response to my papa's waltz (final)

The whiskey on your breath
Could make a small boy dizzy;
But I hung on like death:
Such waltzing was not easy.
We romped until the pans
Slid from the kitchen shelf;
My mother's countenance
Could not unfrown itself.
The hand that held my wrist
Was battered on one knuckle;
At every step you missed
My right ear scraped a buckle.
You beat time on my head
With a palm caked hard by dirt,
Then waltzed me off to bed
Still clinging to your shirt










I believe that this poem suggests that a boy is being abused by his father. Many people say that the boy is Not being beaten by his father, but rather just waltzing with him as the title suggests. But i disagree. I think that the boy purposefully chose to make his poem seem like it could be about an innocent and enjoyable dance with his father. Maybe he is ashamed or afraid of what people will think when he confesses that he is abused physically and perhaps even mentally by his father. Another possibility for why the boy would try to hide his message in the poem could be that he is threatened by his father. he is afraid of how his father will react to him confessing his father's wrongdoings. i think that the boys secret cry for help is showed in these small excerpts from the poem:


"The whiskey on your breath could make a small boy dizzy"


I think that this is evidence that the father isn't TIPSY (as I have heard other people say), because TIPSY is to be slightly intoxicated. and obviously, if his breath makes a small boy dizzy, then he is not slightly intoxicated, because if he was slightly intoxicated then you would be able to detect a hint of whiskey on his breath. but certainly not enough to make anyone dizzy.


"My mother's countenance could not unfrown itself."


I know that many people think that the fact that the mother isn't defending her child, is enough proof to say that the boy isn't being abused. But I disagree. Just because the mother isn't defending her child like a crazy person, doesn't mean that the boy isn't being hurt. I think that it means that the mother is just watching out for herself. I also think that doesn't make her a bad mother.It makes her a very good and smart mother. Also, it kind of emphasizes the level of dangerosity that the father can reach. I mean, how do we know that he doesn't beat her too? If she jumps in to directly save her child from being hurt, then she could be running straight into a trap. The father could get mad, and beat her instead of the boy, and if he injures her badly because he is drunk, then who is going to protect her child from him in the future? Who is to say that something terrible won't happen to her, and if it does, then she will be leaving her son alone to deal with a drunk father. And besides, if she isn't defending him like a crazy person, it could also indicate that the boy is being abused, but not so bad that the mother has to intervene 


"The hand that held my wrist"


There is one thing here that caught my attention and could also prove the fact that the boy is being beaten by his father and not waltzing with him. To waltz, is to dance this dance right? Well then, when you dance with a partner, you are supposed to hold hands. Not wrists. If something (in this case someone) is making you feel pain, and you don't want it to, then you are going to try to get away from the source of it.And for this child, the source is his father. The father may not realize that he is hurting his child because he is drunk. but he is still doing it. If the father doesn't want the boy to run away, then he will not hold his hand because the boy can easily wriggle his small fingers out from his father's grip, but if his father is holding his wrist, then it will be harder for him to escape.


I think that these small excerpts, and the explanations that follow show the message that the boy wants us as his readers to get. He is too shy to admit that his father beats him, so he has decided to make it into a poem that could be read in many different ways. Everyone is different so everyone sees everything in different ways. And I think that these lines support my way f seeing and analyzing this poem.

Snow (rhyme poem)

Snow
snow
why is it so cold?

snow
snow
can i play in the snow?

no
no
do as you're told

poem about an incident

throw them out
throw them all out
except that one
not that one
that one is mine
it can stay in my room
it wont come out
i promise
please?
i promise
i promise it wont come out

december reading challenge

The Lightning Thief

    When I first saw the movie, I was like; "Wow. This doesn't look the same as it did in my head." What the movie gave me that the book didn't were visuals. though I was a bit disappointed that they cut out some parts(like they do to most movies that were originally books), I felt like i enjoyed the movie more than the book. The reason for this, I think is that in the book, I had visualized strange images when they described the gods, Percy Jackson, his friend Grover, and Medusa. I was confused most of the time because I didn't know exactly how to visualize what Rick Riordan was talking about. this is how the movie affected my understanding of the book.

Persepolis   

    for this book, none of the visuals were affected. it was the characters. in the book, the grandma didn't play a big role. she was kind of just there, she was a meaningless character. But in the movie, the grandma was bigger, she was actually part of the Marjane's life. she talked with her, told her stories, was with her parents. she was more present. and her friends too. they were also kind of 'not there' in the movie. but in the book they were there a bit more.

To Kill a Mockingbird

    for this book, what was different was the level of understanding. if i just saw the movie, then i didn't really get the message. i got the story and what is was about, but something just wasn't clear. and since i notice that books over explain everything, (not that that's a bad thing) i got the story and everything. maybe the fact that the movie was black and white affected my understanding. i think it affected it because the book was way more interesting than the movie. so i wasn't interested in the movie as much as i was interested in the book.

observations, inferences

                             Marxism Will Give Health to the Sick - Frida Kahlo



Marxism Will Give Health to the Sick - Frida Kahlo- 1954



Observations:    i notice that there are many aspects of nature, for example she is standing on like rough ground it looks like there's a stream or maybe a river running through it. theres a white dove that seems to be flying away from the world. you can kind of see the sun all the way in the back, and i think it's the moon, or maybe it's just a mushroom. there are crutches that look like they are falling. she is holding a book, and since she let go of the crutches, there are these hands kind of sort of reaching out to grab her. and Karl Marx seems to be choking uncle sam.

Inferences:    the dove represents peace. and it seems to be flying away from earth. as if she is trying to say that the peace is leaving earth and is going far away. also showing uncle sam as a vulture may show that she doesn't like the u.s. the feels strongly enough about that that she also has Karl Marx choking him. maybe uncle sam is a sickness and Karl Marx is going to cure it by killing it

Iterpretations:     i know that she was very sick when she painted this so maybe she's hoping that  will cure her of her sickness by letting the crutches fall off of her and showing her being able to stand alone and being ok. but on the contrary, those could be god's hands ready to take her to heaven or whatever. in showing that her crutches fall off, it can show her pain going with them. she is leaving it all behind and peace (the dove) is going to come to her never leave her side again.