On Mobile? This page is best read on desktop!
email: ryansullivan651@gmail.com
title background inspo: Russian Gothic by Aleksandr Skorobogatov
Welcome to My Schoolwork Page!
This page is dedicated to my school work. This includes all the fiction I read for the semester, but not so much the nonfiction, since that is more contained within my professor's class curriculum. I will include the essays and assignments I had been assigned (except for items that I feel are too personal), but this is the perfect page if you wish to read some of my more formal works. These formal works will include my literary analysis papers and other research papers. I will probably only include items that I have saved on my own computer, not so much items on that are directly placed onto a website like Canvas. Similar to my other explanation, I feel as though those are more a part of the curriculm more than actual writing that I'm proud of and would like to revisit. I also rated all the fiction I read. The rating system should be pretty obvious, but if items weren't memorable enough, I was inclined to give them a 5/10. But, I did genuinely rate some very middle of the road. Overall though, these ratings are generally how I feel without going into too much detail and analysis, since I had to do that in class already.
PLEASE EMAIL/TEXT ME IF YOU NOTICE ANY GLITCHY TEXT OR TYPOS!!! Tell me which post it's in, and I'll fix it right away. I can't catch everything when I'm copying and pasting, but I want this page to looking as good as possible!
Intro to English Major [Fall 2025]
What I read:
A Jury of her Peers, 10/10
The Space Traders, 10/10
There Will Come Soft Rains, 10/10
Spring in War-Time, 5/10
The Split Cherry Tree, 10/10
Everyday Use, 10/10
Woman Hollering Creek, 9/10
Anyone Can Do It 10/10
What I Wrote:
A Jury of Her Peers and Unnecessary Extensions [9 September 2025, Nonfiction]
I'm going to be so honest with you professor; I found the readings these past two weeks very boring. A Jury of Her Peers is of course a feminist classic, but I don't think it needs anyextra material to be understood. Maybe, I'm a pure formalist at heart. The historical context for why Glaspell had written it is a very important aspect of why it is such a classic - it was written before women got the right to vote! However, the examination of the Hossack case muddies the water. Suddenly, A Jury of Her Peers can only have the limited view of comparing it to the Hossack case, which completely misses the point of what the story is attempting to say. Simso intends to answer the questions that Glaspell presents, but I believe that also to be a farce.
This article of Bryan's is not interesting enough to justify its page count. Near the end she states that she was "narrowing my vision in that I begun to focus my attention primarily on the question of who killed John Hossack," (1358). However, I believe she has narrowed her viewpoint even further than she realizes. Examining this case is pointless! The comparison to the story is interesting, at best, and could clue the reader into why Glaspell had written it the way she had. However, the point of the story is not the crime - maybe that is what grabs the audience but it not the point. The crime itself (who killed Mr. Wright and how did they do it) matters little in the context of A Jury of Her Peers. The more important aspect of the story is the dynamics between the men and women. The readers of A Jury of Her Peers don't get to examine what narratives are used in the court, since the story does not examine it in daylight. However, we do get to examine the contrasting views between men and women during this time period. At this point in history, society treats men and women as two different creatures, rather than that of the same species. The most important part of the story is the contrasting narratives of those men and women observing the same crime. When Simso discusses law and justice, to say that men represent the law and the women represent justice takes it a step too far. Law and justice are two separate ideas (to my dismay), but they are not intensely represented within the Glaspell's story. It does not matter if Minnie Foster was the executioner to Mr. Wright's crime. It is simply a framing for a more important aspect of the narrative.
I believe the strongest argument would be to consider the historical context outside of Glaspell's personal life. Clearly, the point of Glaspell's story is that the law needs empathy. Domestic abuse and marital abuse cannot be private matters. A Jury of Her Peers advocates for feminine community and sisterhood. The harshness of the law is because of the rampant sexism and misogyny that pervades society, with its own combatant that of community. When the law (the state, men, society) doesn't protect you, unity is the only tool available to level the grounds. Minnie Foster being isolated from her community leads to her doing the most unforgivable thing -- murder. Violence was her last line of defense, her community strangled by Mr. Wright's unbelievable amount of social power. However, by removing this obstacle, she is able to find community again through Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale because they are able to empathize with her. By seeing her circumstances through her feminine work, they are able to understand her situation at a much deeper level than that of the men. The readers find Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters to be morally correct in this situation because of the horrors that Mr. Wright had performed on Minnie Foster. Maybe, the story questions, if there were women in the courtroom, there would be no need for them to hide evidence! These women have no power in traditional society, so they must gain power through their community.
Maybe I took away the wrong intentions from the outside sources provided. However, I am quite angry. As a trans man now, in modern society, I know that the law will not defend me. This defenselessness creates a great hatred to those in power. It is important for me to find community in order to gain even a minuscule amount of power over the Man. I do my best. I meet as many queer people as I can, both over the internet and within the walls of campus. To survive in an oppressive society, community is the best way to cope. So although I personally found Bryan and Simso's essays useless to my analysis of the story, they are interesting additions to the conversation. I see Glaspell's message as a call to action to find community and to ensure that no person can take it away. The story shows what happens when you lack it but also the strength it can become.
Citations: A Jury Of Her Peers by Susan Glaspell, "Stories in Fiction and in Fact: Susan Glaspell's 'A Jury of Her Peers' and the 1901 Murder Trial of Margaret Hossack" by Patricia L. Bryan, "Twelve Good Men or Two Good Women: Concepts of Law and Justice in Susan Glaspell's 'A Jury of Her Peers'" by Mary M. Bendel-Simso
The Memory That is Held in Technology [6 October 2025, Nonfiction]
Artificial intelligence - AI - an interlocking system of if-then statements that ultimately result in the machine being able to learn, or at least the best reconstruction of learning that ones and zeroes can produce. In the material world, artificial intelligence must be contained in a warehouse full of servers, sweatshops for the electrical. If you're someone who's interested in computers as a buyer, it's obvious that the prices have gone up over the past few years; relatively cheap parts like fans have become overpriced precisely because of these electrical sweatshops. The reason why? Memory storage; memory recall; memory management; memory categorization; memory movement; sent memory; received memory. AI needs this large amount of memory in order to work; if it doesn't have readily available access to all of its memory, it can easily ruin the viewing experience. I would like to pose a question of what happens when society collapses, what kind of memory stays?
