“In this night of solitude, there are thousands of dreams, but there are more pains in my heart- thousands of sorrows.”I thought this quote really summed up the trauma expressed here. I thought it was interesting that it went through different narratives- each one highlighting a different reason why these refugee camps are inhabitable and traumatic. I felt sad when I read about Ahmad's death that seems like it could have been avoided. The actual drawings were so telling of the nature of the story. The faces of the opposing people were so perfectly drawn to match their words. It made the read even more impactful.

An altruist is someone who practices concern for other people and animals which makes sense in this context because the author was just discussing being a vegan as a sort of "sincere act". The last line of this paragraph really caught my eye because of the parallel drawn between an un-grown potato and humans when they die and are buried in, essentially, the same dirt as that same potato. It is also interesting that the theme of potato eyes (which could possibly be a symbol) is repeated here. Is there a parallel between the eyes of the potato that humans usually remove, and the eyes that humans use for sights?

I feel like these few lines, in a way, frame the whole relationship of Ka and her father, a way that many people can relate to. Although the "natural" way of life is for children to be alive for the passing of their parents, it is an idea that seems so far away to most lucky children, that when they hear of the possibility, they shudder. They think it could never truly happen. What is then more interesting is that it kind of seems like the daughter is in that same denial. She (a few sentences up) admits that her father may even be mentally ill, but has not seen the signs, besides the prison nightmares, but that alone could be a sign enough. This type of denial we have as kids, follows us. It is what keeps us in denial about our biggest fears.

Here, the author goes into a sort of comparison between what a tourist may think, and what they may not think. The tourist is seemed to be a bit naive in the eyes of the narrator who is pointing out so many things that they believe a tourist would never notice. For example, here the author is describing how there is no proper sewage-disposal system- but the tourist may never understand those repercussions from the luxurious hotel. This style of writing highlights the hypocrisy and underlying obliviousness of the tourist- or really anyone when learning about a place like Atigua. This way of writing is also effective because more than just by stating the effects of the lack of sewage system, with this way, you begin to realize how much you also don't notice- how much you don't know to appreciate.

I found this interesting because it reminded of how Julius described his reaction to his father's death. He explained that he wanted to be with his father- and noted how he was wishing for the innocence of his youth (having his father). Here too there is a reference to innocence in terms fo Julius's father, and again it is painting this obscure picture of his mother. It is a bit confusing as to what kind of relationship each members of the family have with each other. Also if Julius is noting that he himself "created" this innocence for his father, does that mean that he was not actually innocent? I find the relationship between Julius and his parents very interesting and I think it is part of the puzzle to understanding Julius alone.

First of all, I found it really interesting that he has these two "loves" in his life, both of whom have some sort of walking disability, and the whole book thus far has been about Julius walking. It seems like he has a fascination with moving, and gaining things from the places he travels to- whether it is from physically walking there, or literally leaving his home country. I also was really taken aback from the last line in this paragraph, "It wasn't a deception: all lovers live on partial knowledge." I wonder if this is true to an extent, because logically most lovers will not know things about each other. But on a deeper lever, in context of the story, I feel like this parallels Julius's desire to observe people and learn about their truths/stories. It is then interesting as to why he does not feel the same about his lover knowing the truth about him.

It is commonly said about Manhattan (or big cities in general) that although the inhabitants are constantly surrounded by so many people, they often feel the loneliness. There are many reasons as to why one would feel lonely in Manhattan, and this author seems to be suggesting that the "countless" faces is precisely what causes his "feelings of isolation". Personally, I think that this is really true, and it could be for numerous reasons. Could be because everyone seems to always be going somewhere important, which actually is the position of the narrator- going to his internship. Everyone is so fast paced in their own lives, that it feels like no one cares at all about what the person who they pass on the street is doing. It feels lonely because it has so much potential to be communal, and yet it is not.

This whole piece is a series taunts. First Mrs Gresham taunting Mr. Kerry, and then it switches vice versa once the "truth" is revealed. First of all, because this is written as a play, the italicized words that guide the actors make the reading more visual and real. I can feel the tension in the room throughout this whole conversation, I can see the couch, and feel the visible and palpable frustration from Mr. Kerry. This line in particular stuck out to me when I was reading this over. The woman is going back and forth: she did come on her own, with good conscious- but maybe not? But does Dr. Kerry think she has a sound mind? The whole thing seems like a raging mind game, and the action cues add onto it, making the game visible to the reader. "You think I'm mad but- " line is so interesting to me for a few reasons. One, I love how the writer puts an action cue in the middle of the line, it completely changed how I would read it. Secondly, I think that the madness is actually what is the woman is using to her advantage of "seducing" Mr. Kerry. Especially for a psychiatrist, there is something incredibly interesting about someone who you cannot seem to figure out (and on top of that, the play is sure to point out that he does actually find her attractive).

I am curious as what the subjective terms of unoriginal and original means here? Because I feel like although those are usually subjective terms, in the context of this story and historical background, there may be an established original society/accepted normalcy that Ranko and Moleka diverge from. It seemed like Maru had a healthy love for Ranko, whereas Ranko did not. People often think dependence is love, but too much dependence is not love, it is attachment (which is what it seems like Ranko feels). Also why was Moleka's love labeled as ideal? What made it so?

First of all, the motif of comparing both the heart and mind is quite interesting. In the beginning of the text, it is written: “There was a clear blue sky in his mind that calmly awaited the storm in his heart…” And I think this idea is similarly being used here to explain that more than seeing the emotional wrongdoing caused by this caste system and brutality with your heart, a soulless person with only the guidance of their mind could see the cruelty (clear sky), and understand how wrong it was. Morally and logically, without even using the heart for compassion. The text previously made it clear that Margaret was also this way, and it was why she even chose to take the baby home with her in the first place; her logic withstood the storm. That is why this sentence stood out to me so much, because thus far in the text I have been thinking about how horrible this situation is logically, and that even if you had no empathy, you could see it this way too. But this line is proposing something else too- that although one may control their own heart and mind, it is the minds and hearts of others for whom we have no say, and therefore there will still be difficulties (a storm) approaching her.

Much of this poem is about the trauma that the author's family had faced, and how that trauma, in a sense, has been subsequently passed down. It is hard for a family to ever remove trauma from their mindset, but trauma also disables us to move forward, and to be present. These two lines confused me at first, because it seems to be saying the same thing. But the change of a few words, changed the whole meaning. "What is it to be" to "the way that you are", made me feel like the author is hoping that this spell will allow for the person to physically be with people, and actually BE there, in the moment- unaffected by trauma of the past. Jack commented that the spell could be writing, and I think that goes along with what I am explaining because writing often allows us to understand our past, so that we can be present in the moment before us. Without feeling, understanding and unraveling our past, it is unlikely that we will ever truly BE with the people surrounding us.

It is clear that his memory is coming back in small bits, which makes the whole scene a lot more dramatic. The way it is written, with words like "flash", makes it easy for the reader to envision how he must be reacting to remembering that he was attacked, his wife was killed, and his daughter was missing. This way, it allows the reader to slowly see the horror unfold on Sirajuddin's face; each layer of tragedy adding more depth to the image. I am curious what the dupatta is, and why it was worth mentioning. Perhaps it was to emphasize that he was frozen in the moment of losing his wife, and having to leave with his daughter that is now missing. This could be another example of the images unfolding before his eyes, and doubly in front of the readers eyes. It makes the reading more suspenseful and jarring. This way of writing, by recounting what happened as his memory comes back, slows down a moment that only lasted seconds.