Hailey's Blog

I am from Beanie babies
from babbling and blasphemed Bedside Baptist.
I am from quizzical eyes biting a silent tongue
(icy, knowing the world will be unfolded,
Smoothed creaseless.)
I am from the ‘pink fluff tree’ whose arms held me
When I saw my childhood dog bereft of life
And the mossy stones bearing a rickety cross
That marked her being after.

I’m from up-heres and over-theres
Where a deer stand marked the fork in the road
From Soccer Dots’ trophies covered by pom-poms
To backwards plumes to mitigate nerves.
I am from a stork’s flight
Whose wings were propelled by exhales of ‘spitting image’.
From Christmas lights illuminating dynasty
Joy re-blazed again each year.

I am from ‘Banana Pancakes’ and Baker Koonce
From the backscratcher that tersely companioned my backside
leaving moral lessons lined in red.
I’m from 5-o-clock-somewheres
and Strawberry Wine.
I’m from ‘Dawgs, transitioning with idle hate
To the Alma Mater, speeding her praises onward.

A sprout shooting upward, I root myself in this world.
But still swaying in the wind,
Budding and blossoming,
I make my own place on the branch.

Love at first sight is a phenomenon often coined on overly-dramatic romantics in love with the idea of love (@FriarLawrence @Nurse), while more realists drop the idea with mere claims of sexual attraction and illegitimacy. After all, how could we possibly fall deeply in love after a quick glimpse? How could that small glance leave us dreaming of spending the rest of our lives in the arms of a stranger? You couldn’t possibly be in love with this person – or could you? Scientists say that we are genetically wired for the possibility of love at first sight. Others disagree. There arguments include that the person supposedly falling in love doesn’t have the necessary knowledge about the recipient in order to feel this emotion, and also doesn’t have time to exercise the activities typical of romantic love. The first argument implies that love does not consist merely of sexual desire but instead of character traits that one wouldn’t be able to see upon first glance and the latter says that love is not just feelings, and instead the activities that underlies it. Both oppositions show fundamental mistakes in their claims. Firstly, being the stereotypical beings we are, we often spontaneously pair attractiveness with benevolence, where beauty is evaluated as good. So, while love at first sight can often mislead the lover since it is, in fact, based on imagination, it can still be very intense love because of our misinterpretations. The fact that this love is based on unreliable information doesn’t necessary mean it wasn’t love. Research has shown that the romantic love we see is often based on rose-colored illusions and idealizations. Love is an emotion just like any other: jealousy, anger, happiness, and can be manipulated. For example, jealousy is often constructed from misbeliefs about a companion’s activities or feelings. Even though the information was incorrect, the jealousy was still real. Additionally, the truth that this love may die over time still does not take away from the fact that there was love. Time is not an accurate measurement of love. Contrarily, the intensity of any romantic behavior is likely to lessen over time. Therefore, seeing that love at first sight involves the same beliefs and readiness of a more traditional falling-in-love, it can be a real instance of love.
To illustrate, in the renown tragedy of star-crossed lovers, Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare offers an exaggerated means based around the idea of young love at first sight. Ironically, this exchange started at a party for the possible betrothal of Juliet to Paris, and poor Romeo sighing over his glimpse at Rosaline. However, these significant others were soon forgotten when Romeo and Juliet laid their eyes onto each other, with Romeo’s exclamation of “For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night.” (1.5.52-53) Juliet goes on despite the obvious obstacles, knowing her “…only love sprung from [her] only hate!”(1.5.38) While their actions were hasty (and ultimately lethal) in the way of young lovers, there’s no room to say that love did not dwell in them. The shortness of time combined with the extremity of the matter makes a logistics head spin, however, again, obviously they felt an emotion strong enough to take their very lives at the idea of losing each other. To conclude, we should heed to Christopher Marlowe’s idea that “What we behold is censured from our eyes./Where both deliberate, the love is slight:/Who ever loved, that loved not at first sight?”