Technology is a result of our particular time and culture. It actively adapts for society. If society is at war, technology will be developing weapons. If society is starving, ideally technology will follow to solve hunger. If society is in pestilence, technology will come through that of vaccines and cures. Of course, there are many exceptions to this rule especially with capitalism, but ideally, technology is the effort to better our society and our peoples; and, technology will generally reflect on the greater social era that we are in. What is being pushed is what we are currently in need of. There Will Come Soft Rains has two main technological advances presented to us: nuclear weapons and automation of the home. For a moment, I would like to reflect on what that technology means for the culture of the setting within the story and additionally the wider culture of Ray Bradbury, when he wrote this piece.
Publication date: May 6th, 1950, five years after the atomic bombings on Japan; there is no doubt that this short story is a warning of the use of atomic bombs. This story is an act of fear; the horrors of being remembered but not known. "Here the silhouette in paint of a man mowing a lawn [...] a woman bent to pick flowers. [...] a small boy [...] and opposite of him a girl"; the silhouettes a grave to this nuclear family (Bradbury). However, this grave is incomplete. Graves traditionally have at the very least a plaque which celebrates the lives of the departed. In this instance, these graves only signify death, and what is forcibly brought to the forefront is the nuclear bomb. In this sick way, it is the aftermath of the nuclear bomb that is remembering those who had lived in this house. The silhouettes, devoid of personality, stand silently as the memories of the lives they represent are completely erased. Bradbury asks the important question: is death what we want to immortalize in our technology? Is war?
The most agonizing part of this question is that by the time this story was published, it had already been immortalized, a memory never to be forgotten. Many students now have to face the horrors of World War II, despite being generations away from it. The worst part is that it is not the importance of history but the importance of technology. Nuclear power plants are still being used today, but in order to learn about nuclear, one must face the true reason why we, as humans, discovered it. To extend on that, technology in the United States is famously derived from military technology. Everyday items that seemingly have no connection to war, the Internet for example, is derived from the inventions of war. Is the legacy of war and destruction, one that is impossible to redact, really what we wish to give our future children?
This nuclear bomb isn't the only piece of technology that is presented in the story, though. The other is the automatic house. This house is inherently more interesting to me, simply because it speaks of luxury. I would love a robot servant to make me pancakes every morning, and that inherent want that I feel was intentional on Bradbury's part. If the legacy we leave with that of a nuclear bomb is war, then the message presented through this automated house is that of something inhuman. War, in the worst sense, is inherently human. Not many animals can distinctly create tribes in which there is a we and an other. These groups are purely by our own design, in and out groups. I don't believe it to be inherent to all humans to reach violence, but I do believe that we create our own personal in and out groups, to speak more broadly: people we can trust versus the people we cannot trust. War takes that idea to its very extreme, that inherent human reaction to our in and out groups pushed all the way to mass violence. At the very exact opposite of that spectrum comes this automated house.
The automated house is emotionless, even if it seems like it does. The interesting trick that Bradbury plays on the audience is that he makes the house perform very human tasks. The house wakes up; the house cooks; the house cleans. I think something fundamental to the human condition is the act of taking care of yourself or your family (your in group). Waking up in the morning may seem very benign, but it is the very thing that keeps us human. The act of not waking up would put a person within the in between of life and death. So, the house said "time to get up," programmed to do so by a human entity out of sight (Bradbury). However, it is not by the house's own choice to wake up, it is simply replicating what being human is supposed to be like.
"In the kitchen [the house served] eight pieces of perfectly browned toast, eight eggs [...], sixteen slices of bacon, two coffees, and two cool glasses of milk" for no one (Bradbury). It is replicating the caring act of cooking for another. Cooking for someone else (or even yourself) is the one action that represents care in nearly all cultures. Bradbury tricks us in this way. We associate cooking with that of care, but the reality is that the house does not care; it does not care for the family; it only replicates what care looks like. In this way, we have to wonder, did the family care for each other? Of course, the silhouettes outside show us happy scenes, but that is only a brief second in their lives. If we assume that the rest of their lives are controlled by the house - as its automation implies - what acts of care could the parents do, if not cook? This automated breakfast forces them all to wake at the same time and eat at the same time, so what would their family be like without those automations? If the house is automating family time, then what would happen if the family was given complete control of their own time?
Back to how technology ideally fills the gaps within our society, is the house filling in the emotional gaps within this family? The 1950s are very famous for the white picket fence aesthetic of American culture. However, this aesthetic is just that - an aesthetic - with no emotional value. The 50s were a famous time for its rampant racism, racist traditions from those days still haunt us now. For a brief moment to speak more broadly, American exceptionalism and individualism was very strong in this period, and all of this may be caused by that lack of emotional value within the home. If you were never taught to care for your own family (maybe an automated house will do it for you!), then you might not even care for those who are different, like other races, cultures, or religions.
This is the trick that Bradbury plays on us: we believe the family to be caring because the house acts as though it cares, when the reality could be far different.
To circle back, technology fills in the gaps within our society, good or bad; and, those gaps will only become more obvious with time through the legacies of technology we leave behind. The legacy of AI will reveal how lonely we all are, how talentless and lazy we are, and how art has lost meaning. For some, AI has replaced human interaction, pointing to how disconnected society is now. As for art, it's clear to me that the public only cares for the aesthetics rather than the meaning of art, thus the rise in generative AI. I just hope a modern Bradbury wouldn't judge us so harshly.
Citations: There Will Come Soft Rains by Ray Bradbury
FallingWater [5 December 2025, Fiction]
Wind takes its rest here. Swirling around the air vents, terminally stuck within the dusty walls. Along the walls, rocks jut out, allowing ash to settle within the cracks.
The parlor, with its warm-white colored walls, sat silently. The table, styled with cut geodes atop it, had several decks of cards spread.
Two cards at each chair, one face up and the other face down. They sat there like corpses awaiting their burial. Queen of diamonds, two of clubs, jack of diamonds, and an ace of spades. The house never observes the other cards.
The floors were cut from a beautiful redwood, while the stones that fill the walls were from Appalachian limestone - across the country. Guests used to tap their heels, scratching the surface, but now the floor is sealed with a thick layer of clear vinyl. Out of habit, the robotic mice polish and reseal the wood back into their resin coffin.
After an hour, the stones scoot aside to reveal a thin vacuum that pulls all the cards into its maw. Each card contains a small magnet, and the house is able to sort the cards perfectly so that all the cards are facing down. They return to a compartment to be spread again tomorrow. Then the next day. Then the next day...
The kitchen whirs to life. Meatloaf Monday is today. A stone from the wall pulls itself back by mechanical violence, mangling the wall into large holes containing large robotic arms. They stretch inhumanly. The granite polished top of the table was first wiped down.
