SPRING 2026

COMM 441

Genre Critique: Soundcloud Rap

Emo rap, sad rap, emo hip-hop, bop-punk all names utilized to classify what is colloquially known as “Soundcloud Rap.” From the start of the 2010’s a new genre of music was being spread through the underground scene on a small, dedicated online-platform. Many of its artists went on to have largely successful careers in the mainstream, some of which are still progressing today; Trippie Redd, Lil Tracy, Lil Uzi Vert, Yung Lean & Suicideboys to name a few of the most recognizable. Furthermore, three of the biggest names associated with the rise & creation of the genre are no longer with us; Juice WRLD, XXXTentacion & Lil Peep, rest in peace. Of whom we will reflect on three pieces of their work: “Lucid Dreams,” “Sad” & “Falling Down” respectively; so as to better analyze this new genre of the early 21st century, and how it came to reflect the culture of the youth at the time. These songs specifically are either the artists most streamed or held the most impact at the time of their release. The genre can be described as a fusion of emo pop-punk (Greenday, My Chemical Romance, etc.) culture & lyrics combined with slow/mid-tempo trap beats & sounds. This new platform & subculture created a space for young artists to be heard by their peers without all the red tape & bureaucracy of the music industry. It is punk rock to its core.

This was an era of the mainstream when Eminem & Drake were criticized for being “too vulnerable” in their music. As figureheads of the rap/hop-hop genre it had previously been uncommon for artists in this field to open up in their songs. Typically they held an air of bravado & larger than life attitude, any kind of wavering emotion, or what was deemed weakness in the eyes of the fanbase had no real outlet in mainstream rap & hip-hop. Thus came Soundcloud rappers. Their songs are filled with themes of “depression, loneliness, anxiety, suicide, heartbreak & self-medication.” From topics of overdose, to the loss of relationships, each artist involved came to represent the voice of the next generation in their own way.

The three songs chosen as the artifacts for this critique all revolve around relationships and the turmoil involved with broken hearts which is a common theme in the genre. The bridge for the song “Lucid Dreams” by Juice WRLD specifically repeats, “You made my heart break,” repetition being another element of the genre. Whereas XXXTentacions song, “Sad” uses more gruesome language to describe the feelings involved with some breakups, “Suicide if you ever try to let go… I won't fix, I'd rather weep… But it's torture bein' in love.” In his posthumously released song “Falling Down” featuring XXXTentacion, Lil Peep keeps a more abstract approach, although still heavily repetitive. A line that is in the verse and then becomes a simple bridge later, “Darlin', your love is like walking in a bed of nails. And I just can't keep on fighting,” also implying some kind of torture involved with the maintenance of the relationship.

The genre itself takes on an edgy, underground vibe, from its roots in quick production practices and the desire to capture a moment & feeling in the studio, rather than the full fledged planning out of a concept. The tone & style are a melancholic blend of autotune, reverb & melodic instrumentals. A prime example of this is “Lucid Dreams” which takes a direct instrumental sample from Sting's 1993 hit, “Shape of My Heart.” The drums that are interlaced with the sample are a trap-based kit, which amplifies the general vibe that is carried by the sample itself. The structure in many of these songs as was alluded to earlier is very repetitive, with short-simply arranged tracks. “Sad” offers a great representation of this in its; chorus, verse, chorus x2 ordering. To call attention to some contradiction during my analysis, or rather in Lil Peep's delivery of his artform; he fully flips the rhythm & pace of the genre, which is typically felt at 65-85 BPM and keeps us moving at 120 BPM in “Falling Down.” Additionally, where most often, trap beats are the foundation for the instrumentals of this genre, in this song they utilize an electric guitar as the main force of their sound, creating an up-tempo downtrodden feeling.

The audience for this genre of music is a blending of younger Millennials born between 1990 & ‘96 and the older generation of Gen Z, born between 1997 and the early 2000s. With its rise in popularity gaining traction around 2010, mainly with 15-25 year olds. This was a moment in music history when the audience & artists alike were getting weary from all the bureaucratic & transactional necessities involved with the production & distribution of music. Soundcloud.com became a means for multiple communities of music artists and music lovers to share in the artforms which they so enjoyed, without the need for the permission to do so. This audience is the youth that had grown-up “pirating” songs on websites like limewire.com & datpiff.com; this new platform gave a legitimate means for a generation's voice to be heard. On a more specific note, the people that were directly involved with the culture & movement itself all shared in common heart ache that is reflected in the music that still carries weight today.

Many of the artists that were referenced in this genre critique are still relevant in mainstream music today, those alive & passed away. Some may even argue that the three specific artists analyzed (Juice WRLD, XXXTentacion & Lil Peep) still maintain a presence & appreciation within the music industry as a whole and across the audience which they shared. The Soundcloud Rap era will forever go down as a catalyst for change in the politics & finances of the music industry, while also broadening the depth of vulnerability that is accepted by audiences from mainstream rap artists.

Rhetorics of Difference

Article 1: Driving Toward Disability Rhetorics

Thesis: “Fury Road conceptualizes disability as an adaptable condition of human life, and not as a debilitating, life-ending, or marginalizing experience… Fury Road uses the theme of a postapocalyptic world to imagine how conditions of disability could be understood as a non-stigmatized part of life that everyone inevitably experiences” (Fletcher & Primack, pg. 344/345).

Summary: This article covers many topics, from the stigmatization & redefining of ‘disability’ to the resistance of patriarchal oppression and much more, I will focus on the prior. The tarnishing narrative that has developed around disability creates an all too often ableist perspective from society at large and the media often presents such topics as, “normative depictions of disability that [stigmatize] it as pitiable, debilitating, dependent, deficient, or as an illness to be cured or overcome” (Fletcher & Primack, 2017, pg. 344). The authors present the perspective that Fury Road aligns with crip theory, an ontological approach challenging the very nature of idealistic expectations of health. This perspective along with eco-ability, which itself is an argument for the strength of diversity within nature, framing the protagonists of Fury Road as redefining what it means to be ‘disabled’. Fletcher & Primack (2017) state, “[the] protagonists come from a variety of different backgrounds and histories, yet they share common experiences with marginalization that inform their resistance against the social structures that actively disable them.” All of this combined with a narrative set within a post-apocalyptic existence, enable stories of empowerment through those that are themselves diversified.

Contributions: Through a multitude of fine-tuned perspectives the authors synthesized an argument that shows how media typically frames those marginalized by ‘disability’ as fully inept of agency, whereas Fury Road utilizes this diverse experience of human nature to highlight the capabilities of all, no matter the labels and/or circumstances which have been afforded them. Thereby spotlighting the general affirmative nature of the film's representation, while simultaneously critiquing the hegemonic structures which it challenges.

Article 2: Words Are Acts

Thesis: “In this article, a rhetorical model of the movement is developed in terms of three stages identified by the author as naming, instituting, and enforcing. The rhetoric of the Critical Race movement is then analyzed as a response to civil rights abuses, and the model revaluated” (Olmstead, 1998, pg. 323).

Summary: This article is a historical documentation of the formation of Critical Race Theory (CRT), the model itself, its collision with hegemonic states, and the ways in which it challenges that which it is derived, law. With a lens focused on communication itself and how speech acts cause, and through redefining–challenge, systemic racism. “However, before the speech act can create social reality, there must be certain preexisting conditions. Within a given society there must be an understanding of who can play the game and what the rules are… criticalists have proven their right to play the game… by setting out their goals in terms of a rhetorical model which names, institutes and enforces a new reality, they have indicated a knowledge of the rules of empowerment” (Ogden, 1998, 325). Through the marginalized-personal experience, alongside their intimate relationship with law, those individuals involved with the elucidation of CRT created a perspective which was impossible to deny because of their sheer comprehension of language and how to communicate that which is occurring, racism. The author consolidates a complex history into a well-defined and organized representation of the Critical Race movement and all the moving parts involved.

Contributions: At the time of this article's publication it seems as though criticalists were still in the process of discovering all the facets through which they were developing their argument. As such, the main focus at the time was in the defining of its perspective, and the development of its representational style. The author of this article suggests, “Critical Race theorists might wish to consider persuasion a larger part of their paradigm. They might wish to determine who could implement their desired social changes, and how they could persuade such persons to take actions on behalf of minorities” (Ogden, 1998, pg. 330).

Rhetorical Analysis: Jurassic Park

**COMING SOON**

COMM 450

Discussion #1

Is rhetoric limited to persuasion?

Is rhetoric intentional?

Is rhetoric comprised only of words?

Is rhetoric limited to public address?

Is rhetoric concerned with propositions or style or both?

These questions represent the five controversial characteristics of rhetoric and the ways in which theorists have created limited definitions of the art, study & practice of effective communication, and conversely that which is ineffective. As for myself and the concept that rhetoric is confined to the intentional utilization of persuasive acts such as dialectics and other such syllogism is still out for jury speculation. Although I can recognize the idea that rhetoric is a means to influence an audience, I do not necessarily believe that it must be intentionally persuasive to have an effect. As I think audience interpretation is also a variable to be considered. Furthermore, in Aristotle's (350 B.C.E.) thesis on Rhetoric he explains, “to show that Dorieus has been victor in a contest for which the prize is a crown, it is enough to say 'For he has been victor in the Olympic games', without adding 'And in the Olympic games the prize is a crown', a fact which everybody knows” (Part 2). The enthymeme itself is obviously spoken with words, but the crown worn for winning at the Olympic games carries its own form of rhetoric as well… which I don’t think those of his time considered a question of Aristotle. Moving on to public address, I think that rhetoric is best suited for investigation when coupled with critiquing such outwardly displayed forms of power dynamics. However, I also believe that we each have a certain rhetoric that associates with our internal dialogue. A rhetoric that may be influenced by others but ultimately resides within us. As for rhetoric’s “substance” or lack there of; when mankind was shown the invention of the written word, a shift in possibility occurred. No longer were we bound by that which we could individually remember, instead we became glued to the collective, ever reliant on the knowledge transcribed by the past.

Discussion #2

The 5 Canons of Rhetoric

1. Invention - the formulation of comprehended contention (stasis) and subsequent supporting evidence (proof) that drives the power of a perspective to be deliberated and the heuristic strategies (topoi) to be employed.

