What Really Happens After A Raisin in the Sun

The end of A Raisin in the Sun was a little unsatisfying for me as reader, not just because it left the story feeling somewhat incomplete, but because it was deceptively hopeful. After reading three acts of endless turmoil and conflict within the Younger family, it just seemed very abrupt and unrealistic for this narrative to end on such a positive note.

For the entirety of the play, Walter obsesses over getting the money he needs to invest in the liquor store which he believes will help him achieve his dreams give him a better life. This obsession sends him on a downward spiral, ending in him losing all of the money that he invested and losing the respect of his entire family.  However, this dramatic chain of events seems to all be magically wiped away in the end of the third act.  After refusing Lindner's offer, an act that realistically should not make up for the fact that they he lost almost all of Mama's money, everyone instantly forgave him.  Mama even tells Ruth, "He finally come into his manhood today, didn't he? Kind of like a rainbow after the rain..." then proceeds to grab her plant and leave the stage, an ending that really felt more like a bad sitcom finale than the ending of a classic American play.

What angers me most about this ending, though, is that it suddenly seems to completely ignore the grim reality that is sure to follow the Youngers' move to their new neighborhood. Even though Walter has restored his "manhood," and everything seems like it's going to work out, the fact still remains that America is deeply segregated, and the Youngers will not be welcome in their new community.  They are likely to be taunted, threatened, attacked, and at the very least forced out of their neighborhood without too much physical damage done to them.  The real end of this story is inevitably a harsh and discouraging one, but one that would've much more accurately represented the injustice that a black family would've faced at the time.

Damn All the Eggs That Ever Was

After reading even just the first scene of A Raisin in the Sun, I noticed a symbol that I knew would be even more significant than the noses in The Great Gatsby: Walter's Eggs. From the very beginning, the eggs caught my attention, specifically when Ruth asks Walter how he wants his eggs cooked. Despite the fact that Walter replies "Not Scrambled," Ruth proceeds to make her husband scrambled eggs. When first reading this, it caught my attention because of the irony and humor that is created in this moment, but after reading further I noticed that it represented much more than that.

As Act I goes along, it is revealed that Walter has missed out on a very lucrative business oportunity, but is hoping that he will be able to get a second chance when his friend approaches him about investing in a liquor store. However, Walter's Mama, the clear matriarch of the household does not allow him to invest her newly aquired money in this store, as she feels it is too risky. After reading all of that, I looked back on the eggs, and saw them as yet another thing that Walter does not get his way with.

But the eggs represent even more than that. They represent all of his hopes and ambitions, and how they can never be achieved because of his race and his crippling poverty. Walter angrily tells his wife, "Man say to his woman: I got me a dream. His woman say: Eat your eggs. Man say I got take hold of this here world baby! And a woman will say: Eat your eggs and go to work. Man say: I got to change my life, I'm choking to death, baby! And his woman say- Your eggs is getting cold!" Walter takes a look at his life and is bitterly disappointed. He dreams of a life where he and his family can live comfortably and doesn't have to worry about things like aborting their second child just because they can't afford it. But he knows that all of his hopes and dreams will never be achieved because society, including his own family, will never let him. He badly wants his eggs to be cooked the way he desires, but Ruth will never let him have his way. So time goes by and the eggs get cold, and the Youngers still live in poverty.

It Takes Two

After finishing The Great Gatsby, there are many passages that seemed to be more meaningful once I had a chance to think about them in the context of the entire novel. One passage in particular that seemed to change in this way came near the beginning of the story when Nick had just started spending time with Jordan. He writes:

‘You’re a rotten driver,’ I protested. ‘Either you ought to be more careful or you oughtn’t to drive at all.’

‘I am careful.’

‘No, you’re not.’

‘Well, other people are,’ she said lightly.

‘What’s that got to do with it?’

‘They’ll keep out of my way,’ she insisted. ‘It takes two to make an accident.’

