, and nothing changes. Or did something change?

"'I think,' said Lenina suddenly, breaking a long silence, 'I'd better take a couple of grammes of soma'" (178). I see a lot of Lenina in Linda, John's mother. I feel as if there were to be a sequel to this book, Lenina would be exactly like Linda. Linda, who lived for years on the reservation, goes back to civilization, and she becomes a totally different person. Linda eventually dies due to the amount of soma that she takes. I feel as if Lenina will do the same very soon. It's their therapy, their method of coping with the faults of their world. Almost comparable to alcohol, some people drink to get away from their problems. Others feel as if their life would be boring if they were sober.

"It was John, then, they were all after" (156). This quote is from the part of the book after John's identity is shared with others. His father, the D.H.C., partially made him famous. But more than anything, his being a true savage in a civilized world made him even more famous. People have always had this fascination with odd things. From the freak shows and circuses of the 1920s to "My Strange Addiction" and "Ripley's Believe it or Not" type shows today. In the book, Bernard even throws a party where people can go and meet the "Savage." Which by the way, totally makes me think of Pocahontas and John Smith's letters we read last year. I also find it odd that John is the one considered a "Savage." I almost think that the civilized people in this book are more savage than John is.

"'O brave new world,' he repeated. 'O brave new world that has such people in it" (139). This quote is said by John after Bernard invites him to go with him to the Other Place. It is a quote from William Shakespeare's The Tempest. Earlier in the story, the reader learns that John began reading Shakespeare at the age of 12. But what I find most interesting about John is that he knows, with out being told, that literacy brings power. He know that being able to read will get him further than others, and more specifically, he knows that Shakespeare is a bit of a big deal. He shows he knows how important reading is on page 130 when the other children are making fun of his clothes. He says to himself that the other children are unimportant because they don't even know what reading is. John seems to be a very interesting character, but I think he'll be more of an anti-hero than a protagonist.

"The dress of the young man who now stepped out on the terrace was Indian; but his plaited hair was straw-coloured, his eyes a pale blue, and his skin a white skin, bronzed" (116). This description is of John. I think that he will become the next protagonist in the story line. What I find most interesting about this section of the book is John's story to how he got to be in the Reservation. When it's pieced together, the reader finds out that his father is the D.H.C., the man whom Bernard detests. This is when Bernard's back handedness begins to show. Bernard implies in the book that he'll bring John back to the Other Place so John can experience new things, when in fact, he plans to use John against the D.H.C. I find this a bit upsetting because I thought that Bernard was the "good guy." As it turns out, he's just like everyone else in the book: brain-washed and selfish.

"Queer...very queer...I don't like it. And I don't like that man" (107). In my opinion, the hardest thing to grasp in the book is Huxley's writing style. It seems to have both a new age and old age feel to it. It has the etiquette and proper writing of the 1940s, but also the futuristic dialect of today. The way that he writes makes the reader not totally sure of the time period. Also, there doesn't seem to be a character who just says something. Everything everyone says in the story thus far seems to hint at having more than one meaning to it. Every character also seems to have back-handed intentions underneath the surface. This can make the book hard to truly understand.

"I drink to the Greater Being" (81). Big Brother, Hal, "Eagle Eye," and now Ford, all of these are figures, whether in a book or movie, that see all, know all, and can do whatever they want. But I'm going to focus on the book examples. At the beginning of this novel, the Controller was explaining the old world to the students. In his explanation, he said that they had gotten rid of all religions, when in fact, they really didn't. In this new world (and 1984's world) children grow up praising and being at total awe of a Being. This Being can do whatever it wants, it know absolutely everything, and is completely omniscious. Isn't that, in a way, sort of a dark religion? It seems to me that religion can never die. People will always need an answer to every mystery and religion seems to be the answer.

"Progress is lovely, isn't it?" (100). Brian washing and omnipotent figures seem to be the makings of a good novel. In this story, they describe sleep conditioning. This is when, at a young age, certain ideas and morals are told to children as they think. This way, they think a certain way with out even know it. Also, as mentioned before in a blog, there is this all-knowing "Ford" character. He is this demi-god to the people in the novel. This being that knows all, thinks all, and can tell all. But they've never even seen or heard from him. In a weird way, he's almost their religion.

"He raged against himself-what a fool!" (104). I've noticed that this sci-fi novel, like others, has standard themes that run through the duration of the book. To begin with, the age old theme of internal conflicts. Bernard is having major issues with a) his self confidence and b) the world he lives in and contributes to. His self confidence issues spur from the shallow world he is living in. Everyone must be perfect if they are alphas or betas. He is mainly upset, however, because he understands the corruption, maybe not totally, but he still has a partial understanding of what is wrong in society. However, he also contributes to this corruption. He has no other option, but he must. My next blog will talk about the other themes that are seen through this novel and many other sci-fi novels.

"'The matter?' He dropped heavily into a chair. 'I'm going to be sent to Iceland'" (103). I feel like I honestly don't know what is going on through most of this book. What's so bad about Iceland? Who is this "Ford" man, and where is he right now? Why do some people like Bernard understand the messed up world, and others like Lenina don't? How did the world become this way? Huxley's style seems to leave a lot of unanswered, or open-ended, questions for the reader. I understand parts of things, like all the social levels, why they use soma, and the weird conditioning for children. At the moment though, I feel like I have more questions about the book than answers.

