I am now blogging on my final blog and I can say I am delighted. We have been reading Shakespeare for a semester and I can truly say I have expanded my knowledge. We just finished reading "Twelfth Night" in class and even though I did not like it as much as previous plays I thought it was interesting. The topic I want to talk about that relates to this play is not very big but it is important. The theme of a man or woman dressing up as the opposite sex and then being involved in an elaborate plot is a reoccuring theme in plays and popular movies.
Obviously in "She's the Man" this occurs because the movie is loosly based on the play. But what I am trying to say is the play does not seem to me to be one of Shakespeare's most interesting and unique plays. While reading it I felt I was just along for the ride and not truly involved in the plot. This may have been because I did not like the subject so much, but I am also very sceptical of the theme of the play.
I want to know how a woman, even though she is dressed like a man, can fool everyone and make them think she is a man for so long. I find it very hard to believe that even though Viola can pass as a man especially after she cowers when she is challenged to a duel and after she will not accept the love of a beautiful woman. I think it may look good for the play and be somewhat comedic but having Sebastian show up in the same clothes as Viola and to then have everyone think he is Viola is obsurd to me. I am just a sceptic but thats the way I think. This play is definately not my favorite but it was good to read it to be able to say I have read it and also now I am a little bit knowledgeable about the play.
I really dont like talking about this play because I did not like it as much as the others so I really dont have much to talk about for it. I cant think of any good positive topics and I dont want to talk negatively anymore so I am just going to end my blog even though it is short and I couldnt think of a good topic.
Maybe watching the movie will change my mind about the play, but from what I have see so far with the movie I would rank this play and movie combo at the lower end of all the Shakespeare plays I have read.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Shylocks The Jew
The Mercant of Venice is one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, but there is something about the play that many people disagree on. I have decided to take the task and once and for all determine whether or not Shakespeare was a true conservative anti-semite or if he was just a normal person who embodied moderate views of his time. In examining the character Shylock I have come to my conclusion and in this blog I will enlighten you with my wisdom.
It all started with the church. Of course the church during the Elizabethan age could not have been civil and respected all religions. Instead they had to pick on the little guy, the Jew, and spread rumors about him so people would not like any Jews and would stay faithful to Christianity. They used the argument that Jews killed Jesus a long time ago and so that makes all Jews bad people and we need to disrespect them. The only thing the church didn’t realize then was Jesus was a Jew and all of the people Jesus lived around were also Jews because Christianity did not exist because Christianity stemmed from Jesus after he died. So of course if someone killed Jesus it is only common sense that person was Jewish, but in fact the bible says the Romans killed Jesus; which is actually plausible because crucifixion was a Roman method of execution. Since the church made this excuse to dislike Jews they also made others such as Jews are physically different and things like that. Actually this view still existed recently when the Nazis killed millions of Jews because they were thought to be actually different people who were not genetically the same. I believe the church had the biggest influence on the people because religion was the most important aspect of a good Christian’s life during Shakespeare’s time. To make up such rumors as the “blood libel” and then to expel the Jews from England for three centuries only created a false stereotype that still exists to this day.
I also believe the anti-semetic beliefs of the people stemmed from some jealousy. Christians were not allowed to lend money with interest because it was a sin, and for this reason all of the bankers were Jewish. This made many Jews well off and this most likely made many Christians very angry and jealous.
I am not sure but maybe another factor that made people thinks Jews were different was because of their diet and their prayers. They prayed in Hebrew and did not eat pork. This might have influenced the anti-semetic views in some way just because many people do not like what is different and only like what they think is proper.
Now it is important to discuss the character of Shylock and examine if he is portrayed to support anti-semetic views or if he is just a normal character.
I believe Shakespeare was somewhat of an anti-semetic person. I do not believe his views were right-wing, but I do believe he embodied some anti-semetic traits because it was only natural that he was taught what to believe growing up as a Christian in England. The way he portrays Shylock does not make Shylock look like an all around villain, but more like a very headstrong man who likes to see things through.
Shylock is a well off banker in Venice. He also has a daughter that runs away to be with a Christian man; which shows the viewers it is ok to convert and it is better to be Christian. Shylock only wants what is in his bond and nothing else. He is forced to convert to Christianity. All of these and more aspects of Shylock all have a purpose, but I do not believe the purpose is to create and anti-semetic play. I do believe the purpose is to make Christianity and Christians look merciful and to portray it as the best religion.
Shakespeare may not realize it, but since there was anti-semitism in England that influenced him he does portray Shylock as an unequal at some points, but this can be balanced with other parts. Shylock is mostly referred to as “Jew” and is even demonized. This is anti-semetic but also normal for their time period. Shakespeare also has Shylock say lines that make the viewer think Shakespeare is not putting down Shylock all the time, but just following conformity. Shylock says lines like “does a Jew not bleed” and in that speech Shylock shows the viewer that Jews are the same as Christians.
A key issue is that Shylock loans money and in so is a sinner because he charges interest. I believe Shakespeare is trying to portray an aspect of sin and also an aspect of kindness and the goodness of Christians because Antonio also lends money but without interest. This makes Antonio look like a charitable Christian and especially after Shylock will not accept anything but his pound of flesh, it makes Christians look like better people than Jews.
If the play was like Michael Radford’s film of the play then Shylock is definitely not used to totally put down Jews as a theme of the play. It is somewhat of a propaganda piece for Christianity, but it is also simply a romantic comedy. Shylock is put down just like any character that plays the part of a selfish person or a “Bad” guy but the fact that he is a Jew is only because a Jew fit the part for the character when the play was made.
Overall Shakespeare was most likely not a perfect person with the view that everyone was equal, but I do not believe he is a total anti-semite. The character of Shylock just fits the part because when the play was made Shakespeare incorporated the themes of Jews in the play and if he wanted to he could have made a Christian play that part, but why would he make a fellow Christian look bad when he can make a Jew look bad?
1010 words
It all started with the church. Of course the church during the Elizabethan age could not have been civil and respected all religions. Instead they had to pick on the little guy, the Jew, and spread rumors about him so people would not like any Jews and would stay faithful to Christianity. They used the argument that Jews killed Jesus a long time ago and so that makes all Jews bad people and we need to disrespect them. The only thing the church didn’t realize then was Jesus was a Jew and all of the people Jesus lived around were also Jews because Christianity did not exist because Christianity stemmed from Jesus after he died. So of course if someone killed Jesus it is only common sense that person was Jewish, but in fact the bible says the Romans killed Jesus; which is actually plausible because crucifixion was a Roman method of execution. Since the church made this excuse to dislike Jews they also made others such as Jews are physically different and things like that. Actually this view still existed recently when the Nazis killed millions of Jews because they were thought to be actually different people who were not genetically the same. I believe the church had the biggest influence on the people because religion was the most important aspect of a good Christian’s life during Shakespeare’s time. To make up such rumors as the “blood libel” and then to expel the Jews from England for three centuries only created a false stereotype that still exists to this day.
I also believe the anti-semetic beliefs of the people stemmed from some jealousy. Christians were not allowed to lend money with interest because it was a sin, and for this reason all of the bankers were Jewish. This made many Jews well off and this most likely made many Christians very angry and jealous.
I am not sure but maybe another factor that made people thinks Jews were different was because of their diet and their prayers. They prayed in Hebrew and did not eat pork. This might have influenced the anti-semetic views in some way just because many people do not like what is different and only like what they think is proper.
Now it is important to discuss the character of Shylock and examine if he is portrayed to support anti-semetic views or if he is just a normal character.
I believe Shakespeare was somewhat of an anti-semetic person. I do not believe his views were right-wing, but I do believe he embodied some anti-semetic traits because it was only natural that he was taught what to believe growing up as a Christian in England. The way he portrays Shylock does not make Shylock look like an all around villain, but more like a very headstrong man who likes to see things through.
Shylock is a well off banker in Venice. He also has a daughter that runs away to be with a Christian man; which shows the viewers it is ok to convert and it is better to be Christian. Shylock only wants what is in his bond and nothing else. He is forced to convert to Christianity. All of these and more aspects of Shylock all have a purpose, but I do not believe the purpose is to create and anti-semetic play. I do believe the purpose is to make Christianity and Christians look merciful and to portray it as the best religion.