When I first read this passage, I read it as just a small fight about Jordan's driving skills. What I thought then, was that it was just meant to be an example to further prove what Nick was saying about her dishonesty and careless attitude. However, after reading the entire novel, I realized that this section, especially the last line, seems to as a perfect representation of the car crash that happens at the end of thetory.

When taking it in a literal sense, this line foreshadows how it took the carelessness of both Daisy and Myrtle to cause this accident. If Daisy had been sober and less distracted, and if Myrtle had not let her emotions get the best of her, the crash would not have occurred. 

However, I believe that this line has a much greater symbolic meaning as this line is not just referring to the literal car crash that occurs, but also to the horrific breakdown of Daisy and Tom's marriage. When it comes to their love, it really did "take two" to make it all fall apart.  Tom had been unfaithful in their marriage almost since it began, which indeed put a strain on their relationship, but it wasn't until Daisy and Gatsby reignited their love that the relationship truly crumbled.  It took her affair to spark Tom's anger which led to him humiliating Gatbsy, causing her love for both her lover and her husband to fade once and for all.  Also, if it weren't for Tom's affair with Myrtle, she never would come running towards the car. And if it weren't for Gatsby and Daisy's affair, Daisy never would've been driving Gatsby's car, and the crash would've never occurred. Because of both of their unfaithfulness, Daisy is forced to live without the hope of one day reuniting with her true love, because, ever since their "accident," he has been as dead as Daisy's love for Tom.

Little Baby Gatsby

One the most unique uses of figurative language that I found in my reading this week occurred in chapter 4 after Nick goes to lunch with Gatsby. After Nick is told of Gatsby's love for Daisy, he notices that Gatsby, "[comes] alive to [him], delivered suddenly from the womb of his purposeless spendor."

This was a very compelling way to phrase this and describes vividly how Nick's new knowledge of Gatsby has transformed their relationship. By depicting him as an unborn baby, he is portraying the amount of mystery and uncertainty that has surrounded him until this point. When a parent is expecting a child, they know almost nothing about the child. Except for possibly the gender, parents are left guessing the weight, eye color, hair color, blood type, etc. Only when the baby is born can the parents know anything for certain.

The same goes for Jay Gatsby. In the chapters leading up this one, Nick hears countless rumors and speculations about his neighbor. Without ever meeting this man, Nick is left wondering what he did to earn his fortune, what he did for a living, and most of all, why he was reaching for the green light. But after meeting him finally and becoming closer to him, these important details are slowly revealed to him. Nick has now transformed into a proud parent, who slowly learns more and more about his Little Baby Gatsby as their relationship grows and develops.

Flailing Like a Bird

From the moment I started reading The Bluest Eye, I could tell that this wasn't going to be a novel where everything just kind of works out for everybody in the end and the reader is left with all of their questions answered. Clearly, this was a book meant to make people think. And after reading an ending that was so disturbing and so incomplete, all I could do was think. So being in awe of how perfectly Morrison had achieved her purpose through this ending, I was very surprised to hear that many others around me were not as satisfied.

The reason that I think many had trouble with the ending was because they were focused on a question that was really completely irrelevant to the actual meaning of the story. The question, "Who was Pecola talking to?" is not really one that needs to be answered, and here's why:

As everyone knows, Pecola spends the entire novel in pursuit of beauty, specifically in the form of blue eyes. What Toni Morrison is trying to show in the end that this quest for a better life is really what ends up killing her.  Even though she doesn't literally die, she is driven so far past the point of sanity that she is delusional.  This "other person" that she is talking to in the final chapter of the book is a representation of that. Whether this other voice is one that is inside her head or if it's another human being really doesn't matter because Pecola's vision is so clouded that she sees whatever she wants to regardless of what anyone else says. And even though that in her false reality she now has obtained a brand new set of blue eyes, she still is not satisfied, as she tells her herself, "He should have made them bluer." No matter what the other voice says to her, she will never be content, so even this possibly fictional character abandons her. Morrison is clearly using this character to convey how Pecola is now completely and utterly alone, and with the combination of the trauma that her father put her through and her own unrealistic expectations, she is left trapped in a pit of insanity for the rest of her life.

