Poetry Project

Final Visual of My Poem

Final Poem

They make tablets that clean water.

They build tent worlds for the multitudes of corpses.

Doctors come from all over the world,

China, the States, and Europe,

More supplies are shipped than Sysco to McDonald’s.

Little men come in rubber boats,

They bring solar panels and college students.

They think they are helping.

They are in a way,

Helping themselves.

Relieving their conscience,

Soaking up our pity,

Making up for their sins.

They give us iodine pills to shield us from iodine in the air.

All these things are done,

So why can’t they cut the plant at the roots?

Clot the arteries that pump blood to the heart,

Prohibit war like it was a level one drug,

The fight, the rape, the war.

Where is the organization that breaks up the skirmish before it escalates into a trillion dollar invasion?

Find me a modern day Gandhi,

That starves the Corporate Mongrels that spark wars over cell phones and diamonds.

Find me a modern day Martin Luther King,

With a dream of a global equality,

With dreams of abolishing the hollow crimes of war.

Find me a modern Cesar Chavez,

Who is Moses for working rights in every country,

From sweatshops to illegal immigrants.

Si, Se puede.

It can be done.

I want you,

To help me obtain oil,

Come join my war,

Fight with W and General Sam,

Make my day.

It takes one person to plant a tree,

Colossal statues are grown from something that is smaller than your finger nail,

With time, nutrients, medium, and a seed you too can grow a tree.

Unlike a tree, it does not take fifty years to grow an idea.

It takes one tree to pollinate the earth with oxygen.

It does not take a tree to pollinate the earth with change.

One tree can be a resource for countless beings.

With very little, you can be a source of aid to many targets of war.

If a single tree can do all of these things,

Imagine what you can do,

With technology, money, and ambition.

Imagine what you can do with tablets that clean water,

And worlds of tents for bodies and sick people,

With doctors from all over the world.$

Imagine what you can do with more supplies than there are trees in the forest,

And boats full of college students,

With iodine pills and solar panels.

Just imagine what you can do with the human factor.

Just imagine.

Artist Statement

About half way through our genocide project we watched a movie by the name of “Ghosts of Rwanda”. This was a very strong move about the genocide in Rwanda. In the movie there were interviews of many doctors and accounts of the terrible things that the people saw and did during the genocide. They also talked about the multitude of things that are done to clean up the carnage after the cause. This made me ponder, if so many things are done to help after the disaster, why can’t we take more initiative to stop the conflict before it escalates into genocide. This inspired me to write a poem about all of the things they can do to help people after the disaster, but why they cannot stop the disaster before it starts. I am inspired because I see all of the technologically advanced things they do to help and the extensive process organizations do to try to clean blood off of the streets, yet they cannot just make it top priority to step in and end the war in the planning stages. Now, I know that war is a very complicated thing that is driven by many things, but there are certain things that can be done to help prevent it. I feel like we need to take greater actions to stop war before it starts. Many wars could have been stopped in history if countries would have stepped instead of watching people kill each other through binoculars across the ocean.

When I was pondering what type of poem I wanted to write I read many poems from different poets to get some ideas. There was one poem that really stood out to me and inspired me a lot. Now, I had already read this poem earlier in life, but when I took a look back at it I really loved it. That poem was “I know why the caged bird sings” by Maya Angelou. I like this poem because it is a very powerful free-verse. I really like the language and the extended metaphor of the poem. Now, my poem is not an extended metaphor like this one, but I still got inspired by the Caged Bird. I think that Maya Angelou is so inspiring because she is such a powerful woman. All of her confidence and power is reflected in her poetry, and I think that is why all of her poetry has such a powerful message and it is really inspiring. Reading her poem made me want to make my poem very powerful and it pushed me to write the best poem I could.