"The Warden was a blond and brachycephalic Alpha-Minus, short, red, moon-faced..." (101). I've noticed that part of Huxley's style is by using direct characerization for every character. Indirect characterization is when the author tells the reader what the character looks and dresses like, what they say and feel, and what they do. He describes each character as they come into play into the book. He describes Lenina as "uncommonly pretty" (16). He describes Watson as "a powerfully built man, deep-chested, broad-shouldered, massive..." (66). The director is described as ageless in a way, for no one can determine just how old he is. Bernard Marx is described as "ugly" (46) by another character in the book, Fanny. Huxley's technique and style make the descriptions unique to each character.

"'Idiots, swine!' Bernard Marx was saying to himself..." (55). Bernard realizes what a hoax this whole society is. He, unlike others, knows that what is happening, shouldn't. His thinking is similar to Montag's from Fahrenheit 451. Montag also understands that the sort of totalitarian government is not correct. However, different from Montag, Bernard is fine with being quiet and not speaking out against the government. Montag eventually does speak out. However, both go against the government in other ways. Montag reads books and thinks for himself. Whereas Bernard doesn't take much soma and talks to others about his point of view. Both show the reader a new way of thinking as well.

"And the outbursts of an abject self-pity..." (99). This is a way that Hemholtz describes Bernard. Bernard reminds me of Winston from 1984. Both are the protagonists and realize there is something wrong in the world. Winston seems a bit dimmer to me, however. Also, he is more adamantly against the government, whereas Bernard seems to just deal with the life he has and complain in private. Winston is trusted by most of the people he comes in contact with, and Bernard is a bit off putting to some. Their most common characteristic, however, is their way of thinking. At all times, they are both forced to think one thing, but say another, this is due to the power structure in their world and the constant monitoring.

"Bernard swallowed four tablets of soma..." (92). While I was reading this book, the term soma kept showing up, and I had no clue what it was. I later found that it is an allusion to a hallucinogen mainly used in Persian cultures. I think that this is another way that the Government is using to control the people, but they also seem to take it willingly. This shows, in a way, that the people in this world realize that they are living in a corrupt world, so they "escape" it per say. But maybe people take it so often that they don't realize the corruption going on around them. I think both theories apply. For example, Lenina takes it so often that she is the "perfect" citizen. On the other hand, Bernard rarely takes it, and for that reason he seems to be against the world that he is living in.

"Ending is better than mending" (49). Now isn't that us today? In this world, people that when something is broken, just throw it away and buy something new. That seems a bit familiar to me. This isn't the only similarity that I've noticed between this world and ours (see other blogs). But it does seem to be the most predominant similarity. Honestly, when was the last time something was fixed instead of bought? I know that I'm not one to talk, considering the amount of times I upgrade my phone. It's just kind of sad how someone 60 plus years ago was able to write about this dystopia, and not even realize that he's practically predicting the future.

"I drink to the Greater Being" (81). I don't understand people's need for hierarchy. And not just this world, but even our world's need for it. In this world, it seems as though there is just a single higher power that everyone looks up to. But in our world, there's many. I can honestly not think of a single place in which there is not someone in a higher position than any other person. Religions, Government, Education, Work force, all of these have someone who is in charge of everything and everyone else, and it doesn't really make sense. For example: religions-all of them seem to portray this "we're all equal" standard, when in fact there is a very obvious hierarchy: followers to leaders of the religion to god (which ever one it is that the religion follows). It just seems a bit hypocritical.

"Every one belongs to every one else" (40). And so part one is complete. What I'm understanding thus far is that the world is an obvious dystopia. I think that the vast majority of people are brain washed, but I also think that Bernard is going to be the protagonist. I think that he may try and sway Lenina into his way of thinking, but will most likely fail. So I think he'll also be the anti-hero. In my experience with sci-fi novels is that they usually don't have much of a happy ending. I think that it will probably end the same way 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 did, but I honestly don't know. I also think that the D.H.C. is going to become certifiably insane, or he may already be. Overall, I don't have many predictions for the book.

"'And "parent"?' questioned the D.H.C." (23). This quote makes me thing about 1984 by George Orwell. In this book, people don't have parents either, and there are no families. What I don't understand yet about Huxley's version of the family is when it began, or ended is a better term. Were the boys who are walking with the D.H.C. conditioned in the same way the babies in the nursery are? Was the D.H.C. conditioned this way too? In 1984, Orwell makes in obvious that this form of government and lifestyle had been around for a while. Another similarity between the 1984 and Brave New World seems to be the omnipotent figure-Big Brother and Our Ford, respectively. What I am most curious about, however, is if the "brain-washing system" per say, in BNW is any better or advanced than 1984's version. Winston in 1984 obviously broke the system, then was broken himself, so I am curious to see who will be that person in this work, or even if there will be that sort of figure.

"Community, Identity, Stability" (3). This, to me, seem like the beginning of a very disturbed world. Those three words alone don't seem like much, but together have a sort of ominous tone to them. "Individuality" isn't mentioned, which shows what kind of dystopia this book will portray. But when it's thought about, there are still slogans like this in our world today. For instance, about 70 years ago, all of Germany had posters plastered everywhere saying "Work sets you free." Even today a common slogan in Iraq is "Kill and capture." These two sayings are still very well known today. Both these show that our world right now may not be all too different from Huxley's.