Chemicals peel off the surface of the table. The acidic smell is smelled by no one.
One of the arms opens the fridge. Another takes ground beef, stored in a large flat slab. Another smaller arm with pads attached for better grip grabs the eggs. Several arms grab various condiments from the fridge door. Another arm opens the cabinet. Another set of arms grab spices from that cabinet. The walkway is entrenched with mechanical arms.
Another arm pulls a bowl. Another arm mixes. All the ingredients poured into this mixing bowl to finally create a bland meatloaf. A set of two arms shaped it into a pan (which was grabbed by another arm). Each comes out one at a time to perform their task, then return to the dark void between the walls.
The air passively runs through each of the limbs. The limbs take up all human space. Each of the limbs squeak with grease and oil. Metal ligaments and iron bones, cutting the wind like a hungry knife
The oven rings, no one hears. The kitchen sets up four plates. The countertop rings with excitement of cutlery and ceramic hitting its surface again.
Nevertheless, no one comes.
Thirty minutes pass.
Another vacuum reveals itself from the wall, sucking up each serving to the wall.
The speaker within the study comes to life, "Mrs. McClellan, which poem would you like this evening?"
Only the dust responded with a dull white noise. The carpet, freshly swept and vacuumed, was stained beautifully with a dark blue. The desk itself was made from Cherry and so was the chair. The wear on the seat has been polished away. The robotic mice must have chewed it all up. The speaker in the study was in the corner, placed behind the desk. Mrs. McClellan must have heard it clearly, if she were there.
"Since you express no preference, I shall select a poem at random."
The robotic voice prattles off a poem. The walls absorb it within the cracks between the limestone rocks.
The children's beds heard an excerpt from The Silver Chair by C.S. Lewis:
"Jill couldn't remember the names of the other things in our world. And this time it didn't come into her head that she was being enchanted, for now the magic was in its full strength; and of course, the more enchanted you get, the more certain you feel that you are not enchanted at all.
"She found herself saying (and at the moment it was a relief to say): 'No, I suppose that other world must all be a dream.'"
The children's sheets were pink and blue. The floor is an insignificant brown. The carpet tiles uniquely create square-like swirls. The walls were mixed with sand, making them sharp to touch. Of course, the house never dared to remember the blood when the little boy scraped against it. The robotic arms didn't know what to do, so they hid in the walls.
References: Fallingwater by Frank Lloyd Wright, There Will Come Soft Rains by Ray Bradbury, The Silver Chair by C.S. Lewis
The Four Master Tropes: Literature [10 November 2025, Nonfiction]
Metaphor is of course the most easily understood of these tropes, since it refers to any metaphor. In this way, art is a metaphor for life - a symbolic representation. Art will always talk about the human condition, thus art is a metaphor about the human condition through a variety of means (poetry, movies, literature, etc.). Literature, storytelling, is a type of metaphor intended for everyone to understand the human condition that much better. In this way, literature lets us gain multiple perspectives on the human condition. Irony is the second easiest, since it is that dialogue within literature that is so fascinating. I have recently found a Youtube video that was heavily inspired by The King in Yellow by Robert W. Chambers. And, The King in Yellow is a derivative of Haster from H. P. Lovecraft's A Whisper in Darkness. This dialogue between all these pieces can only exist in relation to each other. The irony involved within this dialogue creates drama: how does this adaptation differ? how can one translate a Lovecraftian horror to Minecraft? Signalis, a video game also based on The King in Yellow, so what is different about its adaptation in comparison to the video format? All of these questions grow and evolve through the growth and evolution of art. It's said that no work is original!
Metonymy and synecdoche trouble me, however. In literature, one can say that metonymy can be that of a caricature. It reduces and assumes lots about a people's culture. In this same line of thinking, orientalism can be that of a metonymy. We westerners reduce all Eastern countries to simply the East, especially when it comes to Asian cultures. It is most glaring that many trends are credited to Korean culture, when many trends tend to come from China. This confusion of cultures can be seen most easily in anime: the Japanese cartoon. Even though new Chinese, Korean, Thai, and Vietnamese cultures have been developing their own cartoons separate from the Japanese anime, many people have come to reduce all of these cartoons to anime, simply because it is Eastern. It is this generalization that presents metonymy of Eastern cultures. In the direct opposite hand in synecdoche, we can see how this generalization can help us as well to understand the world. Although there are unique aspects of any country, when they are reduced to this Eastern concept, Westerners can understand they are going away from their norm, thus being able to relate many cultures to others to find the truth. I had just talked in class about how in Eastern cultures people generally bathe communally, unlike here in the U.S.. Thus, we were able to discuss our own ideologies through this generalization - it represents smaller parts that we did not have further time to talk about. On the opposite end, reading authors of different cultures can reveal certain aspects of their culture. For example, I recently read Russian Gothic by Aleksandr Skorobogatoy, and I managed to get a glimpse into Russian culture. Even if I fail to understand fully, his perspective allows me, as an outsider, to see a representation of broader Russian culture and broader gothic literature.
We are always steeped in these tropes, and we are forced to preside within them in order to communicate to one another. The understanding of these four tropes will further our human understanding of knowledge
References: Four Master Tropes by Kenneth Burke, Searching For A World That Doesn't Exist by Wifies, The King in Yellow by Robert W. Chambers, A Whisper in Darkness by H. P. Lovecraft, Signalis by rose-engine, Russian Gothic by Aleksandr Skorobogatoy
Queer-baiting or Subtext? [5 December 2025, Nonfiction]
I watched Wicked: For Good twice during the opening week. It happened only by chance. My boyfriend's birthday was on the Tuesday after it came out, so we basically have been planning to watch it since it was announced. We watched it on Tuesday and the following Saturday. That same Saturday I couldn't sleep at all, so I stayed up with my friends until seven in the morning - terrible idea by the way. During that strange event, a friend of mine genuinely asked the definition of queerbaiting.
"What is queerbaiting?"
"Well," I stated with a general knowledge, "It's when a piece of media is hinting at queer relationships without committing to having queer representation."
His obvious follow-up was, "So, when I joke about me and my friend being gay for each other, is that queerbaiting?"
Another friend of mine interjected: "It has more to do with the money."
