My response to Joyce and Jamila's Blog Posts

I read over Joyce's piece about the huger games, "Gale vs. Peeta" and thought that it was a very well structured and interesting thought provoking piece. What I liked most about the reading response was how she asked questions to her readers. This I thought was unique and something to follow after because it got the reader thinking about the writing in more depth and got them more focused because they could interact with her words. What I also liked about her writing was she doesn't write it in boring plain paragraphs, nor does she only share her opinions on certain parts of the book. What Joyce does is she in cooperates a sense of her voice and her emotions into her words so that the reader does not feel like it is reading a piece but maybe listening to her voice tell them about it. Another blog post that I read over and enjoyed was Jamila's response to Tupac’s song. What I liked a lot about this response was how she really got inside his mind ad explored his thoughts on this song even further, she took his original ideas to a new level. Another thing that I really enjoyed was how she took what she picked up from the song and used to create ideas about life ad connect it to the world.
I learned a lot from just reading their two responses and want to try some of the things that made their posts so good in mine. One thing that I want to try in my blog posts is trying to engage my readers more in my writing, like asking questions and sharing my feelings and emotions so that they are more interested in what I have to say. Another thing that I would like to try is to elaborate on my ideas further- I don’t want to end at just the end of the thought; I want to take it further to new levels. I’m very excited to use these new techniques, hope it helps my writing.

Romeo and Juliet, Act 3

This book has become much easier for me to understand- i can’t get every single word but now at least i am able to grasp the simple concept of each characters dialogue. And with my new understanding i have notice the following things about the book:

• Benvolio is the calm level headed character who always tries to fix everything. Ex: he tries to convince Mercutio to keep his peace with Tybalt Act 3 SC 1 51-54
• Secondly Mercutio is the opposite of Benvolio, he is easily angered, and ill tempered- which i have realized purely stems out of his pride as a Montague and his protection over his dear friend Romeo.

• Lastly Benvolio and Mercutio are a lot like the two characters that we met in the very beginning of the book, Sampson and Gregory. Sampson is hot tempered and eager to pick a fight with Tubal- while Gregory like Benvolio wishes more to keep peace. Wish interests me because in that scene Benvolio steps in to keep peace.

Because i understand these things i have been able to come to final and main conclusion that the story relies more on the secondary characters than the main characters themselves. Without the characters like the nurse and Benvolio and Mercutio, Tybalt, and Paris; this story would be nothing.

I believe this because we start to see their startling effect on the story line in the very beginning of it all. When Romeo is saddened over Rosaline’s rejection it is Benvolio who convinces Romeo to go and crash the Capulet’s ball where Rosaline would be- it is also he who tells Romeo that he must look for other beauties among the guests attending the party. If Romeo had not attended that party, he would have never seen Juliet and then have never made his first acquaintance her- therefore never falling in love. Also if he had never attended this party then Tybalt would have never spotted him and never been able to pick a fight with him which he would later attempt. Then it is Mercutio who starts a fight with Tybalt when Tybalt comes looking for Romeo- and is slain in the battle. If Mercutio had never begun that squabble then he would have never died by Tybalt's hand and Romeo would have never killed Tybalt in revenge. And so if Tybalt had never been killed then the prince would have never banished Romeo- And lord Capulet would have never made the hasty decision to marry away Juliet to Paris in 3 days. 

All these actions are because of the small events stirred by the secondary characters- without them i have realized Romeo and Juliet would be a story of no importance and probably never have become so famous. It is the troublesome love and irony of the story that made it so famous as a literary piece of art; but without those who surround Romeo and Juliet the story would be nothing but simple love- an everyday thing we see commonly in all books.

This popped out to me so much because it reminded me of how all the events in the real world actually work. Nothing happens without something setting off the chain of events first. It’s the smallest things that we don’t even realize happen that affect our lives so greatly- it’s even the most distant of people from us that cause our lives to change so drastically every day. Every breath, every movement, every life, changes us and the world around us. The story of Romeo and Juliet reminds me of the butterfly effect: A butterfly beats its wings in china, and stirs a tornado in the Caribbean.

