"You have read this strange and terrific story now, Margaret; and do you not feel your blood congeal with horror, like that which even now curdles mine?" page 155
This is the first time since page 14 that Walton is the narrator. We're finally out of all of the frames in the story and back to where we started. Poor Walton's head is probably spinning after hearing all of that, and I bet his hand hurts after writing it all down. Personally, I kind of liked the frames. Especially with William's death, it was cool to see it from both Victor's point of view and his creation's. That's something that few stories provide. Having multiple points of view made me feel like I knew the story better. I felt slightly less judgmental toward all of the characters involved since I could see them in different ways. I still don't really see how the story is so horrific. I mean, Victor's creation kills everyone and then himself (maybe), but I just don't see the horror in it. It's scary, but "blood-curdling" might be going a bit far.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Frankenstein-Page 164
"And now it is ended; there is my last victim." page 164
I was definitely surprised to see Victor's creation show up when he died. First of all, how the heck did he know Victor had died? Was there some sort of creator-creation telepathy that I totally missed? While it's creepy that he seems just to know when Victor has died, it's...I don't want to use the word "sweet," but I can't think of a better word...that he came to pay his respects. This is the real resolution of the story. Finally, creator and creation can be at peace with one another. This would definitely be a good choice for the AP prompt from sometime in the '80s about stories having a clear ending in which all the loose ends are addressed. Did the creature die when he leapt from the boat, though? I couldn't really tell if he killed himself or not.
I was definitely surprised to see Victor's creation show up when he died. First of all, how the heck did he know Victor had died? Was there some sort of creator-creation telepathy that I totally missed? While it's creepy that he seems just to know when Victor has died, it's...I don't want to use the word "sweet," but I can't think of a better word...that he came to pay his respects. This is the real resolution of the story. Finally, creator and creation can be at peace with one another. This would definitely be a good choice for the AP prompt from sometime in the '80s about stories having a clear ending in which all the loose ends are addressed. Did the creature die when he leapt from the boat, though? I couldn't really tell if he killed himself or not.
Frankenstein-Dramatic Irony
"She left me, and I continued some time walking up and down the passages of the house, and inspecting every corner that might afford a retreat to my adversary. But I discovered no trace of him, and was beginning to conjecture that some fortunate chance had intervened to prevent the dreadful execution of his menaces; when suddenly I heard a shrill and dreadful scream." page 144
This scene is the classic (and probably original) "don't open the closet door" scene. It is dramatically ironic because the reader can fully expect that the creature would go after Elizabeth instead of Victor, and it seems obvious that when she retires, he has the perfect opportunity to get to her. Instead of protecting her, as has been his concern all along, Victor tries to protect himself which results in Elizabeth's death. The poor guy can't catch a break, but he almost brings it upon himself. I agree with his decision to get rid of the female's body and stop that project, but it wasn't smart to go about it the way he did. He could easily have found another way and saved the lives of both Henry and Elizabeth. I loved the suspense, though. I could picture a character in a movie relaxing slightly, slumping his shoulders a bit because he thinks he has nothing to worry about, and then hearing the scream and knowing exactly what's going on. I hate horror movies, but I liked this part. It's funny how obvious this one was.
This scene is the classic (and probably original) "don't open the closet door" scene. It is dramatically ironic because the reader can fully expect that the creature would go after Elizabeth instead of Victor, and it seems obvious that when she retires, he has the perfect opportunity to get to her. Instead of protecting her, as has been his concern all along, Victor tries to protect himself which results in Elizabeth's death. The poor guy can't catch a break, but he almost brings it upon himself. I agree with his decision to get rid of the female's body and stop that project, but it wasn't smart to go about it the way he did. He could easily have found another way and saved the lives of both Henry and Elizabeth. I loved the suspense, though. I could picture a character in a movie relaxing slightly, slumping his shoulders a bit because he thinks he has nothing to worry about, and then hearing the scream and knowing exactly what's going on. I hate horror movies, but I liked this part. It's funny how obvious this one was.
Frankenstein-Foreshadowing
"Alas! to me the idea of an immediate union with my Elizabeth was one of horror and dismay. I was bound by a solemn promise, which I had not yet fulfilled, and dared not to break; or, if I did, what manifold miseries might not impend over me and my devoted family!" page 110
This piece of Frankenstein's thoughts foreshadows Elizabeth's death. He basically says that he can't marry her because he's afraid that his creation will kill her and take away the strongest love he has. I find that to be incredibly ironic as well. If Frankenstein had given his creation love in the first place, he wouldn't have lost Elizabeth. All he had to do was accept his creation and love it, and he couldn't do something so small as that. His desire to protect Elizabeth is exactly what leads to her death. At this point, the monster wishes to destroy every ounce of love that Frankenstein has, and Victor's love for Elizabeth and desire to save her make her the easiest target. I don't understand how he could be so stupid as to think that he was the target when his creation went after only the people he loved before then. It seems obvious to me that Elizabeth would be the logical choice.
