Poetry Analysis: Margaret Atwood's "This is a Photograph of Me"

The title of Margaret Atwood's "This is a Photograph of Me" is quite suggestive. The title may give rise to several interpretations. The poetess may want our attention drawn to the photograph. The fact that she claims that it is her in the photograph, verges on the fact that she looks very different in reality. However, the most plausible interpretation would be that- the general perception or outlook about her was quite different; this was her real self in the photograph. She first goes on to describe the photo in terms of time, it was not a recent photograph but taken some time ago. It appears to be smeared (out of deconstruction).There appeared to be blurred lines as though she was graphically analyzed. The blurred lines and grey flecks (aspersions) seem to be blended with the paper itself. They have now become intricately linked with her personality. The poetess is therefore depicted in the first stanza by means of logical analysis, and in terms of the material. Woman has always been intellectually disregarded; she rather remains as a material commodity for commercialization. The advertisements of today pose as the best instances.

We stumble upon the truth as the poetess declares in the next line:

The photograph was taken

the day after I drowned.

Note that as the poetess starts talking about herself she encloses those lines within parentheses. Parentheses are used when a text contains material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence. Parentheses may be used in formal writing to add supplementary information. They can also indicate shorthand for "either singular or plural" for nouns - e.g., "the claim(s)"- or for "either masculine or feminine" in some languages with grammatical gender. (Wikpedia).

Therefore, when the poetess talks of herself, she implies the stance of Women in general. Her part in this description of the photograph could be conveniently omitted without marring the perfection of the whole. She functions only as a supplement to this picture of society. Nature(the branch) and man-made objects(the slope of the house ) gain predominance over her. Her gender is not specified, as it is taken for granted.

I am in the lake, in the center

of the picture, just under the surface.

The poetess asserts that people have to look below the surface to locate her, they should not limit themselves to a superficial view of things. The poetess goes on to say it very difficult to locate her, or estimate her size. The woman's identity is uncertain, in place and position. She goes on to state that the effect of water on light is a distortion. Here the Light becomes a metaphor for the woman who gives light to others through her service. Water is emblematic of the Patriarchal Society that if it wants can act as a life-giving force.

Light interacts with the water molecules and suspended particles to cause loss of light, colour changes, diffusion, loss of contrast and other effects. A photo taken under water at one metre distance is not unlike a telephoto above water at 800 metres distance, both looking bluish while lacking contrast. (http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/water.htm)

A man is actually supposed to make a woman complete. Nevertheless, far from completing her, her perfection is marred by his attitude, treatment and outlook

Time to eat the dog- The Digital Cuttlefish -

Both the BBC and the Guardian (UK) report on the provocatively-titled "Time to eat the dog?", which takes an interesting new approach to analyzing our environmental impact.

Instead of measuring emissions of CO2, or CO2 equivalent, they calculate the literal footprint or "global hectare" (gha) - the amount of land it takes to support a given activity.
So they work out that constructing and driving the Land Cruiser for a year takes 0.41 gha.

Growing and manufacturing the 164kg of meat and 95kg of cereals a border collie or cocker spaniel eats every year takes about 0.84 gha.

A bigger dog such as a German shepherd consumes even more - its pawprint is more like 1.1 gha.

By their reckoning, that is more than the environmental footprint of the average Indian person, who uses just 0.8 gha of resources.

If you are a multiple dog owner you are in even more trouble. Two big dogs have a bigger carbon footprint than some British citizens.

According to the book the average resident of Cardiff requires just 1.89 gha.

The average American, by contrast, requires a whopping 9.5 gha.

Taking a closer look at that 0.84 gha figure for a border collie, New Scientist points out (in an editorial titled "Cute, fluffy, and horribly greedy"):

If that's troubling, there is an even more shocking comparison. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?

As I have known for some time now, I am clearly part of the problem. We all are, in a global Tragedy of the Commons.

We need to become part of the solution. If using Fido or Fluffy gets people's attention, then the authors' unusual approach has done its job. Judging from the comments on various news articles, though, there is a significant population who won't quite get the point of the book.

Oh... for those who think the "Time to eat the dog?" people go too far, you might not want to click here.