In my poem I used primarily three devices. I used metaphors, similes, and repetition. I used similes and metaphors the most because I like to use creative and weird language. I like to use weird language because I feel like that is what makes poetry different than normal writing. I also like making the reader stop and think about what is written and actually appreciate the power of language. I used one extended metaphor in the end of the poem. I used a metaphor about how trees can be like ideas. I used this metaphor because I feel like it really helps drive home the message. The use of repetition gives the poem a nice rhythm and flow.

Project Reflection

The poetry goal of the poetry project in a whole was to learn about all aspects of poetry. From writing it to analyzing it, we spent a lot of time viewing different aspects of poetry. We started by reading it and analyzing the meaning. We studied all of the poetic devices and how they affect the meaning of the poem and the reader. There are many different devices and we learned about the very common ones and some of the unusual ones. I witnessed a lot of poems with metaphors and similes. We read many poems with meter and imagery, and we learned about how the devices add to the uniqueness of poetry. I realized that the presence of devices is really what separates poetry from normal writing. Poets strive to use language in a new way that is creative and original, and that is what I strived to do when I wrote my poem.

Writing our poems was a long, extraneous process. We went through many steps to get our final drafts. We started with sh***y first drafts and went through many revises and critiques, but after about three weeks we ended up with beautiful, polished poems. I learned a lot about writing poetry during this process. I used to think that poetry was easy to write. I thought that you just had to go down to a park and sit in the grass and perfect poetry flowed out, but I quickly learned that is not true. Writing poetry is like raising a cat, it sucks. It goes around your house and throws up on the carpet and pees on your pillow, but after a while it learns it’s way and you end up with something that is very cute and cuddly. I mean that poetry is very hard to write and for a long time you will hate your poem because some parts will sound very stupid, but after you work at is for a while things end up sounding good and it makes you proud to be the author of it.

After I was satisfied with my poem I had to decide how I was going to present it visually. I decided to do an art piece. I was inspired by a picture behind Lori’s desk. It is a poem called “Speak” by a former student of hers. I really liked how the lines of the poem were arranged in a way that flows back and forth across the page. I also liked the idea of putting pictures that represent the poem next to the poem. This gave me the basis for my poem. I obtained two canvases and I projected my poem onto them. I traced all of the lines in pencil and then traced them one more time with sharpie. I then took a few pictures that were symbols in my poem. I projected them onto the canvas and traced them. I then went over those in sharpie also. In my opinion, my visual turned out very well. It looks very professional, and I am very pleased with it.

I learned a lot about how poetry is written affects the audience. I learned a lot about how devices, tone, and presentation affect how the message of the poem is conveyed. One of the biggest effects on the reader is tone. The tone really sets how the poem is read. Depending on the tone a line with the same words could be seen many different ways. A line can be read as sarcastic or serious, and the tone is the device that tells the reader how to read the poem. When a poem is performed tone takes a big part of the performance. When you are reciting a poem the tone of the performer’s voice sets the mood of the poem. Fluctuation, pauses, and emphasis makes listening to a poem interesting. If a performer gets up and talks in a monotone voice and does not pause at the necessary time it makes the poem very boring to listen to, but if a performer gets up and actually acts a poem out it is very fun to watch. I also learned that imagery and use of poetic devices make good poetry. Good poetry is fun to read and makes you appreciate the use of language. Poetic devices make language interesting, and to write poetry you must have a good knowledge of devices and how to use them. When we analyzed many poems when we first started the unit we built up knowledge of different devices and good examples of them.

I learned about how to set a tone to convey my message. I learned about how certain words and how they are said can affect tone. I learned about how word visually look can affect tone; you can change font, size, and placement to show emphasis on a certain phrase or line. When we were writing our poems Lori said to weird out your language to make interesting poetry. She meant you must use imagery and metaphors to make poems interesting to read. Instead of just plain out saying something, it is much more interesting to find a way to phrase that makes the reader think about what the author is saying. I did this by using poetic devices, but metaphors and similes specifically. In all, I learned a lot about writing and performing poetry throughout the project.