This piece of Frankenstein's thoughts foreshadows Elizabeth's death. He basically says that he can't marry her because he's afraid that his creation will kill her and take away the strongest love he has. I find that to be incredibly ironic as well. If Frankenstein had given his creation love in the first place, he wouldn't have lost Elizabeth. All he had to do was accept his creation and love it, and he couldn't do something so small as that. His desire to protect Elizabeth is exactly what leads to her death. At this point, the monster wishes to destroy every ounce of love that Frankenstein has, and Victor's love for Elizabeth and desire to save her make her the easiest target. I don't understand how he could be so stupid as to think that he was the target when his creation went after only the people he loved before then. It seems obvious to me that Elizabeth would be the logical choice.
Frankenstein-Climax
"For the first time, feelings of revenge and hatred filled my bosom, and I did not strive to control them; but, allowing myself to be borne away by the stream, I bent my mind toward injury and death." page 99
This is the first time during the creature's life that he admits to and accepts evil feelings. All of his previous rejection is like the rising action leading up to this climax in the story. Before this point, the creature seems entirely good, and it is difficult to understand why he has a terrible reputation. Once he admits this, though, it is easy to understand why he is depicted as a terrible monster because that's what he's become. Honestly, I think I would've lost it before he did. After being rejected by the man who created him and a family he thought could possibly accept him, he just can't take it anymore, and I understand that. That's a human reaction. People like to have companions. We've already seen that with both Walton and Frankenstein. The creature is no different. He's entitled to some love, and, like a human, he needs it.
This is the first time during the creature's life that he admits to and accepts evil feelings. All of his previous rejection is like the rising action leading up to this climax in the story. Before this point, the creature seems entirely good, and it is difficult to understand why he has a terrible reputation. Once he admits this, though, it is easy to understand why he is depicted as a terrible monster because that's what he's become. Honestly, I think I would've lost it before he did. After being rejected by the man who created him and a family he thought could possibly accept him, he just can't take it anymore, and I understand that. That's a human reaction. People like to have companions. We've already seen that with both Walton and Frankenstein. The creature is no different. He's entitled to some love, and, like a human, he needs it.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Frankenstein-Page 69
"'Listen to me, Frankenstein. You accuse me of murder, and yet you would, with a satisfied conscience, destroy your own creature. Oh, praise the eternal justice of man! Yet I ask you not to spare me: listen to me; and then, if you can, and if you will, destroy the work of your hands." page 69
In this scene, Frankenstein is basically called a hypocrite by the monster he created. Firstly, I think it's hilarious that his own creation would say such a thing. It also gives the reader a new perspective, though. The monster clearly has feelings and is intelligent. No unintelligent creature could possibly recognize hypocrisy. And the monster seems to be reasoning with Frankenstein, another sign of intelligence. This passage portrays the monster almost as endearing. The reader really can sympathize with the monster when viewing events from its perspective.
In this scene, Frankenstein is basically called a hypocrite by the monster he created. Firstly, I think it's hilarious that his own creation would say such a thing. It also gives the reader a new perspective, though. The monster clearly has feelings and is intelligent. No unintelligent creature could possibly recognize hypocrisy. And the monster seems to be reasoning with Frankenstein, another sign of intelligence. This passage portrays the monster almost as endearing. The reader really can sympathize with the monster when viewing events from its perspective.
Frankenstein-Page 24
"'My children,' she said, 'my firmest hopes of future happiness were placed on the prospect of you union. This expectation will now be the consolation of your father.'" page 24
This passage has to be the strangest thing I've ever heard. it's one thing to walk into a home and ask a woman if her child could be adopted. That's already insane and unrealistic. But it's entirely different to adopt that little girl for the sole purpose of having a wife for her adoptive brother. I don't understand why parents would do that or take pride in it as Frankenstein's mother clearly does. Was that accepted at some point in time or something? I feel like that would be acknowledging a fault or flaw in her son that would prevent him from getting married otherwise. And I don't understand how Frankenstein and Elizabeth don't think of each other as brother and sister. As young as they were, I wouldn't expect them to recognize a different kind of love than the traditional family love.