Shakespeare may not realize it, but since there was anti-semitism in England that influenced him he does portray Shylock as an unequal at some points, but this can be balanced with other parts. Shylock is mostly referred to as “Jew” and is even demonized. This is anti-semetic but also normal for their time period. Shakespeare also has Shylock say lines that make the viewer think Shakespeare is not putting down Shylock all the time, but just following conformity. Shylock says lines like “does a Jew not bleed” and in that speech Shylock shows the viewer that Jews are the same as Christians.
A key issue is that Shylock loans money and in so is a sinner because he charges interest. I believe Shakespeare is trying to portray an aspect of sin and also an aspect of kindness and the goodness of Christians because Antonio also lends money but without interest. This makes Antonio look like a charitable Christian and especially after Shylock will not accept anything but his pound of flesh, it makes Christians look like better people than Jews.
If the play was like Michael Radford’s film of the play then Shylock is definitely not used to totally put down Jews as a theme of the play. It is somewhat of a propaganda piece for Christianity, but it is also simply a romantic comedy. Shylock is put down just like any character that plays the part of a selfish person or a “Bad” guy but the fact that he is a Jew is only because a Jew fit the part for the character when the play was made.
Overall Shakespeare was most likely not a perfect person with the view that everyone was equal, but I do not believe he is a total anti-semite. The character of Shylock just fits the part because when the play was made Shakespeare incorporated the themes of Jews in the play and if he wanted to he could have made a Christian play that part, but why would he make a fellow Christian look bad when he can make a Jew look bad?
1010 words
Monday, March 3, 2008
King Lear
This blog is about King Lear becuase we are suppose to write a blog about the play. I want to talk about Lear because even though he is a selfish person I think he is intersting. I feel bad for him becuase he has two daughthers that are not respectable. Cordelia is his only daughter that truly loves him, and it is a shame that she did not just humor him by saying " i love you more than anything in this world including ice cream." Lear goes crazy and his crazyness is what i want to talk about.
I think it is understandable that Lear goes crazy. It is basic psychology that tells us why Lear goes crazy. I believe he goes into a deep depression that is just compounded and made worse by everything encounters after he gives up his land. I think Shakespeare wanted to make Lear look insane, but also portray him as a normal person because normal people have been known to "snap" and go crazy after a significant event. I would say going from a king to nothing is pretty significant. Lear goes crazy because he has nothing to lose by acting insane. His life has gone to ruins and his two daughters are bitches who have plotted to get rid of him even though he raised them and has given them everything.
Lear is just a normal person who is obcessed with himself. At first I did not like him because i thought he was to cocky. Then after he lost everything i felt bad for him because of what he had to deal with in such a short amount of time. Then once I found out Cordelia was going to come back into the story and help him i saw a light at the end of the tunnel for Lear, but this was put out by all the other bad things happening in the book. At the end i thought it was somewhat sad what happened, but i was expecting something sad to happen because after all it is a Shakespeare tragedy. King Lear is definately not my favorite play because it is not my type of play, but it really was not that bad to read. I kinda liked Hamlet more than Lear because he was more outgoing, but both are not bad characters to base a play on.
I really don't know of anything else i want to talk about because the only aspects of King Lear that i found interesting were the secret plots and how Lear went insane.
I think it is understandable that Lear goes crazy. It is basic psychology that tells us why Lear goes crazy. I believe he goes into a deep depression that is just compounded and made worse by everything encounters after he gives up his land. I think Shakespeare wanted to make Lear look insane, but also portray him as a normal person because normal people have been known to "snap" and go crazy after a significant event. I would say going from a king to nothing is pretty significant. Lear goes crazy because he has nothing to lose by acting insane. His life has gone to ruins and his two daughters are bitches who have plotted to get rid of him even though he raised them and has given them everything.
Lear is just a normal person who is obcessed with himself. At first I did not like him because i thought he was to cocky. Then after he lost everything i felt bad for him because of what he had to deal with in such a short amount of time. Then once I found out Cordelia was going to come back into the story and help him i saw a light at the end of the tunnel for Lear, but this was put out by all the other bad things happening in the book. At the end i thought it was somewhat sad what happened, but i was expecting something sad to happen because after all it is a Shakespeare tragedy. King Lear is definately not my favorite play because it is not my type of play, but it really was not that bad to read. I kinda liked Hamlet more than Lear because he was more outgoing, but both are not bad characters to base a play on.
I really don't know of anything else i want to talk about because the only aspects of King Lear that i found interesting were the secret plots and how Lear went insane.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The 2 characters who would win a battle of wit
Write a blog about a character you find either interesting or appealing. Think of characters from other stories who have something in common and explain the similarity. Think of a real person you are reminded of and explain why.
The Characters that most interest me in Much Ado About Nothing are Benedick and Beatrice. Some moments of the play may lack some amount of exitement, but when these two hit the stage, it is like lightning. You just can't ignore them because it is so entertaining to listen to them. Especially in the first half of the book the two characters are hateful of each other and get into such funny word battles that you don't want to stop reading. A short but good example is this little bit from one of their conversations.
BEATRICE
I wonder that you will still be talking, SigniorBenedick: nobody marks you.
BENEDICK
What, my dear Lady Disdain! are you yet living?
BEATRICE
Is it possible disdain should die while she hathsuch meet food to feed it as Signior Benedick? Courtesy itself must convert to disdain, if you comein her presence.
This is almost like listening to a conversation on a high school campus. Two people involved in a conversation and then one makes a witty remark to the other. It is almost even worse than listening to high schoolers because they act like little kids at first. The only part that enables you to know they are actually really smart is the words they use. Even though they are bickering at each other, it is a very entertaining form of conversation. Each line they say to the other is like stabbing a metaphorical knife in the others back, but in reality they are just having a battle of the brains.
I think it is awesome that they are set up together because they really are so good at arguing against each other, that they would make a good team. I can truly say I would not want to debate against them even if my partner was Mr. Guthrie. They would most likely take so many personal stabs at anyone they debate that you would not want to be near them.
Another thing I thought about was how cool their child would be. I can imagine their child being good at everything and being a really good debater. It would be like putting both Beatrice's and Benedick's wit into one person. I would definately want to be friends with the Benedick family because I would not want to put up with all of the word battles. Plus, I am not as fast as either Benedick or Beatrice when it comes to a response to something someone says to you.
The Characters that most interest me in Much Ado About Nothing are Benedick and Beatrice. Some moments of the play may lack some amount of exitement, but when these two hit the stage, it is like lightning. You just can't ignore them because it is so entertaining to listen to them. Especially in the first half of the book the two characters are hateful of each other and get into such funny word battles that you don't want to stop reading. A short but good example is this little bit from one of their conversations.
BEATRICE
I wonder that you will still be talking, SigniorBenedick: nobody marks you.
BENEDICK
What, my dear Lady Disdain! are you yet living?
BEATRICE
Is it possible disdain should die while she hathsuch meet food to feed it as Signior Benedick? Courtesy itself must convert to disdain, if you comein her presence.
This is almost like listening to a conversation on a high school campus. Two people involved in a conversation and then one makes a witty remark to the other. It is almost even worse than listening to high schoolers because they act like little kids at first. The only part that enables you to know they are actually really smart is the words they use. Even though they are bickering at each other, it is a very entertaining form of conversation. Each line they say to the other is like stabbing a metaphorical knife in the others back, but in reality they are just having a battle of the brains.
I think it is awesome that they are set up together because they really are so good at arguing against each other, that they would make a good team. I can truly say I would not want to debate against them even if my partner was Mr. Guthrie. They would most likely take so many personal stabs at anyone they debate that you would not want to be near them.
Another thing I thought about was how cool their child would be. I can imagine their child being good at everything and being a really good debater. It would be like putting both Beatrice's and Benedick's wit into one person. I would definately want to be friends with the Benedick family because I would not want to put up with all of the word battles. Plus, I am not as fast as either Benedick or Beatrice when it comes to a response to something someone says to you.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Past Shakespeare experience
So far in my life I have not been the best of friends with Shakespeare. I have always wanted to read some of his popular works because they are so famous, but I usually have trouble understanding his writing style. I have read some Shakespeare throughout high school because it has been part of my English classes. I like the story idea's behind his works and I enjoyed reviewing the books in class, but I do not like reading his books because I have a hard time following the text. I liked reading Othello and Hamlet because my English classes always reviewed the plot during class which helped me follow the story. I think it is mainly the vocabulary and the sentence structure that I have a hard time following sometimes, but when the stories are in plain English I enjoy the story.