2. Arrangement - the intentional consideration for the organization of the content being produced.

3. Style - the choice of words & tone utilized.

4. Delivery - the functional presentation of the work.

5. Memory - the ability of the rhetor to communicate, from personally stored means, a sound perspective.

Discussion #3

1. Compare and contrast the belletristic and elocutionary movements.

   • As the practice & study of rhetoric progressed into the late 1700s two distinct forms of interpreting rhetoric emerged in Great Britain; the belletristic & elocutionary movements. In all the ways that they are similar for their main focuses, these two movements of thought were quite different. One was more focused on the artistic aspect and how rhetoric could be utilized to critique itself & other industries, while the other became determined in defining what worked & didn’t work in regards to delivery.

2. Which aspects of rhetoric did each emphasize?

   • While both followed in Peter Ramus footsteps in the distinction between style & delivery being of rhetoric and that the canons of invention & arrangement should be left to the study of dialectics. Belletristic (derived from “belles lettres” or “beautiful letters") rhetoricians focused on the style & delivery of the written word, along with expanding the study to encompass more of the literatures & arts. Furthermore, the belletristic movement is credited with developing the defined study of rhetoric, rhetorical criticism. Meanwhile elocutionists focused on the delivery of the spoken word; in the study of two distinct forms within the movement as well… natural (being of conversation) & mechanical (being rule-bound/ systematic) elocution.

3. Which do you think made the most lasting contribution to rhetorical theory? Why?

   • I think both had a lasting contribution & impact on rhetorical theory. Belletristic with its contribution to rhetorical criticism and expansion into the arts & literature and Elocution with its understanding of delivery & style in public speaking. However, I personally think the Belletristic Movement had a more universal approach that is applicable in most instances today. Whereas we aren’t all out here speaking that “hoity-toity” Queen’s English, pronouncing everything loike thess (high-class accent). Don’t be rude. I know I reduced this way down… but my point stands:)

Discussion #4

Francis Bacon & John Locke are widely known as the two most influential scientifically-philosophical individuals in regards to epistemology; which directly translated into their understanding & will to utilize rhetoric as a major function of their practice. Of these two categories, ‘understanding & will,’ both were integral to explaining knowledge & action, which are the foundation of Bacon & Locke’s epistemological perspective.

At its root, epistemology is, “the theory of knowledge.” As it branches, the questions/insights that arise include; “what constitutes knowledge?” “how is knowledge acquired?” and “how to justify beliefs to be true.”

Major Contributions to Rhetoric of Early Epistemologists

The reshaping of deductive (existing theories/concepts tested with existing data) reasoning through syllogism into an inductive (builds theories from specific observations) search for new information based on research.

Francis Bacon developed the four fallacies of reasoning, including the Idols of Tribe, Cave, Marketplace & Theatre; which define the limitations that humans experience in regards to knowledge & knowing. John Locke challenged his contemporaries with his critique of figurative language and his disdain for rhetoric when utilized to manipulate & ill-inform an audience. He believed in a “functional rhetoric” in which plain language was a source of constructive, rational discourse.

Some other major contributors to the study of epistemology include; George Cambell, Stephen Toulmin, Richard Whately and Chaim Perelman. Campbell established the four goals of rhetoric: enlighten the understanding, please the imagination, move the passions and influence the will. Toulmin offered his model of classifying arguments; data, warrant & claim. Whately explicitly identified the concepts of presumption and the burden of proof. While Perelman induced an audience-centered emphasis of rhetoric, explaining the audience as both the object and starting point of argumentation.

Defining Rhetoric

Francis Bacon - “the duty and office of rhetoric is to apply reason to imagination for the better moving of the will” (p. 89). In other words, reason & logic are required for gaining understanding, while ‘appetite & affection’ are for moving will into action.

John Locke - “that powerful instrument of error and deceit” (google search). At its core he believed rhetoric to be a double-edged sword; although justly wielded, it may cut through the reasoning of truth with appeal to the emotion of man.

George Campbell - “any instance of written or oral discourse which aims to inform, convince, please, arouse emotion, or persuade to action, and which has as its communicative content some passion, idea, sentiment, disposition or purpose is an instance of rhetorical discourse” (p. 92). Campbell was more interested in engaging the psychological perspectives of human nature, not just the political or public persuasion that had previously been rhetoric's focal point.

Discussion #5

The theory & method of semiotics was developed simultaneously by Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Pierce. At a basic level signs emanate from signifiers & the signified. “Thus, an image of a dark cloud (signifier) means rain (signified); combined, they provide a sign indicating weather” (pg. 126). Among other things Saussure contributed the distinction between paradigmatic & syntagmatic signifiers (referring to signifiers based on types/categories or the structure, order or positioning of them). Meanwhile, Pierce identified three types of signs: iconic, indexical and symbolic.

Iconic signs: one that resembles the signified, or what it is.

Example: A Catholic Rosary depicting The Crucifixion.

Indexical signs: those that point to or indicate a signified.

Example: Being barefoot on concrete… signifies hard times.

Symbolic signs: those given extrinsic meaning assigned by a people and/or culture.

Example: The different colors represented within organized street-culture.

Discussion #6

The semantic triangle was developed by Charles Ogden & Ivar Richards as a tool for describing the ‘three elements of meaning’: symbols, thoughts & referents. Ogden & Richard believed language to be a means for misunderstanding. Unlike Plato and many classic rhetorical theorists, they saw these misunderstandings as reflective of the language, not the manipulation of “absolute truth” by a rhetor.

Symbols are the words or images themselves (the thing doing the representing). Thoughts are our ideas about the thing being represented (personal perspective). Referents are the actual thing being referred to by the words or images (the tall stick, covered with bark, planted in your backyard…a.k.a. A “tree”<<<thats the symbol!! The thing in your back yard is the referent, and the type of tree you imagine because you have a Pine tree and I have a Conifer are our thoughts, i.e. personal perspective when we hear “tree”.)

As you can begin to see, even with such a simple example, the actual  act of communicating, interpretting & understanding each other can all get quite convoluted & ambiguous. It becomes ever important to be clear & concise, while ensuring that the intended message is received. 

Discussion #7

The key components of Burke’s definition of being human is the title of the book the quote comes from, Language is Symbolic Action. Although the quote I chose is only a snippet of the entire poem which Burke utilized to define the experience, I believe it represents the major points he is trying to deliver. “The symbol-making, symbol-using, symbol-misusing animal. Inventor of the negative separated from our natural condition by instruments of our own making” (p.174). Humans utilize symbols, namely language, as a way to organize & identify their reality. Whether through interpretation or misinterpretation, we each have our own index of markers that represent different aspects of our reality. However, through self-serving bias, this can fall short as we tend to interpret symbols and meaning in ways that most serve our personal needs.

I think this “symbol-using…separated from natural condition” aspect is most significant for the study of rhetoric as it brings to light the idea that rhetoric is an unnatural tool that humans have developed to identify patterns & significance in our lives.

Discussion #8

Women’s liberation rhetoric, as according to Campbell (1973), “‘...is a unified, separate genre of rhetoric with distinctive substantive-stylistic features’” (Textbook, p. 216). The significance of which is in the “reconstructualization [of] rhetorical constructs” (Textbook, p. 216). In essence, this is the first time in which classical theories of rhetoric have been re-written from a woman’s (feministic) perspective. Not only re-written but a divergence of classical thought into a modern era which includes the voice of those marginalized by society. Furthermore, “women [rhetoricians are] faced with having to challenge the fundamental values upon which the culture is based, something they [can] not do using traditional rhetorical techniques” (Textbook, p. 217). Through the practice of “invitational” rhetoric, which itself re-writes the ideas of classical theory from one of persuasion to that of equality between the rhetor and their audience, feminists have been able to create a space for their perspectives & ideas to be shared with the world, with a style specific to their experience. An example of this can be seen in the Declaration of Sentiments written & delivered by Elizabeth Cady Stanton at the first Women’s Rights Convention in 1848 wherein she delivers a perspective of how women’s rights are paired unanimously with men's rights and rather than create arguments for debate she delivers, ‘facts [to] be submitted to a candid world.’ These “facts” are in actuality a reflection of the Declaration of Independence within a lens that includes women in the conversation. In this piece, Stanton does not aim to argue what it is or isn’t, rather she simply invites her audience to see the audacity of its own hypocrisy.

Consciousness Raising

Rhetorically, consciousness raising resulted in a new rhetorical framework: “‘affirmation of the affective, of the validity of personal experience, of the necessity for self-exposure and self-criticism, of the value of dialogue, and of the goal of autonomous, individual decision making’” (Textbook, p. 217). Campbell explained that this intentional gathering of minds was a rhetorical & political activation, not just a public forum for simple expressiveness. These fundamental perspectives were fostered, cherished & shared amongst a group of individuals who understood a similar experience of oppression; through which they were able to empower one another and redefine what it meant to speak up.

Discussion #9

In my understanding of the Afrocentric approach to communication, the foundation is based in community or a shared field of co-existence wherein the caller (speaker in traditional models) is the medium through which a collective understanding is expressed. Although they may be the “host” of the conversation, they are not the only one engaged in it, and as such the audience has some shared privilege to “speak freely” (within reason/context/call-and-response) during said engagement. I always think of the more Afrocentric approach to education, specifically within Western classrooms, and how it has been applied through group learning environments, small groups, open discussion, etc. Whereas typical history of the Western-style of education is; sit, listen to a professor lecture (disseminate information) for an hour, regurgitate, be on your way… Although, I do think the parts of the traditional Western models are represented (similar) within the Afrocentric approach, the meaning & semiotics of these parts are quite different. The traditional models, as the book describes, revolve around “speaker, speech, audience” (p. 245) and although I think this is a broad description of what's occurring through all forms of communication, the Afrocentric approach has a more defined set of understandings that are absent in the Western culture.

Discussion #10

Four Characteristics of Critical Rhetoric

1. “Critical Spirit”: the direct function of the analysis is “concerned with power, ideology & rhetoric.” (p. 282) In other words, analyzing how the use of rhetoric itself defines & creates power dynamics.

