Never forget us

Maggie Harry
4-27-09
Never Forget Us
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” This statement by Henrik Tikkanen clearly affirms the impact of humans on the environment. The authors of “God’s Grandeur,” and “Front Lines,” both see this provocative subject through similar eyes, however, their opinions vary in response to natures ability to triumph despite human existence. In order to relay their contentions, both authors employ literary elements to convince their readers that they “speak the truth.”
The demolition of the planet through the existence of man is an evident issue in past centuries as well as the modern world. In both “God’s Grandeur” and “Front Lines,” the authors use diction to produce the element of imagery to emphasize the immanent destruction of the environment. Hopkins states in “God’s Grandeur” that the earth “wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell.” His decision to utilize diction such as “smudge” and “smell” produces a vivid illustration of the putrid landscape that now covers this planet. Statements such as these help emphasize the negative impact of humans on the environment and how this alleged impact is continuing out of control. In “Front Lines,” the author describes the “skinned-up bodies of still-live bushes.” Similar to Hopkins, “Front Lines” uses dynamic language to invoke a sense of responsibility for aiding in the devastation of nature. Assertions such as these make it clear that nature is not merely dying, it is being murdered by man, and they should therefore have a stronger sense of remorse. Both writers utilize their diction assets to help produce vivid imagery of the massacre of the environment.
Although both authors agree on the initial quandary, there is a vital difference between the two works. “God’s Grandeur” concludes with the idea that despite man’s infectious behaviors, nature--being God’s creation--is always going to endure. Hopkins believes that “nature is never spent.” He trusts that “God’s Ghost” is always going to be there to protect the landscape, therefore it will persevere regardless of man’s ignorant destruction. The overall mood instilled within “God’s Grandeur” is, in retrospect, positive. Although it begins with a negative connotation, it finishes with the progressive idea that nature is never exhausted.
On the contrary, the author of “Front Lines” believes that “we must draw our line,” meaning that nature is at the mercy of man and has no control over its own fate. Although he agrees that humans are the cause of the endangered landscape, he disagrees that the natural world will be able to survive on its own. He expresses strong belief that humans must stop their detrimental behavior on their own in order to preserve the environment. This idea creates a very different ambiance from that of “God’s Grandeur.” It continues to build off its initially negative mood to produce a clear, precise tone--pessimism. “Front Lines” fails to recognize any positive outcome to the current situation, creating a very negative spirit.
Regardless of whether the two artists agree on the overall current and future state of the environment, it is clear that they both use the literary elements of diction, imagery, and tone to argue their perspectives. Components such as these help authors to articulate convictions within their writing and ultimately produce effective arguments before the readers.

Rough Draft

Maggie Harry
4-21-09
Rough Draft
The environment has been a very controversial subject addressed through various perspectives. Two poems, “God’s Grandeur,” and “Front Lines,” both see this provocative subject through similar eyes. Both authors clearly state that the natural world is being destroyed by the existence of man. However, they vary slightly in the “God’s Grandeur” believes in natures ability to triumph despite human existence, and “Front Lines” believes that it is up to man to save the environment.
The demolition of the planet through the existence of man is an evident issue in the modern world as well as past centuries. In both “God’s Grandeur” and “Front Lines,” the author uses word choice to emphasize the destructive nature of man. Hopkins states that earth “wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell.” His decision to utilize words such as “smudge” and “smell” leaves readers with a vivid image of the putrid landscape that now covers this planet. Lines such as these help emphasize the impact of humans on the environment and how the impact is not positive. In “Front Lines,” the author describes the “skinned-up bodies of still-live bushes.” Statements such as these make it clear that nature is not merely dying, it is being murdered by man. Both writers believe that the earth is at the mercy of mankind.
Although the authors agree on many levels, there is a vital difference between the two poems. “God’s Grandeur” ends with the idea that despite man’s attempt to destroy, nature (being God’s creation) is always going to survive. Hopkins believes that “nature is never spent.” He trusts that “God’s Ghost” is always going to be there to protect nature, therefore it will persevere through its own accord. On the contrary, the author of “Front Lines” believes that “we must draw our line.” Although he agrees that humans are the cause of the depleting landscape, he disagrees that the natural world will be able to survive on its own. He expresses strong belief that humans must stop their detrimental behavior on their own in order to preserve the environment.
These two slightly differing view points are enough to make the tone of these two poems vary greatly. “God’s Grandeur,” in retrospect, has a very motivating tone. It focuses more on the positive side of the controversy saying that regardless of the damage inflicted by humans, everything will turn out okay. “Front Lines” seems to take a far more pessimistic tone, stating that the landscape will not get better without the help of men. And, if they fail to do so, it will ultimately die at their hands.
Overall, these two poems agree on the importance of nature in this world. Although their opinions are slightly varying towards the end, the overall theme of these poems remains the same.

