It was nice to have a happy ending.

Jane and Darcy lose their pride and their prejudice, and are happy because of each other. Truly loving another is the only way anyone overcomes the obstacles of society at that time. Mr. Bennet loves Elizabeth, and he is happy when he is with her and away from his dreadful wife. His wife might not be capable of true love. She is perfectly content with money and a high social status, but she probably will never be happy like Elizabeth and Jane.

Austen continues to mock the flawed characters of the novel. Mr. Bennet advises Collins to "stand by the nephew. He has more to give" (287). Collins' "parading and obsequious civility" after receiving this letter shows he took the advice. After an entire novel of his grovelling at Lady Catherine's feet, he switches in a second to give all his praise to another person of higher rank, as soon as he has the chance. Despite his excessive sucking-up, everyone hates him. Elizabeth, who was honest and defied the social hierarchy, ended up happier than anyone. I think Austen wants to make a point that social class should not matter. Pride, however is necessarily not a bad thing. Look at Lydia and Wickham. They are about as far from living in a situation that anyone would remotely desire as Charlotte Lucas.

Charlotte Lucas's character confuses me. She accepted Mr. Collins solely because of his money and connections, so it is not surprising that she did end up happily. The reason her character is interesting to me though is that while her acceptance of Collins seems stupid, she probably did not have any better options. I think Charlotte represents the most pessimistic side to an otherwise very optimistic novel. No one better than Mr. Collins would probably have ever proposed to Charlotte, so what should she have done? Elizabeth turned down Collins, but she was not as desperate as Charlotte. However, Elizabeth would not have known that there would be a man like Darcy who would look beyond her social class and love her for her personality, so maybe she was in a similar situation to Charlotte's.

I think another interesting aspect of Pride and Prejudice is the importance of family. Mrs. Bennet wants only to marry her daughters off so she might rise in social class. Mr. Bennet loves Elizabeth because she is "has something more of quickness than her sisters," but he does not especially love anyone else in his family (2). Lady Catherine only has a strong relationship with Darcy because he is in a high social class. She wants Darcy to marry her daughter so that her social class can improve. It seems that the only way to have a strong family is to have parents that love each other, but I am not sure of that because no one who actually loved each other in the story had kids.

I liked this book.

Caustic Candor Compounds Confrontation

Lady Catherine's attempt to intimidate Elizabeth gave me a lot to add to a paper based either on humor or love. Lady Catherine is entirely incapable of intimidating Elizabeth to "promise [Lady Catherine] never to enter into...an engagement" with Mr. Darcy" (267). Elizabeth bluntly replies to Catherine's request that " she will make no promise of the kind" (267). Lady Catherine repeatedly tries to make Elizabeth give her the "assurance" she requires "upon having such a report universally contradicted" (265,267). Elizabeth "certainly never shall give it" (267). Lady Catherine is confident her intimidation through social superiority will be successful. Elizabeth's concise, defiant remarks to Catherine's ridiculous requests are hilarious.

Lady Catherine tries to convince Elizabeth that Elizabeth cannot marry Darcy because she lacks "family, connections, [and] fortune," and marrying him would defy "the claims of duty, honour, and gratitude" (267-268). Elizabeth says that none of these "have any claim on" her (268). Elizabeth overturns the concept of social class. The importance of love takes precedent over social class, wealth, and the feelings of any besides the two experiencing the love. I think this is important to Pride and Prejudice, but I think the idea that love transcends pride and prejudice might be too obvious for a paper. As far as humor, I am not sure how I could write a paper on the topic. "The book is funny. The End." Maybe I could write the book on Austen's use sarcasm. The majority of the funny characters use sarcasm, so maybe the use of sarcasm signifies intelligence.

Where is the symbolism?

At the beginning of the novel, Mary describes "pride" as "our opinion of ourselves" (14). Elizabeth, however, is now "proud that in a cause of compassion and honour, [Darcy] had been able to get the better of himself" (243-244). I think "pride" in another is different than the "pride" that Mary describes. Pride in another has a positive connotation, but pride in oneself has a negative connotation. I think the difference is the reason for the pride. One would probably not be proud of someone else for his or her high social class. I think that pride in oneself and prejudice often go hand in hand, while pride in another and prejudice do not. I am trying to decide if Elizabeth is either proud, prejudiced, or both. I could argue that her prejudice against Darcy's higher social class created her dislike of him. On the other hand, her pride prevented her from marrying Darcy and Mr. Collins.

