The Wild Duck Journal #4

"What if you, in a sacraficing spirit, gave up the dearest thing you own and know in the whole world?"
Gregers speaks with Hedvig when she is distraught about the possibility of her father not returning. And he asks her to get rid of the wild duck, which is the "dearest thing [she] own[s] and love[s]" for her father. I found this interesting since of all the characters in the play, Hedvig is the only child and so innocence is associated with her.Since almost everything that is unfolding, all the lies and deception, it all took place before she was even born. So she is actually the only one in the whole story who is truly innocent and free from fault. Yet she is the one who must "sacrafice". It seems to suggest that often times when people make mistakes, the innocent are the ones who end up being hurt.

Hjalmer's position is interesting because he tries to be the character without fault. He seems to legitimately consider himself the victim in the entire scenario. He's completely melodramatic even though he has hardly any hard evidence. And even though Werle has been helping him, now all of a sudden he has lost his "honor".  "That's a good name for it, "debt of honor"! But never mind. I shall repay every penny of it, with five percent interest." (190). Hjlamer has no money. He never even works at his own business. He calls himself the "breadwinner" when in reality, he sits around and does nothing. He has no means to pay off any money. Hjalmer speaks as though he's been completely duped and victimized but now he will work even harder to get his "honor" back. When really he's lazy and naive and working "tirelessly on his invention" is most likely not going to get him the money to pay back Werle. Gregers simply fuels his fire by telling him "You're the man I always thought you were". They are both delusional and have irrational conceptions of reality. Hjalmer is not a complete victim in this ordeal. And he tries to take the situation and twist it so that he comes out the hero. It's interesting how their perceptions can be so tainted.

The Wild Duck Journal #3

Quote 1: "No. Even the chickens have all the others that they were baby chicks with, but she's so completely apart from any of her own. So you see, everything is so really mysterious about the wild duck. There's no one who knows her, and no one who knows where she's come from either."
This quote is from Hedvig speaking to Gregers. The way that Hedvig describes the wild duck puts an interesting spin on it when she says "there's no one who knows her, and no one who knows where she's come from either". And basically describes the wild duck as being out of place and just different than the rest of the animals it's around. In this way, Hedvig could be the wild duck. She's somewhat out of place because of her age, she is the only child in the play. However, the adults banter back and forth and discuss fairly adult issues with her around in addition to her helping her mom with the photography business. She could feel very out of place. Also, since Ibsen has led to audience to assume that there is a possibility that Hedvig is not Hjalmer's daughter that could play into "no one knows where she's come from".
Quote 2: "Of course not. And I suppose it is your wife who manages here? 
"My general rule is to delegate the routine matters to her, and that leaves me free to retire to the living room to think over more important things." 
I picked this quote because it displays Hjalmer's completely delusional perception of himself and his and Gina's role in the family. Hjalmer thinks that Gina just does the mundane tasks and that he does all the big important things but in reality, Gina is running the family and running the business while Hjalmer basically does nothing. He is quite childlike in a sense that he seems to be completely oblivious to all that is going on around him. Gregers also seems quick to understand that Gina is the brains behind it all, yet even after Gregers mentions that Gina runs things, Hjalmer still believes that he does more important things. This definitely places Hjalmer in the "wild duck" position since he seems so completely submerged in lies and naivety that he doesn't even realize it.
Quote 3: "Yes, I am going to rescue that shipwrecked man. That's just what he suffered-shipwreck-when the storm broke over him. When all those harrowing investigations took place, he wasn't himself anymore. That pistol, there0 the one we use to shoot rabbits with-it's played a part in the tragedy of the Ekdals."
This caught my attention because the way Hjalmer describes Ekdal, he almost makes it sound like Ekdal is a "wild duck". He is completely oblivious to the fact that Gregers whole mission is to pull Hjalmer out of the "wild duck" position and bring him back up to reality. All the while, Hjalmer thinks that he is the one who is bringing his father out of all of this and saving him. Both men have life missions to "save" another man. It's interesting how Ibsen creates this image of a "wild duck" and many characters perceive others as being that wild duck, but yet none of them see themselves as the duck. So they're all circling trying to pull each other out of the lies when it seems as though they are all submersed in them in some form.
Quote 4: "Beg pardon-but it wouldn't be you who brought that stench in with you from the mines up there?" 
"It's just like you to call what I'm bringing into this house a stench."
This exchange between Gregers and Dr. Relling is interesting because again we see boundaries. Neither man will come out and say what he really thinks, and Gina as well in the conversation, but instead they use little metaphors and quick comments that are more underhanded. They all think they know the truth but no one ever actually speaks what they think. Relling seems to be accusing Gregers of bring a "stench" with him. It seems like he doesn't like the fact that Gregers has come back and his poking around in everybody's business. But Gregers obviously perceives himself to be very noble and doing the "right thing".
Quote 5: "All right, I'll tell you, Mrs. Ekdal. He's suffering from an acute case of moralistic fever." 
Relling talks about Gregers having "moralistic fever". I think what he means by this is that Gregers is all of a sudden decided that he has all these morals and that he can't let Hjalmer live in the lies anymore and that he has to do everything right and all of that. But Relling seems to be mocking him, a fever implies that it's temporary and all of a sudden Gregers has this "fever" about him. And also that he's sick, and pretty much implying that Gregers is just acting dumb and is just messing everything up. And that he should just let his "morals" go and move on without interfering in everyone's personal lives.

The Wild Duck Journal #2

"And there he sits right now, he with his great, guileless, childlike mind plunged in deception-living under the same roof with that creature, not knowing that what he calls his home is built on a lie." Gregers obviously recognizes the facade that he believes Gina to be putting on. By referring to her as a "creature" he devalues her and shows that he believes she is also in part to blame for this as well as Werle, whom he is speaking to. He perceives both his father and Gina to be manipulative while Hjalmer is innocent. He paints a picture in which Gina and Werle have conspired to "plunge" Hjalmer into their deception while he remains naiive.

"But what else could I do? I've put ads in the papers time and again."
"Yes, ads, ads-you see whwat a help they are. And of course nobody's been to look at the spare room either?
"No, not yet."
"That was to be expected. If one doesn't keep wide awake-Gina, you've simply got to pull yourself together."
This conversation between Gina and Hjalmer shows that Hjalmer perceives Gina to be irresponsible and inadequate. His tone is condescending when he sarcastically remarks "you see what a help they are" when she defends herself by saying she's been putting ads in the paper. And then again when he says "And of course nobody's..." his sarcastic, condecensing tone displays that he perceives himself to be the responsible one, while Gina just never does any of the jobs she supposed to be doing. He speaks to her almost as if she is a child.

Gina doesn't contradict Hjalmer but at the beginning of Act 2, before Hjalmer gets home, Gina is seen calculating the expenses and talking about running the photography business with Hedvig. She obviously knows that she is not childlike or irresponsible and in fact she is doing a lot of the work involved in keeping the family together while Hjalmer goes off to a fancy dinner party. Since Gina doesn't say this, she must perceive that Hjalmer can't handle it. She recognizes that Hjalmer has a false perception of himself but she allows it to continue and simply ignores it.

"Gregers- I don't believe there's a man in this world you hate as much as me" When Werle is speaking to Gregers he openly admits that he knows that Gregers perceives him as being a "bad guy" and a liar and a manipulator and he doesn't contradict him at all. He embraces what Gregers perceives him as and doesn't try to fight with him about it. He simply lets it go. However, Gregers doesn't seem to understand this since he still never specifically accuses his father of anything. He just goes up to that line and then backs down. So Gregers obviously perceives his father as being unable or unwilling to listen to it when in reality he isn't rejecting it at all.

The Wild Duck Journal #1

The most obvious boundary I noticed in Act 1 was between Gregers and his father. There is a lot of tension between him and his father. It seems as if Gregers has a struggle with his father and also an internal struggle with himself about trusting his father and how he feels about his late mother. He seems to dislike his father because of the way his mother felt, even though she has passed away. Even though some people think his father is a good man, like Hjalmer believes that his father has a heart since he set him up with a wife and a job, but Gregers still cannot trust his father and feels like his father is manipulating him. So the fact that he cannot trust his father becomes a boundary in their relationship. 

Werle seems to have his own boundaries, on page 130, he "looks for something on the writing table, seeming to with that Gregers would leave; when he fails to stir, Werle crosses toward the door." Ibsen makes it sound like Werle has some type of business to attend to with all his papers and his study but his son simply stands and refuses to leave. Even though Werle wants his son to leave he can't say it, so that becomes a boundary for him that it wouldn't be socially acceptable to cross. So he tries to get out of it by just heading to the door to leave. This shows Werle coming to a boundary and then trying to slip out of it.

The reader doesn't know all the details, but when Hjalmer talks to Gregers he speaks about his father going to prison, and so that could be a boundary for Hjalmer and his family that maybe their status in society has been affected by the legal troubles that his father has had. That could be displaying an economic or social boundary for their family. The fact that Ekdal went to prison, he obviously fell out of the business world that him and Werle were equals in. So now he has more economic and social boundaries than he used to.

In this time period obviously there was a lot of economic boundaries due to your class. Werle talks about his relation with Mrs. Sorby, "Yes, but I'm afraid it can't go on. The world is quick to make inferences about a woman in her position." (134). So he is discussing a couple of boundaries here. First of all, he is discussing the social boundary that it simply isn't acceptable to have a relationship with your employee. But also, economically, the world "is quick to make inferences", so the general public judges "woman in her position". So women of a lower class. So Ibsen displays that in this time period there were certain judgments about different classes and boundaries as to what was acceptable for a person based on which class you were in. 

Ibsen uses a lot of gossip and it's all very complicated. It's interesting because it creates an illusion as though the audience is almost a part of the action because you're constantly trying to figure out who said what and whether it's true or not and who is talking to whom.This could create boundaries because you may not know what is true or not. Or you may only be seeing part of the picture, which is what Gregers seems to imply that Hjalmer is doing.

Also at the dinner party, when Ekdal walks in and everyone sees him, a guest who didn't see is asking who it was and Gregers simply says "Oh, no one. Only the bookkeeper and somebody else" (128). And even his own son, Hjalmer, when asked if he knew him says "I don't know-I didn't notice-" The dashes show his hesitation. And both men have obviously come to a boundary where they feel it is socially inappropriate to mention Ekdal or make a big deal that he was just there even though it obviously is a big deal.

Antigone Journal #4

Haemon [pleading now]. This is all a bad dream, Father. You are not yourself. It isn’t true that we have been backed up against a wall, forced to surrender. We don’t have to say yes to this terrible thing. You are still king. You are still the father I revered. You have no right to desert me, to shrink into nothingness. The world will be too bare, I shall be too alone in the world, if you force me to disown you.

Creon. The world is bare, Haemon, and you are alone. You must cease to think your father all-powerful.

            The passage starts off with Haemon “pleading” with his father. Haemon’s tone is almost one of disbelief, he refers to it as a “bad dream”, and says that “it isn’t true”. This could establish that Haemon, although he sees these horrible things happening, he wants to believe in the goodness of his father. The goodness of the king, and the laws that he has always trusted. Haemon’s attitude of disbelief suggests that he doesn’t really want to question it, he wants the law to be right.

            Haemon says “we have been backed up against a wall”. The reader can’t be sure exactly who “we” is. It could be Haemon and his father, but “we” could suggest an entire group of people. Or, possibly, mankind in general. Mankind is stuck against a wall and forced to surrender. So, this could suggest that people are stuck and they are forced to “surrender” their personal beliefs and morals.

            However, Haemon argues that maybe man doesn’t have to “say yes to this terrible thing”. Haemon implies that his father is acting as if there is no other option, but that maybe there is another option. And sometimes a person should say “no” and not agree with what is going on if it is wrong.

            Haemon’s next lines repeat “you”, “You are still king. You are still the father I revered. You have no right to desert me, to shrink into nothingness”. The repetition makes it sound like he is trying to convince himself. Haemon is trying to convince himself that his father is still the ruler of Thebes, and still the good man that Haemon has always looked up to. He claims that his father has “no right to desert” him, and “shrink into nothingness”. His attitude that his father doesn’t have the right to not do anything, suggests that Haemon believes the lawmakers should enforce the power that they have and not act as if they can’t do anything about it. A government should not do nothing.

            Creon’s response is interesting when he says “the world is bare, Haemon and you are alone”. Creon suggests that there isn’t anything anyone can do, that it is straightforward. The word “bare” suggests a lack of substance. The world becomes plain, another indication that he is “backed up against a wall”. Creon also tells Haemon that he should stop thinking that he, Creon, is “all-powerful”. Since Creon represents a government, this suggests that a citizen shouldn’t believe that the government is all-powerful, that maybe the government doesn’t have power.

            The basic significance of this passage, if looked at from a historical point of view, is that it can easily be associated with the Nazi occupation of France and the place of the French puppet government. Haemon wants to believe in the goodness of the government, like many people during World War 2 wanted to believe that the government would act, wouldn’t let something happen. Haemon suggests that the government acts like there is nothing it can do, but really that “isn’t true” and they shouldn’t “surrender”.  That people don’t have to say yes to terrible things. This could suggest that basically, the French puppet government was acting like they were stuck against a wall and there was nothing they could do, but really they didn’t have to just say yes to something so terrible. They were still the government, they didn’t have a right to “shrink into nothingness”. However Creon, representing the puppet government, argues that the government isn’t all-powerful like people want to believe.

If taken in historical context, this passage seems to suggest that the French puppet government was being weak, they left the citizens alone and acted as if it was their only choice. They said yes to a terrible thing, the holocaust, and chose to act as if they were not powerful. Anouilh could suggest that people are alone, and one cannot rely on the government to fix the problems, because it isn’t necessarily all powerful, but should work to the best of their own ability to fight for what they believe in.

Antigone Journal #3

Contrast

Life/Death: Life vs. Death comes up a lot, especially when Creon and Antigone are arguing after Antigone is brought in by the guards. Creon speaks to her because he doesn't want to put Antigone to death. He wants her to realize that the idea of burying her brother, while it maybe seems like a noble one, isn't worth dying for. His message is that Antigone to "be happy" (41). And Antigone basically questions what the point of "happiness" is. She acts Creon what his version of happiness is, she asks "what sins" she has to commit to be happy (41). She's basically saying that this thing, this happiness that Creon is talking about, it has no point. It doesn't accomplish anything. To be "happy" she'd have to commit some sin, she has to let someone rot or lie or sell herself. She's arguing that happiness has a price. And that she'd rather do what she believes is right, than be "happy". And he what he wants is for her to have life, but she says that she "chose death" (44). So this contrast of life and death connects to another contrast that's sort of like happiness vs. being true to yourself, or something along those lines. Because the way Antigone is putting it, you can't have both. You can't be true to yourself and your values and live "happily". I feel like she's saying that, as person, if you're going to choose to stand up for what you think is right, if you're going to choose to live by the values you've chosen, you're choosing to bring pain. When we decide that we're going to do what we believe is right, we're asking to be hurt. In her case, literally asking for death. But what's interesting is that Antigone challenges what is "life". She "spit[s] on [Creon's] idea of life" (42). Because she argues that what Creon is saying is that people should live life just to be "happy", and they can all be "happy", "so long as they "don't ask too much out of life" (42). Antigone isn't really against life, she doesn't want to die in a sense that she just doesn't like living. Antigone "want[s] everything out of life...and she wants it now" (42). But for Antigone, she believes that in order to truly have "life", it doesn't just be going along and breathing. That simply literally being alive isn't life. That how long you live doesn't matter, life hasn't "added" anything to Creon except "lines on [his] face" (42). But for her, by dying, she's living. Because she's doing something for herself, she's standing up for what she believes in, and to her that's what life means. So she wants Creon to put her to death because she's not going to change or succumb to him, she's going to be her stubborn self no matter what even if it brings her death. 

Another contrast that caught my attention was Hope v. Peace. Because, it seems like these go together and that they shouldn't contrast each other or be mutually exclusive. But when Antigone talks about her father, Oedipus, she says that it was until he had "stamped out" all hope that he was truly "at peace". (43). Not until he was sure that "nothing, nothing could save him" (43). I found this unique. Her view that in order to be at peace, one must be without hope. Although there is an interesting argument for it because if you have hope, if you're hoping for something, then it's like you're waiting. (Also interesting to note that waiting has been a huge image repeated over and over thus far). So if you're waiting for something, are you really peaceful? Because once you're waiting for something you're anxious. So if hope means waiting, and waiting means anxious...then you can't be at peace if you have hope. So she suggests that a person must choose either hope or peace. Hope v. Peace could also contribute to Truth v. Lies because since before Oedipus knew the truth, he could have hope that maybe it all wasn't true. But at the same time, with this hope, he didn't know if everything was true, so you have an element of anxiety. He wasn't really at peace. It wasn't until after he knew the truth, there was no hope, that he was at peace. 

Antigone Journal #2

Timeline:
I'm pretty sure that the first thing Antigone did was speak to Ismene, because she wanted Ismene to be there once they buried their brother. But when it became clear that Ismene wasn't going to help, Antigone decided she would bury him by herself. She knows that if she does this she's going to die. she has to figure out certain things first. So then the last night she stole Ismene's clothes and make up and went to Haemon. She wanted to be with Haemon because she's insecure about whether he really loves her "as a woman". Like, whether he thinks she's really beautiful and wants to be with her because she still doesn't really understand why he chose her and not Ismene. But Haemon is confused and he laughs that she's dressed up so different than usual and so of course, she gets her pride damaged and they end up fighting and she runs out. She probably decides none of it matters anyway so she goes out and buries her brother by herself. Sneaking back in the next morning, which is where the nurse finds her.

Cool Stuff:
There's more imagery around waiting. Antigone is breathless and "[they stand for a moment silent and motionless]". Plus there is a lot of places where there's supposed to be "a pause". And everyone is waiting for different things or to hear the truth and Antigone is waiting to die.
Also, I thought that the relationship between Antigone and The Nurse was interesting as well. Because there is kind of this odd dynamic where the Nurse is almost like a mother, scolding her and worrying and such. But then, Antigone calls the nurse "dear" and flips it around and almost belittles Nurse and talks to her like she's a child and then Nurse ends up crying. Which is sort of weird, because even though the Nurse is like a mother, she's technically a servant. And Antigone seems to love the Nurse, but also works to almost trick her.
At one point, when the nurse asks if Antigone went to meet a lover, Antigone says yes. (Later, the audience realizes this is semi-true because she did go meet Haemon at one point), but she makes it sound like it's a forbidden lover because that's what the Nurse assumes. Antigone just goes along with what the Nurse assumes because then you don't really ever have to do any work. It's very "teenager-ish", just saying "Okay, or "Yeah, that's it" to whatever your parents assume so that it stops their questioning.
And then later she goes on to say "You are very powerful, Nanny" almost building her up and then making her seem powerful again. Also, switching to "Nanny" which makes herself sound younger and innocent. It's very interesting how she flips around when she's talking to the Nurse in order to manipulate the situation.  

Antigone Journal #1

Setting the Scene:
The main setting for this beginning part of the play is that there at some type of home, presumably the castle, since Creon is the King, and the characters are his family. Also, it must be a home because when Antigone comes in she comes upon a "house asleep". So, it should be early morning, and everyone is still sleeping.
At the beginning, there are "steps", and the Guards are sitting there as well as Eurydice and Antigone and the Nurse. So I think it's not some type of huge staircase but rather maybe three or four large, wide steps which lead down into the home where the table is at. Because, when Antigone comes in she enters from outside, "through the arch". So the arch is essentially the doorway to inside. Next, she "moves downstage" and ends up at the table. So the table is inside. But, when she hears the nurse come in through the left archway, she runs towards "the exit".and "as she reaches the steps" the nurse comes through. Which means the steps have to come before the archway since that would be the exit. So, the scene should be set up with a triple arch (since there is left, right and center) and then a few wide stairs leading into a home, where there is a table. Since the table is where Creon was sitting and thinking, it is possible that it is some type of office.
Also, since the house is supposed to be quiet and everyone is asleep and Antigone is looking off into the distance and runs when she sees the nurse, obviously she is sneaking around trying to do something. So she is probably tiptoeing, and being cautious and it's very silent.
I think that Chorus is one person in this story even though in Greek theater it had been many. Because, as the Chorus goes through describing each person, the movements are very fluid and the Chorus "moves downstage" and turns and points, and uses terms like "I" and the spotlight shines on "Chorus's face". And although one could argue that it's multiple people who are speaking individually, I don't see any real support for that argument. Especially since the tone of the writing never changes between talking about different people and the Chorus never seems to be talking to itself, like there's no internal conversation. It's simply telling about the different characters, in the same exact way, using "I" and it says "He" to refer to the Chorus. So, I think the argument is better for the Chorus being one person in this case.

Lit Term Make Up

Example of Oxymoron:

“With miserable delight, I feel: saved.” (We, page 134). The oxymoron lies in the “miserable delight” since by definition, something delightful can’t be miserable. Zamyatin uses this oxymoron to develop internal conflict in D-503, and begin to show him questioning his own logic and reasoning.

Example of Parallel Structure:

“As I write this, I feel something: my cheeks are burning.

“As I write this: I feel my cheeks burn.” (We, page 4).  Parallel structure can be used to emphasize a certain idea. Zamyatin uses parallel structure in this instance to suggest a recurring theme of “burning”. Burning has connotations of negativity and destructiveness which become a motif throughout the book.

Example of Paradox:

“A wave of poison joy rose in my throat”. (Stranger, page 110) This is different from an oxymoron in that poison joy sounds like it contradicts itself since poison is bad and joy is positive and you shouldn’t have a “bad” kind of joy. But, it actually does make sense because your joy could be poisoned by something. Camus uses this to describe Mersault as he considers what it would be like to be free from prison and suggests that although he is joyful at the prospect, it is poisoned because he knows that the chances of it happening are slim.

Example of Repetition:

“if only I knew what was up above-up high? If only I knew: who I am, which one is me?” (We, page 57). This is an example of repetition in which the author repeats “If only I knew…” which seems like the author is trying to suggest that there are certain things that cannot be known.

Example of Juxtaposition:

“…as if familiar paths traced in summer skies could lead as easily to prison as to the sleep of the innocent” (The Stranger, 97). Juxtaposition sets two different ideas side by side to contrast them or put emphasis on them. In this instance, Camus puts prison, which is dark and confined, with summer skies and innocent sleep, which is open and free in order to contrast Mersault’s old life with his new life.

Example of Ambiguity:  

“…about when he would be a big ruler of things with her reaping the benefits” (Their Eyes Were Watching God, page 28). This is an example of ambiguity because of the word “things”. Hurston does not specify what things Joe will be a ruler over. Therefore, the term is ambiguous. Hurtston uses the ambiguity of “things” to suggest that Joe will be ruling over something obvious like a store or town, but also a deeper meaning that he will be ruling over Janie as well.

We Journal #3

Corruption of Morals:

     The main goal of any government is power. The One State government wants power, and they want power that will last, without any dissent from the people. Obviously, the majority of people are citizens, and as history shows, if citizens are fired-up enough, they can overpower the government. To stop this from happening, One State instills ideas which corrupt the values we have in society today.
   First of all, there is a change in the way that people look. Everyone in the One State wears the exact same clothing. We would consider our individuality to be a value, but by taking away some individuality they begin to disintegrate jealousy among people. Such as when D discusses how some people have "button noses" while others have "classical". We still see hints of these forces, but by taking away the individuality they are lessening.
     The One State takes away any privacy, which is something many people in our society value. By constructing the society of glass, everyone is visible to everyone else, making personal privacy unimportant and suggesting that everyone should be able to judge everyone else. The government gains serious control over the people by having the ability to theoretically know exactly where they are and what they are doing.
            The government also knows exactly where they are by the table of hours which pretty much takes away all freedoms and creativity since they have to stick to the exact schedule. The government has complete control over the people and is able to stick them into a specific routine in order for them to be most productive for the government.
            Any values of love that exist today are gone in the One State. Since “any cipher has the right to any other cipher as sexual product”, it essentially allows anyone to be “registered” to anyone they want, and so again this helps take away jealousy. It takes all emotion out of relationships since you can just have whatever you want. And, your table of sex days are based on your “scientific needs” and so it takes away these emotional aspects and replaces them with cold, hard schedules. This takes away distractions that cause dissent from the government and inefficiency. Distractions such as jealousy and love and compassion.

We Journal #2

The passage I selected from the book to be significanat is on page 86-87 when D-503 discovers the secret underground tunnels of the MEPHI. Prior to this passage, D had been suspicios of I-330 when she dissapeared at the ancient house. This time, D went into the ancient house in search of I-330 but  could not find her, so he began searching. He ends up stumbling upon the closet that leads to the underground tunnels. He is stunned when he falls into their hideout. The excerpt begins with "A corridor." and ends with "Why, then, isn't it audible?". Quotations are cited using line numbers beginning with "A corridor..." as line 1.

Significance: Characterization. D-503 almost always has a reasonable answer, but when he stumbled upon the doctor he is at a loss, "But I-it was as though I had never known even one human word- I was mute...[I] didn't understand anything he was saying to me" (19-20). This shows a shattering of D's logical world, and a change in his character. By creating an enviornment where D has nothing to say, it suggests that he is learning maybe there is not an answer to everything. Towards the end of this passage, there's a key line in which, again, D questions his own logic. D finally finds I and he trembles at finally seeing her after such a long excursion but he can't stop thinking that "Vibrations produce sound. A tremble must make a sound. Why, then, isn't it audible?". This questioning his own reasoning suggests that D is realizing that things don't always have a physical reason. He's struggling with how two things that he knows are true can coexist if they contradict each other. This also symoblizes bigger ideas later on, such as his love for I-330 that he knows in his heart exists but he cannot understand why.

Significance: Setting. The passage begins with D in "a corridor" with "a thousand-pound silence", it's narrow and not made from glass but from "some ancient material" (1,5). The corridor changes the previous setting of the book since in most of the novel it's set in the glass city where everything is open and visible and clear. Now, he's in this skinny, opaque corridor that's completely opposite of what he is used to. By doing this, Zamyatin creates a more intense and ominous mood and the image of corridor, since it's narrow and encloses you unlike the open glass, could suggest pressure on D-503. Such as the pressure feels and the tight spot he's in between wanting to be a good citizen, but falling in love with I.

Significance: Motifs. When D knocks on the door, the "blade-nosed" doctor greets him. Blades and scissors and knives are a motif throughout the book. A blade often represents something strong, that can be destructive, but also just powerful. By using blades, Zamyatin suggests that there is destruction necesary in order for the movement to be powerful. This can be seen through the MEPHI because they are trying to have a revolution and do something powerufl, which cannot happen without destruction of the current society. The motif of blades in this passage makes it significance, because it is D's first glimpse into this coming destruction.

We Journal Comments

Comment #1: (On Andrew's Blog)
     "  I like how you talked about the burning cheeks, I talked about that also, and had the same idea about "destruction" and inner struggle. and destruction of a society.We should probably be tracking the thoughts of "burning" or destruction. One thing you said that I hadn't thought about was the "knowledge barriers in society" and I think that's an interesting point how everyone has one specific job, like he's just a mathematician so he doesn't know about anything else. that would be an interesting thing to track as well."

Comment #2: ( On Jack's Blog)
"One thing that's interesting is you must have a different translation of the book. In my book, it does not say "wild, primitive curve..." it says "taming a wild zig zag along a tangent...". They are obviously similar but it's interesting the different connotations with zigzag versus primitive curve. Especially since mine says nothing about being "primitive". Also, I thought it was interesting how you said that it made a serious mood because I had actually thought that he sounded very content and enthusiastic about his writing and that it wasn't very dark in this particular passage. We should probably track how the tone/mood shifts throughout the book."

We Journal #1

     Yevgeny Zamyatin creates an ominous mood that hooks the reader into the story and suggests that the society, at this point, is perfect according to the main character. In the first line, D-503 says "...my cheeks are burning". This is again repeated two paragraphs later "...I feel my cheeks burn". Burning connects to the idea of The Integral, which is essentially a rocket ship, and flying into outer space. But burning also suggests destruction. The thought of something burning could suggest that something will be destroyed, or that something is being destroyed.
     He also mentions "tangent" and "asymptote". In math, a tangent is a line that touches a circle in only point, and he says he is "taming a wild zigzag along a tangent". Also, in common speech, when someone says "going off on a tangent" it means something unrelated or irrelevant. So, this suggests that they are taking something crazy or irrelevant and "taming" it, making everything the same. Also, an asymptote, in math, is the line that the graph of something never touches. It comes right up to the asymptote but never actually touches it. It essentially acts as a barrier. Zamyatin suggests that there is some sort of barrier which cannot be crossed, and that the people are being held in.
      In the second paragraph, D says that he will record what "we" think. He groups himself with the entire population as one single entity. Their civilization is even called "One State", suggesting that all people are the same, therefore collectively make one person. More precisely, that all people have the exact same beliefs and ideas, since they all "think" the same thing.
       Towards the end of the passage, D is talking about what he will be writing and how it will "feed for many months on [his] sap [...] and then in anguish [..] will be ripped from [himself] and placed at the foot of the One State". Literally, he is saying that his work, or what he has produced, he will have to give to the One State, in reference to his writings. In a greater context, this suggests that anything a person does in this society, or essentially their entire selves, must be given over to the One State. And that everything they do and create, their innermost feelings and creativity, are "ripped" away from them and "placed at the foot of the One State". Zamyatin suggests that people in this society, must give away their thoughts, ideas and creativity, to the government.