The Alternate World of Angelica Pickles

There is an alternate world in which Angelica Pickles has no cookies and I can ride without a car seat. Without cookies, there is no Angelica; no milk, no Cookie Monster, no “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie,” no chocolate chips, much less a cookie jar or treat from mommy. Without Angelica, there’s no Cynthia, no cool Cynthia Playhouse, no manipulation of babies in Aunt Dee-Dee’s house. In this universe, Angelica Pickles sits on the couch with an empty cookie jar.

Angelica has one friend, me. She cries for me in the mid-afternoon.

“Hello, it’s Angelica. Can your mommy drive you here? I’m hungry.”

I can tell by the sound of her voice that someone has eaten all the cookies. In this universe, Angelica can’t get her daddy to buy more.

My mommy and I pull into her driveway in her minivan. In this universe, hippies weren’t the only ones riding in funny looking cars.

Angelica’s daddy straps her into the car seat next to me, she smells like mashed peas. “We’re all out,” she says. “Can we go to the bakery?”

When we get to the bakery, Angelica had to wait for my mommy to unbuckles her. She runs inside and stars through the display glass. Her pigtails are uneven and her dress is covered in dried milk from her morning breakfast. She has a really bad toothache that her mommy and daddy can’t fix, they say it’s a cavity.

My mommy buys Angelica and me a cookie and we go back to my house. I know that she probably doesn’t want to talk. She just wants to eat. My mommy turns on the TV and we watch from the playpen while we eat. We watch Reptar and Captain Blasto.

She’s napping by the time the Dummi Bears comes on. During the theme song, I hear Angelica talking in her sleep. Angelica talks in her sleep and I would let her until she starts crying, that’s just mean. I have to wake her.

When she finally sits up, she immediately reaches for another cookie. She’s drooling so much it gets on the carpet, so she wipes her face as fast as she can.

I sit next to her and watch her eat.

“It’s okay, Angelica,” I tell her, “There’s another place out there where your mommy always gets you cookies. You get chocolate chip, peanut butter too. Your daddy pours you more milk, and Cynthia sits on the table next to your plate.”

Angelica swallows her cookies and looks up.

“And this in this other world,” she asks, “What are you?”
“Angelica,” I say, “Don’t worry about that.”

Batman Review

In “The Other Universe of Bruce Wayne,” I believe the use of a pop culture character is incredibly effective at making the readers more intrigued in the poem. Nearly everyone knows that Bruce Wayne is the day to day face of superhero Batman. By writing about a popular character, the author allows for the readers to feel a connection to the poem. By using such a figure, the reader already has a brief history of Bruce’s life in mind. This allows for almost every reader to quickly and easily understand who Bruce is, what he does, and it also gives them an image to picture within their minds as they read. By having a preconceived image in their heads, readers are able to focus more on the writing without having to work as hard and picturing the character. Even if they personally have never seen or heard the story of batman, they have at least an idea of how the story goes and therefore feel more confident reading about a familiar icon. On the contrary, using a common figure is also a dangerous decision on the part of the poet. Because the character is so well known, the author must make sure that what he says about Bruce is in accordance with the story. Readers will be quick to pick up on any mistakes in the poets descriptions of references, so the author must be sure that what they are saying is accurate. Overall, the use of a pop culture character is a very effective way to help guarantee the readers will relate to the poem and be more inclined to read it.