Dear you,

Romeo and Juliet so far is a very interesting but hard to understand play. Because the language is different from what I am normally used to, and because I keep having to check the definitions on the left side of the page- paying attention and comprehending the story and what is going on becomes difficult and confusing! From what I can understand so far though is that there are two families: the Montague’s and the Capulet’s, The Montague’s are Romeos family and are very disliked by the Capulet’s. Bonvolio, a cousin to Romeo has seen him wandering about at night- while his father explains how he locks himself up in his room all day supposedly sleeping. In the story so far Juliet has not been introduced but Romeo has attended a party with Bonvolio to try to forget a girl that he loves that does not return his feelings, and this is where I am guessing she will come in. About the characters so far I understand that Romeo seems to me like a free soul that does not like to be confined by rules or status based on the way he sneaks out at night- and that Bonvolio is a calm level headed guy that likes to keep the peace based on the way that he tried to break up the fight between the servant Sampson and Abram. I also understand that Tybalt is a very angry hot headed Capulet who is quick to draw his sword and start a fight,  and Capulet and lord Montague believe one another is the foe. The prince seems to take no sides in these arguments and seems to only want to put an end to all this fighting.
If you want to take on this book then I strongly recommend re-reading the pages. Just by looking back at one sentence won’t help you to understand what they are saying, you must read the page again, scan the definitions on the left side and apply them to the text; basically my main advice is to take this very slowly and carefully because I have learned that it is easy to get lost in the old fashioned words that mean one thing when we think it means another. Also when a particular character has a very long speech, of course it is important to know what they are saying but as long as you grasp the basic idea and it makes sense with the other characters reply’s then there is no true need for you to spend an extended period of time trying to grasp the context of each and every sentence.
As you read this book I would like for you to help me seek some answers to some questions that I have. Why does Romeo escape in the late night? And why doesn’t this girl that Romeo is so infatuated with like him back? These answers could be right under my nose but there is so much going on is sure I skipped over them. When you read this book right back to me if you are able to find the answers.
Best of luck,
Sincerely Caroline Bozzuffi

Response to Another sonnet for stephan by Alvin lester sitomen

This sonnet I feel is from the perspective of a father to his son, as his son grows through life and as he leaves it. An observation I had while reading this sonnet, is that at the end of the poem Sitomen says that " The boy, the youth, the man are each now gone except in my heart they linger on." When something lingers it seems to me a faded but there presence of something, the remains of what had been there before- I think this shows how though Stephan is still alive within this man like anything else he has begun to fade a sense of moving on. I notice in this poem that this boy, this man, is described in a sense of perfection, see through admirer’s eyes- this person full of wealth of intelligence and yet not anything deeper than pure observations made from an outsiders view. My interpretation of this Sonnet is that it shows the void between Stephan and Sitomen, the unspoken and unbreakable wall keeping them apart.

I think this because in the sonnet the writer keeps repeating the line "I see", never are the words "he is", "there was", said in the sonnet. This shows the void between them because it’s the author explaining his observations what he could physically see and absorb from a distance- it doesn’t lead into Stephan’s thoughts, his take on life, why he turned out to be this way- it doesn’t even allude to who he was. These words only explain the character that Stephan portrayed to the outside world, to those that could look upon him in awe, to those that admired him from afar and all his success. If I were to say "I see a nice man walking by," it simply wouldn’t make sense, your eyes are the only part of you that can’t get to know a person a real level, that can’t tell them apart aside from looks from every other being on this earth. "I see" can only show you the cover of a book- not what is on the inside. Therefore this shows the distance between them how whoever admired Stephan so greatly could never know him on a personal level.

Another reason I believe that this poem shows the void between Stephan and the writer is because as I mentioned before this man and boy is described in a sense of perfection. He seems to be everything that people strive to be and yet I know for a fact that this cannot be who Stephan truly is because no one has can reach perfection. I think that because the writer is only seeing him from the outside he does not know the darkness that lingers within him, he does not know the bad secrets that hide beneath the surface, he cannot see all of Stephan’s regrets and mistakes. The way the author talks about him is as if Stephan is an untouched masterpiece unstained- it’s the way you could talk about someone’s art when you stand back and see all of its glory, without knowing the artist, without knowing the story behind its brilliant strokes.