For my paper: Darcy treated the Gardiners with respect, which he might not have done before he fell in love Elizabeth. Love transcends both pride in one's own social class and prejudice against others in lower classes. I have been trying to look for symbols throughout Pride and Prejudice, but I just cannot find any. I cannot think of any recurring objects besides a horse and carriage and the estates. My only idea is that people's estates could reflect the people that own them. Darcy is a great person, and he has a grea house. The Bennet's have a crappy house, but Mr. Bennet is not really a crappy person. Also, Lady Catherine has a magnificent house, but her personality is terrible. Elizabeth did comment that Darcy's furniture was neither "gaudy nor uselessly fine," implying that Lady Catherine's furniture was both. Maybe her personality is "gaudy." Lady Catherine is not as great as she appears.

Austen does a great job creating emotions in the reader, or at least in me. Mrs. Bennet greets Bingley with a "degree of civility which made her daughters ashamed" (250). Elizabeth is "in such misery of shame" that the "first wish of [her] heart...is never more to be in company with" her mother (251-252). I was actually getting annoyed with Mrs. Bennet as I read about her overzealous treatment of Mr. Bingley. Does she think she is helping Jane's relationship by acting so obnoxiously? Probably, but she drives me crazy.

I am getting into a chick-flick

I was thinking about writing my paper on a topic dealing with Austen's satire and humor. I need to think about what she satirizes. Probably society during the early nineteenth century, vanity, and naivety. The characters I would focus on would be Mr. Collins, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, and Elizabeth and Darcy. As I was reading this weekend, there was a line on Page 201 that literally made me laugh out loud. Miss Bingley repeatedly mocks Elizabeth "from a determination of making [Darcy] speak" (201). Ms. Bingley perceives "air altogether" as "intolerable," and says, "'She a beauty!--I should as soon call her mother a wit. But...I believe you thought her rather pretty at one time'" (200-201). Darcy replies, "But that was only when I first knew her, for it is many months since I have considered her as one of the handsomest women of my acquaintance" (201). I actually laughed. My man Darcy totally burned Ms. Bingley. The best part is how sarcastic Austen is towards Ms. Bingley: "Miss Bingley was left to all the satisfaction of having forced him to say what gave no one pain but herself" (201). I feel like the problem with the topic of "satire" is that I am not entirely sure what Austen satirizes, or even what exactly "satire" is. But the book is really funny.

Another concept that I am considering is the idea of love. Darcy's letter talks describes Bingley and Jane's feelings towards each other, and Elizabeth had never "so honestly felt that she could have loved him as now, when all love must be vain" (205). The magnitude of "change in a man of so much pride excited not only astonishment but gratitude--for to love, ardent love, it must be attributed" (197). I think this is a very important quotation because it deals with pride, change, and love. I think these are three critical themes in Pride and Prejudice. Darcy is proud, but he is not, at least anymore, prejudiced against lower-class people due to his love for Elizabeth. Love is the key, and it can change people, it is more important than the pride or prejudice that anyone may have. I am not sure if this is true, because Darcy was right about Wickham, and he was right in assessing Jane's lack of love for Bingley. Despite this, I think he was much more arrogant and prejudiced in the beginning of the story. I think his love for Elizabeth has allowed him to overcome those two previous character traits.

Turning Point

Mr. Darcy's letter completely altered my idea of him and of Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth "had been blind, partial, prejudiced,absurd" (156). This whole time I thought that Mr. Darcy was prejudiced because of his pride, but he was actually able to see that Jane was not truly in love with Mr. Bingley, she did not "invite [his attentions] with any participation of sentiment" (148). Despite Mr. Darcy's pride in his social class, which aprehended him from proposing to Elizabeth, he did propose to her. He stopped Bingley's marriage with Jane solely for the well-being of his friend. Darcy was not selfish or prejudiced. He was undoubtedly proud, but this pride did not stop him from proposing to Elizabeth, it merely gave him a "sense of her inferiority" (142).

Elizabeth was actually prejudiced against Mr. Darcy because of his higher social class. She thought he would be like the majority of people with high-ranking positions in society, but he was not. Both Elizabeth and Darcy are exceptions to the typical person in the story, who respects those above their social rank, and looks down on those below their social rank. I think that by exposing us to this unexpected unveiling of Darcy's true personality, Austen completely changes the themes of Pride and Prejudice. Darcy now seems to me like a very good person, despite the arrogance he still probably possesses. For this reason, I do not understand why Elizabeth "could not approve him; nor could she for a moment repent her refusal" (159). I would think she would be feeling sorry that she rejected a man who had perfectly good explanations for the offences of which she accused him.

The movie Pride and Prejudice does a good job of capturing Darcy and Elizabeth's emotions during their confrontation folloing his proposal. The scene takes place in the rain, which was very fitting to the frustration they both felt. Darcy seems confused at her refusal, and "not master enough of [himself] to know what could or ought to be revealed" (152). Elizabeth is pissed. I think it is very imopressive how well Austen creates a mood for the characters in the book. I was pretty much able to picture the movie's scene in my head before I watched it.