In The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, two suitors, Paris and (of course) Romeo, have their eyes set on the quivering thigh and red lips of Juliet, eager for her betrothal. Strangely, the similarities and differences in these gentlemen are strikingly equivalent; they are as different as they are the same. For one, both are extremely self-centered in their wills toward Juliet. Upon first bringing up his proposal to her father, Capulet, Paris is so intent on having Juliet for himself that he disregards Capulet’s insistence that Juliet has not yet ripened and to “Let two more summers wither in their pride/Ere [he] think her ripe to be a bride.”(1.2.10-11) Instead, he responds that “Younger than [Juliet] are happy mothers made”, not caring about how she feels on the matter. Similar to Paris, Romeo is so eager for marriage that courtship is out of the question which is further indication that neither of them really care for her to a great extent and rather just want her “…quivering thigh, And the demesnes that there adjacent lie.” This is further proved by their easily impressionable minds where Romeo has a tendency to jump for girl to girl with haste and Paris being described as “a man of wax”, suggesting that he was just superficial beauty without genuine character. As for social standings, Both men are presumingly wealthy, as Romeo has servants (Abram and Balthasar ) and upon the couple’s death, the families plan to get gold remembrance statues. Seeing as Capulet agreed and knew Paris as a friend, he also must be well connected politically and from a good family. Next, straying from the negative side, both men show levels of integrity in the tragedy. Romeo shows this by proving his love through his undying devotion (no pun intended) by proving his love through his actions. Paris does the same when he tries to uphold the law by making a citizen’s arrest upon seeing Romeo at the tomb.
On the contrary, both men show significant differences in age, personality, and finance. Physically, though both are attractive, Romeo is a “blooming flower”, only sixteen at the time, while Paris is closer to Juliet’s mother’s age, obviously making him more mature and arguably a better suitor. Additionally, Paris was a kinsman of the Prince, well-loved and a good friend of the Capulets. Contrarily, Romeo was a Montague (do matter how much he swore of his name), an ancient enemy of the Capulets. Also, their personality traits and means of interest differed highly. Romeo was a head-strung lovesick boy with no means of supporting his new wife, where Paris is already established with a fair job. Furthermore, Romeo’s love was untraditional and ruled by passion, climbing in through her window to compensate their marriage. However, Paris is more conventional in his ways and asks Capulet for Juliet’s hand in marriage instead of hoping for the night to shield his entrances and using “lover’s wings” to soar above her wall (ah hm, breaking and entering even if poetically). Lastly, Romeo never treats Juliet as if she were his property while Paris dares to say her face is not her own, acting presumptuously before they even got married. To conclude, both males exhibited traits that one may see husband-material, but are similarly lacking a trait the other possess that they do not.

What is it they call
Caucher or Frost:
haphazardly stringing together
emotions, souls.
Derived from adolescence,
or nature,
or so-called philosophical beliefs.
Trying vigorously to convey a truth
but aimlessly lost in caesuras,
tropes, and professors.
Can not a flower be simply a flower?
A silken tent purely a shelter?
Or a well-curb from which one
only kneels to see their likeness?
Must simple minds make everything complex,
Beyond their own understanding?
Do they enjoy the bafflement
of the complex puzzle straining
in their little minds?
Perhaps that is the pleasure.
Simply a game:
a labyrinth with ceaseless turns.
Never really having a definite end,
but not necessary needing one either.
Enjoyment in the struggle:
twisted and turned interpretations
A tortuous knot of paradox:
seductively intricate.
All in the quest for simple truth.

Books whisper,
savants listen
To the hushed warnings of days past,
Knowing that a world is formed with each exhale,
With each stroke,
each impression.
Yearning for the enlightening kiss
of days gone by.
Knowing that a wispy brush
can open eyes

Savages jeer,
thinking only materialistically:
Feints formed from simply elements and plants past,
No more than ink or paper.
Meer ideas meant only to destroy,
not realizing the mangling and miming
occurring within their every beings.

Oh, Hippocrates!
Relieve the hypocrites of this ailment:
abominable pride and transgressions.
Stand back, Steinbeck!
Forget nicotine; numbing ignorance
would have surely dubbed your heart.

Where is the end?
Undoubtedly The End?
Or will a brave soul stand
to free these idiots?