This passage has to be the strangest thing I've ever heard. it's one thing to walk into a home and ask a woman if her child could be adopted. That's already insane and unrealistic. But it's entirely different to adopt that little girl for the sole purpose of having a wife for her adoptive brother. I don't understand why parents would do that or take pride in it as Frankenstein's mother clearly does. Was that accepted at some point in time or something? I feel like that would be acknowledging a fault or flaw in her son that would prevent him from getting married otherwise. And I don't understand how Frankenstein and Elizabeth don't think of each other as brother and sister. As young as they were, I wouldn't expect them to recognize a different kind of love than the traditional family love.
Frankenstein-Situational Irony
"Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my bedchamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep." page 35
After creating the monster, Frankenstein flees to his room. i definitely didn't expect that. He doesn't even hang around to check out his creation. I would certainly have expected a scientist who worked so hard for his creation to want to examine his own work. This scene really shows how little Frankenstein thought about what he was doing. It's like he realizes immediately that he made a huge mistake. He clearly hadn't thought the whole experiment out. The completely unforeseen consequences seem so obvious to me, so I don't understand how or why he didn't see them before.
After creating the monster, Frankenstein flees to his room. i definitely didn't expect that. He doesn't even hang around to check out his creation. I would certainly have expected a scientist who worked so hard for his creation to want to examine his own work. This scene really shows how little Frankenstein thought about what he was doing. It's like he realizes immediately that he made a huge mistake. He clearly hadn't thought the whole experiment out. The completely unforeseen consequences seem so obvious to me, so I don't understand how or why he didn't see them before.
Frankenstein-Theme
"'I thank you,' he replied, 'for your sympathy, but it is useless; my fate is nearly fulfilled.'" page 13
One of the themes of Frankenstein is destiny. In the letters, the reader sees that both Walton and Frankenstein believe strongly in destiny. Both say that they had certain people and events alter their destiny, and for Walton, meeting Frankenstein is one of those events. I'm sure that Frankenstein probably changed Walton's view of science at least slightly. Also, both of their families have impacted their destiny. Walton's uncle's promise to his father postponed his journey. This resulted in the meeting between Walton and Frankenstein, a life-changing event. Even further, Frankenstein reading the books he did changed his destiny.
One of the themes of Frankenstein is destiny. In the letters, the reader sees that both Walton and Frankenstein believe strongly in destiny. Both say that they had certain people and events alter their destiny, and for Walton, meeting Frankenstein is one of those events. I'm sure that Frankenstein probably changed Walton's view of science at least slightly. Also, both of their families have impacted their destiny. Walton's uncle's promise to his father postponed his journey. This resulted in the meeting between Walton and Frankenstein, a life-changing event. Even further, Frankenstein reading the books he did changed his destiny.
Frankenstein-Exposition
"You will rejoice to hear that no disaster has accompanied the commencement of an enterprise which you have regarded with such evil forebodings." page 1
Shelley uses letters as the exposition for the novel. Through the letters, she introduces the reader to Walton and the story's theme. The exposition in this novel is sort of long. It lasts for 14 pages, and it honestly started to get a little boring and annoying. It does a good job of introducing Walton, though. I felt like I knew him and his story pretty well after the first 14 pages. The letters were a good way to introduce the reader to Frankenstein, too. He's not some character who appears randomly. he has a reason for being where he is which makes the story slightly more believable.
Shelley uses letters as the exposition for the novel. Through the letters, she introduces the reader to Walton and the story's theme. The exposition in this novel is sort of long. It lasts for 14 pages, and it honestly started to get a little boring and annoying. It does a good job of introducing Walton, though. I felt like I knew him and his story pretty well after the first 14 pages. The letters were a good way to introduce the reader to Frankenstein, too. He's not some character who appears randomly. he has a reason for being where he is which makes the story slightly more believable.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
1984-page 254
"All the confessions that are uttered here are true. We make them true. And, above all, we do not allow the dead to rise up against us." page 254
This statement by O'Brien was probably the most disturbing statement in the whole book. It truly encompasses the power of the Party. They can make things true because no one has the strength or the desire to question them. In fact, most people are not even phased by the Party's lies. What the Party says is true, not because that actually happened but because no one is allowed to remember anything differently. The whole book seemed scary to me because of the concept of never being alone, even in one's own mind. The scarier thing, though, is that the past is alterable. If no one remembers the past, who can know for sure what happened? That seems absolutely terrible to me, like a recipe for disaster.