Power and the Lack Thereof

Lady Catherine, Mr. Darcy, and pretty much everyone else all want power. Lady Catherine is used to having power over everyone she meets. She went to Mr. and Mrs. Collins' house, "looked at their work, and advised them to do it differently; found fault with the arrangement of the furniture, or detected the housemaid in negligence" (127). Why the Collins' furniture arrangement would make any difference to Lady Catherine is beyond me. I think she only wanted to criticize them to impose her power. In Charlotte's "opinion it admitted not of a doubt that all [Elizabeth's] dislike would vanish, if she could suppose [Mr. Darcy] within her power" (136). Charlotte thinks Elizabeth would desire Mr. Darcy if she thought herself capable of obtaining his love. I think power concerns Elizabeth less than any character in the book, and that a lack of power over him would not prevent her from liking him. Most people in the story however, would like Mr. Darcy if they thought they had a shot with him. I strongly believe Mrs. Bennet's "dislike would vanish, if she could suppose [Mr. Darcy] to be in her [daughter's] power." Charlotte considers a lack of power to be the reason behind Elizabeth's dislike of Darcy because anyone else would marry Darcy if he were in her "power." Elizabeth does "not know anybody who seems more to enjoy the power of doing what he likes than Mr. Darcy" (137). Darcy does seem to to get what he wants, and he could probably make most women fall in "love" with him (or his money), but not Elizabeth. I think Darcy like Elizabeth because she does not let him have power over her. Elizabeth is independent, and a woman's personality is more important to Darcy than connections or wealth. At least, Elizabeth is making personality more important.

Elizabeth keeps meeting apparently nice men like Mr. Wickham and Colonel Fitzwilliam, but their "habits of expense" prevent them from marrying "without some attention to money" (138). Characters prioritize money above love. Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy are the two male characters who do not do this, but they already have all the money they or their wives will need. I think this is a societal flaw Austen points out in Pride and Prejudice.

Boys are the Devil

Jane seems to have ended her relationship whith Bingley, and Elizabeth definitely seems to have ended any chance of a relationship between her and Wickham. Both are much happier. Jane was in a constant state of worry about Bingley, and Elizabeth unfortunately had to consider whether or not Wickham's personality would make up for his lack of money. Every "expectation from [Mr. Bingley is] now absolutely over," and this is upsetting to Jane at first (112). Jane is so upset that her mother "can have no idea of the pain she gives [Jane] by her continual reflections on [Mr. Bingley]" (101). After all "expectation" leaves Jane, she becomes much happier. Elizabeth sees "her sister looking so well as to banish all fear for her health" (116). A similiar situation occurs with Elizabeth. Mr. Wickham is "now the admirer of someone else" whose "sudden acquisition of ten thousand pounds [is her] most remarkable charm" (112). Elizabeth finds she had "no love in" Mr. Wickham at all, and she forgets him immediately when "the prospect of her northern tour [becomes] a constant source of delight" (113,116).

Austen juxtaposes Jane and Elizabeth's happiness after the "loss" of a man with Charlotte's pain in marriage. Actually, Charlotte does not show pain, she manages to retain "composure in bearing with her husband," but she is by no means ecstatic towards or in love with Mr. Collins (118). Charlotte is, however, "extremely well pleased...to have the opportunity of showing [her house] without her husband's help" (118). Elizabeth sees "Charlotte's evident enjoyment" of her house "when Mr. Collins could be forgotten" (118).

Jane's mood quickly improves when she lets go of Mr. Bingley and Elizabeth is fine with Mr. Wickham becoming a gold-digger. Charlotte is much happier whenever Mr. Collins is not around her. The men are bringing everyone down.

What is Happiness?

After Elizabeth refuses Mr. Collins' proposal, Mrs. Bennet reacts very strangely. At least, she reacts strangely compared to my idea of how a "good" mother should have reacted. Mrs. Bennet declares "that Lizzy shall be brought to reason" (84). Mrs. Bennet tries to force Mr. Bennet to "come and make Lizzy marry Mr. Collins" (84). Mrs. Bennet's behavior shows her complete indifference towards her daughter's happiness. Mrs. Bennet is only concerned with her own status in society, and she wants Elizabeth to marry Mr. Collins so that Mrs. Bennet can have better connections (Lady Catherine). I think Mrs. Bennet's behavior as well as Charlotte's immediate acceptance of Collins' proposal "solely from the pure and disinterested desire of an establishment" shows how little "love" means to the majority of society when Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice (93). Charlotte thinks her "chance of happiness...is as fair [with Mr. Collins] as most people can boast on entering the marriage state" because of his "connections" and "situation in life" (95). Maybe Mrs. Bennet and Charlotte think "happiness" is measured in money. Elizabeth thinks of happiness differently. She weighs the love factor more heavily, and that is why she rejected Collins. Also, Elizabeth does not desire Mr. Darcy at this point in the story. Mrs. Bennet also dislikes Darcy, but because she knows that he would not accept her daughters. I think if Mrs. Bennet saw even a small chance that Mr. Darcy would be willing to marry a Bennet, she would be very praising of him, as she was of Mr. Collins before he proposed to Charlotte. Elizabeth, however, is not going to like Mr. Darcy unless his personality improves.