One of the reasons I am taking this Shakespeare class is so I can get better at understanding Shakespeare's plays. I figure that if I read more of his works and get some practice translating his works to regular English in my head, then his works will be easier for me to read in the future. It is also good to be able to say that you have read Shakespeare and know a lot about his popular plays.
Overall in the past my experience with Shakespeare has not been the best and that is why I am taking this class. If i can further my knowledge and ability related to Shakespeare then I will be happy that I took the class.
Another experience related to Shakespeare is that when I went to London I went to the new globe theater. I did not see a play, but I went on a tour. I thought it was kinda cool and would have been better if I knew more about Shakespeare. I think Shakespeare produced some good plays and I think it is important that I learn something about them.
One of the reasons I am taking this Shakespeare class is so I can get better at understanding Shakespeare's plays. I figure that if I read more of his works and get some practice translating his works to regular English in my head, then his works will be easier for me to read in the future. It is also good to be able to say that you have read Shakespeare and know a lot about his popular plays.
Overall in the past my experience with Shakespeare has not been the best and that is why I am taking this class. If i can further my knowledge and ability related to Shakespeare then I will be happy that I took the class.
Another experience related to Shakespeare is that when I went to London I went to the new globe theater. I did not see a play, but I went on a tour. I thought it was kinda cool and would have been better if I knew more about Shakespeare. I think Shakespeare produced some good plays and I think it is important that I learn something about them.
Monday, December 10, 2007
CDF Blog
In this blog I am going to discuss my feelings toward some aspects of the book Chronicle of a Death Foretold.
First I would like to talk about how ignorant the culture portrayed in the book is. In this regard the one thing that stood out to me was the aspect of being a virgin before marriage. This does not pertain to everyone in the community and is very sexist because it only mandates girls in the community to not have sex. This topic is even bigger when examined more carefully because it is socially acceptable for the “pleasurable mulatto girls,” to have sex with the men and not be married. The men can be seen as pigs because they are so sexist and have relations with prostitutes on a regular basis. The men actually get accustomed to the prostitutes in Maria Alejandrina Cervantes' house at a relatively young age while the girls have to remain pure until their wedding. I personally do not like this aspect of their culture because it seems so foreign to the culture we are used to, but it is a good reality check because it reminds us that not everyone has the same viewpoints when the topic is being a virgin before marriage.
I also would like to talk about the Angela Vicario. In the book we are told that the “Vicario girls were brought up to be married.” If this is true I can only imagine why Angela was not a virgin on her wedding night. If she was raised in a fashion that was getting her ready for marriage, because marriage is important for women in that culture, then why would she not remain a virgin. To me it seems that she would not even consider having sex with anyone until her marriage, and this is why I am surprised that she had sex before her wedding night. The other thing I do not get is why she named Santiago Nasar and would not provide any explanation. The only thing I could think of is that she possibly had sex unwillingly, but it seems to me that in their culture she would have told her family and then her brothers would have gone and killed Nasar after they had intercourse. Marquez does not elaborate at all with this subject in the book and it is left for the reader to obtain his or her own assumptions as to what actually happened in Angela’s past.
One more aspect of the book was most of the people that knew about the threat to Santiago’s life did absolutely nothing to prevent it. On the contrary they went outside in the morning to witness it. The only reason so far I have come across as to why no-one did anything was because Santiago was rich and most of the townspeople were jealous of him. To me this argument is void because someone’s life is being threatened and no person is truly trying to help save Santiago’s life. The police don’t even do anything except take the brother’s first pair of knives away. Even after the murder the brothers only go to jail for a couple of years and then are released. Their justice system is definitely flawed when someone obviously committed murder, even if they did have a reason, and got away with it. The people of the town should have taken responsibility for helping their fellow citizen who did nothing serious to hurt the community. If he did truly take Angela’s virginity then an investigation should have taken place in which both parties are interviewed, but instead the brothers just go and kill Santiago. I do not believe this reason was sufficient enough to kill another person, and I think the people should have either stopped the brothers once they knew what was going to happen, or had everyone run to find Santiago to help him. Either way the community had some bitterness towards Santiago and I do not get why they would get pleasure from seeing another man die for a not so serious crime where no-one else was killed.
687 words
First I would like to talk about how ignorant the culture portrayed in the book is. In this regard the one thing that stood out to me was the aspect of being a virgin before marriage. This does not pertain to everyone in the community and is very sexist because it only mandates girls in the community to not have sex. This topic is even bigger when examined more carefully because it is socially acceptable for the “pleasurable mulatto girls,” to have sex with the men and not be married. The men can be seen as pigs because they are so sexist and have relations with prostitutes on a regular basis. The men actually get accustomed to the prostitutes in Maria Alejandrina Cervantes' house at a relatively young age while the girls have to remain pure until their wedding. I personally do not like this aspect of their culture because it seems so foreign to the culture we are used to, but it is a good reality check because it reminds us that not everyone has the same viewpoints when the topic is being a virgin before marriage.
I also would like to talk about the Angela Vicario. In the book we are told that the “Vicario girls were brought up to be married.” If this is true I can only imagine why Angela was not a virgin on her wedding night. If she was raised in a fashion that was getting her ready for marriage, because marriage is important for women in that culture, then why would she not remain a virgin. To me it seems that she would not even consider having sex with anyone until her marriage, and this is why I am surprised that she had sex before her wedding night. The other thing I do not get is why she named Santiago Nasar and would not provide any explanation. The only thing I could think of is that she possibly had sex unwillingly, but it seems to me that in their culture she would have told her family and then her brothers would have gone and killed Nasar after they had intercourse. Marquez does not elaborate at all with this subject in the book and it is left for the reader to obtain his or her own assumptions as to what actually happened in Angela’s past.
One more aspect of the book was most of the people that knew about the threat to Santiago’s life did absolutely nothing to prevent it. On the contrary they went outside in the morning to witness it. The only reason so far I have come across as to why no-one did anything was because Santiago was rich and most of the townspeople were jealous of him. To me this argument is void because someone’s life is being threatened and no person is truly trying to help save Santiago’s life. The police don’t even do anything except take the brother’s first pair of knives away. Even after the murder the brothers only go to jail for a couple of years and then are released. Their justice system is definitely flawed when someone obviously committed murder, even if they did have a reason, and got away with it. The people of the town should have taken responsibility for helping their fellow citizen who did nothing serious to hurt the community. If he did truly take Angela’s virginity then an investigation should have taken place in which both parties are interviewed, but instead the brothers just go and kill Santiago. I do not believe this reason was sufficient enough to kill another person, and I think the people should have either stopped the brothers once they knew what was going to happen, or had everyone run to find Santiago to help him. Either way the community had some bitterness towards Santiago and I do not get why they would get pleasure from seeing another man die for a not so serious crime where no-one else was killed.
687 words
Sunday, November 18, 2007
A comparison of Ibo and Western Culture
2. Which elements of that culture are most comfortable to us? Which most resemble elements of our (your) culture? Which seem more foregn, more difficult to accept?
While reading Things Fall Apart it is easy to see how the different cultures of the world live their lives according to certain cultural and social norms. While I was reading the book many aspects of the Ibo culture stood out to me and the only thing I could compare it to was my own. Even though the Ibo culture has its differences, there are some aspects that are almost identical and can be attributed to the overall human culture. I had many mixed feelings while examining the Ibo culture and they can classified into three categories: Comfortable, Resemble, and Foreign.
The comfortable aspect of Ibo culture is what parallels our own culture. One similarity is the residential life. The Ibo live in villages with their families just like us. They do not have huge homes with electricity, but they live in man made houses and use lanterns for light. They live in modest accommodations that we can relate to, and that we are accepting of. Most of the Ibo culture that is comfortable to us is the aspects of their culture that resemble ours. We can relate even more to the elements that are similar because it is something we do in some general way.
