#eng100

[socialmediaconformity]

Pantic, Igor. “Online Social Networking and Mental Health.” Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Publishers, 1 Oct. 2014, www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/cyber.2014.0070.

Smith, Aaron, and Monica Anderson. “Social Media Use 2018: Demographics and Statistics.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, 17 Apr. 2019, www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/.

Fox, Maggie. “Major Depression on the Rise among Everyone, New Data Shows.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 11 May 2018, www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/major-depression-rise-among-everyone-new-data-shows-n873146.

“Major Depression.” National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Feb. 2019, www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml. 

[theadleehairanacal]

#mockinterview #eng100

[theadleehairanacal]

#eng100

[lattesandmermaids-blog]

I drink way too much diet soda and ginger ale when working on papers omg

[klseng101-blog]

W. Scott Howard's "Roses No Such Roses" - A Review of Jen Bervin's Nets

For the most part, I have found myself agreeing with the key points of W. Scott Howard’s review of Nets by Jen Bervin.  Bervin created this book of son(nets) as a way of paying tribute to Shakespeare.  When reading both Bervin and Shakespeare’s texts, it is clear that Bervin had meant for her words to connect with the Bard’s. Bervin uses Nets as a way to personally respond to Shakespeare.  In a way, even though one of them has long past, it seems as if the two poets are having a personal conversation.  Not only that, it is a conversation that only Bervin and the Bard could ever have.  After all, Howard has pointed out that there have been many people out there who have also altered Shakespeare’s sonnets.  However, all of these alterations are different because each person who is making the alterations is different. There are people like Bronk who’s “...work formally reveres yet thematically resists those same elements [of the sonnets],” (Howard).  But when it comes to Bervin’s alterations of the sonnets, readers can tell that she does not wish contour Shakespeare.  Instead, she wants to further emphasized the principles of his sonnets by capturing their over all essence in just a few highlighted words. With all of this being said, Howard points out many instances how Nets is an example of how content and form have an intertwining relationship.  If Bervin’s prose poems (as Howard calls them) were separated from Shakespeare’s sonnets, the meaning behind them would be completely gone.  Also, the fact that Shakespeare’s words are gray and in the background while Bervin’s are bold in the foreground make a huge difference to the content of the book.  The word formatting symbolizes how Bervin’s current and modern words come from the traditional sonnets of Shakespeare. And, finally, the pocket-sized flip-like book displays just how personal and intimate this book is for Bervin.  To conclude, I found Howard's review quite intriguing to read. And, quite honestly, the review also allowed me to see Bervin's Nets in a different light.

[klseng101-blog]

Jen Bervin and Shakespeare's Sonnet 22

Shakespeare’s Sonnet 22 consists of a speaker addressing their beloved on the topic of love, age, and death.  The speaker explains how the two had exchanged their hearts to one another. Because of this exchange, the speaker also declares the both of them are as one.  This means that they are the same age. The speaker will know “..when in thee time’s furrows I behold/Then look I death my days should expiate,” (3-4).  Thus, the speaker claims that when the beloved dies, he will also die along with him/her and vice versa.  It is true that throughout the three quatrains, Shakespeare’s sonnet does portray the undying love which the speaker’s holds for the beloved.  However, once we reach the ending couplet, it appears that the speaker’s love is not as innocent as the reader might have previously thought. While the speaker does adore the beloved, his love should be classified as an obsession.  In the couplet of Sonnet 22, the speaker reveals that he will keep his beloved’s heart forever.  The speaker explains to the beloved that “...thou gav’st me thine, not to give back again,” (14).  So, if the beloved brakes the speaker’s heart in his/her possession, then the beloved should not expect that the speaker will just his/her heart back.  Ultimately, this means that the speaker will never stop loving the beloved even if the beloved stops loving him in return.  Also, it is pretty clear that this just isn’t an declaration of love to the extreme; both the tone and word choice of the couplet makes it obvious that this statement should almost be seen as a threat.  The ending couplet proves that an seemingly loving relationship could be quite unhealthy. Within this sonnet, Jen Bervin had highlighted certain words to create her own mini poem from Shakespeare’s Sonnet 22: “I am of one date in time’s furrows.”  To me, it can be a little bit difficult to decipher how Bervin’s combination of words relate back to Shakespeare’s original ones.  Though, if read by itself, it is clear that Bervin’s speaker feels quite depressed and insignificant.  He/she is expressing how in the overall grand scheme of things throughout time and space, one person--like the speaker--does not make a difference.  It is as if the speaker does not believe that he or she will ever make a noteworthy mark on this world.  Though, back to relating Bervin’s words to Shakespeare’s sonnet, both of the works kind of contradict each other.  While Shakespeare’s speaker believes he is worthy enough to hold another’s heart, Bervin’s speaker seems to not even be able to hold their own.  Other than this similarity between the two speakers, I honestly have no idea on how the content of these works connect (other than the obvious reason).  I would love to know what was going on in Bervin’s head when she highlighted those particular words in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 22 to see if there had been a method to the madness.