I think Austen's diction regarding the Bennets' feelings towards Collins is hilarious. Mrs. Bennet is in a "most pitiable state" (99). She She finds it "inconvenient and exceedingly troublesome" that Collins is visiting her "while her health [is] so indifferent," although prior to his engagement with Charlotte, his visit was a "matter of pleasure" (98). Austen juxtaposes Mrs. Bennet's pessimistic self-pity with Mr. Bennet's sarcastic attitude towards Collins. He tells Mrs. Bennet to not "give way to such gloomy thoughts" as Collins inheriting the house, and to instead hope that Mr. Bennet "may be the survivor" (99). Mr. Bennet suggests that Collins could die before him, which he considers to be a more optimistic outlook than that of Mrs. Bennet. Austen characterizes Mr. and Mrs. Bennet through their attitudes towards Mr. Collins. Mrs. Bennet is selfish and whiny, while Mr. Bennet is sarcastic and clever. I find it funny how even Austen makes fun of Mrs. Bennet through sarcasm. She "was really in a most pitiable state" (99). Austen is being sarcastic, because nothing has even happened to Mrs. Bennet, she is just upset because Elizabeth refused to marry a retard.

Pride and Prejudice Chapters 17-19

Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth seem to be the only two people in the novel who can carry on a clever, witty conversation, although their conversations are not positive. Most of the characters in the book come off as either stupid or naive, with the exceptions of Mr. Bennet and Miss Lucas. Austen presents so many different personality that it is hard to determine her position on society as a whole. Elizabeth is smart and clever. Jane is kind of a bimbo, pretty but naive because she can only see good in everyone. Mrs. Bennet is an annoying control freak. Her character is interesting because she wants her daughters to get married which does not seem selfish, but she only wants then to get married to a suitable (rich) man, one that hould make her happy, not necessarily her daughters happy. Mr. Bennet is sarcastic and witty, but still succumbs to Mrs. Bennet's desires. Mr. Bingley is polite and modest despite his high social class, as opposed to Mr. Darcy who is conceited and "proud." Austen juxtaposes Wickham with Darcy. Wickham actually seems to be remarkably similar to Bingley, besides the fact that he is enemies with Darcy. Mr. Collins is a stubborn idiot. He chooses "to attribute [Elizabeth's rejection] to [her] wish of increasing [his] love by suspense" after she has repeatedly told him that her rejection is sincere (83). He says that "it is by no means certain that another offer of marriage may ever be made to" (83) Elizabeth when he has seen her talking to Mr. Wickham and dancing with Mr. Darcy. Mr. Collins is actually conceited (or stupid) enough to think that there is no chance that Elizabeth would reject him. The man is dumb.

Mr. Collins description of an "elegant female" (83) shows his perception, and perhaps Austen's, of society. He thinks that no "elegant woman" would reject a proposal of rich man "of consequence" who has important "connections" like Lady Catherine. Also, Mr. Collins is probably even more sure that Elizabeth will accept his offer because her mother approves of the marriage, which may have been all that really mattered in many proposals at that time. Elizabeth defies this perception, and this makes her character stand out. She possesses her own opinions and has her own values, and that is what shocks Collins, that is why she is Mr. Bennet's favorite, and that could be the reason behind Darcy's attraction. She is different.

Pride and Prejudice Chapters 11-16

Austen utilizes the same words with different meanings within Pride and Prejudice. This occurs particularly often with the word "pride." Sometime the word has a positive connotation, sometimes a negative connotation. Mr. Wickham describes Mr. Darcy's pride as a quality that "has often been [Mr. Darcy's] best friend. It has connected him nearer with virtue than any other feeling" (61). Elizabeth questions, "Can such abominable pride pride such as his have ever done him good?" (61). I think this shows a point that Austen is trying to make: there are different types of pride. Mr Darcy's pride "has often led him to be very liberal and generous--to give his money freely, to display hospitality, to assist his tenants, and relieve the poor" (61-62). Darcy's pride has helped him very positively and yet his sister "is too much like her brother--very, very proud" (62). This time, "pride" has a negative connotation. Austen uses repetition of the words "amiable" which is clearly positive and "vain" which is clearly negative. No character is described as both of these, but characters like Mr. Darcy are sometimes described as one of these as well as "proud." I think pride can fall somewhere in between these words, depending on how one handles the quality.