   • The world “superficially” comes to a stand still on Super Bowl Sunday to celebrate a masculine show of force, money & power.

2. “Demystify Sources of Power”: analyzing how knowledge[/information] creates power structures, and rhetoric's role in developing, maintaining & dismantling these hegemonic states.

   • If you don’t see the ads on that day, you are unofficially "ostracized"; creating a societal pressure to digest more ad content because of the platform from which it is being projected. Ultimately, feeding money into the same capitalistic mechanisms that we are inherently averse to.

3. “An Argument Against Something”: although statistics & data may be utilized, the intent of critical rhetoric is derived from personal experience & opposition to such things as oppression, marginalization & corruption.

   • Coming from a family that would gather on Sundays with the neighbors to sit around ‘the tube’ and ingest such content, I am well accustomed to the practices. However, I do not agree with the system by which these events are orchestrated and therefore no longer partake.

4. “Consequences”: suggestions for the direction of change, and/or a call-to-action towards the ‘action’ that is required for the desired equitable change to occur.

   • Personally boycott professional sports for the capitalistic gladiatorialism that it is.

Discussion #11

There is a fine line that distinguishes cultural and rhetorical studies. It seems as if they are so entwined in their fundamentals that the demarcation becomes almost invisible; the two practices are tied hand-in-hand if you will. The similarities are far easier to distinguish as compared to the differences, where we will start. The biggest differences are in the focus each takes. Cultural studies is focused on the context of a cultural artifact as well as recognizing the artifact itself as being politically-based, which fuels the argumentation that is utilized. Whereas the direction of rhetorical studies is more driven by specifically the artifact, while attempting to remain as neutral (without bias) as possible when analyzing said artifact.

The similarities is where & why these two practices typically complement each other. Both cultural & rhetorical studies are intent on understanding “how meanings are created within cultural frameworks” (textbook, pg. 309), and more specifically how power dynamics are involved. Furthermore, each is concerned with disclosure, representation & signification which are essential to the discovery of how these dynamics make, shape, and break our lives.

Discussion #12

What is postcolonialism?

Postcolonialism is the shifting of the physical act of domination & territorial takeover, that is brought by colonialism itself, and brings our attention to new-age forms of such hegemonies that incorporate, “new forms of colonization through racism, sexism, consumerism, and other subtle (or not-so-subtle) means” (Textbook, pg. 335).

Compare this concept with colonization.

Whereas colonization in the past was directly likened to the action of one state enacting its power to determine where borders are drawn, postcolonialism is the blurring of this physical aspect of ‘takeover’ with concepts themselves.

What are some contemporary examples of postcolonialism?

Some of the more abstract examples being that of space colonization, corporate colonization, and even the colonization of marketing itself. “Think about the numerous membership cards for our purchases, they range from groceries, to pet supplies, to greeting cards. Every time we swipe our card or enter our PIN, marketers are tracking what we purchase and when we purchase it. Then, we receive bonus points or coupons around the same time our data show that we typically buy the product. For postcolonial theorists, we are the subaltern being habituated by marketers to continually buy a product without thought or even need” (Textbook, pg. 335).

Book Critique

In complete honesty, I chose this book as a fluke, or possibly something out of comic intuition. I put little by way of effort into “researching” any of the titles provided, and rather glanced across them and picked one that piqued my interest. Which was itself a misplaced contradiction, as I saw The Future of Invention by John Muckelbauer and instantly thought it was some new perspective on science (a field of study which I don’t enjoy in the first place…). Completely disregarding the class which was presenting the material, COMM 450: Rhetorical Theory, I purchased the book without so much as reading the subtitle, set on the path to understand some “new” perspective of what I thought was to be scientific invention. To be a fool is to stumble across that which is known as if it is somehow the first moment approaching the matter. Any individual keen on the subject will understand invention as one of the five canons of rhetoric developed by Roman Rhetoricians and formalized by Cicero, the other four canons being: arrangement, style, delivery & memory. This book attempts to re-examine and create a ‘new’ shift in perspective on the ‘how,’ in regards to invention, rather than the ‘what’ for which it is commonly ascribed. I feel it is also relevant to examine the subtitle of the book; Rhetoric, Postmodernism, and the Problem of Change as it is foundational to the main subject of the book, which is ultimately a meta(meta)-analysis, if you will, of invention. Trust me, it’s as confusing as it is contradictory, which the author frames simply in the epigraph for chapter two, “before there is ‘thought,’ there must have been ‘invention’” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power pg. 293). Which itself is a direct reference to the construction of illusions (through thought) as a means to mask the apparent contradictions of reality. Is ‘new’ possible? Before we get into the beets & tow maters of all that nonsense, let me briefly introduce the author. John Muckelbauer graduated from Penn State University with a PhD. in 2002. His areas of specialization include: Modern Rhetorical Theory, History of Rhetoric and… drum roll please, Rhetoric of Science. At the time of this publication he is an associate professor in the Department of English & Literature at the University of South Carolina, where he teaches courses designed around his areas of specialization listed above. This book represents a lifetime's wealth of information, you can sense the 1000’s of years of culminated thought and technically, invention, that are inscribed within. Whether a detriment or not, the contradictions this work evokes and often utilizes, are those to be pondered by any who question reality.

The context of the book is where the contradictions begin. Rather than try and consolidate centuries worth of information into this paragraph, I posit the following thought experiment. If ‘opinion & common’ are fundamentally the same, and opinion is the hinge upon which subjective & objective reality teeters, wherein does the common belief in the ‘future’ intersect with subjective & objective perspectives of change. This ‘future’ being the hinge upon which tradition (fundamentally change) and innovation (intrinsically change) do the same through dialectical negation. The paradox arises within the defining of ‘invention’ as representative of a common singular belief, which itself contradicts the possibility of individuated origin, as identification becomes a lens through which association creates a shared sense of action. Before we get further into the weeds, what is dialectical negation? In my words, dialectical negation is the dualistic (binary) nature of argumentation which derives itself from the desire to somehow transcend a current state of being, while simultaneously attaching itself to said state of being, through the intentional juxtaposing-polarization of contradiction. In other words, whether through advocacy, critique or synthesizing, the problem of change becomes the mechanisms through which invention engages reality, as they are apparently incapable of separating from the binary functions of which they are developed.

This book is attempting to answer the question; is ‘new’ possible? This is not a question about the ‘what’ in regards to invention but the fundamental ‘how’ when contemplating initial creation. How then, does something (invention) that functions through tradition (attachment to the past) and innovation (attachment to the future) become something ‘new’? Is it possible? Or are we bound by some laws of order that are inherently constructed to perpetuate polarity? The author suggests:

“to speak of the future of rhetorical invention, then, is not to refer to what comes next for invention. As I claimed earlier, such an approach is necessarily a perpetuation of the tradition simply because tradition is nothing other than its own self-overcoming, its own reinvention. Instead, the future of rhetorical invention indicates an inclination toward the common intensity, the singular rhythms within both aspects of tradition–its stabilizing and its self-transformative movements” (Muckelbauer, pg. 165).

Ultimately the author concludes by framing this ‘new’ perspective of invention, which itself becomes a redefining of tradition, as a possible innovation. I, however, failed to make the connection, other than contradictory to the apparent central intention of the book. Whether it be for my own lack of information/knowledge/comprehensive ability, or something I flat-out ignored, this book seems to fall-in-line with the same practices of which it is referencing. But then, I figure this is the point. The ‘ever-changing nature of reality’ is the problem for which we are unable to account, as it is ‘ever-changing;’ yet in this definition we are attempting to box in this ‘ever-changing’ nature, stay with me now. In order to create some order in this ever-changing environment, invention becomes the tool through which ‘thought’ collides with reality, and tradition is the innovation which masks these illusive contradictions by explaining… “that’s just the way it is.” All of which feels like a copout from facing the true nature of existence, we don’t know what is going on. The more I learn, the more I know it’s ‘all’ nonsense, simply by the claim that ‘I know.’ This ‘all’ being a means of attempting to comprehend a reality that is ever-changing and which can only be within a moment. Even in the defining & redefining of all these words, concepts, theories, perspectives, so-on-and-so-forth, yada yada, literally none of this means anything. These are all just signposts towards stepping stones of possibility and reality is that which you make of it.

The book itself goes into depth about the history of rhetoric, from multiple angles of inquiry, while simultaneously attempting to create a ‘new’ future for invention that escapes the conundrums that are tradition’s & innovation’s contradictions. A whole bunch of malarkey if you ask me, and one of which the mark has continually been missed. Overall, this book was a happy accident. I quite enjoyed the trains of thought of which I found myself fueling, while on the journey of reading the material. Although, the "Future of Invention” may be something of a paradox. It is understandable at a fundamental level that the problem of change becomes in the perpetuation of binary systems through dialectical negation. I rate this book a 3/3. Mostly because my rating doesn't matter, and if you are truly interested, you will seek it out on your own to discover the intricacies of such work. I would definitely recommend this book to others. As I alluded to throughout the paper, for those that question the nature of reality and the positions we may find ourselves within it, this book is a hallmark of thought. Engaging multiple avenues from classical rhetors to universal law, The Future of Invention will definitely remain on my personal bookshelf as I continue to grapple with its contents. Who the hell am I to question reality, but a fool stumbling into existence.

The Semantic Triangle: The Meaning of Meaning

Literature Review

Co-authors: Madison Kanavos, Maja Dziarmaga, Ella Bustin

Rhetorical theory provides a crucial framework for understanding how meaning is created and communicated through language. One of the most foundational models for analyzing this process is the semantic triangle, developed by Charles K. Ogden and Ivor Armstrong Richards. This theory focuses on the relationship between three key components: the symbol, the referent, and the thought or reference. Rather than assuming that words directly correspond to objects in the real world, the semantic triangle demonstrates that meaning is created through human understanding. The semantic triangle remains a foundational rhetorical theory because it explains how meaning is constructed through interpretation, highlights the potential for miscommunication, and continues to inform rhetorical practices in both historical and contemporary contexts.

The semantic triangle was first introduced in 1923 in The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, a collaborative work by Ogden and Richards. At the time, many prevailing theories of language assumed a direct relationship between words and objects. However, Ogden and Richards challenged this assumption by arguing that meaning does not come inherently from words themselves. Instead, meaning arises through a process involving language, thought, and reality. Their model illustrates this process through a triangular structure, emphasizing that communication is not a simple or direct exchange, but a mediated and interpretive act.

