The quote that stood out to be was "the well-established rationale for the professing of literature has come under fire" (21). It is this quote that illustrates the ambiguousness of interpreting and writing about literature. The whole piece is essentially illustrating how the interpretation of literature has evolved throughout the years. For example, it started as just description, evolved to some opinions, then turned to a close textual analysis. Each time a new technique is described/introduced, the authors makes it seem like the last idea was inadequate. This I disagree with. Yes, the interpretation of literature has changed, however, it does not make the previous techniques wrong. A mere opinion can be impactful if it is what you are looking for while a close textual analysis can provide a different sort of insight. I think an individual should combine all the techniques as they all provide different facets.

This is something I would not expect to see written. After reading part of this story, I drew parallels between the indians and their white neighbors with the trees in the ground. At the hospital, Joe gets hated on by a white pregnant lady showing how she is trying to "weed" the area free of indians. Thus, just as the boy and his father are weeding out the trees, there is an undeniable parallel. However, one usually praises one for their toughness. But here, the father "damned their toughness"which goes against the parallel between the people and the trees.

Going off of what Ashleigh said above, I think the word choice of the word "attacked" is very strange. To "attack" someone is a deliberate action that one must choose to do. However, the trees, obviously mindless, do not have the ability to deliberately choose this boys parents house to "attack." It is this facet that makes it seem as though the trees that the boy and father are pulling are personified. This verb is what ultimately brings these trees to live and gives them a character of their own.

Using the specific word "invade" implies that someone must take away his peace and it is a great threat when someone does. This facet is what shows his true personality and character as the smallest inconvenience causes him stress and it an "invasion."

Is this referring to how few people have physically seen Bartleby or few people have seen him interact in the strange way he does?

I find it interesting as, in a way, the pole is personified. The father is explained to be "dressing" the pole as if it was a child. First, the pole is explained to be dressed in a Santa suit, and then a jersey on the superbowl. These are all things that a father could potentially dress up his new child in. Moreover, the pole seems to be the fathers life line as it is his way to translate his emotions and feelings. To put more simply, he communicates through dressing the pole. This can be seen clearly when he uses the pole to send a message. This illustrates how the pole is quite literally his lifeline.

By adding in the word "necessary," it is showing a free country needs the right to bear arms as it is a necessity. Thus, by using this fact, one can use it to also determine what a free country is not composed of. By using the word "necessary" it is presented that if one does not have the right to bear arms, they will not be a free country. This is where the controversy in modern day politics comes from, this one word added in by the framers.

This is interesting because often times when talking about politics, countries are referred to as a state. Moreover, while it says "free state" some can argue that it is talking about not the state itself but the citizens of the state. Thus, the "free state" is referring to the freedom of its citizens. However, it can be argued at the "free state" is referring to the sovereignty of the state. This means that the "free state" is not talking about the citizens but moreso how the united states is sovereign from England. This puts the meaning into question since it is ambiguous.

Here, in modern day, we all know what a parade is. Normally, a celebration where the community comes together. However, if you look at Tyndal, we do not see the use of the word "parade" but the phrase "love doth not frowardly swelleth" As I read that line, I cannot seem to decipher what the word "swelleth" is supposed to translate too. Nevertheless, by putting in the word "forward" it does have a similar connotation to the word parade. Love should not be "forward" just as love should not "parade" around. It is interesting to me how, despite not fully being able to comprehend the first option, you can still piece it together by using words around.

Is this talking about execution? I am a little confused because it is so ambiguous.

This line is what implies that there is some sense of nostalgia. However, about what is kept ambiguous. Does she feel as though she has missed out on events or does she want to go back to certain events? The implication/purpose is unclear.

The reference to the liver implies alcoholism and possibly even drugs.

In terms of the "your" It is unclear if she is referring to a boyfriend's house, a friends house, or possibly even her parents house. The "your" is never identified as a who which keeps it ambiguous.