The introduction of the two new male characters, Mr. Collins and Mr Wickham, is making the story much more complex. Mr. Darcy now must not only win Elizabeth's love, he must do so with the competition of Mr. Wickham. On the other hand, Elizabeth of "nothing but Mr. Wickham, and of what he told her" (64). If Elizabeth wants to marry Mr. Wickham, she will have to do so with the competition of just about every girl in Meryton, since so many girls desire him. However, because she is also thinking about "what he told her," which was mainly things about Mr. Darcy, I wonder if Elizabeth is a little intrigued by Mr. Darcy. I do not think Elizabeth has her sights set only on Mr. Wickham yet. Although Darcy was awful to Wickham, I think the peculiar way in which Darcy's pride affects his actions makes him of interest to Elizabeth. I think she will end up having feelings for both men later in the story.

Pride and Prejudice Chapters 7-10

The first page of Chapter 7 shows that Mrs. Bennet cares more about money in her daughters' husbands than any other quality, while the daughter care more about other aspects. Soldiers have entered a town adjacent to Longbourn, and the officers delight the two youngest Bennets. While "Mr. Bingley's fortune...gave animation to their mother, [it] was worthless in [the daughters'] eyes when opposed to the regimentals of an ensign" (20-21). Mrs. Bennet's insensitivity astounds me. I find her really annoying, as Austen probably means for her to be. Mrs. Bennet tells Elizabeth "not [to] run on in the wild manner that [she is] suffered to do at home" (31). I find this comment ridiculous, because Mrs. Bennet is acting much more in a "wild manner" than Elizabeth. "Everybody was surprised" (31) by a comment Mrs. Bennet made, and Elizabeth is so embarrassed that she blushes on her mother's behalf. Another obnoxious action of Mrs. Bennet's was that "she would not listen...to her daughter's proposal of [Jane] being carried home" because that "would...remove her from Netherfield" (30). This was not only insensitive to Jane, but to the Bingley's who had to host Jane and Elizabeth because of Jane's illness.

Elizabeth, who is very smart and intuitive, cannot seem to correctly perceive Mr. Darcy's feelings towards her. Elizabeth can "only imagine...that she drew his notice because there was something about her more wrong and reprehensible , according to his ideas of rights, than in any other person present" (38). Mr. Darcy probably does consider Elizabeth to be more "wrong and reprehensible" than anyone else in the room, but the reason she catches his attention is that no one has probably ever treated him like Elizabeth is now, like a normal person. He is probably so used to people praising him because of his high social status like Miss Bingley that he he finds it refreshing when Elizabeth does not give consideration to his social status. I think this is the reason that Mr. Darcy "had never been so bewitched by any woman as he was by her" (38). Mr. Darcy's actions towards Elizabeth show that his acceptance of lower social classes seems to be growing already. Elizabeth "is amazed at his gallantry," (38) and although he still thinks about "the inferiority of her connections," (38) he is now "bewitched" (38) by Elizabeth as opposed to considering her "tolerable" (7). Darcy "felt their rudeness" (39) and made a kind gesture to avoid the rudeness when he meets Elizabeth and Mrs. Hurst while he is walking with Miss Bingley. I do not think he would have done this before he interacted with Elizabeth, and I think his level of conceitedness is decreasing. Elizabeth "had not the least inclination to remain with them" (39) however, so I think Darcy will have to entirely change his old personality and get rid of his "pride" before he can gain Elizabeth's affection.

Pride and Prejudice Chapters 1-6

The parents attempt to choose the spouses of their children in Pride and Prejudice. Mrs. Bennet is excited in the beginning of the book when Mr. Bingley moves to Netherfield because she is "thinking of his marrying one of" her daughters (1). Mrs. Bennet feels like it is her decision as to whether Mr. Bingley will marry one of the Bennet girls or not.

Parents seem more concerned with a man's money than any other quality if he is a possible candidate for the husband of one of their daughters. Mr. Bingley earns "four or five thousand a year." Mrs. Bennet considers this to be "a fine thing for [her] girls" (1). It "was in general circulation within five minutes after [Mr. Darcy's] entrance" (6) that he earned ten thousand a year. This made Mr. Darcy a wonderful option to the parents. The daughters are not concerned only with a man's money, at least the Bennet's are not, Elizabeth in particular. I think the daughters and parents view the fact that Mr. Darcy "was discovered...to be proud" (6) differently. Mrs. Bennet becomes resentful towards Mr. Darcy because she thinks he will not consider being with any of her daughters. Elizabeth is resentful towards Mr. Darcy because he appears to have a terrible personality and she does not want to be with someone so "proud."