This got me thinking, with Wicked on the mind, does Wicked queerbait? This question is complicated, despite the answer feeling a little obvious at first. I think the assumption would be that yes it is queerbaiting. There is no queer representation in the story, while additionally focusing on two female leads and their deep relationship. However, on further reflection, I think something else is going on. I think Wicked doesn't queerbait, it has queer subtext. This difference is important, but these two terms can be difficult to define. To observe the wider Internet, I would argue that queerbaiting is an inherently negative word while queer subtext is the dichotomous positive word - equal and opposite. But, these words have an interesting difference that I haven't seen spoken about on the Internet.
Queerbaiting: The Marketing Technique
I watched Avengers: Endgame he year it came out, 2019. I'm not too interested in superhero movies, but I found myself going to many of the big event movies like Captain American: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War. I wasn't paying attention too much to the first gay character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) when he was on screen. It barely registered to me that he was gay. Russo, one of the co-directors, plays this first gay character and says "He cried as they were serving the salads." This implies that he was on a date - WITH A MAN?! However, when I was sitting in that seat sometime in 2019, I didn't even realize he was on a romantic date. I believe the only thought I had at the time was that he went out with a friend of his - platonically. It never occurred to me that he was gay until I was outside of the movie theater and I saw the headline: "Marvel's First Gay Character" (Dommu).
This is the pinnacle of queerbaiting.
Queer stories and queer artworks are very important to me, like many other queer people. However, companies like Disney will intentionally market the fact that they have gay characters without having any representation that reflects on the gay experience. It isn't erasure - or the complete lack of queer people - that is the issue. The issue that queerbaiting presents is actually its lack of depth. The bait in the definition is baiting queer people into consuming the piece of media a company is trying to sell. This bait is switched, in that it fills the viewer with expectations about how a gay character would be portrayed while the media itself presents a heteronormative character. This bait and switch is best seen by Disney. The same website that touted the fact that the MCU had a gay character has another article titled "A Brief Timeline of Disney's 17 'First Gay Characters'" (Rude). Clearly there are benefits from claiming to have a queer character: it attracts queer audiences. However, queer audiences can see through the shallowness of these companies and creators. The monetary value of their viewership is more important than actually raising queer voices up from the compulsive heteronormative space for these companies. Good representation is what queer audiences expect when companies or creators tout that they include a gay character, but in queerbaiting, that is never the case.
I heard a lot of buzz about Todd from Bojack Horseman being asexual. This peaked my interest back in the 2010s, since I identified as asexual then. So, of course, I watched the newest season that was out. That baited me, as a queer person, but Bojack Horseman delivered on the complicated relations that an asexual person has to go through. I don't believe it's worth explaining how it was well done here, but I just want to define that this is specifically not queerbaiting. I was advertised to that a queer character was included in the show, then I watched the show; and, the show delivered on representing, developing and exploring Todd's asexuality in an obvious and clear way. This example is simply good representation in a TV show that happened to have some articles or posts about its queer representation. Of course, there is an element of advertising just by virtue of the fact they want a queer audience, but the important difference here is that there is no switch. The switch from believing in a complicated or realistic queer story to the actual material being heteronormative is what ultimately defines queerbaiting specifically.
Queer Subtext: Sidelining the Queer Identity for Safety
I personally think we've lost the art of queer subtext - well almost. With queerness being more open and available to the modern viewer, queer subtext is not a technique used that often among media. For a more modern example, one can look to Good Omens, where an angel and a demon are clearly in a gay relationship, but it is never said or confirmed by either of the co-authors or within the show or book. And, if you wish to get even more modern, Wicked is an excellent example of lesbian subtext. Both of these pieces of media hide queerness into the background, into the subtext. One does not have to see the relationships between these main characters as queer in order to enjoy these franchises. As with Todd in Bojack Horseman, his sexuality is in the forefront, and in order to understand his story, he must be queer. Whereas in Good Omens and Wicked, the viewer could ignore the subtext and view the characters as familial relationships or close platonic ones - even I don't particularly feel that Glinda and Elphaba's relationship in Wicked are romantic. However, in both of these cases, one could make a strong argument that these relationships are romantic in nature.
Subtext, or reading in-between the lines, is an important aspect of understanding all media, not just queer media. In subtext, the critic observes not only what is put to screen but also the underlying message. Who's the target audience? What are the major themes? What does this piece of media say about the society or world that the creator lives in? These are the more obvious questions when trying to observe subtext in general, but to go deeper in how specifically queer subtext is created, we must examine characters and their relationships more closely. Questions like: Why would they do that? What are they thinking in this scene? How does the character feel in this scene? These are the questions that eventually lead to a conclusion that a piece of media contains queer subtext.
Wicked: Queerbaiting or Lesbian Subtext?
"Ariana's answers sparked backlash from some fans, who accused her of 'queerbaiting.' 'Glinda might be in the closet [...]' she said in an interview. [...] Following the interview fans quickly took online, with one writing: 'the queerbaiting is getting too out of hand'" (Horon). Apologies for my language, but this is the dumbest shit I've ever seen. We must consider the monetary aspect of queerbaiting. Even Wikipedia calls queerbaiting a "marketing technique" that "hint[s] at, but do[es] not depict, [...] LGBTQ+ representation." Ariana Grande may be feeding into the marketing by commenting that she thinks Glinda is lesbian, but here there is no intention of selling queer identities in order for people to watch the movie. Wicked does not sell itself as a queer movie. It never comments on queer characters in its promotion, because the marketing team understands that this is not a queer story. Grande is not intentionally trying to sell the viewer on watching the movie, besides the fact that she's on a press tour in which she's promoting the movie she stars in. It is possible that a marketing team behind her could have encouraged her to say that in order to get queer buzz about the movie, but outside of that possibility, it does not make sense for this particular instance to be queerbait. I don't think anyone watching these two movies are expecting a queer story, which is the most important aspect of queerbaiting.
Lesbian subtext within Wicked, however, is another story. As Grande stated, "Glinda might be in the closet." If we were to assume that this is her own words and beliefs, I believe she is reading into the lesbian subtext that the movies present to viewers. Glinda cries about losing her dearest friend Elphaba! Their closeness could be interpreted as romantic, intentionally so. With two female leads, there's an inevitable interpretation that they have romantic feelings for each other. Their complicated relationship can be interpreted in numerous types of relationships, pointing at all kinds of evidence throughout the two movies. However, most importantly, it is not sold to the viewer as queer. We, as queer viewers, are able to make our own opinions and thoughts about these characters' queerness without the help of marketing schemes to make us think otherwise.