Within this model, the symbol refers to the word or linguistic sign used to represent something. The referent is the actual object, event, or concept in the real world that the symbol refers to. The thought or reference represents the mental image or idea that connects the symbol to the referent. All of these three parts work together in order to produce meaning throughout communication. The development of the semantic triangle reflects broader concerns about 3 language and communication in the early twentieth century. As societies became more interconnected and mass communication expanded, the potential for misunderstanding increased. Ogden and Richards sought to explain why communication often breaks down by highlighting the role of interpretation in meaning-making. Their theory shows that even when individuals use the same symbol, they may associate it with different thoughts or references, leading to variations in understanding.

This insight is particularly important within rhetorical theory, as it emphasizes the role of audience interpretation in communication. In rhetorical situations, speakers and writers must consider how their audience will interpret symbols and construct meaning. The semantic triangle helps explain why messages can be persuasive for some while ineffective or misunderstood by others.

Rather than serving as a complete explanation of communication, the semantic triangle provides a foundational starting point for understanding how meaning operates within rhetorical contexts. By emphasizing the relationship between symbol, referent, and thought or reference, the theory establishes a framework that can be further expanded to examine how language functions in more complex situations. Building on this foundation, the following sections of this analysis will explore the key tenets of the theory, the contributions of its primary theorists, and the ways in which the semantic triangle continues to influence contemporary rhetorical practices. Through this progression, the paper will demonstrate the enduring relevance of the semantic triangle in analyzing communication and meaning. By focusing on the relationship between symbol, referent, and thought or reference, the theory provides a foundational framework for analyzing how language functions in rhetorical practices such as persuasion, media communication, and public discourse.

Charles K. Ogden (1889–1957) and Ivor Armstrong Richards (1893 – 1979), a pair of British scholars, both influential theorists in their own right, developed this theory together. Ogden was a philosopher and linguist who was interested in simplifying language, as well as, improving clarity in communication. Richards was a literary critic and rhetorician whose work focused primarily on how people interpret texts and create meaning, mainly in literature. With their different backgrounds, they were able to help shape a theory that bridged together language, thought, and reality.

Ogden and Richards explain that the relationship between symbols and thoughts and meaning with referent and thought is causal in nature. The thoughts that come to us after seeing a certain symbol may generally be based on the social and psychological factors we have been exposed to. For example, hearing the word dog (symbol) may bring memories (thought) of your own pet dog (referent) that you have in your hometown.

This explores a key tenant of the theory which is that words do not have an inherent meaning. Therefore, a word only really becomes meaningful when a person connects the symbol to a mental concept, which then relates to something that exists in reality. Another key tenant Ogden and Richard implied is that the relationship between the symbol and the referent is unstable, hence the dotted line connecting them in the image utilized to represent the theory. This means that the same sign can be used to represent any number of referents. For example, the word the president (symbol) can refer to a number of different presidents (referent) based on the contextual circumstance. This indirect relationship can at times cause misunderstandings amongst people with different mental interpretations of the same symbol.

Meaning is very much formed through a person’s mental interpretation. Therefore, different people may associate slightly different ideas with the same word based on their own 5 experience. For example, the word “home” (symbol), to one person can bring thoughts of a warm place with happiness and stability. However, to another may bring thoughts of instability or discomfort. Although the symbol is the same, the thoughts or mental image connected to it are unique to each person. A person’s cultural background and experiences shape how the person interprets the symbol highlighting the importance of how shared understanding and context are important to effective communication.

The semantic triangle became a cornerstone of theoretical frameworks in regard to linguistics, communication, and philosophic inquiry upon its release. “Ogden and Richards’ quarry was ‘word magic’, a term they use to describe a superstitious subservience to language that leads us, among other undesirable consequences, into philosophical confusion” (McElvenny, 2014, p. 213). Reimagining the idea that words do not directly correspond to reality, most notably through the meaning that individuals personally ascribe to them. The Meaning of meaning challenged the standard belief, that words maintained an objective reality and that “realism” was improbable due to the subjective nature of interpretation. It can be most significantly recognized in the literal translation of one language to the next. Due to the ambiguous state of language, and the subjective reality which must be accounted for, communication becomes a mediated negotiation of comprehension. “Translation is a transfer process, which aims to convert the written text of the source language into the most acceptable target language, so that it requires syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic understanding as well as the ability to analyze the source language” (Aprilya, Simamora, Budiarti & Syfitri, 2020, p. 21). As we can already begin to see, this concept of meaning and interpretation is multi-faceted and ever-changing, and comes down to a moment-to-moment presence in order to translate ideas effectively. Even then we are not truly able to get to the heart of the matter, the referent itself 6 becomes skewed by the other pieces of reality, while we are left grappling with words that misrepresent it.

Colleagues and critics alike, immediately began critiquing and implementing the processes of which the semantic triangle delineated. W.C. Swabey (1924) suggests, “[Their book] suffers from a superabundance of quotations and critical references and is more a collection of curiosities of word-magic, word-superstition, equivocations, sophistries, etc., combined with psychological theorizing, than a serious attempt to understand language as a cultural reality” (p.222). The concept of subjective thought being the central point from which reality derives wasn’t completely new, but it was the first time it had been cataloged so broadly. The primary opponent to this concept was Bertrand Russel, who postulated on the concept of logical atomism, which sought to frame reality and truth as logically-objective. “From the very outset of The Meaning of Meaning, Ogden and Richards postulate a multifunctional model of language, with a primary division between the ‘symbolic’, or referential, function, and the ‘emotive’ functions, a collection of what would now be considered various pragmatic and attitudinal aspects of meaning” (McElvenny, 2014, p. 215). Although these two theories both agree language is problematic, Russel’s focus was on that of logic and “ultimate truth,” while Ogden & Richards focused on the pragmatic application of meaning and how each individual may interpret reality differently. Rather than contend with any philosophical lens, which itself can then be interpreted, the authors depict a real-world, applicable framework from which reality may be referenced and the meaning of meaning can be dissected.

Language itself becomes a sign post to a stepping stone, and interpretation is upon the journey for which we embark to understanding. “Richards argued that it was important to focus on the language of rhetoric in its own right. We could not, he explained, focus simply on the 7 thoughts, ideas, or “bare notions” about which language discusses… reacting to thinking similar to that of Plato, who wanted to separate the words used in rhetoric from the “true” thoughts the words expressed.” (Borchers & Hundley, 2006, p. 145). As we have briefly discussed, words such as dog or president (symbol) represent a specific thing in the world (referent), however our experience culminates into which dog (referent) we think of when the words arise, same as with the animal for which was previously referenced. Context is therefore attached to meaning, which can ultimately stabilize or destabilize comprehension, for without it we become lost in the weeds. As such, the audience's role within meaning not only comes from interpretation but also the context from which their perspective intersects with the referent.

The semantic triangle also has application within cross-cultural communication and literal translation of language as was briefly referenced above. “The lexical meaning of the word often contains original meaning and expanded meaning. When an English word is translated into Chinese, it can be translated into a number of Chinese words. When choosing which one needs to understand language knowledge, including the language culture, we must consider the original meaning and expanded meaning” (Aprilya, Simamora, Budiarti & Syfitri, 2020, p. 25). This concept takes the semantic triangle one step further as a different symbol becomes the point of reference for the same referent. ‘Fixed equivalents’ begin to fail as cultural perspectives, historical ties, and languages themselves miss the mark of innately describing reality by the act of labeling that which is. “According to R. Keller, ‘signs are hints of a more or less distinct nature, inviting the other to make certain inferences and enabling that other to reach them. [...] The process of making such an inference is called interpretation; the goal of this process is understanding’” (Kravchenko, 2023, p. 22). According to (Keller, 1998, p. 90). According to T. Deacon (2015, p. 294). The goals of communication, being that of describing reality in a 8 meaningful way, become construed & contorted through the individual experience. Especially when interpreting through cross-cultural and multi-lingual barriers. As we can see, comprehending how interpretation within a language, and across them, becomes fundamental for the wide-spread engagement of interacting with reality. A single word can create different perspectives of reality depending on the audience, their perspectives and the language from which the word originates.

This leads us into the future of the semantic triangle and how it is now being applied across such fields of computer science and machine learning. “Recent advancements in deep learning (DL) and its applications, such as natural language processing (NLP), speech recognition, and computer vision provide significant insights on developing semantic communications” (Qin, Tao, Lu, Tong & Ye Li, 2021/22, p. 3). Recognizing the framework from which the semantic triangle produces meaning, computer scientists have already applied these concepts into the processes involved with artificial intelligence and the way in which it integrates understanding, rather than just analytical data processing. Thinking about this fundamentally, how do we translate human language into the binary correspondence of computers, and how do they understand? Furthermore, how can we elevate the means by which these technologies operate, through this concept of ‘deep learning’ as compared to a 1:1 translation. “The advancement on NLP enables text coding to consider the semantic meaning of text, which motivates us to re-design the transceiver for achieving successful semantic information transmission” (Qin, Tao, Lu, Tong & Ye Li, 2021/22, p. 18). This application of the semantic triangle into new-age technologies reinforces the claims made by Ogden & Richards, that meaning is subjective, by establishing a new language which operates from these fundamentals. This makes the semantic triangle even more relevant today, as machines are afforded 9 more-and-more leeway to interpret meaning in the ever-present dawn of an artificial future. As language evolves, even out of the means by which humans speak, the importance of understanding that interpreting meaning comes from a subjective view of reality, will continue to drive scholars to question the very foundation of which communication is situated.