I do not think Mr. Darcy actually has a terrible personality, because although he seems snotty and conceited, he starts to like Elizabeth for her personality. Darcy finds that "in spite of his asserting that her manners were not those of the fashionable world, he was caught by their easy playfulness" (16). Darcy's reasons for liking Elizabeth suggest that he is not as shallow as he first appeared at the ball. I wonder if Elizabeth will end up changing Darcy into a nice, down to Earth person. I think she will. He already appears to be infinitely kinder than Miss Bingley at the end of Chapter 6, who had "never [been] more annoyed" by "the nothingness and yet the self-importance of all these people!" (19).
Mr. Darcy replies that her "conjecture is totally wrong," (19) which makes me think that Elizabeth will end up making him less conceited.

The Ending of Hamlet

Horatio is a logical character throughout Hamlet, and I think Shakespeare uses Horatio in Act 5 to show it is better to rely on logic than emotion. Horatio only speaks for more than two lines once in all of Act 5 until Hamlet dies. I think Shakespeare is showing a lack of logic in the situation, and the fact that everyone is dying shows that the lack of logic is a bad thing. Even when Horatio wants to make a logical point, other characters prevent him from doing so. After Osric has informed Hamlet of his upcoming battle with Laertes, Horatio says, "You will lose, my lord" (5.2.223). Hamlet, somewhat logically, points out that he has "been in continual practice" (5.2.225) since Laertes went to France, but because Hamlet's thoughts are still bloody, he does not realize that he is walking into a trap. Horatio can see that the King still wants to kill Hamlet, but Hamlet will not listen when Horatio tries to explain this. At the end of the play, Horatio, the logical character, is one of the few that did not die, and he continues to have logical ideas. He will "speak to th' yet unknowing world" (5.2.421) about the deadly events that recently occurred "lest more mischance on plots and errors happen" (5.2.438-440).

One aspect of the play that confused me is why Hamlet wants Fortinbras to take over Denmark. The reason Hamlet wanted to kill Claudius is because Claudius killed King Hamlet. One of King Hamlet's great accomplishments was defeating Fortinbras, so I would have thought that Hamlet would have wanted to follow in his father's footsteps, and uphold his dad's previous victory. Maybe Hamlet just wants what is best for Denmark, and he thinks Fortinbras will do the best job of leading the country. Maybe Hamlet thinks all of the royalty that would be next in line to take over the throne are corrupt. If he thinks they were loyal to Claudius, he would not want them to become King, so he wants the new king to be someone he knows was not loyal to Claudius, like Fortinbras.

Hamlet points out that "by the image of [his] cause [he sees] the portraiture of [Laertes's]" (5.2.87-88). Hamlet and Laertes were faced with very similar situations. The death of a loved one "in this case should stir [them] most to [their] revenge" (5.2.260-261), but they end up seeking revenge so that they do not lose honor. Claudius has already taken Hamlet's father, married his mother, and taken over the throne that Hamlet was supposed to inherit, so Claudius has completely disgraced Hamlet. Everyone thinks that Hamlet is going crazy, so by now he might feel that he wants to kill Claudius because of the honor Claudius took from him, instead of for the father he took from him. Hamlet and Laertes can forgive eachother when they are about to die because they both know that they are victims of bad situations, not bad people.

Directing Hamlet

I guess directing and performing Hamlet looked pretty fun, but really hard. I think it is cool to see how many different interpretations of one play there are. I am sure the Jacobi and Brannagh's Hamlet will be very different than that of the inmates of the Missouri East Correctional Institution, but the neat thing is that no one can tell whose interpretation is right or better. The acting might be better performed by professional actors, but the inmates' interpretation could potentially be closer to the way Shakespeare intended. All of these video clips and trying to memorize my three pages of Hamlet has helped me appreciate how difficult it must be to perform the whole play. T.S. Eliot might disagree, but with so many people trying to recreate Hamlet, it seems to me that the play really is a work of art.