Ultimately this whole phrase shows the difference between song a poetry. If this was a poem, it would probably be structured differently. This is due to the fact that the lines would probably end with the word that rhymes with the next line. For example: We can end this war at Yorktown, cut them off at sea, but for this to succeed, there’s someone else we need The fact that this is a song, it shows how structure does not really effect anything because you are not actually seeing the words, you are only hearing them.

This is probably irrelevant, but if you listen to the song, instead of saying "who" like it says here, the singer said "that." This is probably just a mistake though because it does not change the meaning of the line at all since the two words are pretty interchangeable.

this adds to the antecedent scenario because it implies that he is not at peace with his current life. This is done by the author by putting this in the future tense.

This is interesting because the line previously is in the future tense so it implies that he is not yet at the lake. However, here, it is present tense and he hears the water at the lake. How is one not at the lake yet but can hear the lake? This furthers the idea that this whole poem is imagined because he is imagining the sound of water in his head.

This line is repeated from stanza 1, line 1. The fact that this line is in future tense implies that the main character is yet to be at the lake thus this poem is all imagined.

basically means "the same" or "identical". This word combine the word "self" with the word "same" to get across its meaning.

To connect this quote with my last annotation, this stands out to me because it shows that according to the artist the "nameless girl" is "no more or less" than the girl who is the queen or saint. While I know technically they are all the same muse, it is interesting as all the paintings are described as equals.

I find it really interesting how, while this poem is about ONE single girl, she is described as a "queen"and "saint" yet also a "nameless girl." The nameless girl kind of goes against all of the previous explanations because it limits both her power and influence.

This is an interesting word to use when describing a parent. The word "fatal" introduces the theme of death and mortality, however, it is contrasted by the word "proud" after it. This description is interesting and could connect to the theme of the poem as a whole.

This is in reference to a school in the army; more specifically it refers to a military parachutist.

This implies that there was a war or something of its equivalence in the past. This could be the antecedent scenario.

I find it interesting how Keat uses the word "in" instead of "on." This is because someone is more willing to say "on a drear-nighted December" as it is more widely accepted. The word "in" adds to the development of the poem because it implies that one is physically immersed in the winter instead of just experiencing it, which is what one would get if the author chose the word "on."

In the first stanza, Keats uses the phrase, "too happy, happy tree." However, in the second stanza Keats uses the phrase "too happy, happy brook." This makes it seem as though Keats is comparing the tree to the brook and how each form of nature exhibits a different type of winter.

The word "raveled" connects to the statement in the previous stanza, "seam by seam." When I hear the word raveled I usually think of string being tangled, and this string could potentially be used to sew "seams" together. This has an extended comparison between her mind and some sort of sewing reference.

This was written by Dickinson who faced depression most of her life. This can help explain the severity of this poem as it states that she feels as though her mind is "split." This poem could potentially be about what Dickinson has experienced her whole life allowing for deeper insight and more authenticity.

Here, the line break shows the transition of this women's life. She is alive in the fist stanza, then after the line break she is dead. This illustrates the power of organization in moving the theme of the poem forward, which is what we read about in the book.

It is clear that the word "had" is past tense. This sets up the rest of the poem as it makes the readers wonder: does this person have fears now? this past tense is what allows for the character development to occur.

I usually picture a metro station as sort of a place that has a "mob mentality" due to the "crowd." However, the author is putting a face to each of the members of the crowd which essentially goes against the fundamental principle of mob mentality, which is anonymity. This reiterates the fact that each person in the crowd is their own individual.

apparition: an unusual or unexpected sight, a ghostly figure, or the act of becoming visible.

I find it interesting how the author made the whole poem reliant on the title. I feel as though if the title was not here, I would not know what the poem was about. This is unique because in previous poems I have read the titles are usually not that important as some poems do not even have a title. I am curious as to why the author chose to make the title this important.

I think the work "sulk" is a very interesting choice of words. Sulk usually implies annoyance yet I would not usually associate it with being born and breast feeding. However, Blake does which shows another side to having a baby.