Link to a video of my recitation

Seminar Reflections

Being Peace Seminar

             During the conversation a point was brought up about the third mindfulness training.  The training states, “Aware of the suffering brought about when we impose our views on others, we are committed not to force others, even our children.”(Thich Nhat Hanh)  By this he means that one should not force their beliefs or views on others even family and your children.  This can take many forms such as politics, religion, and morals.  I think it was Daniel who brought up the point that most children automatically take the views of their parents.  This point made me wonder do children just idolize their parents, or are the views forced onto them?  It made me think about my parents and me; because I do take to the same side with my parents on most things such as politics.  However I do not think that my parents ever told me to believe the things I do.  It seems to me that most views are brought about by environmental influences.  For instance, if you were raised in a household that had guns than you are most likely going to support the right to bear arms.  Most adolescent minds just need ideas to cling to because they are simply too young to decide things that important for themselves.  Also, most kids just do not have enough knowledge to make an educated decision on anything besides cartoons and juice, so it is just instinct to side with their parents.  I think that most parents do not impose views and beliefs on their children, but the children just side with the people that are the biggest part in their lives.

There is one question that I would like to further extend on and it is; how does this relate to your life if you are not Buddhist?  When I look at this question I like to interpret it as; how do these 14 mindfulness trainings relate to my life even though I am not Buddhist.  There are many ways that these training relate to my life and anyone’s life for that matter.  In all these trainings, with the exception of a few, would just make anyone a better person.  All of the trainings dwell on anger, communication, actions, compassion, and happiness.  For example, “I vow to develop my compassion in order to love and protect the life of people, animals, plants, and minerals.”  I can say that there are times that I practice this and I am good to the earth and my peers, but I am not compassionate to everyone all the time.  However, if I could manage to stay peaceful and compassionate all of the time then I would be a much better person.  If I could mediate problems without taking sides and resolve all conflict without raising my voice and using obscure language than I would feel a lot better about myself, and more people would come to me for help.  I would be able to live life with the bare essentials, such as food, water, and shelter.  I could walk around and solve conflict all over the country and teach people of my ways.  It would take many hours of practice and a lot of self-control, but I would love to live like this.  It would make me feel that I was contributing to humanity instead of just taking from it.

The truth is that I am human and sometimes I do snap and let someone have it.  I think that it is just too hard to express anger and disagreement in a peaceful way all of the time.  There are things that people do that quite frankly piss me off, and there are things that I do that piss people off.  For example, sometimes I have a mouth that does not like to close itself and sometimes I say things without thinking about what I am saying.  I do not think that anyone can go through life without expressing anger or not showing compassion to every person that wronged them, so overall these trainings are a good guideline to try to follow, but they are nothing that I am going to live my whole life by.  I must say that I am good at some of these trainings, but there are many areas that I could improve.  Such as, the fifth training, this is the one that states, “Aware that true happiness is rooted in peace, solidity, freedom, and compassion, and not in wealth or fame.”(Thich Nhat Hanh)  I do realize that peace, solidity, freedom, and compassion bring happiness, and I practice peace and I enjoy my freedom, but I do find joy in buying things.  I love receiving things that I want.  For example, when I get a new pair of skis I walk around on a cloud for a few days.  I could never live my life on the bare essentials.  I am to flashy and I find joy in showing off my money and possessions.  I know it is not the most moral way to live, but it is just the way I am and the way most people are even if they are afraid to admit it.

I made a few connections throughout the seminar, but there is one that I would like to talk about.  We talked about living simply without excesses of material possessions and other things you do not need.  This made me think about “Into the Wild.”  In this movie the main character leaves modern society to go live in the woods and support himself without money, technology, and Wal-Mart.  The character found his own food and shelter.  He lived off of what he needed and nothing more.  To me this is the definition of living simply, and I think that most Buddhists would agree.  However the man lived in solidarity, and Buddhists think that they need to travel and teach others the way of Buddha.  In all, this connection really helped me establish what living simply means.