UPDATE: Ah, it seems it was too bad to be true, or at least too bad to be accurate. Take a look here for a nice skeptical look at the analysis. (In a nutshell, the researchers underestimated the impact of SUVs, and overestimated the impact of dogs; the majority of pet food comes from "byproducts" of the production of food for humans, and cannot be meaningfully seen as competing for the same scarce resources. On the other hand, the Guardian article did focus on a trend of gourmet dog food, which does use the same cuts of meat that people eat. It is, admittedly, a small part of the market.)
Source:
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.in/2009/11/time-to-eat-dog.html

Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants -Marc Prensky

In the essay Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Marc Prensky uses the term Digital Native to refer to (young) people who are ““native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet.” Prensky confesses that Digital Native is “the most useful designation” for the “new” students of today. He sets Digital Natives against Digital Immigrants—that is those “who were not born into the digital world,” but who have become “fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology.” He further embellishes this analogy by arguing that Digital Immigrants “always retain, to some degree, their “accent,” that is, their foot in the past.” Prensky presents his argument in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

“Digital Immigrants can, and should,” according to Prensky, “laugh at [ourselves] and [our] “accent.”” In proper dramatic fashion he asserts that “the single biggest problem facing education today is that [our] Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.” [Prensky’s bold italics]

Though Prensky’s analogy is attractive, albeit superficially, and works to highlight in a hyperbolic, comedic form intergenerational clashes, I found his analogy inherently problematic. Conceptually, Prensky’s analogy fuses the political with the digital in a way that invites us to think about highly politicized issues like, belonging, and ownership of space, border crossing, and the temporalization of difference (modern versus backward) in a way that diminishes their political weight.

Moreover, through a “temporalization of digital space” Prensky regards the difference in the ways Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants engage with technology as a temporal gap. Digital Immigrants are essentially framed as anachronisms—as people who belonged to an earlier time. He even implies that the difference between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants is much more structural. He contemplates that “it is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed – and are different from ours – as a result of how they grew up.” Be that as it may, I find the biologization of difference troubling—especially since his analogy has an undeniable racial undercurrent.

What’s more, his description of Digital Immigrants as “a population of heavily accented, unintelligible foreigners,” along with his call to “laugh at [ourselves] and [our] accent,” is offensive for all of us who have faced difficulties in life due to our “accents.” Those of us whose “foreign accents” have been mocked will find it difficult to crack a smile.

This analogy invites us to conceptualize the digital divide in diasporic terms, and the rigid juxtaposition of Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants forecloses “digital hybrid identities,” meaning users who grew up using both “old technology” and “new technology.” Prensky obscures the dynamic and fluid and highly contextual nature of accents. We all have accents, and there’s no standard way of “speaking new technology.”

Also, Prensky’s description of “accented modes of behaviour,” for example “bringing people physically into your office to see an interesting web site (rather than just sending them the URL),” creates, whether intended or not, geographies of technology—“digital space,” where natives feel at home, and IRL, where immigrants feel more comfortable. Specific bodily performances invariably betray one’s “Digital Immigrant status.” Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants are, thus, not only distinguished in terms of specialization, but also spatialization.

Needless to say, I found this text iffy, if not objectionable. I must admit that I am disappointed with the quality of the texts. Up till now, I’ve generally used the listed texts as “spark plugs,” that is as means to get me think about e-learning and digital cultures in a broad sense. I’ve not mined them for “things to learn.” That is not to say I haven’t learned anything from them, it’s just that I have learned more from the “off-syllabus” reading I’ve done.

Rime of the ancient Mariner Plot summary (Wikipedia) + Iron Maiden video

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner relates the experiences of a sailor who has returned from a long sea voyage. The Mariner stops a man who is on the way to a wedding ceremony and begins to narrate a story. The Wedding-Guest's reaction turns from bemusement to impatience to fear to fascination as the Mariner's story progresses, as can be seen in the language style: Coleridge uses narrative techniques such as personification and repetition to create a sense of danger, the supernatural, or serenity, depending on the mood in different parts of the poem.

The Mariner's tale begins with his ship departing on its journey. Despite initial good fortune, the ship is driven south by a storm and eventually reaches Antarctica. An albatross appears and leads them out of the Antarctic, but even as the albatross is praised by the ship's crew, the Mariner shoots the bird ("with my cross-bow / I shot the albatross"). The crew is angry with the Mariner, believing the albatross brought the south wind that led them out of the Antarctic. However, the sailors change their minds when the weather becomes warmer and the mist disappears ("'Twas right, said they, such birds to slay / that bring the fog and mist"). However, they made a grave mistake in supporting this crime, as it arouses the wrath of spirits who then pursue the ship "from the land of mist and snow"; the south wind that had initially led them from the land of ice now sends the ship into uncharted waters, where it is becalmed.

Day after day, day after day,

We stuck, nor breath nor motion;

As idle as a painted ship

Upon a painted ocean.

Water, water, every where,

And all the boards did shrink;

Water, water, every where,

Nor any drop to drink.

Engraving by Gustave Doré for an 1876 edition of the poem. "The Albatross," depicts 17 sailors on the deck of a wooden ship facing an albatross. Icicles hang from the rigging.