Money
The main factor that creates the difference between queerbaiting and queer subtext is money. Money is what convinces Disney to have multiple first gay characters. Money is why Wicked doesn't include a queer story. Good representation comes from outside of these two categories. Even if you think the angel and demon from Good Omens are the perfect gay couple, money is what prevents them from being in canon. Similarly, queerbaiting is attempting to bait and switch the most amount of queer people as possible, so that that audience will watch or read that product. Good and true queer representation is a monetary risk, so companies and creators either queerbait or have gay subtext in order to avoid that risk.
Citations: "Avengers: Endgame Features Marvel's First Gay Character" by Rose Dommu, "Ariana Grande accused of 'queerbaiting' after her comment about Wicked character Glinda's sexuality" by Sonia Horon, "A Brief Timeline of Disney's 17 'First Gay Characters'" by Mey Rude, Avengers: Endgame by Marvel Studios (the video I used specifically), "Queerbaiting" on Wikipedia
References: Wicked and Wicked: For Good by Marc Platt Productions, Good Omens by Narrativia, Bojack Horseman by Tornante Television
Intro to English Major Wrapped [6 December 2025, Nonfiction]
I did three reading responses. I wrote one short story and one essay. I attended every class except two while I was sick for a debilitating week. I appreciate this course as an introduction to the English major as a whole, but I felt very out of place.
his semester was the first semester as an English major, so I definitely needed this class to get an understanding of what I was getting into. However, compared to my other classes this semester, this was probably the most boring. My favorite readings within this class were the short stories, but I found the articles around those short stories either boring or not of my interest. I particularly disliked the discussions of linguistics. I'm finding that I enjoy linguistics more on the surface level aspects of it, not so much the research of it. One of my friends is currently applying for schools to get a master's degree in linguistics, and as I continue to talk to him, I find myself getting either confused or disinterested. I'm hoping that since this class only obtained a small overview of what linguistics is, the more in-depth discussion in the Introduction to Linguistics class will be more interesting to me. I'll stop being negative though. My favorite discussions involved rhetorics! I really enjoyed both the four master tropes article and the voice of the new racism article. I personally really enjoy studying the aspects of how people react to stories - what makes them laugh, what makes them cry (to paraphrase an introduction I read for the Fleabag play). I loved all of the short stories we read though! Every one of them was fascinating and made me think about a variety of topics. I loved the authors you chose for each reading. I cannot name a bad one! Each was incredibly rich and fascinating. I'm going to rate all of them now.
"A Jury of Her Peers": 10/10. "The Space Traders": 10/10. "There Will Come Soft Rains": 10/10. "The Split Cherry Tree": 10/10. "Everyday Use": 10/10. "Woman Hollering Creek": 10/10. "Anyone Can Do It": 10/10. There wasn't a bad one, or even a mediocre one! "A Jury of Her Peers" was rich in examining the woman's lot in life, especially in a time where their opinions and thoughts weren't valued. "The Space Traders" observed an interesting aspect of racism and how it perpetuates without our knowledge (I think this is better read next to the rhetorics of new racism). "There Will Come Soft Rains" is the one I based my creative writing assignment on, so I might be a little biased. However, it was a wonderful read, and I'm so very excited to read Fahrenheit 451 (whenever I get to it…). The discussion about war and technology is exactly my niche, with Brave New World, 1984, and The Hunger Games being some of my favorite books. "The Split Cherry Tree" was probably the most charming of all the class! I remember almost crying about how happy it made me feel. A man able to grow from his previously held belief was just very sweet and excellently examines how empathy can change the world."Everyday Use" was also great, but for a different reason. I was thinking about how outsiders are better at preserving a certain tradition, yet people who practice traditions usually change it to suit their needs. This is best seen in immigrants to America, where immigrants generally don't change their traditions to fit their new needs and keep it the same as it was in their home country, while in that very same home country changes their traditions often in order to keep in pace with the modern age. "Woman Hollering Creek" was a tough read, in a good way. The discussion of abuse is very important and seeing it presented this way was very well done. Lastly, "Anyone Can Do It" was an awesome read. The twists and turns of it were surprising, but it really gave me hope for the main character to get through the worst of it.
As you can see, I really enjoyed all the stories I read for this class (sans the week I was sick/resting). Thank you so much for this class. Even though I didn't enjoy everything, the majority of this class was enjoyable and I hope you keep the majority of these readings, each of them were incredible. All were incredible to analyze, which is often my favorite aspect of reading.
The creative writing assignment was probably the most difficult for me personally. I enjoy writing and creating my own characters already, but I think the limitations of the assignment was the most difficult aspect of it. All the readings up to that point didn't feel appropriate for me to write about, "The Space Traders" especially. I suppose if I were to ask to change that assignment, I would choose different readings with a wider range of relatability - just one or two readings that are universal experiences for people like me. I'm not sure if that was a part of the challenge of the assignment, but that's how I felt. I'm changing very minor aspects of my creative writing assignment for clarity, but I'm not very proud of it. I had a friend of mine read it for me yesterday, being that I did not attend the class in which we peer reviewed that assignment. She helped me with clarity, but I think overall, despite me personally disliking it, it still gets its point across well enough.