Ogden and Richard’s Semantic Triangle can be used as an excellent base when it comes to understanding meaning and communication. Let’s begin by analyzing the strengths of Ogden and Richard’s theory. First, the theory clearly explains how meaning is created through the three elements of symbols, thoughts, and referents. We can analyze the Semantic Triangle in action during conversations, as well as when messages are communicated and received. Hoeken et al. (2009) examines health media tropes, such as metaphors used in slogans or ad campaigns, to show how they don’t convey meaning directly; but instead encourage audiences to create meaning through interpretation. Ogden and Richards studied how context impacts the construction of different meanings (Borchers et al., 2006, p. 148). Both past and present context, regarding emotions and situations impacts meaning and this can be seen in conversations as, “interpersonal communication is not always primarily informative but that it can also serve a social function and that people may draw upon content from surrounding media to fulfill that function” (Hoeken et al., 2009). Within the symbol-thought relationship, a symbol, such as an advertisement trope, doesn’t automatically create meaning because it then prompts a thought in the audience's mind. Oftentimes, tropes can be confusing or vague, causing audiences to seek additional context through interpersonal communication or other media resources. Here, we can see how the Semantic Triangle elements accurately work together to create meaning.

That being said, Richard and Ogden’s theory lacks a broader conceptualization of individual complexities created and perpetuated by external institutions. Meaning, they fail to 10 account for how power structures, marginalization, and culture also influence the meaning making process. Hoeken et al. (2009) argues that “being unable to come up with such an interpretation places an individual in a weakened position relative to those who have been able to make sense of the ad. As a result, the interpretation of an ad contributes to the position individuals take in the social hierarchy within their peer group”. The ambiguity of ads highlights meaning difficulties and differences by emphasizing individual disadvantages. For instance, some people may have less education than others, inadequate understanding of social cues, and a lack of cultural context. This demonstrates how the Semantic Triangle oversimplifies the meaning-making process, as Ogden and Richards do not explicitly address the extensive social and interpersonal implications that shape interpretation. Also, the Semantic Triangle doesn’t account for the fact that meanings can change over time. There are a few significant limitations to Ogden and Richard’s theory, but it is still a useful framework.

Overall, the Semantic Triangle is a foundational theory that explains the process of meaning construction through the three elements of symbol, referent, and thought. We explored how meaning isn’t solely created through words, instead, it involves language, thought, and reality. Meaning is gained through the connection of a symbol with a mental concept, which is then linked to something tangible in reality. Thus, meaning is formed through interpretation practices. We examined the role of context in relation to meaning and how it was a core part of Ogden and Richard’s theory. Then, we applied a future oriented lens to explain how the Semantic Triangle is currently being implemented into different fields, aside from communication, and where it is headed. We outlined the strengths of the theory: it’s an applicable framework for understanding message creation, useful in real life situations, and helps us better understand how miscommunication happens. Lastly, we highlighted a few limitations: the theory fails to consider 11 a wide range of individual differences created and perpetuated by systemic structures (such as marginalization, cultural implications, and power inequalities), meaning becomes oversimplified due to the lack of …No tie to the impact that time has on meaning; it has the possibility to change over time. Finally, the theory has notable limitations, including its lack of fully addressing individual differences shaped by systemic forces (such as marginalization, cultural influences, and power imbalances). It also oversimplifies the dynamic nature of meaning, as well as how meanings have the ability to change over time. Rhetorical scholars should reimagine pre-existing frameworks to consider broader implications of how meaning isn’t equally understood and perceived, due to systemic inequalities and marginalization of certain groups.

ECL 250

Illusions of Grand You

Of all the days on which we stay afloat,

those paved in stone bring waves of change the most.

The moments passed that bear no memory,

faded photographs stare so sensory.

Every where yet no where there, we set free.

Bairly fair in all the cares we let be.

While wear & tear are paired with everything,

the rare & subtle dreams are sure to ring.

The share of what will be for you & I,

is there for double of what we can buy.

So dare to cherish with all of your mind,

the wares & perishables of our kind.

To each that we raise, high with the next glass,

go fuck your ceiling, don’t be so damn crass.

Artist’s Statement [Illusion of Grand You]

This is the writer Andrew White’s first classical poem. Utilizing the standard sonnet format of 14 lines, with heroic couplets written in iambic pentameter (with a few exceptions, trochaic applied sparingly). Heavy inspiration was drawn from Anne Bradstreet, as reading her work is what inspired the initiation of this piece originally long before the idea of a creative project for the class was considered. This is meant in the literal sense as the writer began working on it within the same week as starting the readings of Anne Bradstreet… It took nearly 6 weeks to finish with on-and-off sessions of writing. Although this poem does not directly respond to a specific piece of her work, it was written with the writer's interpretation and a modern twist of Anne Bradstreet' s general tone in mind. As she seemed inclined to write from a perspective that was more reflective & inspirational, so too is this piece in its inception. If that is interpreted by the reader will be left up for debate. The goal was ultimately to write a piece that was by, from and for the author themself. It is meant as a personal reminder to enjoy the moments as they occur, for the reminiscing is always so bittersweet. Be you, stay blessed.

ECL 494

Discussion #1

Using "Elements of Fiction" (Anonymous, posted under "Modules.") as the elements you define. Discuss characterization, irony, plot, point of view, setting, symbol and tone as they are used to demonstrate an idea in seven different stories from Sherwood Anderson's Winesburg, Ohio.

Characterization (The Book of the Grotesque)

• This story uses characters and direct descriptions of their experiences & perspective as a way to show that a means to internal “youth” is to never battle with which truths are yours.

• An old writer comes to personal realizations about “truths” and how some that take those to be their own become malformed & grotesque, similar to the ways in which they had manipulated these truths. The old writer (protagonist) has a direct conflict with an old carpenter (antagonist… and physical representation of the grotesque) in the decisions of how to raise his bed so he is able to see the trees as he awoke. This along with an inner conflict regarding health drive the man to have visions of the grotesque (static), which are more so representations of his realizations about truth and its owner.

Irony (Hands)

• The story is called Hands and it's about a man who for whatever reason can’t keep his hands to himself (situational).

• For Adolf Meyers, a.k.a. Wing Biddlebaum, so aptly named for his “fluttering hands” (verbal) is a hermit & recluse that has little by way of relations with the town.

• From Wings’ perspective the story does not state that this is from explicitly sexual deviance; however the townsfolk in Pennsylvania, from where he originally hails, along with the reader have a strong inclination to believe otherwise (dramatic).

Plot (Paper Pills)

• The “curious” story of how Doctor Reefy met his wife and the right to his elective share upon her passing is a masterclass of plot.

• The story begins by telling a brief background of Doctor Reefy, more specifically that of his wealthy wife's passing within one year of their marriage (exposition). As it became necessary for this young woman to marry as her parents had passed and she needed a means to maintain the estate, suitors began presenting themselves (complications). After two years she had only found two possible suitors that she deemed viable (crisis). She has a dream that runs her off from one of her matches, while the other actually does the thing she dreams of, shunning him as well (climax). However, upon coming to meet Doctor Reefy all becomes whole. She is satiated in her search and she feels welcome & secure by his presence (resolution) leading to their marriage and ultimately his coming of wealth through her death (denouement).

Point of View (Mother)

• This story tells the tale of the family Willard, and a mother who gets a perspective that her husband is forcing their son “out of the nest”. As we are brought to the story we are given all the inner thoughts, feelings and motives of all 3 characters involved (omniscient), albeit sometimes in an order that leaves us clueless as to where the story is leading. The ability of the narrator to only give certain perspectives at certain moments creates a twisting & turning of who is led to be believed right & wrong in their truth.

Setting (The Philosopher)

• This story utilizes elements of time, place & social environment as a means to frame the characters it is following, most notable Doctor Parcival. From the saloons barroom, to the office above the shoe-repair and Main Street itself, each space creates a certain ambiance for the level of intimacy of the conversation & interaction. Even in the stories that Dr. Parcival told George Willard, the time and place each story happened were important facts to be known, whether it be Chicago, Ohio, Iowa… or was it Illinois?

Symbol (Nobody Knows)

• The meeting of George Willard & Louise Trunnion takes place under the cover of darkness and in the back alleys & shadows of the unlit countryside. Although this is literally how they choose to meet each other for their outings, this is also a symbol for how they conceal their love for one another from the town.

Tone (A Man of Ideas)

• The tone the author utilizes in this story is very short & direct, similar to the height & fuse that is Joe Wellings and his temper. The quick jump from one descriptor to the next is a direct correlation to the inner workings of Joe himself. Besides his temper there is also his job and many extracurriculars which has him hurriedly transiting from one place to the next ensuring all the logistics of oil distribution are lubed and moving accordingly in the region as well as “his” local baseball team winning their next game. These all ultimately stem from the inner workings that are Joe Welling’s invariably quick footed mind & nature.

Discussion #2

Adaptation & Isolation: Settings Role As Identities Cast

“But the great fact was the land itself, which seemed to overwhelm the little beginnings of human society that struggled in its sombre wastes” (Cather, p. 15). O’ Pioneers by Willa Cather depicts the fictional town of Hanover, Nebraska between approximately 1880-1910, otherwise known as the Gilded Age. During this era of westward expansion, reconstruction after the American Revolution and the rapid industrialization of the United States, many immigrants find their lives in the open heart of America’s fruited plains. As embracing as it can be bitter, the setting in this story is a force of its own stature. It not only, ‘establishes the world in which the characters act…[it] evokes a mood or atmosphere that will prepare the reader for what is to come.’ It becomes a character itself; moving & shaping those around it, as if prodding at potential, like a shadowed rider galloping into the unknown night. For those that find themselves in this setting, the land/landscape are either adversary or opportunity, involving psychosomatic (physical & emotional, mind-body) isolation that is the cast of its inhabitant’s form. The Nebraska prairie is a setting which induces adaptation, isolation and a sense of identity for the immigrants that seek prosperity in its presence.

The setting develops as the antagonist of adaptation, representing either adversary or opportunity for its inhabitants. The prairie, known to locals as the Divide, is a vast expanse of marginal land that is uncultivated by its residence. Although possibility is on the horizon, with the relatively short-time allotted for work each day, the distance towards change seems inconceivable to many and a dream to fewer still. “It is like an iron country, and the spirit is oppressed by its rigor and melancholy. One could easily believe that in that dead landscape the germs of life and fruitfulness were extinct forever” (Cather. pp. 187-188). In this dance of determination, the open land frames the individual in a silhouette that is unavoidable. The settlers reflect upon the setting sun as if friend or foe, while it is exclusively by their own hands that they have gone to bruising. The main protagonist, Alexandra Bergson, is not of this kind and she herself embraces the struggle that begets challenge. “The land did it. It had its little joke. It pretended to be poor because nobody knew how to work it right: and then, all at once, it worked itself. It woke up out of its sleep and stretched itself, and it was so big, so rich, that we suddenly found we were rich, just from sitting still” (Cather, p. 116). Through patience & vision, Alexandra is able to adapt with the gruesome land, with an ability to recognize the beauty of its boundless seclusion.