One and the Same

Around the time The Bluest Eye was published, the American Civil Rights Movement was coming to a close and presumably so was the racial injustice that plagued the country since its birth. And after the novel addressed these issues in such a graphic way, one would think that Toni Morrison  successfully shocked her readers into never repeating the events of the past again. But almost 50 years later that discrimination is still very real in society. When Kendrick Lamar released, To Pimp a Butterfly in 2015, police brutality and "Black Lives Matter" protests were in full swing, making it the perfect time to release such an intricate and socially conscious album.

Kendrick Lamar does exactly what Morrison did with her novel, in that he sheds light on some of the most controversial topics of the time, like in the song, "Complexion (A Zulu Love)". Here he talks about the unfair beauty standards that African-American women have to deal with and preaches that "complexion don't mean a thing," whether you're "dark as the midnight hour or bright as the mornin' sun." In this song there are times where Kendrick mirrors some of the same exact ideas that Morrison discusses in The Bluest Eye. For example, Pecola feels ugly because she always compares herself to the "blue-eyed, yellow-haired, pink-skinned dolls [that] every girl treasured." She is told, that "this is beautiful" and that if she is one day "worthy" enough, she could be beautiful like that too. Kendrick also recognizes this desire for this supposed white beauty when he states "You blew me away, you think more beauty in blue, green, and grey."

Beyond the idea of beauty standards, To Pimp a Butterfly is most similar to Morrison's novel in the way that it addresses the same over-arching theme: that blacks are held back by the institutions of race, wealth, and social class. In Kendrick's song, "Institutionalized," he describes that even though he has achieved a great deal of wealth and success, he still is trapped in the mindset of a poor kid from Compton. In one part of the song he states:

If I was the president
I'd pay my mama's rent
Free my homies and them
Bulletproof my Chevy doors
Lay in the White House and get high, Lord
Who ever thought?
Master take the chains off me

This may seem odd to the listener that he would think on such a small scale, but he is so confined by society to this way of thinking, that this is all he knows. He can't even imagine a world outside of Compton, where he turned to drugs to cope with the constant fear that he could be shot at any moment.

Kendrick Lamar addresses more of the stereotypes and gets into his own internal conflict in the song, "The Blacker the Berry," starting every verse with the line, "I'm the biggest hypocrite of 2015." At the close of the song he concludes:

So don't matter how much I say I like to preach with the Panthers
Or tell Georgia State "Marcus Garvey got all the answers"
Or try to celebrate February like it's my B-Day
Or eat watermelon, chicken and Kool-Aid on weekdays
Or jump high enough to get Michael Jordan endorsements
Or watch BET cause urban support is important
So why did I weep when Trayvon Martin was in the street?
When gang banging make me kill a nigga blacker than me?
Hypocrite!

One after another he lists off an endless stream black stereotypes along with movements that he feels that he is obligated to support as a member of the black community but all of this means nothing because he too is part of the problem. Kendrick can do everything in his power to represent his race properly, but if blacks are still violent towards each other, then no progress is being made. All of their attempts at equality are pointless if there is no unity on their end to begin with.

