Auden is speaking here about the way in which we ignore things that we sometimes do not want to address. He calls out people, almost in a way that suggests their private lives are trivial, compared to the public events affecting all people. He speaks of the "unmentionable odor of death" as something that is ignored, yet should not be, as if it is the elephant in the room. A topic that is almost too big to comment on, death, so the decision to not speak about it seems easier. The way we cannot speak of the death happening in the world is mocked, as conversation of this would ruin the September night. Thus, showing that there is no time and place to discuss big, hard topics like this, and if you wait for that time it will not come.

I just thought this was a really good example of how you do not need crazy language in order to express a beautiful thought. This line was so nice, paying homage in a way to those who have passed and their knowledge about a life they have completed living in order to share some to those who are still living. I also thought the juxtaposition here was great, as the poem is all about the contradictions in life and the way they work with one another. To live a life with both gentleness and also fire seems impossible, yet the whole rest of the poem tells you have you can have both in this land of contradiction. Hope is the uniting force here, showing the beauty of this life.

Here, the man is speaking about giving his body to be carried by the wind. I think it is interesting the power he is giving the wind to take over his body and do with him what it wants. I am wondering if he is infatuation with the wind is in pure innocence and wonder, or if he is wishing he could take more cues from nature and be more subtle and sensitive (out of a place where he is unhappy with himself). If this is the case, I think it is funny how he is calling the wind gentle and subtle, but then talks about wind having the power to lift and carry him, as I think this would take decent force and is not something I could see happening gently.

I think it is so interesting how not only is Vivie a person who cannot comprehend gray area in situations, but so is Frank. To call her mother "a bad lot" and simply dismiss the fact that she has truly given her life for the one of her child is insane. The idea that she has been forced to make these choices so that her daughter can thrive, and is being ignored, underappreciated and essentially looked at horribly is wild. I think the lack of recognition of gray area in Vivie's life when she refuses to comprehend her mother's choices, may be stemming from Frank, and not be as much of her own ideas as I had previously thought. It is ironic that for someone who is educated in math and logic is so absent of her own agency in reasoning.

I really like the way that the author is taking so much time to set the scene. First, he describes where Vivie is reading outside and her surroundings, down to her bicycle propped against a wall. The details are very helpful in making the piece interesting and vivid. Here though, I am curious as to why there was such a significant description of Vivie and not her visitor. I could see why she would be described if she were the only person in the scene (as she was previously), but not now. Now, I am simply waiting for the same amount of time to be dedicated to describing a visibly more curious gentlemen who is obviously here for a mission/reason of some sort, which we do not yet know. We know that he knows who she is, but she does not immediately recognize this man we come to know as Praed. I am really stuck on the fact that all the scenes are set in a way that have adjectives and details so we can picture them, yet Praed is not described at all. This makes me wonder if he is not worth talking about or the mystery of his figure adds in some way to the reader's experience of the story.

I think it is interesting that in order to purchase the fruit, Laura must give a piece of herself. In this way, the poem almost reads as a caution to girls, stating that you cannot have a man until you truly give him a part of yourself. This suggesting you cannot have him until you lose some of yourself in order to secure him, also known as the "price you pay." The language even after this exchange shows how she is sucking the fruit as if "she never tasted such before," insinuating a desire for male attention within her that was subconsciously dormant. The dramaticized language through her resistance to her sister's warnings, prolonged staring and eventual interaction illustrates the length of time in hesitation, yet inevitable giving in of Laura. I think the idea of female power in numbers is evident here since as soon as Laura decides to go against Lizzie, she is succumbing alone, and therefore makes the decision to ignore her sister's warnings and give herself to these goblins.

We see the paragraph start with a pushing off of nature, as an excursion is being slightly rescheduled. But, we can immediately see the bouncing back of nature as something necessary and inescapable, pushing its way back into the story, illustrating how the story cannot go on without the presence of nature. I think it is also interesting what power is given to nature as a healer, and miracle worker, as Brontë is once again giving control to nature. The way she does this almost generates thought about whether the characters are drawing on nature, or nature is simply drawing from and illustrating their emotions. The idea that the story must give credit to nature, and continue its journey as a novel alongside nature may imply more than simply the characters in this story, but the role of nature in society as overlooked and yet so substantial.