An aspect of Ibo culture that is very similar to ours is the waging of wars. The Ibo are said to be very good warriors and this is much like the American culture because America has the best military in the world. Both of our communities do not always go to war even though we are good fighters. The Ibo resemble our culture in this way because they first offer the other tribes the option of paying compensation fees. Okonkwo goes to another tribe and gets a virgin and a young boy as a way of avoiding war. Okonkwo is sent to the neighboring village because the elders told him to go and sent him as the village’s representative. This aspect closely resembles our political customs and can easily be seen as a parallel to our two different cultures. The village also has leaders. The leaders of the village are the elders that have gained rank, and this is very similar to our own culture, but instead we have politicians that were picked to be our leaders. Another similarity is the food the Ibo people eat. Except for a few items such as locust, our culture, like the Ibo, eats meats, eggs, and yams. We have much more options when it comes to food, but most of the Ibo food does not seem foreign to us.
The Ibo also have a similar personal life to us. They get married and have children that they raise just like we do. The only difference is we do not marry multiple wives. The mothers nurture the children just like mothers in our culture do everyday. The Ibo people also have celebrations and holidays. Their holidays and celebrations are not the same as ours, but they resemble a time when people get together and feast. The Ibo have many different rituals than we do, and this is only one thing we see as foreign when relating their culture to western culture.
One of the first things that struck me as foreign and unacceptable in Ibo culture is the fact the men are allowed to beat their wives as long as it is not during the weak of peace. In western culture this is very inappropriate and deserves punishment. The Ibo also do not have a real justice system like western culture. The people are just punished by the town elders or prophets. This even goes further into another foreign aspect of their culture: the communication of gods through prophets and oracles that are given special treatment. The Ibo just obey their gods without thinking about what is rational. For them what is rational is whatever the gods want.
There are also many foreign aspects to their personal lives. The Ibo men are allowed to have multiple wives. This is not done in western culture because for most men one wife is enough and often almost to much to handle. The Ibo women also are portrayed as lower than men. They are given away as brides and do not have a choice who they marry. The women are also given away very young and start to bear children at ages as young as 16.
One foreign aspect of the Ibo culture that is pretty cool is a person does not inherit debts from a parent. A person is judged solely on what they have accomplished in life rather than what their parents or family has done. This is one of the coolest aspects because like Okonkwo, if your family is lazy, then you can make a name for yourself by working hard.
Overall there are some aspects of the Ibo culture that I can accept, but there are some I will never be able to accept. I will never think it is justified to kill two babies just because they are twins. I will also never think it is justified to beat your wife. However I do agree that a person should not be judged by what his father or family is like, but by what he or she is like.
882 words w/o question
While reading Things Fall Apart it is easy to see how the different cultures of the world live their lives according to certain cultural and social norms. While I was reading the book many aspects of the Ibo culture stood out to me and the only thing I could compare it to was my own. Even though the Ibo culture has its differences, there are some aspects that are almost identical and can be attributed to the overall human culture. I had many mixed feelings while examining the Ibo culture and they can classified into three categories: Comfortable, Resemble, and Foreign.
The comfortable aspect of Ibo culture is what parallels our own culture. One similarity is the residential life. The Ibo live in villages with their families just like us. They do not have huge homes with electricity, but they live in man made houses and use lanterns for light. They live in modest accommodations that we can relate to, and that we are accepting of. Most of the Ibo culture that is comfortable to us is the aspects of their culture that resemble ours. We can relate even more to the elements that are similar because it is something we do in some general way.
An aspect of Ibo culture that is very similar to ours is the waging of wars. The Ibo are said to be very good warriors and this is much like the American culture because America has the best military in the world. Both of our communities do not always go to war even though we are good fighters. The Ibo resemble our culture in this way because they first offer the other tribes the option of paying compensation fees. Okonkwo goes to another tribe and gets a virgin and a young boy as a way of avoiding war. Okonkwo is sent to the neighboring village because the elders told him to go and sent him as the village’s representative. This aspect closely resembles our political customs and can easily be seen as a parallel to our two different cultures. The village also has leaders. The leaders of the village are the elders that have gained rank, and this is very similar to our own culture, but instead we have politicians that were picked to be our leaders. Another similarity is the food the Ibo people eat. Except for a few items such as locust, our culture, like the Ibo, eats meats, eggs, and yams. We have much more options when it comes to food, but most of the Ibo food does not seem foreign to us.
The Ibo also have a similar personal life to us. They get married and have children that they raise just like we do. The only difference is we do not marry multiple wives. The mothers nurture the children just like mothers in our culture do everyday. The Ibo people also have celebrations and holidays. Their holidays and celebrations are not the same as ours, but they resemble a time when people get together and feast. The Ibo have many different rituals than we do, and this is only one thing we see as foreign when relating their culture to western culture.
One of the first things that struck me as foreign and unacceptable in Ibo culture is the fact the men are allowed to beat their wives as long as it is not during the weak of peace. In western culture this is very inappropriate and deserves punishment. The Ibo also do not have a real justice system like western culture. The people are just punished by the town elders or prophets. This even goes further into another foreign aspect of their culture: the communication of gods through prophets and oracles that are given special treatment. The Ibo just obey their gods without thinking about what is rational. For them what is rational is whatever the gods want.
There are also many foreign aspects to their personal lives. The Ibo men are allowed to have multiple wives. This is not done in western culture because for most men one wife is enough and often almost to much to handle. The Ibo women also are portrayed as lower than men. They are given away as brides and do not have a choice who they marry. The women are also given away very young and start to bear children at ages as young as 16.
One foreign aspect of the Ibo culture that is pretty cool is a person does not inherit debts from a parent. A person is judged solely on what they have accomplished in life rather than what their parents or family has done. This is one of the coolest aspects because like Okonkwo, if your family is lazy, then you can make a name for yourself by working hard.
Overall there are some aspects of the Ibo culture that I can accept, but there are some I will never be able to accept. I will never think it is justified to kill two babies just because they are twins. I will also never think it is justified to beat your wife. However I do agree that a person should not be judged by what his father or family is like, but by what he or she is like.
882 words w/o question
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Ibo Tribe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_people
http://www.gateway-africa.com/tribe/igbo_tribe.html
http://www.ethnographica.com/pages/Igbo36.php?project_id=36
The Ibo people are an from an African tribe in Nigeria. They are also commonly known as the Igbo tribe. In Things Fall Apart, Okonwko is a member of the Ibo tribe. They are a very interesting tribe and this blog will look at religion, culture, history, food, gender roles, and other aspects common to the tribe.
The first thing that needs to be covered is the geography of the tribe. They are from Nigeria and live in the Delta and River states.
Traditional Religion: The Ibo people believe the creator of the earth and everything on the earth is Chineke. This god made everyone born with Chi, a unique guardian principle that determines a persons fate. The Ibo also believe in other deities that are not as powerful. The Ala spirit is the god of the Earth who is the guardian spirit of living creatures. Other deities that are important in their religion are Anyanwu (sun), Igwekaala (sky) and Amadioha (god of thunder and lightning). Many other gods are worshiped, but another very important god is Njoku or Ajoku because this is the god who is the guardian of the yam. Each god has their own priest in each town and this is how the people pray to the gods. Some Ibo still practice this religion, but many have been converted to Christianity. Most Christian Ibo are Roman Catholic or Anglicans.
An interesting fact that is unrelated to History is the Ibos have an indigenous ancient calendar in which a week has four days. A month consisted of seven weeks, and thirteen months made a year. In the last month, an extra day is added. This calendar is still in use in villages and towns to determine the market days.
History: The Ibo people have been in Africa for thousands of years. They seemed to have settled in their current spots a few thousand years ago. There is no certain evidence that shows where the Ibo tribes originated, but some think they came from Egypt or the area around Egypt.
During the pre-colonial times the Portuguese were the first to meet the Ibo tribe and colonize areas around them. During this time the Ibos government system was primarily a republican assembly of common people from the tribe.
In the Colonial period around 1870 the British colonized the area. They spread Christianity and the Ibos were bery accepting of the religion. The colonization brought together the tribes in many ways because it lessened the differences they all used to have.
In 1966 a civil war was started in Nigeria and it lasted until 1970. During this war a genocide of the Ibo people occured. Millions of Ibos and other Nigerians died in the genocide of the war, and even after the wars end, the Ibo still faced discrimination in parts of Nigeria. To this day some Ibos have trouble finding work because of the effects of the civil war.