This statement by O'Brien was probably the most disturbing statement in the whole book. It truly encompasses the power of the Party. They can make things true because no one has the strength or the desire to question them. In fact, most people are not even phased by the Party's lies. What the Party says is true, not because that actually happened but because no one is allowed to remember anything differently. The whole book seemed scary to me because of the concept of never being alone, even in one's own mind. The scarier thing, though, is that the past is alterable. If no one remembers the past, who can know for sure what happened? That seems absolutely terrible to me, like a recipe for disaster.
1984-page 217
"He had still, he reflected, not learned the ultimate secret. He understood how; he did not understand why." page 217
Winston thinks this to himself shortly after reading Goldstein's book. He realizes that everything that is presented to him in the book is something he already knew. There was no new information that he had not first thought in his own mind. The same question still exists after he reads the book. To me, this seemed like a red flag. I don't understand how he doesn't see anything fishy about that. That's when I started to suspect O'Brien. There's no way that the book could have been written exactly as Winston thought. It was meant to build his confidence, not to enlighten members of the Brotherhood.
Winston thinks this to himself shortly after reading Goldstein's book. He realizes that everything that is presented to him in the book is something he already knew. There was no new information that he had not first thought in his own mind. The same question still exists after he reads the book. To me, this seemed like a red flag. I don't understand how he doesn't see anything fishy about that. That's when I started to suspect O'Brien. There's no way that the book could have been written exactly as Winston thought. It was meant to build his confidence, not to enlighten members of the Brotherhood.
1984-Conflict
"You are unable to remember real events, and you persuade yourself that you remember other events which never happened." page 245 (I know I used another one from page 245, but both examples are really good in my opinion, so I hope it's okay.)
Throughout the novel, Winston has several conflicts which are both internal and external. His primary external conflict is with the Party and it's incredibly loyal members such as the guards who beat him and O'Brien. These conflicts, while important, are relatively minor. The internal conflicts, however, have a huge impact. The above quote is from O'Brien and depicts the "problems" with Winston's brain. Through questioning and statements like this, O'Brien is able to confuse Winston enough that he has an internal conflict. His resistance in believing the Party's lies is weaken by O'Brien's statements, and Winston's internal conflict becomes his weakness. It becomes O'Brien's route into Winston's mind.
Throughout the novel, Winston has several conflicts which are both internal and external. His primary external conflict is with the Party and it's incredibly loyal members such as the guards who beat him and O'Brien. These conflicts, while important, are relatively minor. The internal conflicts, however, have a huge impact. The above quote is from O'Brien and depicts the "problems" with Winston's brain. Through questioning and statements like this, O'Brien is able to confuse Winston enough that he has an internal conflict. His resistance in believing the Party's lies is weaken by O'Brien's statements, and Winston's internal conflict becomes his weakness. It becomes O'Brien's route into Winston's mind.
1984-Direct Characterization
"O'Brien's manner became less severe. He resettled his spectacles thoughtfully, and took a pace or two up and down. When he spoke, his voice was gentle and patient." page 245
This scene occurs when O'Brien questions Winston for the first time, immediately following the first shock of pain that Winston feels. O'Brien seems to be playing the good-cop-bad-cop routine, except he's the only one playing. Throughout the novel, at least up to the point when Winston and Julia are caught, O'Brien seems to be on Winston's side. When Winston and Julia go to his home, O'Brien appears to be some sort of guardian. In the interrogation room, he switches between that O'Brien and the O'Brien who inflicts pain upon Winston and nearly exposes his face to hungry rats. Winston informs the reader directly of this and also of O'Brien's intelligence. Even without Winston's description of O'Brien's intelligence, though, the reader can see how truly smart he is. No dumb or moderately intelligent individual could switch so easily between appearing to be Winston's friend and inflicting pain upon him with machines.
This scene occurs when O'Brien questions Winston for the first time, immediately following the first shock of pain that Winston feels. O'Brien seems to be playing the good-cop-bad-cop routine, except he's the only one playing. Throughout the novel, at least up to the point when Winston and Julia are caught, O'Brien seems to be on Winston's side. When Winston and Julia go to his home, O'Brien appears to be some sort of guardian. In the interrogation room, he switches between that O'Brien and the O'Brien who inflicts pain upon Winston and nearly exposes his face to hungry rats. Winston informs the reader directly of this and also of O'Brien's intelligence. Even without Winston's description of O'Brien's intelligence, though, the reader can see how truly smart he is. No dumb or moderately intelligent individual could switch so easily between appearing to be Winston's friend and inflicting pain upon him with machines.