Some questions I still have:

·         Do Buddhists think that killing animals that are harmful to everything is still wrong?  Also, do they think it is wrong to kill animals even if it is in self-defense?  To find the answer to this I could read more articles about the morals and ethics of Buddhism.

·         If everyone adopted Buddhists ways would there be world peace?  There is really no way to find the answer to this question unless everyone turned Buddhists.

·         If everyone was Buddhists in history would we have such great advances in technology?  To find the answer to this question I could pick out a great inventor or scientist that contributed greatly to technology and study their ways and religion.

Deogratias Seminar

The most interesting idea from the seminar to me was the idea that all of the tourists were bad in the story. The author portrayed all of the tourists or foreigners with bad characteristics that kind of made you hate them. I thought it was interesting because not all of the foreigners made the situation any worse, in terms of the genocide, but still the author made them look like idiots. A few of the characters were idiots, like the French General, but some of the foreigners were trying to help Deogratias and other people. Also, in real life I do not think that the foreigners made the situation worse than it already was, so I do not know why the foreigners were portrayed so negatively. Plus, the other is from Belgium so it look like all of the Belgians in Rwanda were bad guys. This view on the characters helped me better understand the book because it made me realize that the genocide was partially Belgium's fault. It was Belgium's fault because they segregated the Hutus and Tutsis and created tension between the groups. So, I guess the author wanted to show his view that the genocide was not just the Hutus fault. Everyone contributed something to the causing of the genocide.

I think my groups seminar went pretty good. It went good because a lot of people through some valid points out on the table. For example, when we decided that Deogratias thinks of himself as a dog because dogs are scum in Rwanda, and Deogratias thinks of himself as scum. The seminar helped me understand the book a lot better. We clarified a lot of confusing parts in the book, and we analyzed the key points in the book. The seminar helped me understand why some people died and which side some people are on. It also helped me realize why Deogratias poisoned so many people, and why he blamed the people he poisoned for the genocide. The book was very confusing to me and talking to my peers and analyzing some details really helped me understand the book more. 

Jihad Vs. McWorld Seminar

As we were doing the seminar the question would you rather live with peace and stability or community and identity? When I think about this question and I think about peace and stability that seems to come in place of community and identity. In the context of the question you cannot have both sides of the spectrum coexisting with one another, so I think that I would rather live with community and identity. Now, I like the advancements in technology and globalization, but if these things take away who we are than I would rather live without them. As I think of this question the peace and stability starts to seem a lot like the world in The Giver. This world is made up of the same people doing the same things being controlled by one major government. I have read this book and I hated the lives that the people had to lead. They had no control in what they wanted to do or even wear. The thought of this world starts to scare me, and the thought of no diversity besides how people look just does not sound like an exciting place to live. If every single person thought for themselves and ultimately did what they want then the world would be a lot more interesting. Sure we would not have major advancement in technology or Facebook, but people lived like that for thousands of years so why can't we do it now. Identity is what makes every person unique and different. Community is what holds the bonds of people that can coexist with each other, and that is the kind of things that are most important to me.

Slaughterhouse Five Seminar 

Reaction: A comment that I found interesting was Treven’s comment when we were talking about Billy’s passiveness in the war.  Treven’s comment was, “The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.”  I thought it was quite a hilarious combination of phrases, but then I thought about it for a minute and it really made sense to what we were discussing.  In terms of soldiers the early bird is the well trained, fit soldier.  The second mouse is Billy, the passive, doesn’t really care soldier.  In the beginning of the book all of the early birds were doing well in battle and staying alive, but once Billy slowed them down too much the soldiers left Billy with Roland.  Then the soldiers that left Billy and Roland, the first mouse, walked right into a mouse trap and were killed.  Then Billy came up, the second mouse, and took the cheese.  Now, Billy did not actually take cheese of course, but he was one of the few that survived the war. 