References: Fleabag by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, "A Jury of Her Peers" by Susan Glaspell, "The Space Traders" by Derrick Bell, "There Will Come Soft Rains" by Ray Bradbury, "The Split Cherry Tree" by Jesse Stuart, "Everyday Use" by Alice Walker, "Woman Hollering Creek" by Sandra Cisneros, "Anyone Can Do It" by Manuel Munoz, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, 1984 by George Orwell, The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
British Literature [Fall 2025]
What I Read:
Caedmon's Hymn, 5/10
The Wanderer, 10/10
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, 10/10
The Canterbury Tales: General Prologue, 5/10
The Canterbury Tales: The Miller's Prologue and Tale, 8/10
The Canterbury Tales: The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale, 8/10
The Description of a New World, Called the Blazing World, 8/10
The Tempest, 8/10
The Tempest (2010 movie), 6/10
Oroonoko, or, The Royal Slave, 3/10
The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, Or Gustavus Vassa, The African (excerpts), 10/10
The Lady's Dressing Room, 7/10
The Reasons that Induced Mr. Smith to Write a Poem Called the Lady's Dressing Room, 10/10
Fantomina, 10/10
On Being Cautioned Against Walking on a Headland Overlooking the Sea, Because It Was Frequented by a Lunatic 8/10
What I Wrote:
The Green Knight Compared to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight [29 September 2025, Nonfiction]
I found the differences between Sir Gawain and The Green Knight from the Northern Anthology and the 2021 movie The Green Knight super interesting. One of the most stark differences is the ending of the story. The text examines that chivalry must not be defined by being the best or the most bravest, while the movie takes a completely different stance. The movie says that chivalry must mean that one must be brave, even in the face of certain death. He may not be the most perfect knight, but he is still chivalrous enough to face death. It almost argues that a man may have flaws and live past those flaws by overcoming his weaknesses, but the text certainly does not. In the text, Sir Gawain is very cowardly; he explicitly lies in order to stay alive. The Green Knight forgives him for this, because this cowardliness isn't out of malice, stating that valuing one's life doesn't separate them from chivalrous knights. The movie doesn't give this open discussion about chivalry and bravery. The movie shows a sequence of if Sir Gawain ran away: the rise to power as king; his cowardliness to not commit to marrying his love; and even his cowardliness when faced with certain death by taking his own life instead of facing the war he was losing. The movie is asking the watcher to consider the consequences of cowardliness outside of being faced with certain death. Even in the waiting, Sir Gawain is being cowardly, denying his fate to die. It poses the question to the watcher: what in our personal lives have we done that are cowardly? Something as simple as not expressing our feelings truthfully can be an indicator of our own flaws. The text, instead, questions the ideals of romantic chivalry. As modern day readers, it is difficult to put ourselves in the shoes of a learned man reading this in the middle ages. However, as the movie allows the watchers to question our own cowardliness, the text questions the readers for allowance for nuance. If we stick to pure ideals and being the best in the most beautiful, doesn't that make us foolish? It's foolish to think that every knight or every man can be the best. Men can be complex, while still being chivalrous. Sir Gawain even admits to his sins by wearing green! He is actively addressing his flaws in the fabric of his outfit.
Psychoanalyzing Sir Gawain [29 September 2025, Nonfiction]
I think Sir Gawain is a wonderful examination through a Psychoanalytical lens. The entire story speaks of masculinity. In the beginning, we examine the most perfect and most beautiful court of King Arthur's round table. The Green Knight enters, a supernatural being, with a proposed game to test that court's masculinity. Sir Gawain picks the most masculine (powerful, fatal) weapon on the floor, that of an axe to behead the knight. Sir Gawain is obviously compensating. If we consider for a moment King Arthur as a pseudo father figure to Sir Gawain, it is obvious that Sir Gawain is putting in an attempt to usurp that of his father – somehow becoming stronger and braver than that of King Arthur! So now, by accepting the game, he is placing some father emotional attachments to the green knight. Quickly to examine why I think that, I think that Sir Gawain's motivation to wait for so long is produced by the fear of the father. This fear that the father will take things that he values (in this case, his life) is what drives him to wait for so long. There is something fascinating happening within this story when placed next to Freud's discussions, and that is the development of the superego and its conflict with the id. If we were to interpret Sir Gawain's cowardliness as caused by the fear of the father, we are witnessing the development of the superego before our very eyes. The id within Gawain values his life – as is driven within us all. The green knight even states that valuing life isn't a bad thing – it is not from a place of malice. However, Gawain develops his superego by becoming brave enough to face the green knight. This superego – our personal morality – is what allows Gawain to face the green knight. Gawain understands that in order to be a part of chivalrous knights, he must follow the code of conduct, which mainly includes bravery. This extends into our real world. As we develop the superego, we develop it in accordance with the society around us. Conformity to the social contract through the greater fear of society is what drives us to act respectfully and politely towards each other. It may not be as dramatic as a literal green knight that has been set to behead us, but our fear of consequences from society is what drives us to act a certain way in public – consequences ranging from an eyeroll to imprisonment. As Gawain was afraid of the knight bound to behead him, he was more afraid of not being a part of his elite group of knights. Conformity is the main motivator for the superego, whether that brings us bravery in the face of certain death or the respect to the people on the bus.
Formalist Lens: The Blazing World [2 November 2025, Nonfiction]
The Blazing World by Marget Cavendish is quite unique to me. The story progresses through descriptions rather than action. There's only three main actions taken by the characters: the empress enters this world and marries the emperor, she invites Cavendish to her world, then Cavendish realizes she can create her own worlds. However, the intrigue comes in the description itself. This focus on detail reveals one of the main critiques within the piece: the critique on the patriarchy. The empress observes how all of the leaders of this world are men. She comments as such. This, despite being portrayed as a utopia, finds the irony with how men rule. The empress fixes the world! She reorganizes it to be even more efficient than before! It's clear that Cavendish is expressing that men's rule isn't bad, but it is imperfect. By the empress (and by extension women) add just that little bit to create a true utopia. By adding this detail, Cavendish isn't taking the extreme position that the patriarchy is bad, but rather women are important for the patriarchy to work. It isn't until Cavendish arrives that we see a true critique of patriarchy: men are too controlling. They wish to impose themselves onto the world, rather than adapt to the world they are given. This is seen in the critiques of conquerors. Cavendish is different since she is able to adapt to the world she's in by creating a world, rather than imposing it on others. She clearly sees the female sex below men, but women are an important supportive role.
Adaptation: The Tempest [2 November 2025, Nonficiton]
I watched the 2010 version of The Tempest yesterday (halloween). My parents intended to watch it with me. My mom was completely uninterested; she didn't even sit down to watch it with me. My dad attempted to watch it, but he got lost in the Shakespearean; he kept saying that the script wasn't adapted for the screen – it was still written like a play. As I've been reflecting on the movie, I have to say I was disappointed. People keep asking me if The Tempest (2010) was a good movie, and I think after a day, the answer is no. One aspect I love about movies is the architecture of the sets they use. And, seeing that this is a play put to screen, I was hoping for more advanced sets than that I saw. The only piece of built architecture present in the movie is that split staircase on two textured white walls. All the other shots were placed in very natural structures, the open wilderness. It makes the movie very pretty, for sure, but I think it hinders the main themes of the plays. The entire play is about the feeling of entrapment – enslaved to the story, enslaved to other people. The play is about plays! The characters are stuck until we, as the audience, release them. The movie doesn't portray this at all! Prospera (genderbent in the film) simply releases herself from magicks, rather than there being any audience participation. Overall, I think the movie completely missed the point of the play. I wish they converted it like they did 10 Things I Hate About You, translated to the modern era.