T.S. Eliot

"Few critics have even admitted that Hamlet the play is the primary problem, and Hamlet the character only secondary." Eliot agrees that Hamlet has problems, but he thinks that Hamlet the play has more problems than the character. Eliot points out that sometimes creative people, "through some weakness in creative power [exercise their creativity]in criticism instead." I did not understand why Eliot says this when he goes on to criticize Hamlet. Eliot is still being a critic, he is just not criticizing the character. Eliot thinks that Shakespeare copied the play, and that the play is flawed because there is no "objective correlative" to give reason to Hamlet's emotions. As a teenage idiot, I think I have zero credibility to say that Shakespeare's play is not a work of art. I have not heard of the plays Eliot says Shakespeare copied, and to me, Hamlet's emotions seem perfectly legitimate. His father just died and his mother married the man who murdered his father, so Hamlet is so mad that he is going crazy. It does, however, make sense that Hamlet is experiencing "a feeling which he cannot understand" or "objectify." Hamlet cannot understand his feeling, so he cannot act on it, which is a main theme of the play.
Eliot's discussion of Gertrude is interesting. "Her character is so negative and insignificant that she arouses in Hamlet the feeling which she is incapable of representing." Hamlet has created an emotion out of Gertrude which is to large for her "insignificant role" to justify. This is completely contradictory to Freud's analysis, in which Gertrude is the key to Hamlet's emotions because Hamlet's incestuos childhood desires make him understand Claudius' actions, and stop him from killing Claudius.
Here are words I did not know:
Vicarious: performed, exercised, received, or suffered in place of another
Aberrations: the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course
Stratification: putting in layers
Irrefragable: not to be disputed or contested
Superfluous: being more than is sufficient or required; excessive
Feigned: pretended
Ruse: being more than is sufficient or required; excessive

Freud is a Freak

According to Freud, Hamlet is scared of avenging his father because Claudius "shows him in realization the repressed desires of his own childhood." Supposedly, Hamlet has incestuous feelings for his mother, so he sympathizes with Claudius for killing Hamlet's dad because Hamlet also has an unconsciuos desire to do so. Hamlet believes he "is no better than the murderer whom he is required to punish." (Freud uses a lot of passive voice in this text) Freud says that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet soon after his father died, "when he was still mourning his loss, and during a revival, as we may fairly assume, of his own childish feelings in respect of his father." So is Shakespeare subconsciously glad that is father died because now his dad no longer stands in the way of his incestuous childhood desires? I find that idea not only disgusting but also ridiculous. I do not believe that Shakespeare was psychoanalyzing his thoughts after the death of his father and chose to write Hamlet because of that. I think the more likely scenario is that Shakespeare wrote a tragedy involving a main character's loss of a father because Shakespeare still felt sad about the loss of his father, and it had nothing to do with Shakespeare's inner incestuous feelings.
My computer will not let me put in pictures, but here are some vocabulary words that I did not know:
Chemise: a woman's loose-fitting, shirtlike undergarment
Latent: existing in unconscious or dormant form but potentially able to achieve expression
Piquant: agreeably stimulating, interesting, or attractive
Bereaved: greatly saddened at being deprived by death of a loved one
Strata: one of a number of portions or divisions likened to layers or levels
Filial: noting or having the relation of a child to a parent
Piety: dutiful respect or regard for parents, homeland, etc.: filial piety.
Polyglot: containing, composed of, or written in several languages
Antiquity: the quality of being ancient
Neurasthenia: nervous debility and exhaustion occurring in the absence of objective causes or lesions; nervous exhaustion
Concomitant: existing or occurring with something else, often in a lesser way; accompanying; concurrent
Freud definitely has some interesting ideas that I had not thought about before, some of which I hope never to think about ever again.

Act 3 Scene 3/4

Hamlet has finally committed his first at of violence by killing Polonius. At the beginning of Scene 3, Hamlet does not kill Claudius, but only so that his sword can "know...a more horrid hent" (93). Hamlet is now ready to use violence to avenge his father's murder. Hamlet does not hesitate to kill the man he hears behind the curtains during his conversation with his mother, which turns out to be Polonius. The language in Hamlet has not been positive since Claudius ran out on the play which made Hamlet happy. Gertrude asks Hamlet, "Thou wilt not murder me," (3.4.26) and Hamlet bets that the man behind the curtain will be "dead for a ducat" (3.4.29). Hamlet cares so little about killing this man that he is willing to bet that he will kill him. Hamlet and his mother seem unusually calm considering Hamlet has just killed Polonius and a ghost just visited them. "I'll lug the guts into the neighbor room. Mother, good night indeed" (3.4.235-236). My typical "good night" does not include anything about lugging guts anywhere, but Hamlet says this nonchalantly as if it were normal. Since Hamlet does not even seem phased by his action, he will probably have no problem killing Claudius or anyone else who makes him mad later in the book.

There is a shift in the good guy/bad guy in my opinion. Claudius is beginning to feel remorse for killing his brother, and while "words without thoughts never to heaven go," at least Claudius tried to send his words and thoughts to God (3.3.102-103). Hamlet, meanwhile, was the victim at the beginning of the play, but has become so heartless through the course of events that I consider him to now be the "bad guy." He is being mean to everyone he talks to, except his good friend Horatio. Horatio is a logical person and also the only person towards whom Hamlet is now friendly. I think this shows that one should rely on logic over emotions, because Hamlet's emotions have made him go crazy.

