I thought this was extremely interesting. To begin, I agree greatly with the line in the beginning that states, "Whenever new approaches or techniques are being advocated, a very understandable ill-humor overcomes those who feel they may have to modify or to reconsider well-established pedagogical habits." I think this is accurate because many times, I've had English teachers complain or explain how new techniques or way of teaching literature are difficult to adapt to and requires them to change their logic on a lot and break old habits. I also thought that noting that their response feeds off of " moral indignation." Truthfully, whether they believe it or not, I find that a lot of teachers do teach the way they do or explain things the way they do based off of their morals and values. They aren't on the Supreme Court, so it is okay. Another thing that stuck out to me in this piece was the line, " Perhaps the most difficult thing for students and teachers to realized is that their appreciation is measured by the analytical rigor of their own discourse about literature, a criterion that is not primarily or exclusively aesthetic." Basically what I get form that after a bit of deciphering is that we appreciate the literature we are able to accurately discuss, and the more interested we are in our discussion about certain literature, the greater appreciation we have for it. It is not always an aesthetic, because it doesn't have to be something that necesarrily draws you in to imply an "aesthetic," yet it is merely a piece of literature that you are able to discuss based off of how much effort you put into analyzing it. I also liked how the author discussed how teaching English is not a "substitution for the teaching of theology, ethics, psychology, or intellectual history." I think it does indeed have to do with close reading. I've personally always thought of those subjects as completely seperate, however, it's interesting to see another viewpoint and understand why and how those possibilities could arise.

I really thought this line was amazing! The description is pretty spot on and something that you can imagine yourself.

The author notes twice that the father is not handling this situation in the most effective way. First she describes his tool as "doing more harm than good," and then this line follows. Does the character believe she is the only one capable of getting the job done? It also shows how much tension this "attack" has caused because it seems as if the father is simply doing whatever he can now. You would think a father knew a bit more about tools/fixing things (not sexist, just a simple societal opinion that has unfortnately been normalized) so you can say its a bit odd for the father to not know what he is doing.

I think we get a lot of characterization by this line. Sure, the main character is fed up with the damage, but she never really says she is. We just assume she is because its her parents house. In this case, the character saves them aa "trophies". She sees herself doing something rewarding by helping her parents.

I thought this was a very bold and strong line to use as the first sentence. Here, we get a foreshadowing of just how dangerous these "small trees" have done. This line makes you think because you wonder why the author described them as small but also said they attacked a house. The author is able to tell us a lot already by this line and give an insight into how viscious the characters' problem is.

I thought this was very interesting and contrary to the typical lawyer. Often times on telivision we see lawyers engaging with the jury. In fact, they are used to display and harbor emotion involved in the case and are often talked to by lawyers to get them to think about factors outside of the case during their opening and closing statements. With this description of the author included thoroughly, we can understand that Bartbely was probably not very much like the author, or he was too much like him. I haven't read the entire story, but since we are focusing on the title and first page, this is what i've brainstormed.

In the title and first page, we get a bit of insight into the author and who Bartleby is. In the story we learn that Bartleby was a very hard worker. Melville coins him as a "Scrivener." After doing some research, I found that this is a word processing software that is used by many authors. With this title, it's evident that the man quite smart and surely had a way with his words. The author describes how his biography couldn't even be put into words, so it's clear that this person made a mark on the lawyer.

I thought this story was pretty interesting. I think that the pole served as a method of expression for the father. He used it often and changed it often, so it's clear that it was important to him. At first it was used for commemorating things, but it soon became a way of expressing whatever he felt. It's also clear that he isnt the best parent and is quite strict to his children. I think it's unfortunate that he never got to apologize to his children either. I believe his bitterness and lonliness began to show through this use of the pole. While he certainly could have been a more considerate parent, it's difficult for the reader to not feel some sort of sympathy towards the father as he grows old. It makes me question the father's past and the family history.

I honestly think that some of this should be revised. As Emily stated, the diction used implies that there can be no regulations or laws prohibiting anything in relation to this. To me, it is simply outdated and I think the terminology they used is a bit wishy washy or unclear. I think this is the reason why there is so much debate about what is constitutional and what isn't and why there is so much contrversey. If it was as clear as its said to be, there wouldn't be such confusion with what the founding fathers "truly meant" by whatever they wrote. I think it is in fact important to take a look at society today and how things have evolved and use that to make corrections or adjustments to the different laws and amendments.

Is he implying that love is essential for happiness? I'm not sure if I interpreted it correctly but it seems like he's saying that even though he does all of these things, if he doesn't have love, he doesn't get a "profit" which I imply is some sort of euphoria or feelings of happiness.

I think this is a debatable line. I don't think i necesarrily agree. Do you all think love never fails? I think it certaintly does. Even if some people are truly in love, I think there's still a possibility that it can end up failing. God never guarenteed anything, so I think it's a bit misleading.

I think this is a really interesting and relatable line. We all experince this and we all tend to outgrown certain things as we get older so I think it was a good way to highlight growth within a person/character and show how they have changed.

I agree with Kristen in this aspect. Bridgers truly left a lot of questions surrounding this song. As a reader, I can't really capture the entire picture here, but the context clues lead us to some sense. I wonder what she wants as well. I feel like the question is begged and wondered about consistently throughout the song.

I'd like to note that this reminded me of the book series, A Series of Unfortunate Events. In that series, now orphans reflect on their multi-millionare home that was burned to the ground. It reminded me a lot about the series, especially the house on the hill considering this was a setting in one of the books.

I think her attitude in the song is a bit misleading. She says " In your house up on the hill." Who is this song to? Why is she going to be in their house?