Changes in thinking: This seminar changed my thinking about Billy getting abducted by aliens.  The controversy was if Billy actually did get abducted or not, but after a long chat about the subject I don’t think he did get abducted.  We pondered the idea that the abduction could have just been a figment of Billy’s imagination.  Often times in war and traumatic events people suppress certain memories that are bad or they just do not like to think about.  We concluded that Billy just used the Tralfamadorians to cover up something that really bugged him in the war.  The event could have been a friend dieing or the destruction and chaos of Dresden.  Billy could have filled these memories or something of the sort with sort of a happy, fresh memory such as aliens.

Connections: During the seminar and just the general reading of the book I connected a lot of the terror and destruction of war in the book to another book I have read about the holocaust called Night by Elie Wiesel.  In Night a young boy a separated from his Jewish family in the holocaust.  The boy is shipped to a conservation camp and goes through all hell.  Slaughterhouse Five reminded me of this book because Billy is captured by Nazis and forced to live in a war prison similar to a concentration camp.  In Night the boy sees many traumatic things similar to the things Billy sees, but in the end of the war both characters get out alive.

Self Evaluation: During the seminar I feel like I did well with communicating my points and ideas.  I feel like I explained myself well and I had evidence to support my claims.  For example, when I said I believed in free will I backed it up by saying why.  I said that anyone person can control what they do as long as it can not be afflicted by another persons actions.  A person can change their own actions, but not other people’s actions.  I feel like I need to improve on bringing new ideas into the conversation.  I did agree or disagree with people when they brought new ideas, but I never came up with my own to discuss with the group.  During the next seminar I could try harder to think of more ideas and not just go along with what other people say.

Omelas Seminar

            There were many things that were said during the seminar, but the thing that made me think the most was what Kinjah said at the end of the discussion.  We were talking about changing the suffering of the child and putting yourself in his place.  We figured that if anyone in Omelas wanted to really make a difference they could trade spots with the child and let themselves take the suffering.  Kinjah pointed out that if you knew that thousands of people were happy because you are suffering then it would bring you selfless happiness.  In a way you would find happiness and joy by suffering.  This was a very deep thought.  It made me thing about how one person could take the suffering away from thousands of people and bring them happiness just by the suffering of himself.  It would take a very selfless person to do this because said person would be in constant pain and sadness, but it would be worth it because said person would know that he is making such a big difference in so many other people’s life.  It made me wonder if there are any people in the real world that would do this.  I know that real life does not work like this because the happiness of the majority does not hinge on the suffering of a person, but it makes me think that if life were like this would there be people that would be willing to do it.  It made me think about myself.  I know that I would not be able to go through what the child does, especially if it was by choice.  I am not that selfless, but I think that most people would not take the place of the kid if it was their choice.  In all, the statement was very deep and it made me think about the closet boy in terms of real life.

The city of Omelas has many different components that make up the city; there is the little child in the closet, the happy townspeople, and the flute boy.  All of these components rely on each other to have significance.  For example, the happiness of the townspeople and the sweet tune of the flute boy hinge on the suffering of the closet child.  The author states, “They all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendship, the health of the children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest, and the kindly weathers of their skies, depends wholly on this child’s abominable misery.” (Page 4, Ursula K. LeGuin)  Of course this raises a few questions.  Why does their overall well-being depend on the suffering of the child?  Did the child do something to get locked in the closet? How was he chosen to be the one to suffer?  I have little answers to these questions, but it does make me wonder if the author is writing a metaphor of our society.  I do think that the whole story, the townspeople, and the child are all a metaphor for today’s society.  The metaphor seems to be based on a worldly level.  I think that the certain countries are a certain component in the story.  I think that wealthier countries such as, the United States are the townspeople and poor, third-world countries are the child in the closet.  It makes sense because people that live in wealthy countries generally live pretty good lives.  They have enough food, shelter, and money.  Therefore most people live happy lives, but in third-world countries most people do not have enough food, shelter, and money.  Most people live in constant struggle and anxiety, and therefore they do not live very happy lives. 