1984-Foreshadowing
"Of all the horrors in the world--a rat!" page 144
This quote is from a scene in the novel in which Julia and Winston are in Mr. Charrington's upper room. Julia sees a rat and shoos it away, triggering this response from Winston. This quote, along with Winston's narrated warning about rats eating babies, foreshadows Winston's torture involving hungry rats in the Ministry of Love. In fact, when O'Brien reveals the rats to Winston in the Ministry, he even explains the rats' nature to Winston almost exactly as Winston explains it to the reader. The rats are symbolic for Winston. They are his biggest fear, but they represent the last shred of sanity in his mind. When the door of the cage clicks shut, Winston has officially lost his mind to the Party. He is no longer able to think for himself because he is not himself.
This quote is from a scene in the novel in which Julia and Winston are in Mr. Charrington's upper room. Julia sees a rat and shoos it away, triggering this response from Winston. This quote, along with Winston's narrated warning about rats eating babies, foreshadows Winston's torture involving hungry rats in the Ministry of Love. In fact, when O'Brien reveals the rats to Winston in the Ministry, he even explains the rats' nature to Winston almost exactly as Winston explains it to the reader. The rats are symbolic for Winston. They are his biggest fear, but they represent the last shred of sanity in his mind. When the door of the cage clicks shut, Winston has officially lost his mind to the Party. He is no longer able to think for himself because he is not himself.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
1984-page 103
"Nobody ever escaped detection, and nobody ever failed to confess." page 103
The Party is predictable. The same thing happens every time they arrest someone moderately well-known. The person is arrested, they confess, and then they're vaporized. It always happens that way just like it did with Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford. But once the person is vaporized, the Party deletes all evidence of that person's existence. It doesn't make sense that the Party would go to the trouble of gaining a public confession if they're just going to remove that person from history. Why aren't they secretly kidnapped and vaporized in the middle of the night like the people who are not well-known? If they technically won't exist anyway, why bother with the confession? It just seems like a whole lot of work when they could do it secretively and have the same exact result.
The Party is predictable. The same thing happens every time they arrest someone moderately well-known. The person is arrested, they confess, and then they're vaporized. It always happens that way just like it did with Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford. But once the person is vaporized, the Party deletes all evidence of that person's existence. It doesn't make sense that the Party would go to the trouble of gaining a public confession if they're just going to remove that person from history. Why aren't they secretly kidnapped and vaporized in the middle of the night like the people who are not well-known? If they technically won't exist anyway, why bother with the confession? It just seems like a whole lot of work when they could do it secretively and have the same exact result.
1984-page 2
"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU" page 2
This phrase is the basis for Orwell's characterization of Big Brother. B-B is portrayed as the controller and the ruler. He is all-powerful and infallible, but he only seems that way. The perception of the people is all that they have. Because of this, Big Brother can manipulate them in ways he should not be able to manipulate them. Big Brother shows that power is not something that a person can possess just because he or she wants to. Power comes from others. Without the consent of the people "beneath" him, Big Brother would have no power. Because the people consent, and the proles do not realize that they have the option not to consent, Big Brother has power that he should not have.
This phrase is the basis for Orwell's characterization of Big Brother. B-B is portrayed as the controller and the ruler. He is all-powerful and infallible, but he only seems that way. The perception of the people is all that they have. Because of this, Big Brother can manipulate them in ways he should not be able to manipulate them. Big Brother shows that power is not something that a person can possess just because he or she wants to. Power comes from others. Without the consent of the people "beneath" him, Big Brother would have no power. Because the people consent, and the proles do not realize that they have the option not to consent, Big Brother has power that he should not have.
1984-Motif
"The past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting." page 34
The idea of an alterable past appears often in the novel. Winston's job is to change people's memories of the past. He alters the way that people see the past so that the Party always tells the truth. People always assume that the past is done and gone. "What's done is done," people say. In the world of the Party, this is not the case. The past is done, but memories of the past are not. The tiniest sliver of doubt can send those memories out of someone's mind and change them into something entirely different. The Party uses this to "change the past" several times in the novel, and it shows that the past is only what we remember.
The idea of an alterable past appears often in the novel. Winston's job is to change people's memories of the past. He alters the way that people see the past so that the Party always tells the truth. People always assume that the past is done and gone. "What's done is done," people say. In the world of the Party, this is not the case. The past is done, but memories of the past are not. The tiniest sliver of doubt can send those memories out of someone's mind and change them into something entirely different. The Party uses this to "change the past" several times in the novel, and it shows that the past is only what we remember.
