Papacita

Alright...this isn't as deep a reading as I gave you last time, but I hope this helps out some. Here's my take on the stuff that you quoted: 1 and 2: Pretty much what you said. He's questioning how everything in life happens for a reason. 3: He's basically expressing how hard it is to stay on the path to heaven, or to believe in religious doctrine. He says "I falter where I firmly trod"...a definition for tread (present tense of trod) is to subdue or repress by trampling, and this can be interpreted as his struggle to keep his faith in God, because the urge to stop believing is always there. He also presents the stairway to heaven as a slope, which suggests an uphill battle or struggle. The second stanza here really drives the idea of struggle home...he "gropes" and reaches for salvation, but gets no concrete proof of God's/heaven's existence. He says it requires a lot of trust on man's part...and in other places in the work, he presents nature as being indifferent to man, and he seems to have the same or similar feelings about God. 4: I see the struggle between God and nature in other places (first few stanzas in section 55), but not so much here. The main message I'm getting here is the futility in putting blind faith in God (rolling psalms to wintry skies...suggests bleakness...little room for hope. Also, building fanes (temples) in fruitless prayer). Other stuff: As I said, if you're looking to comment on the struggle between God and nature, there's a lot of that in 55, where he basically says that nature facilitates a lack of faith in religious doctrine. The first stanza in 55 also makes me think that Tennyson believes that nature is the cause of religion...like, people undergo so much struggle on here on earth, that they create this notion of an afterlife in order to have something to look forward to, or to give their lives some sort of worth. Also, he uses a few words that suggest separation, or splitting into two divergent paths...for instance, in the first stanza of 54, he describes his doubting of religion as a "Defect of doubt", which just suggests that he's breaking away from the typical path (religion) towards a path of atheism or agnosticism...nothing groundbreaking here, though. The splitting theme also comes up in line 9 where he says "That not a worm is cloven in vain"...cloven being a past participle of cleave, and that's defined in the dictionary as "to cut or divide into distinct groups having divergent views. And also, chaff is defined as seed coverings and debris separated from the seed in threshing grain. I dunno whether or not all of this is of any use to you though. Again, hope that helps out some.

Even though it wasn't the final blow off for the feud, I'd definitely say Bret Hart and Steve Austin from Wrestlemania 13, just for all the emotion involved leading up to it. For "final" blow off...um...probably HIAC 1 (HBK/Taker) or the Tommy/Raven loser leaves town match from Wrestlepalooza 97...at least I think it was Wrestlepalooza. I taped it off of ECW TV so I can barely remember.

I voted Hogan/Vince. It wasn't the best match in a per se (I'd probably give that to Vince/Shane), but the match came off shockingly well given the people involved, and it's the only one of Vince matches that's made me mark out. And since it's up there, I'd just like to express my INTENSE~! hatred for the HHH/Vince match from Armageddon. Dear God, that is the single most BORING match I've ever seen. That is hands down my all-time least favorite match.

If he says APA, I'm turning this off... ...um...well...fuck it.

Er..uh..Chyna? ..He only had one, right? Not counting Mandy and Victoria, yes.

Marks the FUCK out!

Damn it, they'd better not try and run another Brock/Big Show program.

^ be happy... I know. I know...shut up.

Nothing serious but I write every now and then...just when I get bored and need to kill time. Nothing special at all. I'm getting better at freestyling too if that's worth anything.

I like what they've been doing with Coach lately...his shtick is pretty entertaining. However, I'll agree that unless they plan on having him replace Lawler or making it a 3-man broadcast team, he doesn't need to be on TV. As for last night's Raw...outside of the Shane/Kane stuff and the dumb ass main event (Was the double title change REALLY necessary?! And why not have Austin come out and make it a cage match from the get go?! And damn it, since when has the GM been unable to reverse a referee's decision??!!? It wasn't that long ago when Chief Morely was restarting matches every 5 minutes!!!), I liked the show. Nothing mind-blowing, but the show was there.

Excuse me while I do my dance...

^ will hook < up with one of those track suits...and some cocktail.

< Just found Ric Flair Vs Mr. Perfect on Kazaa, and therefore must steal ^'s HAPPY HAPPY HOSS DANCE~! for a moment.

^ Is not Lightning Flik

^ likes Michelle Branch

Delete.

I like the choice of font for Honeymoon on the second one. I like the first one best though.

You have a problem with that? I think he was just making an example as to what you'd ask yourself when judging continuity in shows... Even though we all know that PANTHER WAS SCREWED, DAMN IT!!!!!!! SCREWED!!!!!!

^ doesn't like Low Ki very much. < thanks ^ for the compliment.

^ fellow insomniac < wonders how many of <'s near 5000 posts came from this thread.

^ changed her avatar

^ double posts

Heh. I love the way that's worded. Either way, I can imagine how well that'd go over in a conversation.

As long as they have an actual reason to fight and it's not just the writers going "Well...Benoit and Angle aren't doing anything this month", then I've got no problem with their feud.