Lesson #8

Has anyone else ever wondered why the definition of love varies in different dictionaries. Although they are similar in each, they vary from, "an intense feeling of deep affection" (Oxford Dictionaries), to "strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties" (Merriam-Webster). Although the differences are slight, an entire mountain of confusion can arise from the differences. The second definition seems to completely call out the idea of "love at first sight" as false. Yet the first definition leaves that up for interpretation. In Song of Solomon the idea of love was questioned. The idea of love being about consistently caring about someone was rarely reciprocated between lovers. "It is about love. What else but love? can't I love what I criticize?" (pg. 282). Isn't the idea of love to respect rather than criticize? Can someone ever feel so intensely about another to disregard any flaws that could lead to criticism? This makes me question how people view love in general. Can there really be a dictionary definition of love if the concept itself varies from person to person? Ruth and Macon were never in love in general, their marriage was full of spite and resentment. Milkman was never in love with Hagar, yet near the end of the book it seemed as if he was in love with the world around him. Yet in certain definitions of love it does not seem to include the idea of loving inanimate objects. Even between Pilate, Reba and Hagar, the idea of love is questioned. Hagar was handed everything she wanted on a silver platter, and Pilate and Reba delivered anything she desired without as much as a complaint. Although the idea of giving somebody everything they need seems like love, it also seems like the longing for affection. Through out the novel it seemed as if Pilate and Reba were searching for validation from Hagar; they seemed constantly obsessed with the idea of making Hagar happy, as if Hagar's happiness was directly proportional to their own. This need seemed like a validation that the two needed from Hagar, rather than love. In the end of the story there was never any conclusions drawn about love; we never once witnessed a happily ever after where anybody was in love for the rest of their lives. I think a lot of the reason love was viewed the way it was is because love is very hard to describe, and almost impossible to write on paper. Although myself feeling to naïve to sit here and dissect the true meaning of love, I can conclude that the dictionary should not include a definition of it. Emotions are one of those things that seem to delicate to define. A feeling is not something that can be passed on from person to person. Defining the idea of love limits the possibilities that such a delicate concept holds. Love is different for everyone, and I think it is only fair if we let everybody have their own definitions.
Lesson #8: Not everything can be defined. 

Lesson #7

Over the course of my sixteen years of life, I have began to realize that we never know what is going on in anyone else's head. Almost everybody lives their life self-absorbed in one way or another; its not that human beings are ultimately selfish, I genuinely believe that a lot of self-absorption comes from a fear of being rejected by society, not necessarily that we think we are the center of the universe. While reading Song of Solomon I noticed a common theme of everybody constantly worrying about themselves. They all seemed to push their own agendas with the idea that the world should adapt to that individuals way of thinking. But then I started to think about how our vanity really affects us. "Too much tail. All the jewelry weighs it down. Like vanity. Can't nobody fly with all that shit that weighs you down." It was my opinion that the "jewelry" that the bird was wearing, was alluding to the theme of vanity throughout the book. Although that didn't seem to necessarily be the theme, that was the idea that stuck with me. I think that we all wear jewelry in our lives, because I don't think anybody really knows how to live without it. I think our jewelry are the things that we constantly think about within ourselves, whether that is our insecurities, our desires, or our resentment. For me I am always obsessed with having things organized and stable, and I would consider that part of the jewelry I wear. Guitar said that we have to take off our jewelry in order to fly, but I don't know that we necessarily can. I think that some of what "weighs us down" is what makes us who we are. Without that I don't know how we could all be individuals. I also don't think that humans should be able to "fly". Although I recognize that was used as a metaphor for freedom, there is a reason that birds can fly and we cannot. Humans are different than birds; we are made with more complicated thoughts and emotion, and I think that is part of why people can't fly; very honestly I would choose to have the life that I have, full of consuming emotions and constant thoughts, than to be considered free and loose all that. This relates back to David Foster Wallace's idea that people should live life with a selfless attitude. I am truly not convinced that there is any such thing as selfless. Even when we are doing things for other people, we are doing those things because they make us feel good about ourselves. I think the only real way to embrace the human experience is to accept that we are not made to fly, because if we begin to fly, we are no longer human.

Lesson #7: There is a reason that humans are made the way they are.

Lesson #6

Reading Song of Solomon this week has really made me think about the details that we tend to miss in our everyday lives, specifically the color imagery made me think about the way we associate colors with emotions, scenery, and everyday objects. “And the very young children couldn’t make up their minds whether to watch the minions circled in blue on the roof or the bits of red flashing around on the ground,” (Morrison 5). The way Morrison was able to associate colors to make vivid imagery is a lot like the way we try to make our own life more vivid. What I found amazing is that the world around us is full of colors but we so often forget to remember them. So I tried writing a poem with the same imagery.

She felt the red pumping faster in her heart, as each breathe became shorter.

She felt the orange flames raging around her, each second bringing more warmth.

Her eyes saw the yellow spots rolling around in her head, keeping her questioning reality.

With each breath, the smell of the green world around her turned to the inhalation of smoke.

Every blue tear that left her eyes turned colorless as she watched the gray overtake her world.

The indigo walls around her dissipated, as the ash washed her hope away.

Searching for an escape, she looked up to see a now violet sky, calling her home.

But the gray was far too consuming for her to win.

As she opened her eyes one final time, the only visual she had was the rainbow above her.

Lesson #6: The world around us is full of imagery that we so often overlook.

Lesson #5

I have recently realized how odd the idea of a protagonist and antagonist are. We not only apply protagonist and antagonist into stories, but we make people the good and bad guys in our own lives. Think about a situation where you were mad at a friend; in your mind your friend is probably the antagonist-- while you play the protagonist. Yet if you were to get the same story from your friend the roles could be switched. Or what about getting that same story from a bystander? One of the questions from the Maus seminar was, " How do you feel about Vladeck's role as a flawed protagonist?" I disagree with this question as a whole, because how can we ever truly identify a protagonist? I think overall Vladeck was a good person who was just trying to survive, but that doesn't mean that he always was seen as the good guy. What about when he let the blonde women traveling between Auschwitz and Birkenau risk her life for him to stay connected with Anja? He let her put herself in danger for his own personal gain. Would her family view him as a protagonist? Or what about when Vladeck would only give snow to the dying people on the train, if they gave him sugar? Although Vladeck was trying to survive, he could have been the cost for lives lost. These people had nothing, yet Vladeck would not share his snow unless he had something to gain. The entire idea of protagonist and antagonist are faulty and dependent on the view of others. The idea that our perspective is thorough and unbiased enough to give someone the title of "good guy" or "bad guy," is faulty. Although it may serve as temporary clarity, it can never really capture all of the essence and qualities of an individual. So I suggest that we take away the labels of protagonist and antagonist completely, and accept the fact that all of us fall somewhere in the middle of good and bad. Humans are not perfect and we never will be, so even giving ourselves these labels in everyday situations can never really be accurate.
Lesson #5: Labels can never fully represent a person.