1984-Antimetabole
"Until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." page 70
The clauses are essentially the same, but the words are rearranged. In this same fashion, the meanings are reversed. The proles will not realize what power they have until someone shows them. They feel a sense of powerlessness which is a mistaken perception. A group as large as the group of proles could easily take over the Party, but they think they cannot. Because of this perception, they will not rise, but in order to gain that view, they must rise. This is the source of Winston's feeling of hopelessness. He knows that the proles have to see their power to realize it, but he knows that they will not realize it without some event that provokes that.
The clauses are essentially the same, but the words are rearranged. In this same fashion, the meanings are reversed. The proles will not realize what power they have until someone shows them. They feel a sense of powerlessness which is a mistaken perception. A group as large as the group of proles could easily take over the Party, but they think they cannot. Because of this perception, they will not rise, but in order to gain that view, they must rise. This is the source of Winston's feeling of hopelessness. He knows that the proles have to see their power to realize it, but he knows that they will not realize it without some event that provokes that.
1984-Paradox
"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." page 4
This quote represents the paradox upon which the Party is built. In times of war, people are vulnerable. The goal of the Party is to keep the people under their control to maintain the kind of peace they want to have. The vulnerability created by war sustains the peace the Party desires. The Party has trained people to believe that freedom makes them slaves to choice. They are free to make errors, and they are slaves to the consequences of those decisions. By making decisions for the people, the Party takes away the freedom of choices and gives the freedom from consequences. Ignorance in the people results in strength for the Party. If the people do not question what the Party does or says, the Party has no opposition. It also goes the other way. Those who remain ignorant and show no desire for true knowledge are not in danger of being "vaporized" or arrested, and they do not have to deal with the truth. The truth causes doubt. With no knowledge of the true occurrences, the people can stay strong in their beliefs and avoid doubt.
This quote represents the paradox upon which the Party is built. In times of war, people are vulnerable. The goal of the Party is to keep the people under their control to maintain the kind of peace they want to have. The vulnerability created by war sustains the peace the Party desires. The Party has trained people to believe that freedom makes them slaves to choice. They are free to make errors, and they are slaves to the consequences of those decisions. By making decisions for the people, the Party takes away the freedom of choices and gives the freedom from consequences. Ignorance in the people results in strength for the Party. If the people do not question what the Party does or says, the Party has no opposition. It also goes the other way. Those who remain ignorant and show no desire for true knowledge are not in danger of being "vaporized" or arrested, and they do not have to deal with the truth. The truth causes doubt. With no knowledge of the true occurrences, the people can stay strong in their beliefs and avoid doubt.
Monday, February 28, 2011
A Raisin in the Sun!
I'd like to start off by saying that I actually really enjoyed A Raisin in the Sun. I didn't expect to enjoy it at all because, to be entirely honest, I usually hate the things we read for class. I felt like I could relate to this work, though, especially to Beneatha's character. Beneatha is indecisive in all aspects of her life. On page 47, Mama asks "Why you got to flit from one thing to another, baby?" This occurs in the middle of the argument between Beneatha and Mama and Ruth which brings out Beneatha's true indecisive side. The audience learns that she has quit almost everything she has ever tried, and she still continues to try new things. That made me feel like I could relate to Beneatha best. I still have no concrete plans for the future, and neither does she. And like her, I think I want to be a doctor. Both of us are by no means sure, and it was cool for me to see that there are people even older than I am who are unsure about the future. It was reassuring in a way.
A Raisin in the Sun! (1119 #7)
On page 22, Lorraine Hansberry directly relates the amount of time covered in the play to the reader. Since this occurs before Act I, the audience would not be informed of this, but Hansberry lists the time covered for readers: "Act I, Scene One: Friday Morning. Scene Two: The following morning. Act II, Scene One: Later, the same day. Scene Two: Friday night, a few weeks later. Scene Three: Moving day, one week later. Act III: An hour later." Even with this information, it was difficult for me to tell how much time had really passed between acts and scenes.
Over the course of the play, all action takes place on the stage in front of the audience. The play lacks a narrator who steps onto the stage to explain events. Everything happens right there in front of the audience.
The play feels fairly loose in its construction. Unlike Othello, events are realistic in A Raisin in the Sun. The events which take place could take place in everyday life and often do take place in many people's lives. Nothing had to fall perfectly into place for the play to end the way it did. The loose feeling this creates makes the play easier to relate to. Nothing ever falls perfectly into place for everyone, and people will always have struggles. The fact that the Younger family has to endure struggles proves that they are a normal family affected by normal circumstances like anyone else would be. Honestly, it makes them more likable.