The poem that closes the album perfectly summarizes the main points of both The Bluest Eye and To Pimp a Butterfly. In it he concludes:

The caterpillar is a prisoner to the streets that conceived it
Its only job is to eat or consume everything around it, in order to protect itself from this mad city
While consuming its environment the caterpillar begins to notice ways to survive
One thing it noticed is how much the world shuns him, but praises the butterfly
The butterfly represents the talent, the thoughtfulness, and the beauty within the caterpillar
But having a harsh outlook on life the caterpillar sees the butterfly as weak
And figures out a way to pimp it to his own benefits
Already surrounded by this mad city
The caterpillar goes to work on the cocoon which institutionalizes him
He can no longer see past his own thoughts
He’s trapped
When trapped inside these walls certain ideas start to take roots
Such as going home, and bringing back new concepts to this mad city
The result?
Wings begin to emerge, breaking the cycle of feeling stagnant
Finally free, the butterfly sheds light on situations
That the caterpillar never considered, ending the eternal struggle
Although the butterfly and caterpillar are completely different
They are one and the same

Through the Eyes of a Hooker

One of the most compelling things about The Bluest Eye, is the way that Toni Morrison switches between a third-person omniscient point of view and Claudia's first-person point of view. The third-person narrative especially allows the reader to have a unique insight on the thoughts and feelings of almost every character in the story, including the most controversial group of characters: The Prostitutes.

Society has and always will have an extremely negative opinion of sex those who trade sex for money. We often quick to judge anyone who makes a living in that field without really getting to know them for who they are. To be fair, I do believe that prostitution is degrading to women and is honestly just downright disgusting, but to label anyone just based their profession is ignorant and really almost as shameful prostitution itself.

Pecola, being young and innocent, has no reason to judge the prostitutes and befriends them, which allows the reader to also look past their profession and see who they truly are.  To the surprise of most, they prove to be very kind and good-natured towards Pecola, even telling her about they quite ironically turned a man into the FBI for "killing more men than TB."

This unique point of view that Morrison has created also depicts how they feel about the career they have chosen, a side of the issue that most have never considered.  Their feelings are pretty accurately summed up in a song that one of the hookers, Poland, is heard singing as the reader is first introduced to her. She sings:

I got blues in my mealbarrel

Blues up on the shelf

I got blues in my mealbarrel

Blues up on the shelf

Blues in the bedroom

'Cause I'm sleepin' by myself

Here Poland paints a very bleak picture of her life as prostitute, which is honestly not surprising. But the most captivating part of this song, the part that sums up her life the best, is the very last phrase (lines 5 and 6). As a hooker, she spends day in and day out in the bedroom, to the point where the emotion and intimacy of sex is entirely lost. So for her making "love" becomes no less monotonous than working a 9 to 5 job in an office somewhere. And despite the fact that she makes her living off of sleeping with other people, she still could not feel more alone.

Cook the Kids and Take Care of the Food

After looking much deeper into a children's toy than I had ever hoped with Emily Prager's "Our Barbie's, Ourselves," there were many things I came out agreeing with, but there were a few points made that I found more than a little obnoxious and farfetched .

First, I do agree that there are certain unfair standards that society has impressed upon women; a woman must have big breasts, a tiny waist, the overwhelming desire to cater to a man's every need, etc. Barbie clearly does not help to get rid of these stereotypes in any way, especially considering how dolls have looked in the past. In comparison to the asexual dolls of early America, the way that Barbie promotes the unfair beauty standards of today sticks out like a pink elephant to most feminists. Many would prefer the Madame Alexander dolls of the 50's, the ones that as Prager puts it, "represented the kind of girls who looked perfect in jodhpurs, whose hair was never out place." Prager's rhetoric here paints a picture of a time when women were not only admired for their beauty but also their independence. It is also important to note that the beauty that was admired during the mid-20th Century was much classier and conservative. I know it's hard for everyone to believe, but once upon a time, beauty wasn't based on how much skin you could expose without Jesus having to come save you from being stoned for prostitution.

Despite the fact that I agreed with her thoughts in regards to perpetuating unfair beauty standards, I found Prager's comments on Ken laughable. There was one thing throughout this section that she clearly did not understand: Neither Barbie or Ken have genitalia because, as Prager should've learned in middle school health class, breasts are not actually reproductive organs. She ends her essay by making the claim that by not having a penis, Ken was portrayed as being more powerful than Barbie, and that as sexual as Barbie may be, she would never be able to turn Ken on. But she fails to note the fact that the same injustice is affecting Ken. She is blind to that fact that Ken is designed as the model of a perfect man, creating a body image that, like Barbie, will almost never be able to be attained. And since Barbie is also lacking genitals, Ken is stuck in the same depressing reality as Barbie, because he too will never be able to please his significant other, no matter how attractive he is.