Language: The Ibo have their own language that they use. It has many different dialects. It is also influenced by English and takes the word "blue" from English vocabulary and turns it into "blu" in the Ibo vocabulary. The language is a tonal language and the way the words are pronounced is very important.
Food: When looking at the food the Ibo eat, all a person has to do is look at their environment. They live in the Niger River Delta where fish are easily found. Fish is one of their primary diets other than yams. The Ibo also grow yams and are farmers.
Culture: The Ibo also have a unique culture. They produce artwork and make masks. The masks are used in ceremonies and as a form of entertainment. Ibo masks are very intricate and look like the mask below.
http://www.gateway-africa.com/tribe/igbo_tribe.html
http://www.ethnographica.com/pages/Igbo36.php?project_id=36
The Ibo people are an from an African tribe in Nigeria. They are also commonly known as the Igbo tribe. In Things Fall Apart, Okonwko is a member of the Ibo tribe. They are a very interesting tribe and this blog will look at religion, culture, history, food, gender roles, and other aspects common to the tribe.
The first thing that needs to be covered is the geography of the tribe. They are from Nigeria and live in the Delta and River states.
Traditional Religion: The Ibo people believe the creator of the earth and everything on the earth is Chineke. This god made everyone born with Chi, a unique guardian principle that determines a persons fate. The Ibo also believe in other deities that are not as powerful. The Ala spirit is the god of the Earth who is the guardian spirit of living creatures. Other deities that are important in their religion are Anyanwu (sun), Igwekaala (sky) and Amadioha (god of thunder and lightning). Many other gods are worshiped, but another very important god is Njoku or Ajoku because this is the god who is the guardian of the yam. Each god has their own priest in each town and this is how the people pray to the gods. Some Ibo still practice this religion, but many have been converted to Christianity. Most Christian Ibo are Roman Catholic or Anglicans.
An interesting fact that is unrelated to History is the Ibos have an indigenous ancient calendar in which a week has four days. A month consisted of seven weeks, and thirteen months made a year. In the last month, an extra day is added. This calendar is still in use in villages and towns to determine the market days.
History: The Ibo people have been in Africa for thousands of years. They seemed to have settled in their current spots a few thousand years ago. There is no certain evidence that shows where the Ibo tribes originated, but some think they came from Egypt or the area around Egypt.
During the pre-colonial times the Portuguese were the first to meet the Ibo tribe and colonize areas around them. During this time the Ibos government system was primarily a republican assembly of common people from the tribe.
In the Colonial period around 1870 the British colonized the area. They spread Christianity and the Ibos were bery accepting of the religion. The colonization brought together the tribes in many ways because it lessened the differences they all used to have.
In 1966 a civil war was started in Nigeria and it lasted until 1970. During this war a genocide of the Ibo people occured. Millions of Ibos and other Nigerians died in the genocide of the war, and even after the wars end, the Ibo still faced discrimination in parts of Nigeria. To this day some Ibos have trouble finding work because of the effects of the civil war.
Language: The Ibo have their own language that they use. It has many different dialects. It is also influenced by English and takes the word "blue" from English vocabulary and turns it into "blu" in the Ibo vocabulary. The language is a tonal language and the way the words are pronounced is very important.
Food: When looking at the food the Ibo eat, all a person has to do is look at their environment. They live in the Niger River Delta where fish are easily found. Fish is one of their primary diets other than yams. The Ibo also grow yams and are farmers.
Culture: The Ibo also have a unique culture. They produce artwork and make masks. The masks are used in ceremonies and as a form of entertainment. Ibo masks are very intricate and look like the mask below.
The Ibo tribe is very intersting. They have been through hard times in recent history and have been around for a long time. It is a good thing for people to learn about tribes such as the Igbo because it gives you a new look on other peoples culture and other people from other countrie in general.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Kafka of Franz
Why does Gregor transform into a bug?
The definite answer to this question is unknown. Literary experts still argue with each other about the reason Kafka decided to have Gregor transformed into a bug. The arguments range from many different spectrums such as: Gregor being turned into a bug represents the type of person he was, to Gregor was not happy with aspects of his current life and for this reason Kafka decided to turn him into a bug.
I do not know the true rational behind the metamorphosis, but I do have some opinions that may be true, but they may also be false. Maybe at the time Franz Kafka was thinking about writing the story he thought it would be cool if a person was transformed into a bug. He may have just wanted to talk about a person who woke up as a bug, a hypothetical circumstance. In some ways Kafka might have wanted to relate Gregor or the fact Gregor was some type of bug, or some aspect of the Samsa family back to some part of his life. Another rational may be that Kafka saw in his life how people react to bugs. This could have intrigued him to write a hypothetical story about not only how someone might react if they woke up as a bug, but how the family of that person and others who saw that person after the metamorphosis would react. I know that people are always thinking about the “what ifs,” in life. The metamorphosis could be a “what if,” that Kafka thought about one day as he was pondering life and everything in the universe. If I had to agree with an expert and defend his/her theory, I would pick expert # 3 without agreeing with the part that says Kafka is trying to foreshadow events such as WWI, the Holocaust, and other genocides.
What are some questionable aspects of the metamorphosis and is it realistic?
In my opinion, it seemed that Kafka wanted to make the story somewhat realistic. I think this is why he had the family react to Gregor the way they did and isolate him in his room for the majority of the book. They family even changed their thoughts about Gregor as the story progressed. They went from isolating him, to semi-accepting him as long as he stayed in his room, to wanting to get rid of him because of the burden placed on their shoulders to take care of him. This happens in everyone’s life. Everyday people change their opinion on something they previously commented on or did. It is actually the sister that does all of the steps more so than the family does. The sister leads the family in the way they viewed Gregor. I believe the way the family acted was somewhat realistic, and allowed for the story to go on. Many families would be so scared of a giant bug in their house they would either shoot it, or call the police. I found it a little surprising that the Samsa family did not try to go to the zoo or try to put Gregor into the zoo. The family could also have called a specialist or a scientist who would want to experiment on Gregor.
Another questionable aspect of the book is the type of bug Gregor is. The problem faced by students who read the book in English is that it was translated from German. It is for this reason the English version does not portray the same picture in some scenes as the original version. After reading the entire story I did not find myself convinced that Gregor was a certain type of bug. I found myself picturing him as a cockroach, a beetle, a giant ugly looking crawly figure, and other insects that had a bunch of legs. Since Kafka never tells the reader exactly what bug Gregor is, it is left up to the reader’s imagination. In some parts this is very cool because it makes every reader vision a unique picture of Gregor. Two examples are when Gregor is trying to open the door and he is bleeding his bug juice from his mouth, and the other is when the apple is embedded into his back and eventually starts to rot. Overall I do not know what Kafka was trying to achieve in the story, but literary experts will always be guessing the true meaning of the metamorphosis.
745 words
The definite answer to this question is unknown. Literary experts still argue with each other about the reason Kafka decided to have Gregor transformed into a bug. The arguments range from many different spectrums such as: Gregor being turned into a bug represents the type of person he was, to Gregor was not happy with aspects of his current life and for this reason Kafka decided to turn him into a bug.
I do not know the true rational behind the metamorphosis, but I do have some opinions that may be true, but they may also be false. Maybe at the time Franz Kafka was thinking about writing the story he thought it would be cool if a person was transformed into a bug. He may have just wanted to talk about a person who woke up as a bug, a hypothetical circumstance. In some ways Kafka might have wanted to relate Gregor or the fact Gregor was some type of bug, or some aspect of the Samsa family back to some part of his life. Another rational may be that Kafka saw in his life how people react to bugs. This could have intrigued him to write a hypothetical story about not only how someone might react if they woke up as a bug, but how the family of that person and others who saw that person after the metamorphosis would react. I know that people are always thinking about the “what ifs,” in life. The metamorphosis could be a “what if,” that Kafka thought about one day as he was pondering life and everything in the universe. If I had to agree with an expert and defend his/her theory, I would pick expert # 3 without agreeing with the part that says Kafka is trying to foreshadow events such as WWI, the Holocaust, and other genocides.
What are some questionable aspects of the metamorphosis and is it realistic?