Over the course of the play, all action takes place on the stage in front of the audience. The play lacks a narrator who steps onto the stage to explain events. Everything happens right there in front of the audience.
The play feels fairly loose in its construction. Unlike Othello, events are realistic in A Raisin in the Sun. The events which take place could take place in everyday life and often do take place in many people's lives. Nothing had to fall perfectly into place for the play to end the way it did. The loose feeling this creates makes the play easier to relate to. Nothing ever falls perfectly into place for everyone, and people will always have struggles. The fact that the Younger family has to endure struggles proves that they are a normal family affected by normal circumstances like anyone else would be. Honestly, it makes them more likable.
A Raisin in the Sun! (1119 #5)
In A Raisin in the Sun, a strong theme of oppression is obviously present. This is apparent especially when Mr. Lindner comes to the house to tell the Youngers that "for the happiness of all concerned, that our Negro families are happier when they live in their own communities" (118). Lindner makes an attempt to be respectful of the Youngers, although it could also be argued that he seems to fear them, and he fails. I have trouble believing that Ruth, Beneatha and Walter ever had a moment of completely belief in Lindner's words because they were so out of the ordinary.
Another prominent theme in the play is the difficulty in life that many families, black or white, struggle with daily. This theme is timeless. All societies in all time periods have at least some families who are not well-off. For the Youngers, this is highlighted by Ruth's pregnancy and the scam in which Walter invested their money. It seems that the Younger family just can't catch a break. They represent that family or group in every society that struggles with everything life throws at them.
The power of these themes definitely increases the theatrical experience. Having multiple themes which converge on one family creates suspense and interest for the audience. Both themes also present lessons for the audience, but they're not overpowering or boring.
Another prominent theme in the play is the difficulty in life that many families, black or white, struggle with daily. This theme is timeless. All societies in all time periods have at least some families who are not well-off. For the Youngers, this is highlighted by Ruth's pregnancy and the scam in which Walter invested their money. It seems that the Younger family just can't catch a break. They represent that family or group in every society that struggles with everything life throws at them.
The power of these themes definitely increases the theatrical experience. Having multiple themes which converge on one family creates suspense and interest for the audience. Both themes also present lessons for the audience, but they're not overpowering or boring.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Amanda
I can't decide if Amanda is legitimately crazy/losing her mind or if she's just a paranoid, somewhat psycho mom. The way she treats Tom when he's eating is ridiculous. I mean, my mom tells my brothers to eat politely all the time, but she doesn't yell at them because she thinks they're not enjoying their food. The worst is in scene 5 when she tells him that he's "going to listen" and that she's "at the end of [her] patience" with him. He has to be close to 20 years old, and there's no reason for the mother of a 20-year-old to give him instructions like that. Amanda clearly has issues with how similar Tom is to his father, but she's losing her mind because of it. If she can brag so easily about how many guys wanted to date her when she was young, can her husband leaving really have hurt her that badly? I'm not a big fan regardless of her circumstances.
The Glass Menagerie--1119 #8
The primary means of dramatic exposition in The Glass Menagerie is through dialogue, but Tom's narration clarifies that drama. Tom's asides serve as an explanation or preparation for the audience so that they are not confused by the new information in the scene. A clear example of this is at the beginning of scene 6 when Tom explains that he "had known Jim slightly since high school (1261)." The audience gains a better understanding of why Tom would invite Jim over for dinner from this explanation. Most guys wouldn't invite some random guy from work home, so it helps to know that Tom had known Jim for a while. This clarifies a past event, but narrations like Tom's at the beginning of the play explain events that have not yet happen. They prepare the audience for the upcoming scene.
The Glass Menagerie--1119 #1
Tennessee Williams uses both realistic and nonrealistic conventions in The Glass Menagerie. The structure of the Wingfield family is a realistic trait of the play. I don't know a single mother who hasn't corrected her child for eating impolitely. It's not uncommon, so Amanda's "And chew--chew!" comment on page 1237 is not out of place. But certain aspects of the play, such as Tom's frequent asides, are completely unrealistic. I understand that the soliloquies are necessary to the audience's understanding of the events taking place, but no one actually believes that turning around prevents anyone from hearing anything. Most of the play, however, seems quite realistic. Laura's reaction to her mother's comments about her having a defect are understandable. I'd be upset too. But I also understand why Amanda doesn't like the word "crippled." Who wants to accept that fact that their child has a disability, even if it is somewhat slight? The play is a literalistic imitation of reality. Many of the things that happen in the play can and do take place in families everywhere. There really are no breaks from the normal behavior of each of the characters in the play. They all act pretty much the same way the entire time.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Iago
Okay so I haven't expressed yet how much I hate Iago, so I'm gonna go for it now. Iago is scum in every way possible. His jokes about women are inappropriate, and the way he treats his wife is awful. And then when he stabs her in Act V...what a coward. One of the things I hate most, though is the way he presents an argument. In Act IV, he talks to Othello about the supposed affair between Desdemona and Cassio, but he can't just come out and say what he wants to say. He hesitates on purpose with "Faith, that he did--I know not what he did" (IV.i.31) and "Lie--" (IV.i.33) just to make Othello lose his mind. Iago is incredibly smart, and I'll give him that, but his entire character is infuriating.