Defining Race

In one of the most interesting discussions of this year so far, we began to talk about whether or not race is a social construct. Until this week, this is not something I had not really considered. Before, I thought of race as just a fact of nature; that everyone is a certain race and that sometimes they are discriminated against because of it. However, what I had not considered was the idea that race is not at all biological, but instead entirely defined by society.

As I have thought about this concept, it has started to make more sense to me, however, I believe that this is only true to an extent. One cannot say that society has entirely constructed race, because race is still defined by the color of your skin, not the other way around. Race is definition biological because it is genetics that turn your skin a certain color.  Since your skin color is what makes you a certain race, there is no denying that and its core, race is biological.

I believe it more accurate to say that the treatment of races is entirely a social construct because society has undoubtedly created countless stereotypes and limitations against almost every race there is. African Americans have not and will most likely never be treated the same way as Whites because of the sense of entitlement and superiority that white people created for themselves long ago. Race is shown as social construct here because there is nothing and never was anything that made any race inherently better than another. It was those races that decided this for themselves, and since they had the majority of people, and at many times, violence on their side, they were able to assert themselves as the superior race.

An extension of this idea of race being a social construct is that race is also fluid in a way. This idea is shown in pg 11 of Maus Volume II. In this page which opens the second volume, Art Spiegelman depicts himself a having a conversation with his French wife on how which animal should represent her in the comic.  She initially suggests a bunny rabbit, but then offers up the idea that she should be represented as mouse because of the fact that she converted to Judaism.  Though ethnically French, Art's wife identifies more as a Jew because of the life choices that she has made. Spiegel clearly included this passage just to make the point that since race is something that society has created and is not dependent on the color of our skin, we have the freedom to change in whatever way we choose.

What Makes Maus so Effective

Going into this week, many of us had the idea in our heads that comics are only to be used for laughs and light entertainment. This accompanied by the idea placed in my head by school that any books with pictures in it are inherently less intelligent and informative, made me very excited to see how the holocaust would be portrayed in a more comical and allegorical way. After I had begun reading I was instantly stunned to see that, although it was simply a retelling of a holocaust survivor’s experience in Auschwitz, it was so much more captivating and powerful than other written account of the holocaust that I have read.

What makes Maus so effective, is the way that it uses cartoonish and hyper-realistic images to convey the inhuman and unbelievable events that occurred during this time.  For example, on page 72 of the second volume, Vladek describes the gruesome process of burning alive many of the prisoners in the camp. While I personally was already aware of the fact that this went on, this page brought it to life in a whole new way. The strong imagery found here brings a completely different sense of understanding to the reader, as Spiegelman describes how the “fat from the burning bodies,” was “scooped and poured again so everyone could burn better.” This is really brought to life because in the bottom panel, the actual process of burning the prisoners alive is depicted. What makes it so impactful is the way that Spiegelman used exaggerated, almost cartoonish flames that seem to swallow up the prisoners as they let loose their raw and animalistic cries for help. Something this powerful cannot portrayed in a photograph because as devastating as seeing an actual photograph of an actual person being burned alive is, it could never capture what that person is truly feeling in that moment. What that person is feeling can no longer be explained in words or in a realistic photograph because the feelings that one must feel at the point are not fathomable or human, as humans at that point are reduced to nothing more than a helpless rodent in the moment before it is crushed by a mouse trap. 

Thoughts on "This is Water"

This week, I was pleasantly surprised to find that David Foster Wallace's "This is Water," was one of the most interesting and thought provoking things I'd ever read.  What intrigued me most was not only his unique voice and use of examples and stories, but also the many different layers that it has, especially given the context it has in Wallace's life.