The environment is so expansive that it is only natural for the characters to feel such deep & aggravated psychosomatic isolation. The immense physical distance between farm houses represents a fraction of the emotional disconnection that most experience. Within these dwellings, the distance between rooms can often be heard in the shrill silence that fills them. “From two ears [of seed-corn] that had grown side by side, the grains of one shot up joyfully into the light, projecting themselves into the future, and the grains of the other lay still in the earth and rotted; and nobody knew why” (Cather, p. 164). The different paths that each must walk, although attached by similar forked-means, are floating upon an ocean of difference. Alexandra restrains her emotions as a defense-mechanism to protect herself from this isolation and as the fuel for her driving force towards to-morrow. “She had felt as if her heart were hiding down there, somewhere, with the quail and the plover and all the little wild things that crooned or buzzed in the sun. Under the long shaggy ridges, she felt the future stirring” (Cather, p. 71). In the natural isolation that the setting brings forth, Alexandra is able to discover her hidden vision of passion, the light that is her sun. Although the irony is in the individual loneliness that each experiences together, alone on the Divide; isolation too has its place in sculpting distinctions of the Self.

The prairie which for so long would not yield to the practices of the immigrants settling into its soil, becomes the source of identity for those that are able to break it of its stubborn ways. “The history of every country begins in the heart of a man or a woman” (Cather, p. 65). In this case, Alexandra and her family have the determined foresight and the meager means to reach for something of which they can only imagine. Through that tenacity she discovers who she is and how the land itself represents her. “It seemed beautiful to her, rich and strong and glorious. Her eyes drank up the breadth of it, until her tears blinded her. Then the Genius of the Divide, the great, free spirit which breathes across it, must have bent lower than it ever bent to a human will before” (Cather, p. 65). The land itself becomes the cast from which Alexandra intentionally draws her form. By believing in both (the land and herself) she is able to see her dreams through to the bitter end. Ultimately, Willa Cather tells a story that illustrates how identity is defined by one's connection, or lack-there-of, to setting.

Through the adaptation & isolation that the setting of Willa Cather’s, O’ Pioneers Nebraska prairie requires, each individual character discovers their identity through their association with it. The setting functions as either adversary or opportunity for those that discover it, although it is a source of psychosomatic isolation in the sheer distance traversed, it also is the cast from which the characters identities are formed. Through her characterization of setting, Willa Cather reminds her audience of the difficult relationship between people and the land they work. “You belong to the land” (Cather, p. 307). For as squared as the hedges can be in their row, the people will align themselves within, to stand wildly amongst them.

Discussion #3

Although I encountered some technical hallucinations while working with ChatGPT, in regards to its understanding of the story and quotations it cited, I was able to inform the system with better data and I believe it created a strong argument for the question I posed. Its three key points about religious symbolism, moral symmetry, and Delia’s prophetic faith in deliverance are strong evidence pointing towards the intentional drafting of this story to be “biblically charged”. Zora Neale Hurston’s “Sweat”, published in November 1926, follows the simple yet chaotic marriage of Delia & Sykes. It tells a tale of hard-work, devotion, and patience within the presence of evil. Delia & Sykes have been married for 15 years when we first discover their story, of that time, not a single moment seemed to bring peace. Sykes was a terror and downright cruel to the young & delightful Delia, who in her meek ways, never seemed capable or desiring of lashing out against him; thus he continued. I concur with ChatGPT’s response regarding divine intervention, and although not explicitly stated by the author, the themes & imagery utilized seem to point at such glorious means to this horrific end.

The snake is as religiously symbolic as a cross or an apple. The thing itself represents Satan, while simultaneously embodying deception, fear, and cruelty (so is told by Christianity). This cruelty is in double-vision as the snake being brought in the house further exacerbates this visual imagery into pure holy terror, as Delia is brought face-to-face with the crux of her fear. She gets a bit “feisty” with Sykes, but Delia never physically attacks or harms him. Meanwhile Sykes’ cruel intentions are on full display, so much so that the town has been aware and fixin’ to do something about it for long enough. Although they never have to intervene since Sykes meets his doom accordingly, or as ChatGPT explained it, “this symbolic logic mirrors scriptural patterns of retributive justice, where evil collapses in on itself.”

The moral symmetry that ChatGPT describes, to me, feels like some kind of retribution as well. The fact Syke’s brought this rattlesnake into the home, solely to terrorize Delia, and the thing eventually becomes the tool of his demise is sweet, sweet vengeance without the need for Delia intervening. Which seems to also be tied with her "deliverance". As she only has to fall to sleep in terror to wake up and be saved. Her simple act of stepping out of the way offered the opportunity for fate to have its way and for divine intervention to play its role.

Discussion #4

William Adair, in his essay subtitled, “The Novel As Gossip” identifies multiple points regarding how Ernest Hemmingway’s, The Sun Also Rises reveals various forms of gossip; the three I will focus on here: Narration as Gossip, Gossip That Makes or Breaks Reputation, and Gossip Involving Intimate Relationships.

Narration as Gossip

• “Jake Barnes, our newspaperman narrator, writes a gossip column” (Adair, p. 114).

• Immediately Adair focuses us on the type of narrator Jake Barnes is; the writer of a gossip column whose perspective often involves “spying & eavesdropping” (p. 114). Similarly Jake begins narrating the story utilizing gossip as a means to convey exposition, and ultimately as a means to set up the later climax. “I never met any one of his class who remembered him. They did not even remember that he was a middleweight boxing champion” (Hemingway, pp. 3-4). Adair challenges this exact passage and whether Jake actually ever met with any of Robert's schoolmates to have access to such information. Not only implying that the information is gossip but also the way in which Jake is delivering it to the reader. Hemingway writes, “Cohn had been rather nervous ever since we had met at Bayonne. He did not know whether we knew Brett had been with him at San Sebastian, and it made him rather awkward” (pp. 94-95). In this instance the narration is on the verge of gossiping directly with the reader. It feels as if Jake is telling us as if we are in on the secret at the moment it was occurring, not just through the context of his reflection. Throughout the entirety of the book Jake, as the narrator, creates an air of gossip in how information circulates and who then is privy to said conversation.

Gossip That Makes or Breaks Reputation

• “Presumably Harvey Stone is also a source of gossip: Jake asks him what Mencken is like and learns that he is ‘a garter-snapper’ (Adair, p. 114).

• It seems that everyone depicted in this book is some ‘source of gossip’ or other. “The concierge… she took great pride in telling me which of my guests were well brought up, which were of good family, who were sportsmen, a French word pronounced with that accent on the men. The only trouble was that people who did not fall into any of those three categories were very liable to be told there was no one home…” (Hemingway, p. 53). The gossip that is involved with these circles is the type that makes or breaks reputations. Even in-sofar-as to cause turmoil from the background characters like Montoya and his compatriots, when Brett starts seeing Pedro Romero and causes him grief. And even further within the circle of friends that the story follows as Robert Cohn becomes a target for much of the group's gossip on the trip. “‘My God! I’m so sick of him!’ ‘He doesn’t add much to the gayety.’ ‘He depresses me so.’ ‘He’s behaved very badly.’ ‘Damned badly. He had a chance to behave so well’” (Hemingway, p. 181). By the end of the book, before Robert finally decides to leave, it seems as if every other character had a scene talking about how terrible he is behind his back. Taking it even one step further I would argue that Mike skipped straight past the gossip angle, directly breaking Robert's reputation, publicly with shame.

Gossip Involving Intimate Relationships

• “Jake admits that he has the ‘rotten habit’ of picturing his friends’ bedroom scenes (13). And like a diligent gossip writer, he is inclined to spy on people” (Adair, p. 115).

• This entire book is one long gossip column. A melodrama about three, nay four men, all seeking the same love interest; Lady Ashley. Every other conversation or scene is about someone's intimate relationship with someone else or another person's opinion on the matter. “‘I don’t believe she would marry anybody she didn’t love.’ ‘Well,’ I said. ‘She’s done it twice.’ ‘I don’t believe it.’ ‘Well,’ I said, ‘don’t ask me a lot of fool questions if you don’t like the answers’” (Hemingway, p. 39). This is Jake talking to Robert about his perspective on Brett’s multiple marriages. While Robert, Bill & Jake are waiting for Brett & Mike to arrive on the train to head further on their trip we even get a gossiping insight from Bill, who for the most part is not involved in the inner-workings of the intimate relationships of his friends. “‘Oh yes, he told me all about it last night,’ Bill said. ‘He’s a great little confider. He said he had a date with Brett at San Sebastian.’ ‘The lying bastard!’” (Hemingway, p. 101). Although Jake vocally claims to ‘be over’ Brett throughout the book, his actions & interests speak otherwise. All the way through until the very last page of the book when he and Brett are sitting together, and she herself is gossiping about the necessity for her relationship with Mike, while Jake sits patiently listening to his love.

Discussion #5

Tone: “I Too” by Langston Hughes (1925)

In “I Too” by Langston Hughes the tone is one of steadfastness. This poem is a response to the way in which the founding of America was perceived to be treated amongst its Eastern counterparts. Through his simple description (utilizing metaphor as well) of a steadfast country, ‘eating well & growing strong,’ Hughes is able to define a tone of resilience exquisitely. “Tone has a great deal to do with meaning, for a description of a parent would be radically different depending on a poet’s attitude toward that parent” (EoP). In a couple short stanzas, he lets the reader know exactly where America stands within this governmental cosplay, and the Truth from which they derive their perspective.