Formalist Analysis on Fantomina, or, Love in a Maze [3 December 2025, Nonfiction]
This story is quite ridiculous, and I love it. The entirety of my annotations were along the lines of "girl no…" and "omg did he really do that?!" It was a very silly read. This unnamed female lead is too young to understand the world around her, but she definitely knows how men work. Beauphlaisir is the only male in the story, and that is significant. The mother is barely in the picture, but for the majority of the story the unnamed protagonist is the only female character (besides the ones she creates). The use of only characters really shows how faithful the unnamed protagonist is while how unfaithful Beauphlaisir is in comparison. It is implied that Beauphlaisir takes the unnamed protagonist's virginity, using coercion (by modern standards); "He resolved not to part from her without the gratifications of those desires she had inspired". This definitely examines the awfulness of 18th century womanhood, but one that was accepted by the majority of the population. It also examines Beauphlaisir's uncaring attitude towards marriage and women (in general). Since the protagonist is disguised as a prostitute, Bleauphlasir is treating her like one. Once he grows tired of her, he easily goes to another woman, and enjoys the chase again. This new persona, a servant, the unnamed protagonist still puts her position lower than Beauphlasir in order for him to value her as a sex object. This becomes clear as soon as they begin to exchange letters to each other. He sends one letter to the unnamed protagonist's third persona (a widow, still below his status) and the first persona Fantomina where they both end with "Your ever faithful, Beauphaisir." This is where his unfaithfulness is most obvious! It's clear that Haywood wrote this story in order to understand the difference in the sexes' opinion of love and marriage. Both the unnamed protagonist and Beauphlaisir are in the wrong in this story, intentionally so. With Beauphlaisir, his unfaithfulness is presented as rude, even the unnamed protagonist becomes annoyed with it: "Traitor! (cried she)". However, since the unnamed protagonist never revealed her identity to him (lying?!), she is also at fault, leaving a child fatherless and a man "more confused than ever he had known in his whole life."
Oroonoko and Contemporary Literature: The Tradition of Confusing the Reader Between Reality and Fiction [3 December 2025, Nonficiton]
I'm going to talk about Danielewski, specifically his book House of Leaves. I'm obsessed with this book. However, I would like to observe the throughline of confusing reality and fiction for the reader. Oroonoko was advertised as a "true history" (which of course it is not). Based on my very limited knowledge of northern African culture (where the British were colonizing), Oroonoko does not follow any of their traditions. I read Things Fall Apart, a Nigerian novel from 1958 published in London, over the summer, specifically about the story of colonization from the African perspective. So you see, when I started reading Oroonoko, I should have realized that it was false, but I did not. I'll admit I'm very gullible. However this tradition of lying isn't new, the "true" history of Don Quixote, noted as the first modern novel. Of course, I knew Don Quixote was a fictional character when I began reading that, so it did not fool me. However, Oroonoko for sure tricked me. Behn starts with a letter to the reader, stating that she "had the honor to know [Oroonoko] in my travels to the other world". Here's where lines between fiction and reality blur, right? She presents this real man that she met, but obviously, it is not real. This is a fictional book about a man she made up. She is pulling from real travel logs that were popular at the time, stuff that touts the fact that they are accurate descriptions of far away lands. This tradition of "true" histories still continues to this day. The most obvious example is the 2021 film Pinocchio: A True Story. However, more interestingly in the literary space, Danielewski is attempting this to an even further extent. In his novel House of Leaves he cites many, many real studies and quotes. However, mixed among these real sources are an innumerable amount of fake sources. During my reading, I would often look up sources cited in the book in order to determine their value, and a fan compiled a list of both real and fake sources within the book: link. I have no doubt that "true" stories will continue in the contemporary. This English literary tradition is baked into the history of English literature now; it's quite fascinating to see it in contemporary works that seem completely unrelated.
Dreamwork of Sir Gawain [8 December 2025, Nonfiction]
One of the more fascinating aspects of Freud, in a general sense, is the ability to use his thoughts as a vessel to examine even the most ancient of works. Although we will never know the man or woman who wrote Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, we can definitely observe some of their personal hardships. As we examined in class, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a work that questions masculinity's role in medieval society. To extend on those ideas of questioning masculinity, I think it best to observe Sir Gawain and his relations through some of Freud's thinking.
First, a justification of connecting dreams and artwork. Within Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams, he examines numerous artworks from before his time. Within Chapter V, he specifically examines Hamlet by Shakespeare and comes to the conclusion that "all genuinely creative writings are the produce of more than a single motive and more than a single impulse in a poet's mind," and the psychoanalytic critic "interpret[s] the deepest layer of impulses in the mind of the creative writer," (5). With this explanation, Freud is able to justify using Hamlet or Oedipus Rex as a deeper examination of people's minds. Thus, I want to use this same explanation to examine Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
We may not know the author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, but we may understand his thoughts and feelings through this artwork. To me, the work of displacement is most fascinating. Within this story, we never hear mention of Sir Gawain's family, only that of his position within King Arthur's court. Within this dream that we now call poetic prose, we can assume that the truth of the author's family has been displaced and has been represented through that of Arthur's court. My implication here is that the author's view of their own family must have been troubled, since we do not get to observe the family of Sir Gawain within this story. I base this on Freud's idea that some ideas "must escape the censorship," through the work of displacement, writing their meanings them onto content that is safer (8). With this in mind, let us observe the actions of King Arthur's court as displaced ideas of the author's own family. Arthur within this story is quite scary, after being approached by a stranger he "grips the axe," "intending to attack," (210). This violence from a father figure is currently being displaced into King Arthur. However, we can extend this examination further by referring to Freud's Oedipus complex, where all young children will form a "murderous wish against our father;" this murderous wish is never fulfilled because of a fear of that same father's strength (3). Within Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, this strength of the father figure is put in full display through King Arthur's actions. However, here comes the twist within Freud's theory. "Gawain / now to his king inclines / and says, ‘I stake my claim. / May this melee be mine,'" (211). Now, Sir Gawain takes control of his own fear by displacing it once more, transforming it into a competition with his father's strength. Thus, by defeating the titular green knight, he would prove his strength, for both himself and his father figure (in this case King Arthur), symbolically defeating his father in a test of strength. Through this psychoanalytic lens, Sir Gawain would be achieving the impossible: a defeat of the father figure. As Freud examines in Oedipus Rex, he states that Oedipus achieves his "child's wishful phantasy" leading to "horror and self-punishment," (4). To avoid this horror and self-punishment, the defeat of his father is displaced onto a different entity: the green knight. There is a double displacement at play here. First is the usually metaphorical displacement that one usually sees within Freudian ideas, in which one element is representative of another: in this case, King Arthur as a father figure. Then secondly, another displacement of the father figure's strength. Sir Gawain does this displacement willingly, by volunteering himself. This is a direct relation to his child's wish. In order to escape from the shame that comes with murdering one's own father, Sir Gawain willfully displaces his father's strength onto the green knight. Now, he is fulfilling his child's wish without shame! However, by doing so causes a complication within Sir Gawain's own heart.