Othello-1119 #1
"Othello" employs realistic conventions throughout the entire play. It seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but I can see this actually happening. Iago is unusually crafty and cunning, but it's not out of the ordinary for someone in trouble to say "I told him what I thought, and told him no more" (V.ii.175). It's believable that Othello would doubt his wife's faithfulness after hearing what Iago has to say, and that would make any man more susceptible to lies. Othello's behavior is totally understandable and realistic. Desdemona and Emilia also have realistic characters. Anyone wrongly accused of something as serious as cheating on a spouse would deny it vehemently and be confused. And any woman oppressed by her husband would eventually snap. Every character reacts as any normal person would.
Othello-1119 #7
The real action occurs in Act V which takes place over the course of one night. It begins with Roderigo's attack on Cassio (V.i.23) and ends with Othello committing suicide (V.ii.355). All of the action is dramatized on stage rather than reported. The audience watches the story unfold before Othello and the other characters through the switches from scene to scene. The audience not only hears Roderigo yell "Villain, thou diest!" They also see the attack occur at the same time. The play feels tight in construction. Everything falls precisely into place for Iago as it only would if it was crafted that way. It brings a feeling of control to the play that is accentuated by Iago's personality.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Desdemona
I can't decide if Desdemona truly loves Othello or not. In Act I, Desdemona testifies to her love for Othello in front of the duke. She says to her father that "so much duty as my mother showed To you, preferring you before her father, So much I challenge that I may profess Due to the Moor my lord" (I.iii.185-188). She seems totally and completely devoted to him. Later in the play, however, she does show interest in Cassio, and she even flirts with Iago. By asking what he thinks of all the different kinds of women in Act II, she's looking for a compliment. She doesn't appear to be nearly as enamored with Othello as he is with her. I don't know if I feel bad that he believes she's unfaithful or not. It seems logical to me that she could be at some point if not with Cassio.
Othello-1119 #2
Othello is a tragedy. That becomes apparent early in the play when Iago reveals his true intentions to ruin Othello's marriage and get rid of Cassio (II.i.265-291). Iago's manipulation of Othello throughout the play creates the proper feeling for a tragedy and provides a means for tragedy to occur. The audience should definitely know what kind of play Othello is before viewing it. Knowing that the play is a tragedy puts Iago's and Othello's actions into a different context. Every move that Othello makes seems like a move from a horror movie--the kind that evokes a "No! Don't look in the closet!" reaction. In Act III when Othello condemns Cassio with the words "Within these three days let me hear thee say That Cassio's not alive" (III.iii.473-474), the audience feels a greater sense of suspense because the truth of Othello's actions is known. If the audience was unaware, confusion would be more likely, and the suspense would be lessened.
Othello--1119 #5
A strong theme in the play is that of hatred beginning with preconceived notions. Act I is filled with racial slurs of sorts against Othello. Iago uses the term "old black ram" (I.i.88), and many of the men in the play refer to Othello as "the Moor" rather than by his name. Brabantio hates Othello just because he married Desdemona. He too includes racial references in his speech when he uses the term "sooty bosom" (I.ii.70) to refer to Othello. Othello's race plays a huge part in people's reactions to him in the first act. The duke respects him, but he also sees Othello's race as a defining characteristic. He even says to Brabantio "If no virtue delighted beauty black, Your son-in-law is far more fair than black" (I.iii.286-287). Race is the root of most of the men's opinions about Othello. The racial tension creates a more dramatic feeling about the play. The audience wants to find out what happens in Othello's relationships, but the effect his race has intensifies the desire for knowledge. The themes make the play more pleasurable for the audience because they provide greater resolve at the end. Emotion is what the audience wants from a play, and the racial theme creates that without seeming inhuman. As demonstrated in the Civil Rights Movement, racial ideas are powerful and human. It is natural to feel threatened by different ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)