Diction: “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” by T.S. Elliot (1915)

T.S. Elliot’s use of diction within “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” represents the idea that the use of “simpler” vocabulary has a large impact. He uses words like “etherized” & “insidious,” I do not intend to discredit; rather I think the more simple diction is intentional. My interpretation of the piece is one of reflective commonality, within which the author chose to use a lexicon that was comprehensible & closer to the average experience so as to connect with a wider range of people. “Choosing ‘wandered,’ for example, suggests something different than, say, ‘walked around, shuffled, drifted, floated, etc.,’ for each word suggests a different attitude, image, or connection” (EoP). The overall feel of the poem is one that feels common to life experience; wherein the goal was to intentionally use parts of the language that could be most widely understood. As such I think Elliot chose to use these simpler words with purpose & intention.

Imagery: “The Red Wheelbarrow” by William Carlos Williams (1923)

“The Red Wheelbarrow” by William Carlos Williams is a masterclass in imagery. The rudimentary & elementary nature of such a concise & descriptive piece of imagery is breathtaking. In a few short words, the author is able to convey so many emotions, perspectives & experiences all while ultimately talking about nothing & everything all at the same time. “Imagery refers to a pattern of related details. When images form patterns of related details that convey an idea or feeling beyond what the images literally describe…” (EoP). Each line in this poem sets us up for the next, questioning on what does so much ‘depend’, and with no truly “deep” details we are able to personally elucidate such a vivid story for that which creates such a scene.

Figures of Speech: “Fragment 113” by Hilda Doolittle (1921)

The entirety of “Fragment 113” by Hilda Doolittle feels like a figure of speech. Through its use of metaphor & contemporary re-imagining of the Greek poet Sappho's line, “Neither honey nor bee for me,” she is able to re-define the personal love desired as “tempered steel” rather than with conventional anecdotes of flowery reminiscence. “...figures of speech depend on word choice within a specific context… Choosing certain words creates a series of metaphorical actions” (EoP). I think Doolittle’s use of negative juxtaposition throughout the piece, to set up the message (really the last two lines) of the poem, is utilized well. Although she redefines love in her own terms, she utilizes what love is commonly referred to as and then explaining this is “not” what she wants, which ultimately leaves any further understanding up for interpretation by the reader.

Allegory: “The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost (1915)

I mean… how to explain the obvious. “...if we use a single metaphor to structure an entire poem or story, we are in the realm of allegory” (EoP).

Syntax: Tender Buttons: “A Box” by Gertrude Stein (1914)

The abstract nature of the syntax of “A Box” by Gertrude Stein creates the space for multiple layers of interpretation and a need to read & reread that which has just been read. Similar to the reader here, reading through this thread. “How something is said is just as important as what is said” (EoP). If I am completely honest, I feel like I am not educated enough to understand what the author is intending with my own perspectives. But I also think that plays into the use of such syntax. Not everything is meant to be understood by everyone immediately, and with some things, maybe never; after a dozen or so read-throughs, I think it will take another dozen months of study or more (or years of life) for me to catch up with this level of mysticism.

Structure “Recuerdo” by Edna St. Vincent Millay (1919)

Of all the options, it felt like “Recuuerdo” by Edna St. Vincent Millay was the only piece that offered any semblance of “structure”. I understand this is a stretch, but hear me out. “There are set forms such as sonnets, but also free forms which have no ‘rules’ to follow, and the choice of form can either reinforce or contrast with the theme” (EoP). Now I understand that “no rules” is a structure, but that is not what I am inferring from my interpretation here. This piece by Millay utilizes a six-line stanza formatting, with a rhyme scheme in couplets. Of all the pieces we reviewed for this assignment, this piece stayed closer to the roots of poetry in structure rather than to where it has evolved.

Language, “A Box,” Utilizing Poetic Elements to

Spotlight Restricting Confinement

Literary Analysis

Gertrude Stein (1874-1946) is an American expatriate who moved to Paris, France in 1903. Born in Pennsylvania and raised in Oakland, California, Stein was accustomed to multicultural living & expressionism. Establishing herself as a (although difficult to specify direct influence) foundational member of the Modernist/Cubist movements within art & literature in Europe. Inspiring the likes of, “painters Henri Matisse, Juan Gris, and Pablo Picasso” (Poetry Foundation) among a multitude of other creators who contributed in the Avant Garde Renaissance of the early 20th century liberal arts genius, by way of her poetry, novels, essays, and even hosting. Her work itself is argued to have had effects on Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Anderson and other modernist writers who discovered her work as well. This is all with direct inference from a well-known fact that the Paris salon at 27 rue de Fleurus was a common meeting ground for the Parisian art world & global thinkers alike, of which Stein and her partner owned & operated for over 30 years. Known for her experimental and often syntactically challenging style, Gertrude Stein’s implementation of language as a subject rather than a tool often creates a foreign-feeling within something as common as the English language. At the intentional sake of an expansive diction, "A Box," a poem by Gertrude Stein in her book Tender Buttons utilizes language itself to spotlight the confining container of-and-in which it is intrinsically engulfed. The Elements of Poetry: Structure, Diction, Tone, Imagery, Figures of Speech, Allegory and Syntax will be the framework from which the analysis of this master class in poetics & linguistics will be formed.

The meta-analytic nature of language’s function within the poem becomes the structure of that which enshrouds meaning. By the simple act of elucidation of a term, we are misrepresenting that which is, with a word. Through Stein’s use of unconventional organization, in relation with her dictational decisions, she depicts the self-contained nature of language as confined; the walls of which are in the structure that language enforces. There is no clear progression or linear development of typical thought, but rather a culmination of words that are atypical to the expression of ideas when utilizing the English language. As such, the structure of the sentences and the overall decisions made about elocution within the piece showcase the difficulty in utilizing language to explain what is meant… if not for following some specific rule set which allows the reader insight into the writer’s train of thought. Whether an expansive or lacking word stock is enacted, the sheer limiting nature of language and the labels of which we are referencing, becomes a container that forms the structure of the reality we perceive.

Through her choice of repetition, we are able to see the abundance of which ambiguity employs, as we are unable to determine that which is implied simply by the indicated words selected; creating a plethora of potential. However, the ambiguous state of words (this potential) is a limiting factor in translation & comprehension. Even if we were to be present with Stein as she created this piece, we are only able to understand it within the limited boundary that the words and our personal interpretation create. Although the word choice within this poem is quite simple, the concepts become abstract as the recurring use of words spotlight the boundaries of language itself. The repetitive and often nonsensical employment of words within the poem reinforces these inherent boundaries, by utilizing the same words with a slightly different context & intent, we shift meaning… but to what effect? The repeating of words in new positions and forms is an act of redefining the “edges” of the container without ever being able to escape it. Diction itself becomes a tool for confinement, as regardless of a comprehensive vocabulary, we are still restricted by these synonymic words that limit reality.

The tone, intentionally detached and made ambiguous, to destabilize meaning. In some ways, her somewhat, excessive use of punctuation, to fragment thoughts even further, creates its own sense of instability. The instability, a reflection of the confining apparatus of which it is bonded. The objective being to be less plainer than otherwise, in order to deliberately stumble any specific interpretations. The reader is engulfed by the uncertainty of direction, as the tone gives no clear indication of aim, but rather draws the perceptions to places unexpected. Although language is able to direct perception, the container that it is, does not allow for stabilized meaning.

Stein’s almost absent utility of nouns, operates as a means to let the other words within to become the objects. With a more dedicated focus on verbs, prepositions, articles & adjectives, the words become a confuddled image of feelings, moments surpassed, concepts remembered & forgotten, others never known, perceptions of intentions, ideals out the frame–reframed–removed, reconstructed, as a means to reintroduce the materiality of words. The choice of words becomes about the rhythm that is induced by the placement of each character, each morpheme made meant to mediate the cadence of utterance. Rather than intentionalize meaning, Stein instead reinforces the confining enclosure by peeling back literal imagery as a means to focus on the words themselves as fragmented. With only a few select words being specific enough, to deny some ambiguity, “cigarettes” and “winged” are two of the few examples which are less fitting of this perspective; however, the context of which these words find themselves, specifically down to those words directly next to them, their typical meaning is somehow lost. A prime example of language becoming the box of which contains itself. For even within the proper context, full-comprehension is never possible as words create a barrier upon which we must each climb, in order that we define our silly interpretations as a means to further ourselves from the reality of things. “Our own” is also being confined by that which we know, down to the lexicon upon which operates our reality. The density of one's vocabularic volumes simply fills the box further, it will never be able to move beyond its own boundaries.

This entire piece is a “figure of speech,” although not utilized for clarity, the creative emphasis on metaphor becomes a pandora’s box of unconventional figurative language to unfold. Rather than create some external meaning that aids in understanding, the poem restricts itself to become the figure of speech. As we’ve discussed, repetition itself is another means by which the author is able to create an inward pull of language. Repeating in different ways. Repeats-of-repeats, with forms of words repeated, yet repeated in subtly different ways. She is able to show that each word holds no tangible meaning no matter the intention of its placement. By limiting the diction of which she is accustomed, Stein explores how language, whether figurative or not, is figurative. Language becomes self-contained within the edges of its own confinement. Forever obscuring that which it represents by the presence of its being. Concealing any truth, by means of representation.

“A Box” is literal & abstract. The poem, literally on the paper, represents the container of which it is printed. The more that I go through this piece, the more I comprehend that I am not meant to know what the author meant. That is the point. Even if I were to connect some prospective perspective, it is written within the same language of which the author is referencing, and my interpretation would be just that… mine. But what is ‘mine’ from that which I am no creator. In our attempt to understand, we may open the box, yet the confines of ambiguity that derive from the labeling of reality will always consume us. This is the zenith from which interpretation is then diluted and disseminated across the attempted articulation of ‘my’ thought into ‘your’ thought. No matter how we may interpret meaning, the boundaries are still enforced by the language from which we each individually reason.

The abstract syntax of the poem creates the space for multiple layers of interpretation and a need to read & reread that which has just been read. Similar to the reader here, reading through this thread. If I am completely honest, I feel like I am not educated enough to fully comprehend what the author is intending through this piece, with my own limited perspectives. But as I’ve previously alluded, I also think that plays into the arrangement of such syntax. Not everything is meant to be understood by everyone immediately, and with some things, maybe never. After a dozen or so read-throughs, I think it will take another dozen months of study, or more (or years of life), for me to fully appreciate this level of mysticism.

