"Why, Professor Dumbledore, you look absolutely ravishing!"

"Take me to you, imprison me, for I, / Except you enthrall me, never shall be free, / Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me" ("Batter my heart, three-personed God," 12-14).

In this poem, the speaker is addressing God, asking Him to "batter" him so that he can "rise and stand" (1-3). That paradox is nice and everything, but I'm going to focus on the last three lines, which contain two paradoxes. Both paradoxes are resolved by the double meanings of certain words (like "batter" in this first example). Okay, the last two paradoxes . . .

The speaker asks God to "imprison" him, for unless God "enthralls" him, he cannot be "free." At first glance, that makes no sense because one who is imprisoned is not free. However, the word "enthrall" can mean to captivate in a charming way or in a slavery-y way. The speaker is suggesting that it would be oh-so-charming if God were to enslave him; that would make him free of evil.

Then, the speaker asks God to "ravish" him, for unless God ravishes him, he cannot be chaste. If we just use one definition of "ravish" -- to rape -- this statement seems contradictory. Rape is not chaste. However, "ravish" can also mean to fill with joy, which is more of what the speaker is requesting.

My argument here is that the speaker wants to be figuratively imprisoned and raped, and he literally wants to be charmed and filled with joy. Iiii sincerely hope it's not the other way around.

"Now can anyone tell me what foreshadowing is? Yes, Miss Granger?"

"The remedy was to make the holiday continuous. Greedily she clamoured for ever larger, ever more frequent doses" (Brave New World, 154).

In chapters eleven and twelve, I found two examples of what I think could be foreshadowing. This first quote refers to Linda overdosing on soma, which I feel is probably going to end her. Being super greedy usually does not end well. Huxley probably wants to convey that instant gratification is dangerous. That's why I'm reading this book instead of playing Tetris!

"'No,' he concluded, with a sigh, 'it won't do. We need some other kind of madness and violence. But what? What? Where can we find it?'" (185).

If I had to guess, Helmholtz, we can probably find it within the next few chapters. Helmholtz and John are compatible because they both believe in the power of words, which I'll talk about more in my next post. To form beautiful words, though, something out of the ordinary has to happen. I think Huxley is trying to get me excited for the climax, and it's sort of working, but in all honesty, I'm more excited for this whole thing to be over.

We're different, different as can be!

"'Damn, I'm late,' Bernard said to himself as he first caught sight of Big Henry, the Singery clock" (Brave New World, 78).

I was wary of saying this in my last post, but now that I've read chapter five, I'm more confident about it. (Deep breath.) It seems to me that Bernard Marx and Henry Foster are foil characters.

Already, I've placed them into two different mental groups -- Bernard is an outsider with an unconventional thought process while Henry is stuck with his hypnopaedic views. The way they act also plays along with this; Bernard is really awkward and Henry is a hit with the ladies. Now I also know that, unlike the extremely punctual Henry, Bernard was late to his Solidarity Service. (I'm not even going to talk about how creepy that whole part was.)

Just now, I'm piecing together possible implications of their names. "Henry Foster," I noticed from his first appearance, is remarkably close to "Henry Ford." Ford was as American, consumeristic, and free markety as anyone can get. Bernard Marx shares his last name with Karl Marx, who made huge contributions to the ideas of socialism and communism. So even their names are strongly contrasted with one another.

The sharp differences between Henry and Bernard really highlight their distinct personalities. Umm, and they make me like Bernard more than I like Henry.