In my opinion, it seemed that Kafka wanted to make the story somewhat realistic. I think this is why he had the family react to Gregor the way they did and isolate him in his room for the majority of the book. They family even changed their thoughts about Gregor as the story progressed. They went from isolating him, to semi-accepting him as long as he stayed in his room, to wanting to get rid of him because of the burden placed on their shoulders to take care of him. This happens in everyone’s life. Everyday people change their opinion on something they previously commented on or did. It is actually the sister that does all of the steps more so than the family does. The sister leads the family in the way they viewed Gregor. I believe the way the family acted was somewhat realistic, and allowed for the story to go on. Many families would be so scared of a giant bug in their house they would either shoot it, or call the police. I found it a little surprising that the Samsa family did not try to go to the zoo or try to put Gregor into the zoo. The family could also have called a specialist or a scientist who would want to experiment on Gregor.
Another questionable aspect of the book is the type of bug Gregor is. The problem faced by students who read the book in English is that it was translated from German. It is for this reason the English version does not portray the same picture in some scenes as the original version. After reading the entire story I did not find myself convinced that Gregor was a certain type of bug. I found myself picturing him as a cockroach, a beetle, a giant ugly looking crawly figure, and other insects that had a bunch of legs. Since Kafka never tells the reader exactly what bug Gregor is, it is left up to the reader’s imagination. In some parts this is very cool because it makes every reader vision a unique picture of Gregor. Two examples are when Gregor is trying to open the door and he is bleeding his bug juice from his mouth, and the other is when the apple is embedded into his back and eventually starts to rot. Overall I do not know what Kafka was trying to achieve in the story, but literary experts will always be guessing the true meaning of the metamorphosis.
745 words
Friday, September 28, 2007
Ivan's Ilyach
What purpose is served by placing Ilyich’s funeral at the beginning of the novel rather than at the end?
In The Death of Ivan Ilyich the first chapter is the end of the story. Tolstoy essentially tells the reader the outcome of the book, taking away possible suspense. Ivan gets injured in the book, and the reader already knows that he is going to die. If the end of the book was actually at the end, then the reader wouldn’t know Ivan was going to die until he/she actually finished the book. Maybe Tolstoy put the end at the front to educate the reader. In this book, by putting the end in the beginning, Tolstoy gave the reader some information about Ivan Ilyach. He did not give personal information until the next chapter, but the reader does start to ponder what Ivan might have been like. Another important reason why the first chapter is the end of the book is that is shows the reaction of Ivan’s coworkers. The best way to sum up how they felt is this quote on page 33, “ he’s dead, but I’m not,” “ was what each of them thought or felt.” The coworkers also are more concerned with who is going to get promoted instead of being in a state of mourning for their so-called friend. It also shows how Pyotr Ivanovich and Schwartz are more concerned about their card game than mourning for Ivan. Pyotr goes to Ivan’s funeral and feels a sense of sorrow, but after he looked at Schwartz and was reminded about their card game, he immediately forgot about his current mournful state. I think it was a cool and different that Tolstoy put Ivan’s death at the beginning. A person might think that the whole story would be ruined because the ending is already known, but in this book, already knowing the ending doesn’t spoil the book. I think that knowing the ending enhanced the book in a way that the book could be evaluated from a different perspective than a normal book in which the ending is unknown until the end.
What is the source of Ilyich’s illness? Discuss the significance of his symptoms? How do his physical problems affect him psychologically? Is his illness symbolic?
The source of Ivan’s illness is his fall off the ladder. Ivan was working on the draperies in his house when he missed his step on the ladder and fell against the knob of the window frame. Because of this fall Ivan Ilyich suffers from a “constant pressure in his side,” which always causes him discomfort, especially when he eats food. The pressure is on his left side and “could hardly be called ill health.” Ivan has also complained about a strange taste in his mouth. His symptoms are bad because they are internal and the source is unknown. Ivan thinks the fall did not hurt him much because he is an agile man, but it has evidently hurt an organ inside him. Ivan has pain when he eats, and when a person has severe pain when they eat it is a bad sign. Ivan's symptoms also affect his social life at home. Whenever he eats dinner at home, he gets angry with his wife because of the pain he feels. Praskovya thinks that she has good self-restraint and that is the reason she has been able to deal with her husband even though he is angry a lot. Because of the pain Ivan feels, he is totally irrational and is affected psychologically. He blames his wife for every fault at dinner, even if it is not Praskovya's wrongdoing. If the children do something wrong at dinner, such as put their arm on the table, then Ivan goes crazy and blames Praskovya because of his mindset when he is in pain. Ivan's illness may be symbolic of the growing pain he is going to feel, and eventually his death. The illness may symbolize a started downfall, not in his job, but for his health and mindset. The illness may also be symbolic of Ilyach’s life. Ivan’s life is twisted and not normal. He spends more time at work than at home, and cares more about his work than for his family. Ivan also prefers material objects such as houses and draperies because they make him look good. This is a twisted mindset that might be symbolized by his illness because he receives the cause of his illness while working on a material object he has in his house.
(758 words)
In The Death of Ivan Ilyich the first chapter is the end of the story. Tolstoy essentially tells the reader the outcome of the book, taking away possible suspense. Ivan gets injured in the book, and the reader already knows that he is going to die. If the end of the book was actually at the end, then the reader wouldn’t know Ivan was going to die until he/she actually finished the book. Maybe Tolstoy put the end at the front to educate the reader. In this book, by putting the end in the beginning, Tolstoy gave the reader some information about Ivan Ilyach. He did not give personal information until the next chapter, but the reader does start to ponder what Ivan might have been like. Another important reason why the first chapter is the end of the book is that is shows the reaction of Ivan’s coworkers. The best way to sum up how they felt is this quote on page 33, “ he’s dead, but I’m not,” “ was what each of them thought or felt.” The coworkers also are more concerned with who is going to get promoted instead of being in a state of mourning for their so-called friend. It also shows how Pyotr Ivanovich and Schwartz are more concerned about their card game than mourning for Ivan. Pyotr goes to Ivan’s funeral and feels a sense of sorrow, but after he looked at Schwartz and was reminded about their card game, he immediately forgot about his current mournful state. I think it was a cool and different that Tolstoy put Ivan’s death at the beginning. A person might think that the whole story would be ruined because the ending is already known, but in this book, already knowing the ending doesn’t spoil the book. I think that knowing the ending enhanced the book in a way that the book could be evaluated from a different perspective than a normal book in which the ending is unknown until the end.
What is the source of Ilyich’s illness? Discuss the significance of his symptoms? How do his physical problems affect him psychologically? Is his illness symbolic?
The source of Ivan’s illness is his fall off the ladder. Ivan was working on the draperies in his house when he missed his step on the ladder and fell against the knob of the window frame. Because of this fall Ivan Ilyich suffers from a “constant pressure in his side,” which always causes him discomfort, especially when he eats food. The pressure is on his left side and “could hardly be called ill health.” Ivan has also complained about a strange taste in his mouth. His symptoms are bad because they are internal and the source is unknown. Ivan thinks the fall did not hurt him much because he is an agile man, but it has evidently hurt an organ inside him. Ivan has pain when he eats, and when a person has severe pain when they eat it is a bad sign. Ivan's symptoms also affect his social life at home. Whenever he eats dinner at home, he gets angry with his wife because of the pain he feels. Praskovya thinks that she has good self-restraint and that is the reason she has been able to deal with her husband even though he is angry a lot. Because of the pain Ivan feels, he is totally irrational and is affected psychologically. He blames his wife for every fault at dinner, even if it is not Praskovya's wrongdoing. If the children do something wrong at dinner, such as put their arm on the table, then Ivan goes crazy and blames Praskovya because of his mindset when he is in pain. Ivan's illness may be symbolic of the growing pain he is going to feel, and eventually his death. The illness may symbolize a started downfall, not in his job, but for his health and mindset. The illness may also be symbolic of Ilyach’s life. Ivan’s life is twisted and not normal. He spends more time at work than at home, and cares more about his work than for his family. Ivan also prefers material objects such as houses and draperies because they make him look good. This is a twisted mindset that might be symbolized by his illness because he receives the cause of his illness while working on a material object he has in his house.
(758 words)
Thursday, September 20, 2007
We must obey the Gods
Why is Antigone so concerned with glory (113)? Should she be?