I thought this whole line was vital to the poem. I really like the ending, even though it leaves the reader with a cliff hanger and some unanswered questions. To me, Washington's response was spot on and very persuasive. As persuasive as it was, it's a drag to be able to see Hamilton's reply. It seems like a lot of tension and pressure has built up and it leaves a bit of mystery and suspense for the reader to question.

I think this is definitily important in the poem because we see the two going back and forth and trying to make Lafayette credible. We can tell by this line how important Lafeyette is to the revolution and to Washington. I think it also highlights the extreme stress of the revolution and how people just kind of lost it at some points.

I thought this use of colloquial language was really interesting. I typically haven't seen many poems that have this colloquial language implemented in the writing. I think it was appropriate, however, given the time frame and setting of the poem.

I noticed there is an ABAB rhyme scheme present in this poem. This made it easy to read and follow, and provided great detail.

I also agree that in this poem, Yeats is surely transforming into a more peaceful and relaxed lifestyle. It's obvious by the descriptions in the poem that he now is at peace and fully surrounded by nature. It also causes us to imply that the author was troubled and annoyed by his fast paced life. The repition of " I will arise and go now" is relevant because it symbolizes the fact that the fact that he is now going to a more peaceful life, he wants everyone to know. Therefore, the repition of the phrase previously mentioned is important to the author and shows he will enjoy this new life. I think the author did a great job at descriptions. He truly captures. a peaceful nature scene that the audience is able to see and imagine in their head. I was able to at least. All of the descriptilons create a peaceful mood in the poem as well.

I think the mood of this poem is my favorite part of it. It has many peaceful elements and even uses that word in the poem. In this poem we get a detailed description of the authors cabin and all of the things that bring him peace in the cabin and near it. I really enjoyed reading this because with all of the details allowed me to create a visual representation of the descriptions and allow me to see and experience what the author feels and sees, in an audience point of view. The diction creates a peaceful and relaxed aura that accurately showcases the meaning behind the poem.

I noticed that this poem has an ABAB rhyme scheme. I think this made the poem easier to read, as most intro poetry that we read is composed of some sort of simple rhyme scheme. I think it was a good idea to use this kind of rhyme scheme as well because of how detailed the poem is. It would have been a bit cluttered without the rhyme scheme. I also noticed that the sentences are full. Many times in poetry we don't see full sentences, they're often fragments, however, this also made the poem easier to read and easier to follow. I think rhyme schemes are always a way to keep the reader interested as well, otherwise its comparable to a short essay.

Erin, I also noticed that point about the verb tense changing. I wonder what happened to her? It is clear that she is no longer as beautiful and magical as once described, howeber, she seems to still be very important to Rossetti and has left a mark on him.

This poem is definetly unique. It begins almost all lines with " Not, And, Fair, A, The, He, That, We, and One." While I am not sure why, I think it is to emphasize the differences in the canvases and to capture all the different paintings in the room. I think it kept the reader on their toes, however, and had great descriptions.

I think this is a pivotal point in the poem. It is clear that he has went from sad thoughts to more happier ones. He is describing when soliders came home from the war and described everything else around him. I think it was also a suspensful part of the poem, as he talks about how he "won't breathe" until his brother lands. It showcases a lot of emotion and a lot of detail.

I agree with Emily's comment. I think the usage of "today" was very important and necesarry, and I think it represented how there was a war going on previously and that that will be the lead discussion in the poem. I think the reason he uses "today" is to reflect on all that has happened and to express how he feels today.

I think it was a great idea for her to use this word, ravelled. It's clear that she sees herself braking down or deteriorating as a rsult of whatever is happening aroundher, and it leaves a bit of mystery for the audience at the end of the poem. It makes me wonder what's going on with her and if she ever goes into detail.

I think the diction in this poem is quite powerful. I see a lot of words captilized, which I assume is for emphasis. I can't exactly describe what I think is going on in this poem, but it seems as though the author is under distress or can't figure something out. His work choice and structure of his work implies a bit of scatterbrain vibes. The diction is quite intensifying, especially with the word "Cleaving", however, I think if he wanted to explain the poem, it would have been longer, so clearly somewhere in this poem shares clues as to what is going on.

I really enjoyed this last part of the poem. Here, he is describing a point where he feels numb, and is no longer able to feel the variety of emotions that fill his head. I think he is reflecting on this because his emotions have taken over and are becoming a lot more surreal for him during these times.

Alliteration is used in the title as well throughout the poem with the phrase "drear-nighted December." There is also a lot of personification used. For example, "thy branches ne'er remember" implies that the branches have a mind and think things on their own. This adds a bit of depth into the poem. Keats also repeats certain words such as "Never, never petting," and the frequent usage of "frozen".

Clearly he is comparing his lost lover/person to things that are considered lifeless. So we are seeing his grieving process throughout this poem and how this loss has affected him. He is realizing and describing all the changes from the physical world

This line indicates something bad happened and killed his spirits. By the context, it seems like Wordsworth lost someone important to him, perhaps a lover or another female love interest.

I see an example of alliteration here. I think this makes him poem a bit more interesting! I love seeing metaphors and other forms of figurative language in poetry.

I think that Pound uses petals beause he believes that all of the people at the metro station are all different, but perhaps look the same or are united in some underlying way. There is certaintly some great descriptions in here as well. I imagine Pound used the word "wet" to perhaps describe the rainy weather or the sunny weather present in the story. I am not sure why he used the world black. Perhaps, it was night time or chilly.

I love the rhyme scheme that Ezra Pound uses here as well. I think the vocabulary was intetesting and new. I think the pom is short for a reason. I think the point of the poem is very direct and to the point and is trying to capture the moment in as less time as possible. I think Pound does a neat job of doing so here.

I really liked the comparison that Ezra pound uses in this poem. He compares people in a station of the metro tov petals on a tree. Bough is another reference for the main branch of a tree.