I thought this part was interesting, as I am seeing that Isabella does not really have a home. She is trying to protect her home currently from being invaded by her husband, which is not a normal home activity. There is also the fact that her brother disowned for marrying Heathcliff and so she cannot go back to her previous home. (She came from Thrushcross Grange, which she obviously was not very deeply tied to, in order to move to Heathcliff's home as well.) I am thinking that she has no home, and I think that if we do not have a person or place to ground ourselves to, we lose a big part of our identity. The idea of being a "free woman" here, is something she already is, as the homeliness and comfortability that she should feel in her marriage with Heathcliff is also non existent. I like to be able to create relations within stories of characters to each other and to their homes, and with Isabella I feel like she is hard to place and further identify without relation to much.

This part of the book was horrifying, as much as it was somewhat expected. The way that Hindley responded to this disinterest and distaste in his child is the opposite of the way a parent would normally respond. I think that this embarrassment at his treatment is something he took as disrespectful and more serious than it was. I think it was just a child acting as a child sometimes does, however Hindley overreacted so quickly, as this treatment was almost like a trigger for him. He does not tolerate any mistreatment, which is bizarre because this is a child who doesn't know better, and shouldn't be taken so seriously. I understand wanting to maybe set the child straight, or saying something like "That's not polite," but the immediacy of throwing the child over the banister is almost comedic, as when a child misbehaves how is this the first thought of setting them straight? I get that unrequited love is embarrassing, but there is no logic to this attempt at correcting this "maltreatment." Will the child learn to kiss his father if he is thrown over a banister? I mean, I guess because they will be scared, but there isn't much logical correlation.

I thought this was so interesting, because taking in this starving child is something I would agree should be done. It is so ironic that, taking in this starving child is something that would deem Mr. Earnshaw "mad." (Granted, I am looking at it in a positive way of taking in a child, rather than in the way that he kidnapped a child from the street). The way the child is referred to as "it" is also bizarre, as Mrs. Earnshaw sounds like she is talking about an object rather than a human life. This then leads to the question, Does she actually know this is a human life, or does she deem this child not enough to count? She is treating this child, as if he is an animal, a diseased and ragged animal has just entered her house. The lack of tolerance to this child is shown when the narrator says she was "ready to fling it out of doors." Also, the fact that a child of such a young age is being so well-behaved in a completely new, unknown and uncomfortable place speaks volumes to the behavior of the children that actually inhabit that household. This child has literally just been plucked from the street and brought to this new environment and is minding its business quietly in a corner and wondering around. There is no mention of screaming, or knocking things over etc. Yet, the children of this household who have lived here are the ones behaving like animals, ironically. It is funny because they have lived in this home/family for their whole lives and should generally know how to behave in their home, yet this animal like creature who is just a toddler has better behavior than them.

I thought this was an interesting line, as the poem starts off in a peaceful place, referring to the sea as calm, and sweet. However, by the time we get down to this line the poem is flooded (no pun intended) with a melancholy tone. There is the same slowness of the beginning of the poem that signified tranquility that now seems to become the 'eternal note of sadness.' This just got me thinking about how the peace and quiet that can be viewed by some as a positive, can to some people also be sad. I pondered on this thought, thinking usually some calm and quiet would generally be something I considered a good thing. Upon more thought, I think that when thinking of peace I always think of quiet, and to some quiet is not positive. Quiet, is the absence of sound (or very close to absence), and can in some cases be lonely, and languished. The idea of waiting for silence to break, reminded me of waiting for a wave to break. I was thinking of this in the way that peacefulness never seems to be a constant state, so this ocean that is so calm remaining this way, is unnatural and stuck in this state. I thought then that this big ocean could represent an empty vessel, a nothingness, a silence that with every crash upon the shore would never truly alter itself, only remain in a state of quietness repeating.

I think this beginning to the poem is powerful, especially with the caps lock and the exclamation. The use of the word son here, emphasizes the fact that the youth are dying. The tone is confrontational, and I am wonder who is to be confronted over these 'mighty dead.' I think also the use of the term 'mighty dead' is one that is juxtaposed, and almost mocking of these so called 'mighty.' Here, I think Heman's is making fun of the so called mighty people who have ended up dead. She then seems to mock the pile of bodies with language that would otherwise be connotated with power and goodness. I am not sure if the tone is more mocking of these people, or fighters who are known to be mighty or the people who they fight for who then forget the risks and sacrifices they have taken.

The way the Nile River is described here is in a way that is powerful and almost godly. Speaking of the river in a majestic way, leads me to think that it is royal. But the lines that precede this one talk about a "mountain's height." The idea of height and a mountain makes me think of divine beings who are high above the physical world, yet often connected through nature, such as this mountain. I think it is interesting that there is this God-like, divine power that the Nile has. I am wondering if the Nile is serving as god-like as it contains the water necessary to life, or in the way that the people of Egypt take pride in this river.