I believe Antigone is not so much concerned with glorifying herself as much as glorifying her action. She wants the whole world to know that she was the one who gave her brother a proper burial. Antigone is so upset with Creons decree, which betrays the law of the gods in her mind, that she wants everyone to know it is ok to go against Creon. Antigone wants to put a face to the action of burying her brother, because it is easier to remember an act a person did rather than something that occurred and no one knows who did it. Antigone puts the gods before the state, and this causes some tension when she is talking to Ismene about her plans. I believe Ismene values life and does not want to disobey Creon because she still wants to live. Antigone knows that death is more important that mortal life, and she believes that pleasing the gods instead of Creon would do her better in the long run. Antigone should be concerned with glory because she, a woman, is breaking an unjust law. People should know that Creon is being irrational and Thebes should know that Antigone was the one who gave a proper burial to Polynices.
Why is Creon so surprised when the Sentry brings in Antigone?
At this time Creon is being very narrow minded and irrational. He had previously blamed his soldiers for taking a bribe and succumbing to the temptations of money. He thought is was his own soldiers who had given a burial to Polynices or that they had taken a bribe to let Polynices have a proper burial. Creon is so surprised when the Sentry brings in Antigone because he thought he already knew who committed the crime. He is also surprised that it is Antigone because he did not expect her of all people to disobey him. Creon asks the Sentry to tell what he saw Antigone doing because Creon wants to make sure it Antigone actually did something against the law.
To what does Haemon appeal in his attempt to save Antigone?
Haemon appeals to his father by saying Antigone’s action was “glorious.” He says “She couldn’t bear to leave him(Polynices) dead, unburied, food for the wild dogs or wheeling vultures.” Haemon also tries to get his father to open up his mind a little. Haemon knows is father is being “single-minded” and “self-involved.” Haemon even tries to paint a picture for his father by making a comparison to trees getting ripped out because they were stiff, and that sailors cannot have taught sales because they will capsize. He says his father is being to stiff and it is not good for a king to be so angry and tense.
What does the failure of Tiresias' sacrifice have to do with Polynices and Antigone?
Tiresiass sacrifice is very important because it portrays the corruptness of Creon at the current moment in the book. It also displays the god’s displeasure for his actions. The sacrifice will not work because the gods are upset that Antigone is being punished for trying to obey the “higher law” of the gods by giving her brother a burial.
543 words
I believe Antigone is not so much concerned with glorifying herself as much as glorifying her action. She wants the whole world to know that she was the one who gave her brother a proper burial. Antigone is so upset with Creons decree, which betrays the law of the gods in her mind, that she wants everyone to know it is ok to go against Creon. Antigone wants to put a face to the action of burying her brother, because it is easier to remember an act a person did rather than something that occurred and no one knows who did it. Antigone puts the gods before the state, and this causes some tension when she is talking to Ismene about her plans. I believe Ismene values life and does not want to disobey Creon because she still wants to live. Antigone knows that death is more important that mortal life, and she believes that pleasing the gods instead of Creon would do her better in the long run. Antigone should be concerned with glory because she, a woman, is breaking an unjust law. People should know that Creon is being irrational and Thebes should know that Antigone was the one who gave a proper burial to Polynices.
Why is Creon so surprised when the Sentry brings in Antigone?
At this time Creon is being very narrow minded and irrational. He had previously blamed his soldiers for taking a bribe and succumbing to the temptations of money. He thought is was his own soldiers who had given a burial to Polynices or that they had taken a bribe to let Polynices have a proper burial. Creon is so surprised when the Sentry brings in Antigone because he thought he already knew who committed the crime. He is also surprised that it is Antigone because he did not expect her of all people to disobey him. Creon asks the Sentry to tell what he saw Antigone doing because Creon wants to make sure it Antigone actually did something against the law.
To what does Haemon appeal in his attempt to save Antigone?
Haemon appeals to his father by saying Antigone’s action was “glorious.” He says “She couldn’t bear to leave him(Polynices) dead, unburied, food for the wild dogs or wheeling vultures.” Haemon also tries to get his father to open up his mind a little. Haemon knows is father is being “single-minded” and “self-involved.” Haemon even tries to paint a picture for his father by making a comparison to trees getting ripped out because they were stiff, and that sailors cannot have taught sales because they will capsize. He says his father is being to stiff and it is not good for a king to be so angry and tense.
What does the failure of Tiresias' sacrifice have to do with Polynices and Antigone?
Tiresiass sacrifice is very important because it portrays the corruptness of Creon at the current moment in the book. It also displays the god’s displeasure for his actions. The sacrifice will not work because the gods are upset that Antigone is being punished for trying to obey the “higher law” of the gods by giving her brother a burial.
543 words
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Oedipus, a true blind man
Why does Oedipus summon Teiresias (278-287)? What is Teiresias's reaction to Oedipus's request for help (316-344)? How does Oedipus view Teiresias's behavior (345-349)? What does Teiresias reveal to Oedipus as a result of the king's angry accusation (353;362)? Note the emphasis on sight and blindness in the dialogue between Oedipus and Teiresias (e.g.,367; 371). What irony is implicit in this emphasis?
Oedipus summons Teiresias because he thinks Teiresias may have some insight to who the murderer is. Teiresias knows that Oedipus is the murderer and he does not want to tell Oedipus, even though Oedipus is asking for help. Teiresias tries to turn Oedipus away and tries not to reveal the truth, but Oedipus is ignorant and becomes angry. Oedipus views Teiresias's behavior as "unfriendly" and Oedipus does not appreciate it. Oedipus even goes so far as to accusing Tiresias on being "bent on betraying us, destroying Thebes." Because of Oedipus's accusations Tiresias reveals he is the curse by saying "You are the curse, the corruption of the land." Oedipus then gets even angrier and says Tiresius is making up a story. The whole dialogue is between a blind man and Oedipus, and the ironic part about it is that Oedipus is acutally being the blind one. Tiresias is physically blind, but Oedipus is mentally blind and is also acting very out of character. Oedipus seems to be acting like a power hungry king who does not listen to anyone and only cares about being king. Terisias is actually the calm one in the dialogue, and the whole dialogue just shows how blind Oedipus can be because of the power he has.
Examine the messenger’s speech narrating the death of Jocasta and the blinding of Oedipus in Oedipus the King
Earlier in the play when Oedipus wants to find out his origins and Jocasta tells him to spare her, Oedipus doesn't realize he is going to drive Jocasta to kill herself. When examined Jocasta essentially abandoned her husband who was killed by her son who then married her and had children with her. This has to be painful for Jocasta and she feels she cannot live anymore after finding out the truth and instead of suffering more in life, she kills herself. The messenger said she was "hanging by the neck." This is a speech being given to the people and is very detailed and not cushioned at all. The messenger is very blaitant and even tells the crowd that Oedipus blinds himself by forcing pins into his eyes. Actually, the blinding of Oedipus is kind of ironic. In a sense he has been blind the whole play, and now that he actually knows the truth, he becomes physically blind. The messenger also tells the story to fill in the gaps. It is very detailed and tells the audience that they were happy and had joy in the past, but now in "one day," "death, disgrace, and all the griefs in the world that you can name, are theirs forever." Oedipus now wants to suffer and feels he does not deserve to live in the city and wants to be exiled. He wants to be exiled to the place he was taken as a baby where he was suppose to die, but instead he lived and fulfilled the profecy.
(488 words without the first questions)
Oedipus summons Teiresias because he thinks Teiresias may have some insight to who the murderer is. Teiresias knows that Oedipus is the murderer and he does not want to tell Oedipus, even though Oedipus is asking for help. Teiresias tries to turn Oedipus away and tries not to reveal the truth, but Oedipus is ignorant and becomes angry. Oedipus views Teiresias's behavior as "unfriendly" and Oedipus does not appreciate it. Oedipus even goes so far as to accusing Tiresias on being "bent on betraying us, destroying Thebes." Because of Oedipus's accusations Tiresias reveals he is the curse by saying "You are the curse, the corruption of the land." Oedipus then gets even angrier and says Tiresius is making up a story. The whole dialogue is between a blind man and Oedipus, and the ironic part about it is that Oedipus is acutally being the blind one. Tiresias is physically blind, but Oedipus is mentally blind and is also acting very out of character. Oedipus seems to be acting like a power hungry king who does not listen to anyone and only cares about being king. Terisias is actually the calm one in the dialogue, and the whole dialogue just shows how blind Oedipus can be because of the power he has.