Laying in bed, a boy of barely six shuts his eyes as flashes of firefighters and superheroes race through his mind. Panning around the room, one would see a varied assortment of fire trucks and other childhood what-nots, but the main focus is a distant framed picture: an ever-smiling dad, clad in red and punctuated by a repetitive promise; “I want to be just like you, Daddy.” Similar to the boy’s fascination with heroes and dreams of even filling the shoes of his biggest hero, we also have dreams that will better ourselves and others and give life a sense of adventure.
With big dreams come big responsibilities and accomplishments, thus thrusting one into an edification process, bettering themselves and consequently others. To illustrate, long days, even longer nights, and countless hours of tedious work embody a doctor(or Doctor-to-be)’s life. However, they still push through, when in reality, they really didn’t have to set such high goals and dreams. Seemingly endless hours at the bedside of the ill where the last hope is a well knowledged doctor puts immense pressure on said doctor(s). Without those high dreamers, where would the world be? Back to colonial times where someone with such a minor thing as a common cold is left to die? Thankfully, people have stepped up, dreaming big, bettering themselves and others through their works. With ambitions soaring, they save lives and fulfill passions one dream at a time. Pushing against the current of lethargy and indifference, one would find that dreams save. They’re real. They’re at the tip of the tongue, ready to be savored and grasped and given a breath of life. Likewise, Martin Luther King grasped this with his famous proclamation of “I have a dream!”, which was filled with such gusto and pride, despite the inevitable persecution, that it encouraged other dreamers to speak up. Thus, he started a movement that kick-started the end of segregation, paving a path for abolitionists and ultimately shifting societal morals to those promoting the so-called idea that “All men are created equal”- an idea that was supposed to be the foundation of America. Had his dreams not been so ambitious, the course of the world would be changed. Marching through the streets of the narrow-minded, blinded by socially acceptable norms, straight on to Capitol Hill, proved to be a gigantic accomplishment for him and his people. Hence, history shows us that steadfast dreams can truly move mountains.
Also, dreams are what separate human beings from mere robots, mechanically going about life with no hope because they lack adventure and meaning. To illustrate, in The Glass Menagerie, Tom’s dreams for adventure with the Marine Merchants or simply just being unbound from the holds of the restricting boa of his house were so overwhelming that it literally drove him to the brink of insanity. Pursuing his yearn for adventure, he left his tiresome job at the warehouse to do what really made him feel alive, and jumped into the real world head first. For, living in a house of lackadaisical puppets isn’t the meaning of life; the meaning of life is to give life meaning, which is only acquired through having and following dreams. Lastly, sometimes dreams are paradoxically the only hold unto reality. Such as in The Things They Carried, where countless memoirs from the past and hopes for the future assuage their need for meaning. Like Mark Fossie bringing his beloved to war and planning a future with her despite the horrors abounding, thinking it would keep him alive in theory. Reliving past hopes of the American dream (white picket fence, a dream job, and 2.5 kids) is what truly gave their lives meaning in the hell of Nam. Literature is a representation of the mind and body, therefore, though fictional, these dreams are not just figments of the imagination, but instead a glimpse of how the crave for meaning and thrill are satisfied.
Years later, that once-young dreaming boy slips into his black boots and helmet, catches one last glimpse of the picture on his nightstand, and dashes out of the door into another day of mystery, adventure, and fulfilled dreams.

Do you believe the ending to Frederick Douglass’ story is adequate/sufficient?

Adamantly believing that a slave’s chance at extricating from their damned lives, towers over the reader’s simple curiosity and
hope of a satisfying story; I agree that Douglass gives just enough information to capture the essence of the narrative without impeding on his brethren’s possible chance of freedom.
For instance, in Douglass’ opening phrases of Chapter 11, when explaining his minutiae regarding his escape, he counters with this, “First, it is quite probable, that others would thereby be involved in the most embarrassing difficulties. Secondly, …such a statement would most undoubtedly induce greater vigilance on the parts of the slaveholders…by the means of guarding a door by which some dear brother…might escape. ” Had he continued to write the story without any thoughts of the others involved, he would have potentially endangered his relatives. This integrity speaks louder than any story or words could have possibly said. Subsequently, giving the readers one last glimpse of his true disposition without having to intrude on another man’s hope of a desirable, liberated life.
Also, Douglass was an extremely humble man who wanted his book to do much more than make a measly dollar or gain empty publicity. Instead, he wanted it to change, transform, and mold his ready audience along with stubborn peers. Staying somewhat ‘under the scenes’ if you will, Douglass profoundly points out that he “… [has] never approved of the very public matter in which some of [his] friends have conducted what they call the underground railroad, but to which [he] think[s]… had been made…the upper ground railroad.” Though he genuinely appreciated their work, he doesn’t believe that they should be proclaiming such things in such a public manner, perhaps even “like the Pharisees”; for it could unintentionally cause more harm than help.
Therefore, Douglass shows, once again, his compassionate and thoughtful knowledge as he gives up part of his testimony on behalf of his brethren’s safety. Surely, had every detail been released, it would have potentially altered the course of history having a ‘butterfly effect’ starting with a single slave. Though the curious ear may be disappointed at the abrupt ending, but thinking ethically, one will realize that Douglass did, in fact, do the right thing in ending the narrative the way he did. To conclude, the end of the book completely for filled the purpose the it was initially intended for, even when leaving out details.