The sailors change their minds again and blame the Mariner for the torment of their thirst. In anger, the crew forces the Mariner to wear the dead albatross about his neck, perhaps to illustrate the burden he must suffer from killing it, or perhaps as a sign of regret ("Ah! Well a-day! What evil looks / Had I from old and young! / Instead of the cross, the albatross / About my neck was hung"). Eventually, the ship encounters a ghostly vessel. On board are Death (a skeleton) and the "Night-mare Life-in-Death" (a deathly-pale woman), who are playing dice for the souls of the crew. With a roll of the dice, Death wins the lives of the crew members and Life-in-Death the life of the Mariner, a prize she considers more valuable. Her name is a clue to the Mariner's fate: he will endure a fate worse than death as punishment for his killing of the albatross.

One by one, all of the crew members die, but the Mariner lives on, seeing for seven days and nights the curse in the eyes of the crew's corpses, whose last expressions remain upon their faces. Eventually, this stage of the Mariner's curse is lifted after he appreciates the sea creatures swimming in the water. Despite his cursing them as "slimy things" earlier in the poem ("Yea, slimy things did crawl with legs / upon the slimy sea"), he suddenly sees their true beauty and blesses them ("a spring of love gush'd from my heart and I bless'd them unaware"); suddenly, as he manages to pray, the albatross falls from his neck and his guilt is partially expiated. The bodies of the crew, possessed by good spirits, rise again and steer the ship back home, where it sinks in a whirlpool, leaving only the Mariner behind. A hermit on the mainland had seen the approaching ship and had come to meet it with a pilot and the pilot's boy in a boat. When they pull him from the water, they think he is dead, but when he opens his mouth, the pilot has a fit. The hermit prays, and the Mariner picks up the oars to row. The pilot's boy goes crazy and laughs, thinking the Mariner is the devil, and says, "The Devil knows how to row." As penance for shooting the albatross, the Mariner, driven by guilt, is forced to wander the earth, tell his story, and teach a lesson to those he meets:

He prayeth best, who loveth best

All things both great and small;

For the dear God who loveth us,

He made and loveth all.

After relating the story, the Mariner leaves, and the Wedding Guest returns home, and wakes the next morning "a sadder and a wiser man"

Watch the below video when you are taking a break :P

Iron Maiden - Rime of the Ancient Mariner

Just Lather, That’s All- Summary

The short story Just Lather, That’s All, written by Hernando Tellez, is set in a barbershop in a small Colombian town. Captain Torres walks in the barbershop for a shave. The barber began to tremble when he recognized Captain Torres, and secretly Captain Torres is his enemy. The barber doesn’t like Captain because he was against the rebels and he also killed many rebels with pleasure. The barber hates him because of what he did with the rebels since the barber is a rebel himself. The barber struggles with his inner conflict. He is really confused and scared about what he should do and what not. He also thinks about the consequences he will get if he kills the Captain or whether he will become a town hero. As he is shaving the Captain he struggles within himself to decide whether to kill Captain Torres or not. The barber is frustrated with his hatred for the Captain and his values for human life. After all that thought he decides not to kill Caption Torres. He believes he is a professional barber and is here to give him a shave. Once Captain Torres is done shaving he tells the barber “They told me that you’d kill me. I came to find out. But killing isn’t easy. You can take my word for it.” This quote clearly explains that even the Captain finds killing people a hard task and that not all rebels are enemies. The main message of the story is that everyone has their own place in the scheme of things.The definition of a coward is one to show fear, the barber shows he is a coward by being afraid, seconding guessing himself, and showing weakness. When the captain walks into the barber shop he begins to quiver on the spot, therefore showing how fearful his is of the captain. For example “When I recognized him I started to tremble.” The barber without a doubt is showing terror. When you’re brave and courageous you never doubt yourself and stick to your guns, however the barber does not. In other words, when you plan on doing something you should never back down. On the other hand the barber does back down. For instance, “But what would I do with the body? Where would I hide it? I would have to flee…” Here he begins to think about what would happen if he did kill the captain and therefore leading him to not kill. In addition, the barber says “No one deserves to have someone else make the sacrifice of becoming a murderer.” In other words he is trying to say he doesn’t deserve to be the one to kill him and be called a murderer. Finally, the barber gives off vulnerability by thinking of reducing the amount of pain and suffering to the captain. For example, the barber thinks to himself “I'm sure that one solid stroke, one deep incision, would prevent any pain. He wouldn't suffer.” Caring for the enemy and trying to minimize the amount of pain they will have is true acts of a coward. In conclusion being fearful, doubting oneself, and giving off weakness is a sure fire sign of a coward.