Examine the messenger’s speech narrating the death of Jocasta and the blinding of Oedipus in Oedipus the King
Earlier in the play when Oedipus wants to find out his origins and Jocasta tells him to spare her, Oedipus doesn't realize he is going to drive Jocasta to kill herself. When examined Jocasta essentially abandoned her husband who was killed by her son who then married her and had children with her. This has to be painful for Jocasta and she feels she cannot live anymore after finding out the truth and instead of suffering more in life, she kills herself. The messenger said she was "hanging by the neck." This is a speech being given to the people and is very detailed and not cushioned at all. The messenger is very blaitant and even tells the crowd that Oedipus blinds himself by forcing pins into his eyes. Actually, the blinding of Oedipus is kind of ironic. In a sense he has been blind the whole play, and now that he actually knows the truth, he becomes physically blind. The messenger also tells the story to fill in the gaps. It is very detailed and tells the audience that they were happy and had joy in the past, but now in "one day," "death, disgrace, and all the griefs in the world that you can name, are theirs forever." Oedipus now wants to suffer and feels he does not deserve to live in the city and wants to be exiled. He wants to be exiled to the place he was taken as a baby where he was suppose to die, but instead he lived and fulfilled the profecy.
(488 words without the first questions)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
English IV summer reading
Over the summer I chose to read the curious incident of the dog in the night-time and I can truly say I enjoyed reading the book. I do not enjoy reading books, but this book was different and it kept me interested from page one. The way Christopher talked seemed to reach out to me as a reader, and I did not want to put down the book. There is no complex vocabulary in the book and it is a quick read, but I would rank it as one of the best books I have ever read.
Throughout the book Christopher goes to school and repeatedly tells the reader how much he likes math. Pg 61 says Mr. Jeavons told Christopher that Christopher liked math because it was safe and always had a straightforward answer in the end. Math may not always have a straightforward answer in the end, but it always has an answer, and this is why Christopher likes it so much. Math is unlike life that is complex and has many different phases and does not always make sense. Christopher says his mind works like a computer and cannot process all of people’s emotions and slang words they say to him. The fact that Christopher liked things that can be explained reached out to me because I am also like that. I do not look at the world the same way Christopher does, but the way that Christopher likes to work out problems, both math and real life situations, is relatable.
One of my other favorite books is The Catcher in the Rye. That book stood out to me because it was a boy around my age and I thought I could relate to him sometimes. It also felt like Holden was talking to me and it was almost like I was reading him just talking to me. The curious incident of the dog in the night-time is just like The Catcher in the Rye in the way the boy talks to the reader. It is as if Christopher is talking to the reader in lines like “I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking,” and the line “And then I did some maths practice in my head.” The way Christopher says “And I,” and “And then,” seems like he is chronicling his actions almost to justify what he is doing.
Another aspect of the book that affected me was Christopher’s relationship with his parents. The fact that Christopher’s dad lied to him about his mother and said she was dead affected because I thought it was wrong that he lied. Even though he lied because he didn’t want to have to explain everything to Christopher, I can relate to the fact that a lie can affect a relationship.
Christopher said “I like dogs,” and he is dedicated to finding out who killed Wellington. I also love dogs and would investigate who killed my dog if someone ever killed my dog on purpose. If I ever found out that my dad killed my dog and lied to me it would affect my relationship to the point were I do not know what I would do as it did with Christopher. Even though Christopher does not think like a normal human, because not many people would do what Christopher does in every situation, he is still affected by the death of an animal and lie that hid his mother from him for a long time of his life.
Mark Haddon definitely knows how to reach out to the reader by using a kid, simple language, the death of a dog, and the separation of a family. The curious incident of the dog in the nighttime is a must read book for everyone who likes a compelling narrative that will keep the reader reading until the book is finished.
(643 Words)
Throughout the book Christopher goes to school and repeatedly tells the reader how much he likes math. Pg 61 says Mr. Jeavons told Christopher that Christopher liked math because it was safe and always had a straightforward answer in the end. Math may not always have a straightforward answer in the end, but it always has an answer, and this is why Christopher likes it so much. Math is unlike life that is complex and has many different phases and does not always make sense. Christopher says his mind works like a computer and cannot process all of people’s emotions and slang words they say to him. The fact that Christopher liked things that can be explained reached out to me because I am also like that. I do not look at the world the same way Christopher does, but the way that Christopher likes to work out problems, both math and real life situations, is relatable.
One of my other favorite books is The Catcher in the Rye. That book stood out to me because it was a boy around my age and I thought I could relate to him sometimes. It also felt like Holden was talking to me and it was almost like I was reading him just talking to me. The curious incident of the dog in the night-time is just like The Catcher in the Rye in the way the boy talks to the reader. It is as if Christopher is talking to the reader in lines like “I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking,” and the line “And then I did some maths practice in my head.” The way Christopher says “And I,” and “And then,” seems like he is chronicling his actions almost to justify what he is doing.
Another aspect of the book that affected me was Christopher’s relationship with his parents. The fact that Christopher’s dad lied to him about his mother and said she was dead affected because I thought it was wrong that he lied. Even though he lied because he didn’t want to have to explain everything to Christopher, I can relate to the fact that a lie can affect a relationship.
Christopher said “I like dogs,” and he is dedicated to finding out who killed Wellington. I also love dogs and would investigate who killed my dog if someone ever killed my dog on purpose. If I ever found out that my dad killed my dog and lied to me it would affect my relationship to the point were I do not know what I would do as it did with Christopher. Even though Christopher does not think like a normal human, because not many people would do what Christopher does in every situation, he is still affected by the death of an animal and lie that hid his mother from him for a long time of his life.
Mark Haddon definitely knows how to reach out to the reader by using a kid, simple language, the death of a dog, and the separation of a family. The curious incident of the dog in the nighttime is a must read book for everyone who likes a compelling narrative that will keep the reader reading until the book is finished.
(643 Words)
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Reading and Writing
Truthfully, writing and reading have not been a dearly loved part of my life. I started writing and reading the most in middle school when I would receive assignments in my English and Literature subjects. I did not read much more than what was assigned because I didn’t enjoy reading. In my English classes over the years I have gotten many writing assignments, most I do not enjoy to write. In high school I have seen a big difference in my writing. My writing has improved during my three years in high school, and even though I don’t enjoy doing most papers I can say I am better now that I have had a writing class.
What I have written so far may lead you to believe I do not like any reading or writing, but that is not true. Within the last few years of my life I actually started to enjoy some reading, but I still do not enjoy reading huge books that do not have any thrill to them. I like books that have adventure or a gripping story that always keeps my mind going. I enjoyed many of the books I read junior year in class, and I really like The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. I would read more if I found more books that could grip my attention, but in most cases I would rather watch a gripping action television show than read a book about the same thing. The things I do like to read are articles in magazines and newspapers. I love to read about current events and know what is going on around me in the world and my community. I think the reason I like newspapers over books is they give current information and it is usually in a short article that gets to the point. Magazines are the same in that they only have a couple of pages per article and the article is usually short and to the point.
Reading and writing are two main components of an English course; and maybe one of the reasons I do not enjoy both reading and writing is the fact that English is not a strong subject for me.
What I have written so far may lead you to believe I do not like any reading or writing, but that is not true. Within the last few years of my life I actually started to enjoy some reading, but I still do not enjoy reading huge books that do not have any thrill to them. I like books that have adventure or a gripping story that always keeps my mind going. I enjoyed many of the books I read junior year in class, and I really like The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. I would read more if I found more books that could grip my attention, but in most cases I would rather watch a gripping action television show than read a book about the same thing. The things I do like to read are articles in magazines and newspapers. I love to read about current events and know what is going on around me in the world and my community. I think the reason I like newspapers over books is they give current information and it is usually in a short article that gets to the point. Magazines are the same in that they only have a couple of pages per article and the article is usually short and to the point.
Reading and writing are two main components of an English course; and maybe one of the reasons I do not enjoy both reading and writing is the fact that English is not a strong subject for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)