When reading this for first time I was instantly captivated by the ideas that it conveyed. One of the most interesting ideas he presented was the idea that our "natural default-setting" as people, is to always be worrying about ourselves first.  I personally find that to be profoundly true. There is not a single person in the world who can disagree with that statement, because no one will ever be able to see the world through eyes other than their own so there is no way one can make any decision without first thinking about themselves. Even those who are looked up to for their generosity, people like Bill Gates, first have to make sure that they are secure in their own lives before helping out others. If you always put others' needs in front your own, you can easily be taken advantage of, and will never be truly happy.

After reading this article and being thoroughly interested in Wallace's ideas, I went back to the beginning and read the background information on his life.  After reading all about his accomplishments, the paragraph ended with the startling fact that three years after giving this speech, he committed suicide.  Reading this changed the entire meaning of the speech for me, giving a dark undertone that I had not seen before.  After knowing he ended his life, it lets the reader in on how empty and confused he was during his life.  For example, near the beginning of the speech he warns the audience, “If at this moment, you're worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise old fish explaining what water is to the other fish, please don't be.  I am not the wise old fish." Before knowing the background information, this statement seems to be almost comical.  However after knowing the issues he had been dealing with, it shows his views in a whole new light.  Statements like this almost seem like a cry for help and it makes me uneasy to see that although he is a “genius,” he is just as confused and blind as the rest of us. He continues on to talk about how to be truly happy and free, but if he had it all figured out, then why was he still so unhappy that he felt had to end his own life? If he can’t follow his own advice, then what made him think that anyone else can?

How Donald Trump Would Interpret the Ideas of Henry David Thoreau

The past year or so has undoubtedly been one of the most turbulent election seasons of this century.  Although the majority of voters are now finding themselves trying to decide who is the lesser of two evils, it is undeniable that this election has sparked a political revolution that will most continue to evolve and grow. The primaries this year were unique in that they presented two anti-establishment candidates in Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Many were captivated by Bernie’s non-traditional views on social and economic issues, proving to be the most successful socialist in the elections of recent years. Trump gained an even larger following by somehow reaching all of the angry, ignorant, and bigoted people in the US and getting them to support his pursuit to “Make America Great Again.” He somehow managed to win the Republican nomination without any real political knowledge and without ever laying out a clear plan, other than his outrageous ideas about building a wall on the Mexican Border.

So as I read Henry David Thoreau’s, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” I noticed themes similar to the anti-establishment ideals that struck a chord with so many during this election season.  This made realize that Trump’s views seemed to be a sort of misinterpretation of Thoreau’s ideas (although given his level of intelligence, I’m quite sure that Donald Trump has never read anything by Thoreau).

As stated by the title, Thoreau believes that it is our “duty” to question and be disobedient to our government.  Similarly, Donald Trump is doubting the government quite a bit, preaching against dirty politicians like “Crooked Hillary,” and promising to make big changes in things like trade agreements that he feels are ruining this country. Both seem to have the idea that doubting the government is necessary and good. However, Thoreau makes statements like, that in regards to government reforms, “the remedy is worse than the evil,” and poses questions like, “Why does [the government] not encourage its citizens to be on alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?” Meanwhile, Trump interprets this idea of questioning the government as going to the ends of the Earth to prove that Barack Obama is not actually a natural-born US citizen, even after Obama has given sufficient proof that he is. So while Trump clearly has the wrong interpretation of “Civil Disobedience,” the ironic fact still remains that Thoreau was the one thrown in jail for his beliefs.