Now, we know the motivations that lay within Sir Gawain's unconscious through this little bit of dreamwork: how certain ideas have been displaced onto famous Arthurian characters. Let us now extend on these ideas by visiting the second Fitt within Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Within this second Fitt, Sir Gawain is stated to have waited until "Michaelmas," or near the end of September before he rode off to face the green knight. Within the story itself, it is implied that he fears being beheaded (since that is the strike he is owed). However, if we were to return to the idea that this is a dream and that the green knight represents something different than his physical being within the story, his actions make even more sense. There is shame in defeating or murdering your father, thus there might be a hint of shame ruminating within Sir Gawain about defeating this green knight as he hesitates to leave. If he were to defeat this knight, Sir Gawain would have proven himself stronger or equal in strength as King Arthur, his father figure. His fear and hesitation is rooted within this shame!
Additionally within this second Fitt, there is a great amount of detail and thought put into Sir Gawain's outfit. It being "spotless armor, / [...] For Gawain was as good as the purest gold," (217). This is representative of a faux bravery. By adorning something that is spotless, he is hoping to come out spotless himself. However, it also represents how naive and inexperienced he is as well. This is a perfect example of Freud's condensation. Freud states that it is "never possible to [... be] completely interpreted," (6). Thus, this armor may be interpreted in both perspectives, as both hope and dread. Within the interpretation of hope, we can observe that he believes himself stronger than his father – the reason why he waits so long is because of his overconfidence. In the interpretation of dread, we can observe that he is afraid of his father's strength, thus he hesitates in his adventure. Both of these ideas are correct, but curiously The Green Knight (2021) takes the latter idea. This fear of death is on full display within the movie, having multiple scenes including skeletons, hinting at its terrible ending. However, within the translation we have read within The Norton Anthology, neither interpretation is strongly supported. This can speak to the differences of cultural consciousness. To start, The Green Knight (2021) examines the more dreadful aspects of the story, examining the nihilistic society we currently live in, with that of social media. However, within the original writings of the story, this was meant to entertain and delight. These two perspectives on the same source material clearly prove that the surrounding culture could change the interpretations of the same source material.
Lastly, the third Fitt of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is most curious when observing Freud's Oedipus complex. Within this Fitt, we see some of the romantic encounters between Sir Gawain and Bertilak's wife. Although the actual text of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight does not recount romantic or sexual encounters within its text, one can assume there is something sexual at play. Even The Green Knight (2021) puts the sexual aspects into the limelight by having a romantic kiss between Sir Gawain and Bertilak. Either way, if we were to assume that the green knight at this point of the story is supposed to be representative of the father's strength, then one must wonder where the other half of the Oedipus complex (the mother) lies within this story. I believe it to lie within Bertilak's wife rather than Guenivere. We are still working within Freud's thoughts of displacement here. After departing to fulfill his child's wish to murder his father, Sir Gawain's sexual want for the mother lacks a host. Since he is already on the journey to succeed his father, the first important woman takes on this role of sexual interest to Sir Gawain. Bertilak's wife did approach him first: "pushed and pressed him, / nudged him ever nearer to a limit where he needed / to allow her love or impolitely reject it," (240). This rejection is representative of the shame that comes with fulfilling one's own sexual desire for their mother. He rejects it two nights in a row, only allowing himself to succumb once he was given a way out of his own death: she presents a "green belt, / as long as it is buckled robustly about him, / will be safe against anyone who seeks to strike him," (242). Here is a combination of both the fear of the father and the sexual desire for the mother at play. Although Sir Gawain has a child's desire to kill his father, he still also contains the child's fear of the father, or the knowing that the father can defeat the child. Thus, he accepts the green belt. However, as an additional meaning, this green belt can represent a sexual conquest of the mother – physical proof that he has had sexual/romantic relations with the mother. By the act of displacing both of these ideas on innocent actors within this story, the shame that comes with fulfilling these desires are tossed aside. I doubt that the original author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight knew or understood these deeper desires that are at play, as illustrated by Freud. However, upon analyzing through this psychoanalytic lens, Freud's theories on the basis of the human mind hold.
This paper has examined the motivations as to why Sir Gawain goes through with this strange game with the green knight, but does not examine how all of these elements come together in the ultimate battle between Sir Gawain and the green knight. The basis of all of Sir Gawain's actions are founded within Freud's examinations of Oedipus. These child's desires, buried deep within the unconscious of our anonymous author, come into being through this story. Although we may never know this author, I have been able to relate this old medieval tale to the strange ramblings of Freud. Freud's ideas are very odd and honestly disgusting, but he did identify some key aspects of the human identity, seen throughout all of time.
Poetry and Drama [Fall 2025]
What I Read:
Lying in a Hammock at William Duffy's Farm in Pine Island, Minnesota, 6/10
Nutting by William Wordsworth, 5/10
Olga Poems by Denise Levertov, 5/10
Black Tigers by Angela Penaredondo, 5/10
Chicago by Carl Sandberg, 5/10
A Midnight Woman to the Bobby, 5/10
the mother by Gwendolyn Brooks, 5/10
We Real Cool, 10/10
When My Brother Was an Aztec, 10/10
Telling My Mother by Sharon Olds, 5/10
Cuba, 1932 by Ai, 5/10
The Kid by Ai, 10/10
Finished by Ai, 5/10
38 by Layli Long Soldier, 5/10
Audabe with Burning City, 5/10
How to Write the Great American Indian Novel, 5/10
The Paper Menagerie, 10/10
Alive at the End of the World, 10/10
CAHM (On Sight), 5/10
Blanche Bruce Does the Modernism, 5/10
[Kills bugs dead.], 6/10
Dinosaurs in the Hood, 10./10
not an elegy for Mike Brown, 5/10
Milk Like Sugar, 6.5/10
Fat Ham, 10/10
Fleabag, 6/10
[author names only included for easy searchability]
What I Wrote:
Advanced Literary Analysis on Horror Movies [Fall 2025]
What I Watched:
Hereditary, 10/10
La Huesera: The Bone Woman, 8.5/10
Candyman (2021), 7/10
Parasite, 10/10
Annihilation, 5.5/10
Titane 6.5/10
What I Wrote:
Public Sphere [Fall 2025]
What I Wrote: