Although this semester has been difficult and/or stressful at times, I would have to say that I have gained something from this experience. At the beginning of this year, I did not even know what it meant to "analyze" a quotation. But in these last few weeks in particular, I feel like I've made a really big jump and I feel fairly confident writing a commentary piece or putting together an essay about literature. I understand more about literature and the way that techniques can actually shape meaning other than just what's written in the words. I was definitely frustrated a lot during the class because I felt like I just couldn't get it, but it is rewarding to see all that struggle turn into writing that actually sounds insightful and intelligent. Overall, one of the biggest things that has changed in my writing is the maturity level. When I read things that I wrote in the past, they sound like they were written by a kid. But now, when I read things that I write, they sound mature and less juvenile. I still struggle a bit with organizing my papers and getting the jumble of ideas in my head into something fluid and coherent, but I've improved a lot.
Aside from the actual English portion, it is always a good thing to go through something that is a challenge, as frustrating as it might be for someone who is used to being perfect. It's good to have to struggle sometimes and if you do get that A, it really feels like you earned every last point of it.
I'm not going to say this was my favorite class ever. But it was not a waste of time and I did gain a good sense of self appreciation and self knowledge, as well as a LOT of literary analytic skills. I'm definitely glad that I took the class. And I think anyone who goes through that struggle of taking this class is miles and miles ahead of their peers who chose not to.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Lorca #6
Act I.
1. "I know she's a good girl. That's true isn't it? Quiet, hardworking. She bakes her bread and sews her skirts" (8).
This has a connection to gender roles and how women were viewed in society, their role in the home, etc. She talks about her being "good" which could also connect to the Catholic Church.
2. "One man, some children- and a wall six feet thick, to shut out everything else."
Gender roles again, and the place of women. Also the idea of marriage and it's significance or lack thereof.
3. "The blood was flowing
Stronger than water."
This image of water connects to Surrealism. The artistic movement that Lorca was apart of. And can connect to the idea of the "id" or subconscious.
Act II.
1. "And every time I think about it, there is a new guilt that swallows up the old. But there is always guilt". (47).
This could be a connection to the Catholic Church because a big part of their doctrine is trying to live without sinning and repenting your sins, and confession so that ties into guilt.
2. "But they carry off the dead and you must keep silent. Or people will criticize." (60).
I thought this connected to political aspects, and the Spanish Civil War because it's people feeling like all this unfairness is happening and all this death but they can't speak up.
3. "It has come one again- the our of blood! Two sides! you with your sand me with mine!" (77).
Another reference to the Civil War because it could suggest the splitting of families and friends. And suggest the brutality and intensity of the war that it was able to divide even families.
Act III.
1. "The world is wide-everyone can live in it."
I thought that this could connect to Lorca's sexuality and also the feeling of an outcast. The line really jumped out at me as social commentary on Lorca's part as far as judgement goes. And that the world is big enough for all kinds of people, regardless of how you are and everyone should be able to live at peace.
2. "They both fell dead [...] that's how it was. Nothing more. It was just." (99).
This seems like a connection to war and how there really wasn't anything more, just a lot of death. Also it's interesting how he insinuates that it was fair because both sides died.
3. "Cover your face with a veil.
Your children are children of yours,
Nothing else matters to you.
you must place a cross made of ashes
On the bed where his pillow has been."
This sounds like a possible reference to the church and also gender roles a little bit because this woman just had her husband and the father of her son and "nothing matters".
1. "I know she's a good girl. That's true isn't it? Quiet, hardworking. She bakes her bread and sews her skirts" (8).
This has a connection to gender roles and how women were viewed in society, their role in the home, etc. She talks about her being "good" which could also connect to the Catholic Church.
2. "One man, some children- and a wall six feet thick, to shut out everything else."
Gender roles again, and the place of women. Also the idea of marriage and it's significance or lack thereof.
3. "The blood was flowing
Stronger than water."
This image of water connects to Surrealism. The artistic movement that Lorca was apart of. And can connect to the idea of the "id" or subconscious.
Act II.
1. "And every time I think about it, there is a new guilt that swallows up the old. But there is always guilt". (47).
This could be a connection to the Catholic Church because a big part of their doctrine is trying to live without sinning and repenting your sins, and confession so that ties into guilt.
2. "But they carry off the dead and you must keep silent. Or people will criticize." (60).
I thought this connected to political aspects, and the Spanish Civil War because it's people feeling like all this unfairness is happening and all this death but they can't speak up.
3. "It has come one again- the our of blood! Two sides! you with your sand me with mine!" (77).
Another reference to the Civil War because it could suggest the splitting of families and friends. And suggest the brutality and intensity of the war that it was able to divide even families.
Act III.
1. "The world is wide-everyone can live in it."
I thought that this could connect to Lorca's sexuality and also the feeling of an outcast. The line really jumped out at me as social commentary on Lorca's part as far as judgement goes. And that the world is big enough for all kinds of people, regardless of how you are and everyone should be able to live at peace.
2. "They both fell dead [...] that's how it was. Nothing more. It was just." (99).
This seems like a connection to war and how there really wasn't anything more, just a lot of death. Also it's interesting how he insinuates that it was fair because both sides died.
3. "Cover your face with a veil.
Your children are children of yours,
Nothing else matters to you.
you must place a cross made of ashes
On the bed where his pillow has been."
This sounds like a possible reference to the church and also gender roles a little bit because this woman just had her husband and the father of her son and "nothing matters".
Lorca #5
1. The symbolism of the woodcutter, beggar woman and moon
The woodcutter, beggar woman and moon are all symbols that intertwine. The moon is a symbol for time, and as it comes upon Leonardo and the bride, the moon says "Who is hiding? Come out, I say! No! They cannot escape!" If the moon is representative of time, then this could connect to the idea that no one can run from time and it passes regardless of how we feel. Even when things happen that feel as though time as stopped, no one can escape. Also, if time is connected to the beggar woman who represents death, you could make the connection that death, similar to time, is impartial and affects everyone regardless of status, wealth, love, etc. You could say that the two are immovable forces that come and go as they please.
2. What happens when the runaway couple are caught?
When the runaway are couple are caught, it is not specifically described. But the beggar woman stands with her back to the audience, spread out "like a great bird with immense wings", which implies death. Leonardo and the groom seem to have killed each other. But the bride remains unharmed. So even though the couple tried to run, the moon (time) shone on them and they were caught and the bird (death, beggar woman) found them anyways. So again, death and time are inescapable.
3. What happens to the Mother after the death of her son?
The mother, who has been full of passion and worry for her son throughout the play has been very verbal all of a sudden she is completely at peace. Which is interesting because although it's not a good thing that her son died, because everyone in her life is dead now she has nothing to worry about losing anymore. She's lost everything. And I suppose there is some comfort in knowing that you can't fall any further. All you have to do is wait. This may serve as some sort of "emotional cleansing" but it doesn't really feel right. But if she is at peace after the death, then she seems to have also lost her passion. So this may somehow connect to an idea that you can't have peace and passion at the same time. Where there is passion, there will always be struggle.
4. At least three significant lines of imagery
"And I will lie at your feet-
Guarding what you dream-
Naked, watching the fields
As if I were your dog.
Because I am! I look at you:
Your beauty makes me burn!" (91).
I like this line a lot because there's just so much imagery and passion put into these words. The fact that she is willing to lie at his feet like a dog, you can just see how loyal she is to him and how she will protect him for as long as she lives. Also, the way that she says "Naked, watching the fields" like she is emotionally naked- she's completely exposed her entire heart to him and offers up her whole self. She's not keeping anything hidden- she's open with him. And how his beauty makes her burn is related to this inner fire you can imagine the passion inside her for him.
"The wind blows hard, with a double edge."-Moon
"The same flame destroys
Two stalks of wheat at once". -Leonardo
I thought it was interesting because you see this theme of two sides, and a double edge. And at the end of the play, both sides that were fighting ended up dead. So I feel like it connects to this theme that war takes a toll on both sides and regardless of who "wins" nobody really wins because blood is spilled on either side and this "same fire has destroyed two stalks of wheat at once". This same exact thing- has devastated both sides at the same time.
5. What elements of a tragedy does Lorca incorporate in Blood Wedding?
There are definitely elements of tragedy. One of the things that we read about was sympathy for both sides and I feel like that is true with Lorca's story. Because actually all of his characters are quite relatable and it realy depends who you are and how you feel. Which makes me wonder who the antagonist is in this story? Is it the bride? Because it seems as though depending on your ideals, you could dislike or like her. So it's interesting how he managed to weave a story in which you can see the perspective of all the main players. Also, as far as tragedy goes, there is definitely internal struggle. The most blatant being with the bride as she struggles with her inner desires and the passion in her heart, versus her logic and the security that the groom brings, and expectations. But other characters have it too. Like Leonardo who also seems to struggle with his wife versus his desire for the bride. And also even the mother of the groom who struggles with letting her son go even though she knows it's what has to happen, she wants to keep him safe. I'm not sure about the catharsis in this play. It could be felt I suppose in a variety of places a certain type of relief but I don't know if it's truly "catharsis" or not. For example, I felt relieved when the bride finally gave into her passions and ran away with the groom. But then I suppose others felt relieved when the groom finally caught them. It seems like one of the most subjective plays that I've read as far as who you "like" and who you "dislike".
The woodcutter, beggar woman and moon are all symbols that intertwine. The moon is a symbol for time, and as it comes upon Leonardo and the bride, the moon says "Who is hiding? Come out, I say! No! They cannot escape!" If the moon is representative of time, then this could connect to the idea that no one can run from time and it passes regardless of how we feel. Even when things happen that feel as though time as stopped, no one can escape. Also, if time is connected to the beggar woman who represents death, you could make the connection that death, similar to time, is impartial and affects everyone regardless of status, wealth, love, etc. You could say that the two are immovable forces that come and go as they please.
2. What happens when the runaway couple are caught?
When the runaway are couple are caught, it is not specifically described. But the beggar woman stands with her back to the audience, spread out "like a great bird with immense wings", which implies death. Leonardo and the groom seem to have killed each other. But the bride remains unharmed. So even though the couple tried to run, the moon (time) shone on them and they were caught and the bird (death, beggar woman) found them anyways. So again, death and time are inescapable.
3. What happens to the Mother after the death of her son?
The mother, who has been full of passion and worry for her son throughout the play has been very verbal all of a sudden she is completely at peace. Which is interesting because although it's not a good thing that her son died, because everyone in her life is dead now she has nothing to worry about losing anymore. She's lost everything. And I suppose there is some comfort in knowing that you can't fall any further. All you have to do is wait. This may serve as some sort of "emotional cleansing" but it doesn't really feel right. But if she is at peace after the death, then she seems to have also lost her passion. So this may somehow connect to an idea that you can't have peace and passion at the same time. Where there is passion, there will always be struggle.
4. At least three significant lines of imagery
"And I will lie at your feet-
Guarding what you dream-
Naked, watching the fields
As if I were your dog.
Because I am! I look at you:
Your beauty makes me burn!" (91).
I like this line a lot because there's just so much imagery and passion put into these words. The fact that she is willing to lie at his feet like a dog, you can just see how loyal she is to him and how she will protect him for as long as she lives. Also, the way that she says "Naked, watching the fields" like she is emotionally naked- she's completely exposed her entire heart to him and offers up her whole self. She's not keeping anything hidden- she's open with him. And how his beauty makes her burn is related to this inner fire you can imagine the passion inside her for him.
"The wind blows hard, with a double edge."-Moon
"The same flame destroys
Two stalks of wheat at once". -Leonardo
I thought it was interesting because you see this theme of two sides, and a double edge. And at the end of the play, both sides that were fighting ended up dead. So I feel like it connects to this theme that war takes a toll on both sides and regardless of who "wins" nobody really wins because blood is spilled on either side and this "same fire has destroyed two stalks of wheat at once". This same exact thing- has devastated both sides at the same time.
5. What elements of a tragedy does Lorca incorporate in Blood Wedding?
There are definitely elements of tragedy. One of the things that we read about was sympathy for both sides and I feel like that is true with Lorca's story. Because actually all of his characters are quite relatable and it realy depends who you are and how you feel. Which makes me wonder who the antagonist is in this story? Is it the bride? Because it seems as though depending on your ideals, you could dislike or like her. So it's interesting how he managed to weave a story in which you can see the perspective of all the main players. Also, as far as tragedy goes, there is definitely internal struggle. The most blatant being with the bride as she struggles with her inner desires and the passion in her heart, versus her logic and the security that the groom brings, and expectations. But other characters have it too. Like Leonardo who also seems to struggle with his wife versus his desire for the bride. And also even the mother of the groom who struggles with letting her son go even though she knows it's what has to happen, she wants to keep him safe. I'm not sure about the catharsis in this play. It could be felt I suppose in a variety of places a certain type of relief but I don't know if it's truly "catharsis" or not. For example, I felt relieved when the bride finally gave into her passions and ran away with the groom. But then I suppose others felt relieved when the groom finally caught them. It seems like one of the most subjective plays that I've read as far as who you "like" and who you "dislike".
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Lorca #4
(Question 3: Youth)
I thought it was interesting how many children appear in the play, and in particular the second act. None of them have names or seem to be important characters but there are always children around asking questions and stuff. In general, children represent innocence so it's interesting to have all this innocence contrasted by the harsh past of the two families, where you have lies and cheating and murder.
In one scene, the bride is talking to two little girls and they both want pins from the bride which signify who gets married, kind of like throwing the bouquet at a typical American wedding. And the bride seems really exasperated with all of their questions about who she gave which pin to and who's going to get married first. Finally the bride says "Do you want it so badly?" and the little girl says "Yes." and the bride says "Why?" to which the other girl responds "Well...". It's interesting that they are so excited and anxious to get married but they don't really have an answer for why. This could connect also to Lorca's social commentary. He could be suggesting something about the way that women, even from childhood, are just focused on getting married. Maybe it's not a good thing that marriage is seen as being so important. So he could use these children to represent how these ideals of society start at such a young, innocent age and force women into this specific role that they maybe aren't happy with.
(Question 1: Misery)
The two main characters in misery are the bride and Leonardo. The bride hardly says one positive thing the entire play. At one point, when she speaks to the little girls she says "And I don't care! I have a lot to think about.". The fact that she's raising her voice to a young child simply asking her questions on her wedding day speaks volume about the amount of pain that she is in. She also repeatedly says that she "doesn't know anything". And the stage directions say she is 'restless, in a great inner struggle'. I think that it's most interesting that she is so awful, to her groom and family and so obviously miserable but they all almost pretend not to notice it and act like it's normal. It's almost like people just want everything to go with the societal norms and they don't even really care if she's happy or not. Again, this could be social commentary by Lorca about how the numerous expectations of society cause a persons feelings and desires to take a back seat to what other people want and it simply ends up making people miserable. This is definitely something that can be related to no matter what time, culture or generation a person is from.There's always some form of pressure from society and expectations, whether it's gender related or cultural or whatever, that a person feels like they have to live up to even if it makes them miserable.
I thought it was interesting how many children appear in the play, and in particular the second act. None of them have names or seem to be important characters but there are always children around asking questions and stuff. In general, children represent innocence so it's interesting to have all this innocence contrasted by the harsh past of the two families, where you have lies and cheating and murder.
In one scene, the bride is talking to two little girls and they both want pins from the bride which signify who gets married, kind of like throwing the bouquet at a typical American wedding. And the bride seems really exasperated with all of their questions about who she gave which pin to and who's going to get married first. Finally the bride says "Do you want it so badly?" and the little girl says "Yes." and the bride says "Why?" to which the other girl responds "Well...". It's interesting that they are so excited and anxious to get married but they don't really have an answer for why. This could connect also to Lorca's social commentary. He could be suggesting something about the way that women, even from childhood, are just focused on getting married. Maybe it's not a good thing that marriage is seen as being so important. So he could use these children to represent how these ideals of society start at such a young, innocent age and force women into this specific role that they maybe aren't happy with.
(Question 1: Misery)
The two main characters in misery are the bride and Leonardo. The bride hardly says one positive thing the entire play. At one point, when she speaks to the little girls she says "And I don't care! I have a lot to think about.". The fact that she's raising her voice to a young child simply asking her questions on her wedding day speaks volume about the amount of pain that she is in. She also repeatedly says that she "doesn't know anything". And the stage directions say she is 'restless, in a great inner struggle'. I think that it's most interesting that she is so awful, to her groom and family and so obviously miserable but they all almost pretend not to notice it and act like it's normal. It's almost like people just want everything to go with the societal norms and they don't even really care if she's happy or not. Again, this could be social commentary by Lorca about how the numerous expectations of society cause a persons feelings and desires to take a back seat to what other people want and it simply ends up making people miserable. This is definitely something that can be related to no matter what time, culture or generation a person is from.There's always some form of pressure from society and expectations, whether it's gender related or cultural or whatever, that a person feels like they have to live up to even if it makes them miserable.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Lorca #3
Flower: Flowers come up a lot throughout the book so far and are definitely a motif. They could also be a symbol. In general, flowers could be a symbol of new beginnings. Possibly fragile beginnings, like the beginning of a marriage or the beginning of a life. Since so far there is a marriage about to happen and a baby. There are also specific flowers that get mentioned. For example, "a plant called Jupiter, with blood-red flowers, but then it died". So that could be a beginning that didn't work out. Because the father ended up dying. I think that flower could represent something delicate and new and could be a symbol for life.
Knives: Knives get associated with death a lot in the book and the knife could obviously be a symbol for death. But it could also be a symbol for passion, and for blood since a knife draws blood. It also seems like it could be a symbol for strength. The mother seems to be afraid of knives because of their potential to do harm. but then on the flip side, the son needs the knife because he has to go to the farm and cut the vines and they need those tools to make a living. So it's interesting the contrast between knives being something potentially dangerous but also something that is useful and necessary. So the knife could represent, in the play, something or things which one struggles with because it can be good and it's necessary for well being but it is also potentially harmful. This could apply to numerous things, even relationships.
Horse/ lullaby: A horse needs water in order to live, yet for some reason the horse doesn't want water. So the horse must represent someone or something that is rejecting what they need. And they keep saying for the child to go to sleep and that the horse begins to cry. But it doesn't really make sense why the horse is crying once it's choosing not to drink the water? It also says "don't come! don't enter! go off to the mountain. through the gray valleys. the mare awaits." The mare is the female horse so that's an interesting point that the horse is going off to the mountains to find a female. So isntead of being something that the horse needs which it is rejecting, since a horse is expected to get water, the horse could represent someone who is going against the norms of society. And maybe it's because of love? Or another cause? Then a couple pages later they continue the lullaby and talk about a "Silver dagger" in the horse's eye and blood that is "stronger than water" so if blood represents family or sacrifice maybe that means more to him?
comments:
Courtney's Blog: "It's interesting how you mentioned the child as a possible symbol? I think that is a good idea. What do you think the child could be a symbol of? Possibly innocence or new beginnings?"
Sara's Blog: I like how you mentioned the archetype of the neighbor. I agree it seems really stereotypical of a neighbor to know lots of information. But then a lot of it may or may not be true which is also interesting. I wonder if that will be important as the book goes on and who could a "neighbor" represent in society?
Knives: Knives get associated with death a lot in the book and the knife could obviously be a symbol for death. But it could also be a symbol for passion, and for blood since a knife draws blood. It also seems like it could be a symbol for strength. The mother seems to be afraid of knives because of their potential to do harm. but then on the flip side, the son needs the knife because he has to go to the farm and cut the vines and they need those tools to make a living. So it's interesting the contrast between knives being something potentially dangerous but also something that is useful and necessary. So the knife could represent, in the play, something or things which one struggles with because it can be good and it's necessary for well being but it is also potentially harmful. This could apply to numerous things, even relationships.
Horse/ lullaby: A horse needs water in order to live, yet for some reason the horse doesn't want water. So the horse must represent someone or something that is rejecting what they need. And they keep saying for the child to go to sleep and that the horse begins to cry. But it doesn't really make sense why the horse is crying once it's choosing not to drink the water? It also says "don't come! don't enter! go off to the mountain. through the gray valleys. the mare awaits." The mare is the female horse so that's an interesting point that the horse is going off to the mountains to find a female. So isntead of being something that the horse needs which it is rejecting, since a horse is expected to get water, the horse could represent someone who is going against the norms of society. And maybe it's because of love? Or another cause? Then a couple pages later they continue the lullaby and talk about a "Silver dagger" in the horse's eye and blood that is "stronger than water" so if blood represents family or sacrifice maybe that means more to him?
comments:
Courtney's Blog: "It's interesting how you mentioned the child as a possible symbol? I think that is a good idea. What do you think the child could be a symbol of? Possibly innocence or new beginnings?"
Sara's Blog: I like how you mentioned the archetype of the neighbor. I agree it seems really stereotypical of a neighbor to know lots of information. But then a lot of it may or may not be true which is also interesting. I wonder if that will be important as the book goes on and who could a "neighbor" represent in society?
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Lorca #2
Symbols:
flowers
horse
water
knives
branches
trees
vineyards
Archetypes:
Mother: There's two different mothers, there's the groom's mother and also Leonardo's mother-in-law. Both are portrayed as being nurturing and loving their children and taking care of them. It seems as though Lorca embraces the archetype of a nurturing mother figure. Leonardo's mother in law is helping her daughter take care of the baby and the groom's mother is worrying about her son.
Bride: When the audience first meets the bride it becomes clear that there are certain expectations of a women and that she is supposed to marry, have children and not do much else. Her father brags that she "never speaks". So apparently women weren't really expected to talk much. And the mother warns her and makes sure she knows what she is "giving up" by being a wife. But after the mother and groom leave, the bride changes and becomes more animated and not docile at all. She yells at the maid and acts like she doesn't really even want to be a wife. It seems as though maybe Lorca is rejecting the archetype of a wife from this scene.
flowers
horse
water
knives
branches
trees
vineyards
Archetypes:
Mother: There's two different mothers, there's the groom's mother and also Leonardo's mother-in-law. Both are portrayed as being nurturing and loving their children and taking care of them. It seems as though Lorca embraces the archetype of a nurturing mother figure. Leonardo's mother in law is helping her daughter take care of the baby and the groom's mother is worrying about her son.
Bride: When the audience first meets the bride it becomes clear that there are certain expectations of a women and that she is supposed to marry, have children and not do much else. Her father brags that she "never speaks". So apparently women weren't really expected to talk much. And the mother warns her and makes sure she knows what she is "giving up" by being a wife. But after the mother and groom leave, the bride changes and becomes more animated and not docile at all. She yells at the maid and acts like she doesn't really even want to be a wife. It seems as though maybe Lorca is rejecting the archetype of a wife from this scene.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Ibsen/Anouilh Compare and Contrast
Antigone Pastiche:
Anastasia: So why bother telling me?
William: Would you rather begin a marriage with lies?
Anastasia: I never would have found out. I loved him.
William: So what's next?
Anastasia: I'll go back home. Before the blizzard gets worse.
William: Don't be alone for Hanukkah, Anastasia. Pay a visit to your sister. It will be good for you.
Anastasia:Okay.
William: It's for the best.There will be other men. Marriage is sacred. No place for lies.
Anastasia: Okay.
Ibsen Pastiche.
Father: I wish you would stay with me. I'm been lonely all my life son, but especially now as I begin to age when the cold winter months set in. It would be nice to have someone around-
Son: You have Mrs. Jones.
Father: Yes, I do- I don't know what I'd do without her. She's lovely, smart, she brings a whole new light into the house- that's what I truly need.
Son: Well, then I guess you have everything you need.
Father: Yes, but I don't know if it can continue. You know what people will say about a woman like her. I may as well say, a man doesn't gain anything from it either.
Son: I'm sure a man of your status can afford the risk.
Father: Oh but what about her? She won't stand for it for too long- even if she did- with all the gossip- do you really think-
Comparison:
I agree that Anouilh was easier to work with. His style is very clear and it is more natural to mimic his crisp lines and tones. Ibsen, on the other hand, is a lot more inconsistent. His writing tends to be more choppy, often broken up with dashes which symbolize things the characters don't say. Anouilh doesn't tell things in chronological order because he wants to emphasize the characters motivations rather than the plot. Ibsen tells the story in chronological order, which should be easier to understand but reading Ibsen requires the audience to make a lot of inferences, which can make things confusing. Although characters motivations are important in Ibsen as well. Also Ibsen doesn't have any type of narration or Chorus and Anouilh does. Ibsen has the audience more submerged in the actual actions and events, focusing his main points and what's happening, and who is saying what, etc. Anouilh has a Chorus which makes the audience feel more removed from the actual plot, since that is not really his focus. Even more so, he has the Chorus break the 4th wall and speak directly to the audience, using a lot of metaphors. It definitely switches his focus to be more external than Ibsen.
Anastasia: So why bother telling me?
William: Would you rather begin a marriage with lies?
Anastasia: I never would have found out. I loved him.
William: So what's next?
Anastasia: I'll go back home. Before the blizzard gets worse.
William: Don't be alone for Hanukkah, Anastasia. Pay a visit to your sister. It will be good for you.
Anastasia:Okay.
William: It's for the best.There will be other men. Marriage is sacred. No place for lies.
Anastasia: Okay.
Ibsen Pastiche.
Father: I wish you would stay with me. I'm been lonely all my life son, but especially now as I begin to age when the cold winter months set in. It would be nice to have someone around-
Son: You have Mrs. Jones.
Father: Yes, I do- I don't know what I'd do without her. She's lovely, smart, she brings a whole new light into the house- that's what I truly need.
Son: Well, then I guess you have everything you need.
Father: Yes, but I don't know if it can continue. You know what people will say about a woman like her. I may as well say, a man doesn't gain anything from it either.
Son: I'm sure a man of your status can afford the risk.
Father: Oh but what about her? She won't stand for it for too long- even if she did- with all the gossip- do you really think-
Comparison:
I agree that Anouilh was easier to work with. His style is very clear and it is more natural to mimic his crisp lines and tones. Ibsen, on the other hand, is a lot more inconsistent. His writing tends to be more choppy, often broken up with dashes which symbolize things the characters don't say. Anouilh doesn't tell things in chronological order because he wants to emphasize the characters motivations rather than the plot. Ibsen tells the story in chronological order, which should be easier to understand but reading Ibsen requires the audience to make a lot of inferences, which can make things confusing. Although characters motivations are important in Ibsen as well. Also Ibsen doesn't have any type of narration or Chorus and Anouilh does. Ibsen has the audience more submerged in the actual actions and events, focusing his main points and what's happening, and who is saying what, etc. Anouilh has a Chorus which makes the audience feel more removed from the actual plot, since that is not really his focus. Even more so, he has the Chorus break the 4th wall and speak directly to the audience, using a lot of metaphors. It definitely switches his focus to be more external than Ibsen.
Monday, January 2, 2012
The Wild Duck Journal #5
From what me and my group discussed about the Wild Duck and reading the articles about a tragedy, I didn't feel like The Wild Duck was a tragedy. It seems to have some of the elements of a tragedy but is also lacking in a few areas. Hedvig's death could definitely be called "undeserved suffering" and according to the article, that alone does not make it tragic. It's definitely sad, but I don't know if it's truly a "tragedy". It seems to lack a strong character that could compare to the likes of Hamlet, or Romeo, or Antigone. The closest thing I suppose is Gregers. Plus, as far as catharsis, or emotional cleansing, Gregers sort of realizes the way that he has hurt this family and that maybe his way of thinking and truth isn't right in all scenarios but then again he never comes out and says that. So I don't know if it's really "cleansing". And, it's not even his daughter that died. He ruined someone elses life.
It's interesting that it doesn't exactly seem to fit with the mold of "tragedy" since this play seems like it is more sad than Antigone because the person who dies is completely innocent and naiive and didn't even really understand the situation. She just died for no reason and no good or change really came out of it. Her parents marraige seems like it's worse and Gregers doesn't even really seem to understand any more than he did before. I feel that mostly it lacks a sense of relief and cleansing for the audience.
It's interesting that it doesn't exactly seem to fit with the mold of "tragedy" since this play seems like it is more sad than Antigone because the person who dies is completely innocent and naiive and didn't even really understand the situation. She just died for no reason and no good or change really came out of it. Her parents marraige seems like it's worse and Gregers doesn't even really seem to understand any more than he did before. I feel that mostly it lacks a sense of relief and cleansing for the audience.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
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.
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.
"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.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
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.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
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.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, November 14, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)