What Today's Music Lacks

Though the Sherman Alexie excerpt that we read this week contains a significant amount of symbolism and social commentary, I feel that all of that has been pretty well covered and possibly even over-analyzed in class.  So instead I'm choosing to look at a much less symbolic section that still manages to be hold some important truths.  When Victor and his father are discussing music, Victor mentions how Hank Williams and Jimi Hendrix have nothing in common.  After disproving this by saying that they both knew about love and broken hearts, Victor's father tells him, "You kids today don't know shit about romance.  Don't know shit about music either."


I found this statement to be very significant all on its own. It seems to echo statements made by adults today who tend to think that quality of music has plummeted over time and that no good music has been made in the past few decades. Personally, I don't believe that today's music is inherently worse than the music of the past. However I do feel that there is something missing from the majority of the music that dominates the mainstream.

The Many Faces of David Bowie

Back when many adults will say that music was in its prime (usually anywhere from the 60s to the 80s), the mainstream was dominated by groundbreaking artists like David Bowie and The Beatles who were always using music as a creative outlet with which they could express their emotions and reinvent themselves. And even pop artists like Michael Jackson and Madonna delivered an unmatched creativity and passion while still stretching the boundaries of pop music. Outside of the mainstream existed genres like Punk, Metal, and Rap that embodied a spirit of rebellion and freedom like nothing else could.


Nowadays, pop is essentially the only genre that receives a great deal of mainstream attention. However, today’s pop music is so manipulated by record companies who pressure artists into writing hits, that there is no room for creativity. Some may argue that Rap is also very popular today.  However Rap today is praised more highly for its beat and its catchiness, not lyrical quality.  Even the once rebellious genres of Rock and Metal are quickly dying out, leaving behind bands made up of depressed teens who whine and scream about their relationships.

What is missing from the majority of mainstream music is the power and the impact that can be felt from artists like Jimi Hendrix. In the excerpt, seeing Hendrix at Woodstock was one of the most important and impactful moments of Victor's father's life.  He tells his son, "I figured Jimi must have known that I was there in the crowd to play something like that. It was exactly how I felt." Even he was surrounded by thousands of strangers, he still felt a very personal connection the music, leaving him with an experience that changed him for the rest of his life. Though you might enjoy a Taylor Swift song here and there, no one can say with certainty that they've truly felt the power of great music after seeing her perform.

The Motherland Calls

During this week, we were all told to read an excerpt from Postcards from the Trenches by Allyson Booth. In this excerpt she describes different kinds of memorials and most importantly shows the difference between a cenotaph and catafalque. She defines a catafalque as a "platform made to hold a coffin," and a cenotaph as "a memorial to someone who's corpse lies elsewhere." Later we were given the assignment to research any monument across the globe and analyze its effectiveness and symbolism.
After googling "cool cenotaphs" I came across a unique memorial outside of Volgograd, Russia entitled, "The Motherland Calls." This 279 foot tall statue depicting a powerful woman holding a sword was built in 1967 in order to commemorate The Soviet Union's victory at the Battle of Stalingrad. Although, this memorial fits Allyson Booth's definition of a cenotaph, there was one distinct difference between it and all of the cenotaphs mentioned in the excerpt.  In the excerpt, all of the cenotaph's either had the names of those killed in battle inscribed on it or some other way to remember those who died.  Instead, "The Motherland Calls" has no inscription of any kind on it, even though it was commemorating one of the bloodiest battles of all time.
The way I interpreted this was that the architects were choosing to look at the battle not as a huge loss of life, but rather as a triumphant victory for the Soviet Army. Unlike most memorials, they were looking to evoke feelings of pride and nationalism rather than sadness and remembrance for those who died. However, the decision to essentially ignore the significant loss of life during this battle seems somewhat heartless and inconsiderate. Especially considering the fact that it is very secluded from the city, which Allyson Booth says is "conducive to a quiet contemplation." The lack of peacefulness and emotions portrayed by this statue negate the fact that it is so far away from society and might as well be located in the city to become "another familiar object of the busy town centre," where it is likely to be forgotten, much like the lives of those who fought in the Battle of Stalingrad.