To conclude I believe that another sonnet for Stephan is about the distance between the writer and this Stephan. I believe this to be true because of how amazing and unrealistically perfect this man is described as and how the author keeps repeating the very distant words, “I see". But maybe if the author wasn’t trying to convey the void in their relationship he could also be trying to convey the closeness of it. That no matter what dark secrets bad pasts, stained memories Stephan possessed, the author could look past that and only see the good in him only see his virtues. And maybe that’s why Stephan continues to

My Sonnet Untitled

In an unrelenting freedom darling one,

You speak to me on wings of gentle sleep

As I depart from you my soul is done;

My heart in chorus begins to simply weep.

And with you I am strong and safe, but no;

Boundless sorrow follows me without you

Alone, I am as fallen leaves in snow:

Withered, old and sad-left to crack then break.

And it is like I have known you always,

Destined love guided by wondrous fate.

No longer trapped by loneliness of days,

I see my soul was never lone, but half

Of you, a cosmic union of this one,

My heart now awake, my searching done.

A couple in Coney island:
A thin tendril holding me to time-
Slipping in slow seconds from my loose grasp.
I raised hand as steady as this moment
And froze time in a white flash.
The blue dripped from the ocean, the color falling from her dress.
And what remained?
The stagnant beauty of life,
The world as it should be
The people just being.

A poem:
A poem is a collection of waves all flowing out into one ocean
A poem is an unseen journey taken by many travelers.
A poem is a song of the heart lyrics spread across a page.
A poem is a friend to confide in to share your deepest worries with.

What happens to a broken life?
Do you try to repair t, pulling through the worn fabric?
Or do you pull the last stitch, letting cloh flutter away-stained with memories
Do you leave this fragmented world behind in your footsteps to be erased by the wind?
Is the release forceful as you pretend its something you wont miss?
Or do you give it distance like you give a kiss

A Couple in Coney Island by Walker Evans

Walker Evans first started out as an aspiring writer his father had a career in advertising, where he wrote ads to persuade people to buy something. Looking up to his father this is where his original dram started but it was in Paris he realized what he truly wanted to do- photographer. Walker Evans didn’t believe in fancy photography, staged moments and objects carefully arranged, or artsy hard to interpret images. He believed that life itself was beautiful and hard to understand as it is. He took photos of life that happened everyday, photos of moments we passed by usually, capturing the simplest things and showing their beauty. This is where this moment came from, “A couple at Coney island,” two people enjoying a personal moment of many that walker Evans captured in his lens. A simple title, a simple picture- of the most complicated thing of all, life that no one can even begins to understand.

In this picture there are two people, a man and a women on a day on the still famous Coney Island boardwalk. At first glance all I saw was a couple standing looking out into the water, but when I look closer I can see the true difference between this and an ad, the woman in particular I find the most interesting. The man in this photograph looks clean, fresh- his suit straight out of the store, his build perfect like a mannequin, his jacket artfully hung over his arm, but his partner is so different from the usual women in most photographs hung on the sturdy arm of a man. Their waists are small and cinched their stature petite and fragile their grasps on the man loose and feeble, hands feminine and slender draped on his shoulder. But this woman is tall almost surpassing the man, her arms are burly like that of a laborer, her waist wide as her loose dress simply hangs around it. If you look in general you can see similarities to her and the other women, but if you look closely you see how she grounds the picture and shows the real aspect of it.  The other thing I noticed most was the way thy held each other-tightly conveying the love that passed between them looking out on the water, the picture taken from behind hiding whatever they see.

I think the meaning behind this photograph was to truly show the beliefs of walker Evans in photography. This picture shows not only the simplicity of life but at this moment in time the simplicity of love. This photo shows a couple looking out over the railing but I think in a way it could symbolize them staring out into the future an unknown place we can’t look into. They look silent to me, still and quiet taking in everything that is happening and grasping onto each other as to perhaps keep a hold of reality, to feel something warm and real beneath their palm, not to get lost in fantasies. They could be sharing small conversation but they look to deep in thought their body language speaking for itself, and walker Evans saw this in the moment, he registered al this in a second in a bright flash, capturing nothing staged, nothing fake- just raw life.