The only problem I have with this metaphor is the fact that the happiness of the town hinges on the suffering of the child.  In real life the suffering of third-world does not define the happiness of wealthy countries.  I can say that the suffering of poverty stricken countries does not make me happy.  It actually makes me quite sad.  Truthfully the suffering in other countries does not affect most people in other countries, so the metaphor makes sense but I do not understand why the author uses the two different components but I do not understand why she makes the happiness of one component hinge on the suffering of the other.  There is one reason why I think she uses this device; I think that she made the components rely on each other because she is symbolizing the connection between the material items that are in wealthy countries that were shipped from sweat shops in poor countries.  Some people mistake material items for happiness, and a lot of mass produced products were made in terrible sweatshops that put people through suffering.  In this way I guess the suffering of people makes people happy, but the only thing is that material items do not bring true happiness although many people mistake it for happiness.  In all, the two components of the happy towns-people and the suffering of the child do make sense when applied to humanity, but the connection between their happiness and suffering does not make too much sense to me.

While I read this story I made a few connections, but there is one that I would like to reflect on.  This connection is between the people that leave Omelas and Buddhist monks.  The people that leave Omelas decide that they do not want to play into the suffering of the child; they know that they can do nothing about it but they figure it is better to not personally contribute to it.  In the real world this reminds me of Buddhist monks because they choose to mentally and sometimes physically remove themselves from society and the influence of technology.  The monks decide to not buy into the technology and media instead they focus and health and morals.  This connects to the people that leave because just like monks decide not buy into new-world influences the people do not want to hold the guilt of the suffering of the child.  Both of them remove themselves from the society that they once belonged to, and this makes them seem similar in my mind.

Some questions I still have are:

1.      How was the child chosen to be the one to suffer?

2.      What does the other think the relationship between the towns-people and the child translate into in the metaphor of society?

3.       Where do the people that leave go and do they know where they are going?

 I think that the people that leave do not know where they are going.  I think they just go and let fate guide them, and they trust that they will reach a better land.  I think that the people that leave go to heaven.  The reason I think this is because the author explains this in the last paragraph, “The place they go towards is even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness.” (LeGuin)  To me the only place more inconceivable than the city of happiness is heaven.  It is the only place that is not proven to exist, and anyone who has gone has never come back to describe it.  The people that leave is sort of like the people that die; dead people might go somewhere like heaven or they could just turn off and go blank.  This is like the people because no one knows if they die or reach somewhere else.

Geopoliticus Child Prose

                Screams and grunts could be heard coming from the egg from miles away.  The man inside twisted and wrenched his body as he tried to break free from the hard-shelled cocoon.  The man finally managed to break an arm free.  The tension in the air was so thick you could have cut it with a knife.  Everyone waited anxiously to see the outcome of the hatching.

                “Do you think it’s a man, Mommy?” the small child asked his mom.
                “I know it’s a man,” the mom hastily replied, “The Hatching has never not been a man.” 

                “Do you think this Ruler will do good things for the Land of Power?”

                “It is hard to say, the last one was so bad it is hard to have faith in a Ruler,” the mother solemnly replied, “Even if he was good it would be hard to pull the Land out of such a deep despair that Diviticous enslaved us into.”                                                                                                                                     

                The hatching took place once every ten years.  Every ten years a new man was hatched specifically to take the place of the Ruler of Earth.  The job was such a great responsibility and it caused so much stress that it was impossible for a Ruler to live a day longer than ten years.  You see the last Ruler, Diviticous, was a horrible dictator comparable to Hitler.  He had compassion for no one and he did not care about the health of anyone including the Land.  He enslaved all of the Land and killed all of the people that could not sufficiently work.  All of the once abundant animals and plants died or went into hiding.  For thousands of years the people and the animals coexisted peacefully, but about a year after Diviticous was empowered he put out a hunt to kill all of the animals.  They all ran into the mountains of Prayer and never came back.  All of the people wanted Diviticous out of the thrown, but when the gods decided to elect a leader every ten years they decided to make the person lead for ten years with no exceptions.