For better or worse, “A Box” by Gertrude Stein, limits diction as a means to reveal language as a confining container. Through the Elements of Poetry; Structure (defined here as language itself), Diction (or lack-there-of), Tone (as a means to destabilize meaning), Imagery (of words themselves), Figures of Speech (heavy metaphors), Allegory (...of the cave) and Syntax (defining constraint) the author places a spotlight on the confines of language. Irrespective of languages ability to produce an abundance of terms, the fine print is lost in translation, and meaning is sold to the highest bidder. The author engages the reader in a-kind-of battle of wits, in which she challenges the audience to question everything which they have known in a search for some elusive comprehension. This foundational piece of modernist poetry is an exemplary contribution to our understanding of language as representative rather than literal. Signifying the ways in which words & language actively construct & limit meaning, as a barrier through which reality can not be understood.

PSY 353

Good Will Hunting

In the movie Good Will Hunting, Will experiences childhood maltreatment. He is beaten by his father multiple times with a wrench, which ends with Will becoming a ward of the state. This physical abuse creates a cyclic experience of attachment issues for Will wherein he only trusts a small handful of people that he deems loyal. Anyone that attempts to get close to him, he pushes away before they have an opportunity to hurt him, by leaving first. This can be seen in his relationship with Skylar; as she tries to open up to him and create a deeper bond, he rips her heart out, so as not to be the one who is hurt again. Similarly, at the beginning of the search for a therapist, he continuously undermines the procedures and laughs the psychologists out of the room in a bid to maintain his own guard. Furthermore, while in the interviews for potential jobs, he downplays the opportunities by attempting to make a mockery of the institutions so willing to accept his immediate hiring. Some of the symptoms of the mental & physical health consequences stemming from his childhood that can be seen include; mood disorders (Will can be quick to anger, and take it even further to physical violence), and substance abuse (Will and his friends are seen regularly at the bar, and in many scenes he himself can be seen smoking a cigarette…even during therapy). Will’s childhood trauma caused significant distress in his life, and it wasn’t until he was willing to face it that he saw opportunity gazing back.

The psychologist that opened the space for him to finally open up about it, Sean, did so by being open & vulnerable himself. He engaged in a conversation at the level where Will was inclined to be and guided him towards an understanding of the information he already had within to gain wisdom. At times Sean pushed Will and others he was sure to lay low. Between the first couple of their meetings, Sean goes from choking Will out, for disgracing his wife, to sitting in a staring contest in silence with him for the entirety of their hour together. He towed the line between psychologist & friend; by engaging in real conversation and letting a bit of his own guard down, Sean was able to show Will it is okay to be vulnerable, which opened Will up to himself.

Good Will Hunting: For Heaven’s Sake (Possible Sequel)

Will sits at the desk in his office at Bunker Hill Community College; a five minute walk from what only a few short years ago was his greatest mentor's office. Although it has now become a store room for the psychology department, it stands barren with towering archives of bankers boxes and unused textbooks laid to waste. Will sometimes finds himself sitting in the hallway under the stairs waiting for an appointment that will not come again. His current office is filled with books & papers itself, awards & recognitions, a framed clipping of one of his students work in the local newspaper alongside photos of colleagues & friends. An office that he enjoys being in, within a career which he enjoys participating in.

A mathematics professor in his own right, he currently sits reading the work of an intelligible student whom he finds quite intriguing. He recognizes the “rough around the edges” attitude, and the eyes so riddled with fear of the unknown, one would think they were viewing the final gruesome look of a deer in the headlights. He also recognizes the poignancy of their work, and the sure fire demeanor of their delivery. Finishing the reading, he turns to his computer which has his email inbox open, within which are two distinct emails; one from a potential employment opportunity (Prestige Research Institute) and the other from his dearest, Skylar. Although they are no longer together, neither has quite moved on from the other and they continue to maintain contact through a string of polite, reserved emails. Moving his mouse cursor to hover over the employment opportunity, he reconciles and clicks on the email from Skylar.

She explains she will be in Boston for a week-long biotech seminar and would love to get together for tea and catch up in-person. To this he is delighted and delivers a response requesting a time & place that works for her, along with his excitement to see her.

While sitting in front of the coffee shop patient, excited and a bit anxious, Will begins to reminisce before Skylar arrives. He thinks back to when he first arrived in California 5 years ago; the idea of love so calling unto him, and his decision to leave his home behind, his friends, his mentors. He begins to smile softly as he recollects the juxtaposing fear he felt alongside the new found courage which drove him to continue across each state's border. He remembers the first years' struggles as Skylar continued to thrive in medical school, and he only felt diminished by her presence. With his drifting from freelance work, tutoring & short-term contracts; Skylar began to challenge him, “What do you want?” Although she meant it in a caring & endearing way all that Will heard was, “Why aren’t you more?” Rather than exploding in anger & frustration as he once might have he began to withdraw from her. After a missed employment opportunity at the next big start-up in Silicon Valley, simply due to his lack of response or care, Skylar recommended going back to therapy… he refused. They shared three years together in California before they finally split. Within a month of their breakup he received word that Sean had passed away from what many would consider a broken heart. Although he had some physical health conditions due to age, the deepest wound he had was that of his taken love, which he never could recover from. That was the catalyst that brought Will back to Boston. It may well have been the catalyst that also had him seeing a therapist twice a week for the last two years. Either way he returned home.

In the last year alone he has seen many changes in his life. From his new found career at the community college, to this bright student whom he was currently so invested in guiding, he felt purpose & direction. For the first time, he felt whole.

Skylar approaches with her same beautiful smile and the wit which so intrigued Will from the beginning.

“Hey there stranger,” she says in her classy British tone.

Will turns and stands to embrace her as they smile & laugh with brief introductions between kisses on the cheeks & hearty hellos. When they finish with their greetings, Will helps Skylar to her seat like a proper gentleman, being careful not to snag her sundress as he helps move her chair towards the table. As he sits down across from her, Skylar looks into his eyes and smiles.

“What?” Will asks through a side-smirk and a thick Boston accent.

“It’s nice to see you,” she says as the waiter approaches to take their order.

“What can I get for you both today?” asks the waiter.

Skylar orders a warm tea with a cube of sugar, and Will, without looking away from her, orders a coffee, black. She smiles as she notices his unwavering eyes.

“What?” she playfully asks back.

He smiles, “It’s nice to see you.”

As they share their conversation and laugh together, Skylar begins to shift the conversation from one of reflection to one of the future.

“What are we doing?” she asks, with all sincerity and a truth to her inquiry that only Will can understand.

Will is not surprised by the question, however he does not respond immediately. Instead he sits silently, looking into Skylar's eyes while she looks back into his. A moment passes, and then another. Finally Will speaks.

“I love you,” he says resolutely.

Her gaze softens as she understands what he means in that moment.

“Listen,” she says, “I have an opportunity to join a research team in Switzerland, and you were the first person I wanted to tell.”

He smiles in warm joy for her, as he quickly looks at his hands then back up to her face. Although he comprehends what this will mean for them, he is excited for what it means to her.

“What are you thinking?” she asks unassured.

After a brief pause Will responds, “I am more than happy for you. I’m overjoyed to hear that you are being recognized and given opportunities which you’ve rightfully earned.” The waiter approaches with their drinks and Will waits to continue.

“I am in full support of you going. I am a bit saddened that we will no longer share the land of the same continent, but knowing you are off doing what you love will inspire me forever.”

Skylar is overwhelmed with love as she recognizes the changes Will has seen and the course of which he is directing his life. They continue their conversation for another hour or so, after which they stand to give each other a hug.

“I love you,” he says with care as he embraces her.

As she places her head on his chest, “I love you too.”

Two days later, Skylar was on a flight to Switzerland and Will found himself in his office, holding an unopened letter from Sean which he had received at his funeral and up until then he had no desire of opening. He reaches in the desk drawer and pulls out a letter opener. As he unfolds the simple note, he sees in Sean's sloppy writing:

We don’t get to choose whether we are hurt. But we do get to choose what we build with it.

As he smiles and begins to tear up, he opens up his email inbox to respond to Prestige Research Group with only a few short words.

“I’d like to talk.”

Cover Me

The primary goal of this documentary, as it is intended for active duty Marines, is to let each of them know that there is a similar thread of experience (combat operational stress) that they can all relate to. Even if they are not necessarily affected in the same ways being described, they can go on to better understand and incorporate these findings into their relationships with each other and those around them. This piece really feels like a public service announcement, or an olive branch to Marines & other combat veterans, as a means to let them know they are not alone. Furthermore, it is a way to inspire them and give them an “order” to use their lifelines. Reach out for assistance if you are drowning. The documentary did a great job in synthesizing such a complex experience into something that is widely experienced into a perspective that is simply understandable.

I think there are multiple layers to what they take aways for Marines. On one hand, it is saying that it is okay to speak up if you are experiencing combat operational stress, and on the other hand it is saying to watch out for others who may be experiencing it. Either ask for help/time to recover, and look for others who seem in an altered state that may need the same thing to return to a more relaxed reality.

If I were a Marine, I would feel much more inclined to ask for assistance with my mental capacity, similarly to as I would about my physical health. I know we discussed in class the stigma within the military about going to see the mental health department (“the psych ward” and the “wizard” taking you away) but in all honesty, at the very least, I think this act is the best outcome for all. And I mean this in the sense that, if someone can be healed and taught the tools to continue the good fight, then Hooyah! However, if the individual is consciously at stake, outside of the prior parameters which caused the mental state to begin with, it becomes our moral duty to support and empower one another and ensure we are capable of living a reasonable life in the aftermath.

The live imagery from the combat zones, whether directly during combat or even just of the patrols moving through bustling towns was all very visceral. Although I am not a Marine, and have never experienced combat operational stress myself, I am a testament to a veteran who advocates for mental health services. I have found myself all over the spectrum of stability, both physically & menatlly and can tell you that without all of the assistance that I received along the way, even down to simple documentaries like this one, did wonders to the betterment of my lived experience post military. The imagery utilized reminded me of the “good ol’ days” during my military experience and although I can see footage like this and look back on my own experience with reminiscence, I am also very proud of how far I have come within my mental health space.