[klseng101-blog]

Heginbotham's "Dickinson's Aesthetics and Fascicle 21"

            Heginbotham’s exploration of Dickinson’s works focuses on the two poems, “They shut me up in Prose-” (445) and “This is a Poet-” (446), from the poet’s 21st fascicle.  Despite them appearing to be unrelated when read separately, Heginbotham notices many different similarities between the poems.  Obviously, both of the poems concern poets and poetry.  However, the poems also have similar word choice.  For example, Dickinson used words like “treason”, “pound” and “captivity” in “They shut me up in Prose-” while also including corresponding words like “arrested” and “robbing” in “This is a Poet-”.  Because of this evidence and more, Heginbotham has concluded that Dickinson had purposely placed these two poems together.  So, with all of this in mind, Heginbotham utilizes this chapter to theorize Dickinson’s reasoning behind grouping certain poems together.             In this section, Heginbotham also discusses the origin and history of Dickinson’s fascicles.  This leads to her mentioning the scholars, like Franklin, Shurr, Habegger, and others,  who have also studied the famous poet’s fascicles.  Every literary critic who has studied Dickinson’s fascicles have speculated the poet’s thought-process when she organized and wrote her poems.  While some scholars say that Emily Dickinson had no particular way of arranging the fascicles, there are others who believe that reading the poems both closely and contextually will supply evidence that proves the poet’s method for arranging her poems.             Personally, I believe that Dickinson did have some kind of system for her fascicles.  There are just too many connections between certain species of poems.  All of this evidence cannot be ignored; that is why there has been so many literary critics who have debated over Dickinson’s intentions.  Though, despite our numerous predictions, there are no exact ways of determining how Dickinson had meant her fascicles to be read.  Because she died before they were published, the fascicles will forever remain a mystery for readers.  However, this will not stop us from wondering and fantasying until the end of time.

[klseng101-blog]

Heginbotham's "Introduction: Reading Dickinson Contextually"

            Heginbotham’s “Introduction: Reading Dickinson Contextually” mainly focuses on the importance of both investigating and theorizing the reasoning behind the organization of Dickinson’s fascicles.  While she does recognize how the content of the poems are significant, Heginbotham is more fascinated with the “...intentional artistry [Dickinson] used to compile these books” (ix).  For instance, Heginbotham mentioned how Dickinson had repeatedly use the same poem in multiple fascicles; it is obvious that this was not an accident.  This means that the specific arrangement of Dickinson’s fascicles ends up giving readers a peak of “...the playful and inventive mind of Emily Dickinson at her workshop” (ix).             Now, it would have been one thing if Dickinson had just wrote a lot of random and separate poems. Though, in actuality, this is not the case.  Dickinson had organized her poems in these books for a reason.  After all, there must have been numerous combinations in which Dickinson could have arranged her poetry.  And yet, she ended up deciding on one particular arrangement.  And, because of this, readers go through a certain reading experience that they would not have undergo if Dickinson had chosen a different grouping.             Also, when individual pieces of written work are intentionally grouped together, this usually means that the works have one common theme or message.  Unlike reading a “stand-alone” poem, it seems as if a book of poetry should be read as a one whole unit.  So, while readers are reading a poem from one of Dickinson’s fascicles, there is a huge chance that they will look for the connections between that poem and the rest of the poems in the book.  That is why reading a poem from a little book is so different when compared to reading a singular poem.