And of course, somehow Tiago Forte encourages people to highlight and pay attention to those that interest them.

This seems like some type of analogy as if the poet were imagining that they are dead and unable to move their hand. The reasoning is not revealed as to why this might be, but I think that the author is offering a perspective as if they were no longer existing.

Keats describes the nightmares of counting down the days not only until his brothers death, but his.

I wonder why he feels it’s important to include a sort of prologue to the prologue, I feel like he has established the characters sufficiently. The only significant reason to the trip I can come up with is that later in the prologue he introduces it starts with the knight

Here Chaucer is describing the host like he’s also one of those going on the pilgrimage. I’m not entirely sure exactly how to interpret this other than it’s in Chaucer’s nature to observe and comment on those around him, or that their journey actually begins in the Tabard and the host is in fact a part of it

This line flows very nicely off the tongue, yet I didn't quite understand what it meant. Is it referring to Mary as a gift from heaven?

This is a really interesting sentiment that I can't quite wrap my head around. But I do think that it is important that Schnackenberg is distinguishing between this particular statement and the idea that everything has the potential to be animated. This notion breathes life into literally everything in a very interesting way.

I like this quotation because it suggests an afterlife where Dickinson could observes the effects of her work on the public and regret her silence in life.

"shrewd, cool, and ruthless leaders" Is this a good thing? A political necessity or virtue?

I think that the repetition from the beginning really ads to that MC Escher feel. Creating something like a mobius strip. The repetition adds to that prison feel as we are back in the place where we started and we haven't found a way out.

Are we imprisoned to the future and the past? It is "fixed forever" but does that constitute us being prisoners?

This is kind of hard to wrap your head around, I like it

The Son, who is of the essence of god, does not even have an absolute understanding of god. It is important to Milton that god cannot be truly known by anyone in the poem.

I read in a poem once, "i have as many selves, as there are impressions of me in other people" We could also consider the reverse of that, "I have within me the selves of everyone I have ever met" Are we defined by those around us?

Another thought Identity seems to be at least in part a relative thing. 'I' only exists because of 'not I'. And 'I' is defined by 'not I'.

If no one else existed, would you have an identity, would you exist?

I have read personifications of the Church as a woman or the wife of Christ in the past, but I always thought it was a bit strange, and maybe a bit of a stretch. I appreciate its metaphorical purpose, but I don't know why it was decided that Christ and Church are married.

Milton is really fired up about this issue, probably because he views the people he's speaking about as as morally corrupt as possible, since he claims they have no control over their family, virtues, or bodies because they lack self control. I'm curious what in particular he counts as not taking care of the body or the household

I like the idea that our unhappiness is a product of our high expectations. But that this is an innocence, or ignorance, that media is quickly unraveling. Although, you would think our history would do the same trick.

This is so subjective though. Also I find it hard to think of myths and folklore that emphasize this.

This makes me think about other old text including sacred texts like the Bible and if they are also a composition of different stories that have been passed down orally

These are wonderful questions, and they are ones that I think over every time I sit down in Mythology. It is so interesting to me that the same story can be retold and reworked over and over and yet it will still find audiences with open arms, prepared to pass it down to their generation and the one that comes after. How do we all come to fall so deeply in love with a story about love that resembles so many others?

At mention of how many of these fairy tales arose from being passed down orally, it makes me wonder how many fairy tales that have been forgotten because they were never wrote down and forgot about; and also what the original stories were for some of them such as Red Riding Hood.

While I do agree that these stories offer guidance when it comes to dealing with similar matters, I also think that in a way it can create a false reality by conditioning readers to think that by taking similar action like their favorite characters in the stories, they will produce the same outcomes.

I think this is difficult to actually prove, and might suggest that it is our own behaviors that shape fairy tales, not the other way around. Though this is definitely up for debate, chicken or egg I suppose.

I might be able to argue that the author is putting too much emphasis on the effect of fairy tales in childhood development. Though I would agree that fairy tales play a role in childhood development, I would add that the impact is more than likely unknowable and their are also so many other factors.