I thought this part was especially powerful as it seemed proud in a poem where so much about this get away is hidden. The whole idea of a slave running away is that they run through the night, traveling through the darkness both physically and figuratively. So much about the very action of running away from injustice and trying to set oneself free is powerful, and an act of rising. Here, I see this rising and proclaiming, which is nice in contrast to the dark and somber moments of languish throughout the poem.

This line is so important because it shows how lost Fanny is in the midst of her homecoming. She is a character that never truly felt like she fit into the Bertram's life, and now at her own home, she is once again feeling this. She seems to be a floater in this book, as she is malleable and tries hard to conform to what is expected of her changing role, but simply because she is malleable does not mean she will always be a perfect fit. It is sad, because this life she has left behind has stayed the same, and seeing the disconnect between herself and this old life, opens her eyes to the idea that she has changed. I think this was a revelation moment for Fanny, as she did put up a good front of fitting in at Mansfield Park, yet she always remembered where she came from and fit in. Her memory's and comfort of her home are now squashed when she realizes she is in this awkward middle place where she doesn't fit perfectly into these two lifestyles. I am wondering what this insinuates about young women at this time, is Austen suggesting they can not switch classes as they please? That they can't have it all? That there is no place in society for them?

I think this line speaks so much to the times and the roles within society of gender. Mrs. Norris can see that the decision by the man has been made, and although she disagrees and surprised, she is forced to compose herself and simply live with the situation. This to me suggests that the idea that marital conversations really had no point at all because disagreements and fights would never truly be solved if the woman was sure she did not have say, let alone power. Once again, I am wondering where the change took place where a wife could actually voice her opinions instead of excusing herself to simmer down. Simply the idea that "She saw decision in his looks," and that was the end of the non-existent conversation is insane to me. So now, I am wondering both about when the change in the word match came about, and wondering when the woman and the man seemed to have an actual similar standing in their couples 'match', to the point where there could be an actual conversation instead of a facial expression suggesting no further conversation (or any conversation at all).

I had always liked the close knit relationship that Edmund and Fanny quickly came to form. I thought he was always looking out for young Fanny in a way that was brotherly. Here though, he is once again insinuating that he does not want to mix with a lower class. I think that this is insulting to Fanny, as this is exactly what she is to him, yet he is not acknowledging it since she is special to him. I am not sure if I see this as Edmund simply not seeing the correlation between the two situations or, looking beyond Fanny's status in this way because he enjoys her company...

I think it is so funny that the match of these two people was the talk of the town. It is intriguing to see how the use of the word 'match' was in regards to finance and social standing. It is so interesting to see the meaning of the word match in this time, juxtaposed with the meaning of the word today. The accuracy of the match was spoken so highly of because these two people had monetary similarities. The idea of opposites attract was void at this time (in terms of money and social standing), as was the idea of connecting emotionally. The idea that a lifelong partner's potential was based upon their ways to (monetarily/socially) provide for their other half shows the way that mixing would not work in order to maintain societal order and keep things simple. Today, marrying on these terms would be the 'exclaimed' for in a negative way, it's cool to see that during this time, this was what was praised and expected. Makes me wonder where the switch in most important/desired traits in a spouse changed...

Keats use of diction in this poem is very interesting. I seemed to notice some times where the actual language seemed different from the actual meaning of the poem. I thought the use of the word conspired here seemed to suggest doing something unlawful or harmful. With this poem referring to nature, I thought there would be some destructive act, however the word was utilized to speak about loading and blessing a vine with fruit. I thought it was interesting to have blessing in the same sentence as conspiring, as they seem to juxtapose one another. There was another point in the poem where the line states, "Drows'd with the fume of poppies." Once again, I feel that the word fume is negative, as it makes me think of harmful and poisonous gases. I think it is interesting in the poem how some of the language is so severe and negative, meanwhile the poem describes Autumn in the most appreciative way.

I think this line is really beautiful as it shows that although the speaker has not been to this physical place in 5 years, it doesn't mean he wasn't there mentally. Being physically separated from this place, did not mean that he could not recall and see the beauty from these memories he had. I think the way the speaker is separating body from mind and bridging the physical path to this long-abandoned place with a bridge from the mind is a cool technique.

His body is now no longer in his own care, as being a convict is in a way giving up control to a system you have betrayed or gone against. The word 'dismissed' seems very harsh and may suggest that this convict, simply because he has done wrong and been caught, is unworthy of being looked at again. Dismissed, means to be sent away, but here I feel like this is permanent banishment, suggesting that the legal system and society have no hope in the idea that humans can change. It also shows that they will not take a second look, as in some way since they view themselves above convicts, that they have the superiority to decide not to give a second thought to this convict.