                “Look Mommy, he’s got almost half of his body out, he should be out within minutes.”

                As the man got closer to emerging more and more people gathered around the egg to see who was emerging.  All of the townspeople were full of optimism and excitement.  Finally, with one final push the man ruptured through the egg like a wrecking ball.  He landed on the sand and rolled.  He stood up and brushed himself off.  A dead silence hung in the air.  It was so quite it seemed like even the waves in the ocean stopped breaking.  The man was broad-chested and looked very healthy, unlike the rest of the Land, he carried a certain glow that intoxicated everyone in sight.  He looked like a lion towering over his helpless cubs.  The man subconsciously new what his purpose of the new Ruler of the Land was.  He scanned the see of people and in a deep voice he yelled, “A new card is at hand.  Change is upon us.  The time of great sorrow will no longer linger through our great land.”

                One of the men standing in the crowd asked, “What is your name sir?”

                He replied, “My name is Speratus.”

                The crowd started chanting and cheering.  Even the gods could hear the screams from the clouds.  The noise echoed from the mountains of Prayer all the way to the see of Abundance.  It was said to be the first bit of hope and joy anyone had had in nine years.  Some people said they could even here the animals cheering in the mountains.  The essence of despair was lifted from the Land.  A feeling of optimism was experienced by everything in the Land.

Dulce et Decorum Est Seminar Reflection

        Towards the end of the seminar Seth said something along the lines of poems are a better way of telling a story than war books are.  Now, I partly agree and disagree with this statement.  I agree that it is a good way to interestingly describe a battle or a short excerpt of a battle, but it does not do a justice for the whole war.  Sure, poems are a good way to use descriptive language and tell the short story of a small part of the war; like Dulce et Decorum Est does, but to really tell a story you must include all parts of the plot.  You need what happened to prompt the war, all of the things that happened during the war, and you need the aftermath or the conclusion.  This is where full war novels do the best.  They include all of the different parts of the story, and therefore I think that they are a better way to tell a war story.

        I have learned a few things about interpreting poetry from the coaching and other parts of the process.  The first, and in my mind the most important thing was, picking out the hardest lines or ones I did not understand and making sense of them word for word.  The line I chose for our assignment was, “And watch his white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin.”  I went through this line and looked up words I did not know and researched the devil's sick of sin and its meaning.  This helped me not only understand the line, but it helped me understand some of the language that the author used.  Another thing I learned from this poem is, I really like poetry.  Not only do I like the way authors use language in such creative ways like, “Flound'ring like a man in fire or lime;” but I also like how poetry is open to one's own interpretation.  Most poems are written with a pretty open message and I like being able to see poems I like.  I like to be able to create my own thesis about what the poem means.

        Is it ever sweet and right to die for your country?  This is a hard question to answer, but I have developed an opinion on for this question and here it is.  I think this is completely dependent on why your country is fighting.  It really depends why your country is at war in the first place.  If your country is being invaded by Nazi Germany and you have no choice but to fight or lose your sweet freedom, than I think it is completely sweet and right to die for your country.  On a personal scale it might seem like it is better to become Germany's slave than to die, but you must think of the thousands of people that will suffer because of it.  If you can help stop the conflict by fighting than I think it should be done.  However, if your country is invading a country based on complete personal gain (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq) than it is quite sour to die for your country.  When one country goes into another and causes nothing but problems and chaos than I think that war should be ended.  In all, fighting for your country can be sweet as long as you are fighting for the right reasons.

Roots of War Seminar

Absent