The Blood is Beginning to Boil - Act 3 Scene 2

Claudius is now going to know that Hamlet knows what Claudius murdered King Hamlet. He is probably going to try and convince people that Hamlet is crazy, or try to kill him. A part of this play that surprised me is that Hamlet seemed happy when Claudius stopped the play, confirming Hamlet's suspicion. "Ah ha! Come, some music!" (317). Why is Hamlet celebrating because he now knows for sure that his uncle killed his father? I guess since his father is dead either way, and his mother seems to have already gotten over the loss that Hamlet is still mourning, Hamlet wants someone to blame. If Claudius would not have killed his father, then he might just feel like the world is out to get him, but this way he can feel that Claudius is out to get him. If he can now prove what Claudius did, his mother might go back to mourning King Hamlet, and he could feel good again.

I think Hamlet's soliloquy at the close of Scene 2 sets the stage for violence, which will only become worse as the play progresses. He can "now...drink hot blood" (422-423). That is straight up weird. The man is getting crazier and crazier. At this point, he wants to "be cruel, not unnatural," (428). Although so far he only wants to "speak daggers...but use none," I think eventually he will stop holding back at all (429). Hamlet is beginning to become okay with violence, and although he wants to hold back from violently confronting his mother right now, I think later on we will see Hamlet's emotions consume him. He will not be able to refrain from using violence to cope with his emotional troubles.

King Cover Up

Hamlet may be going crazy, but he has reason to be. The King says to himself that "his deed [compared to his] most painted word" is hideous. The King admits to having committed a bad deed, so Hamlet's apparent madness clearly has reason. Is it "nobler in the mind to suffer...or to take arms against a sea of troubles?" Hamlet should not be faced with this dilemma. I do not think the King has a drop of compassionate blood in him. Not only has he killed Hamlet's dad, he is trying to make Hamlet seem crazy so that Hamlet cannot expose his action.

I think Polonius's idea at the end of Act 3 Scene 1 is going to get Hamlet in even more trouble. Since Hamlet is going to speak honestly with his mother, he might confess his suspicion about Claudius to her. I do not know if she knows Claudius killed King Hamlet or not, but she will probably tell Claudius either way. When this happens, Claudius will probably try to kill Hamlet or continue trying to make Hamlet seem crazy.

I do not understand why Hamlet got all angry with Ophelia. She greets Hamlet with a kind, "How does your Honor for this many a day?" He somehow talks himself into becoming angry with her, telling her she "[nicknames] God's creatures and [makes] [her] wantonness [her] ignorance." The way Hamlet treats Ophelia, who he supposedly used to love, makes me think that he really is going crazy. Maybe he is still just mad about the murder of his father, but it should not make him lash out at someone who is being nice to him.

Prisoners of our actions

I cannot relate as deeply to Hamlet as these prisoners. They clearly experienced a lot of emotion by playing the part of someone who had committed a crime similiar to one they might have committed. I have never murdered anyone or anything like that, but I guess I can relate to Hamlet's situation in that I have been faced with a difficult dilemna, like whether or not I should watch House or do my English homework tonight. I went with English. I think the part of the radio program that interested me the most was the question of are we forever prisoners of our actions? Should people who committed a very serious crime like murder be able to rejoin society if they show they have changed? Just like the actor, I cannot answer that. Everyone inmate who talked on the program seemed like a person I would be glad to know outside of prison, and if I only heard the actors comments that did not talk about prison, I might never have known they were locked up. The inmate who was going to play the ghost could feel remorse because of the character of the ghost and the words he used. Even inmates who might not have been very educated could tell that Shakespeare is "good." Hamlet has had a profound effect on the inmates. When they see in literature that certain crimes have tremendous effects on people, they can relate to the guilt they feel and see how it is wrong. It is hard for me to "relate [my] experience with Hamlet to that of the Missouri East Correctional Institution." I have not really had an experience with Hamlet. After listening to these prisoners, I can see how I really never have been in a rough situation, and I can see how lucky I have been throughout my life. While Hutch thinks Hamlet does not even have a decision to make, he should just kill Claudius, I would not kill Claudius because I would become a prisoner of my action. I do not feel lucky because of Hamlet, I feel lucky because of what the inmates have to go through. Ultimately, I hope I can be a blue whale and not a minnow.

Beating back bluntly into the books

These are the endings of The Road and The Great Gatsby written by the opposite author.
Gatsby by McCarthy:
We will keep trying. We will keep failing.

The Road by Fitzgerald:
In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and hummed of a mystery that was lost forever in the passing of time.

I think McCarthy would cut a lot out of Fitzgerald's last sentence. I do not hink Fitzgerald would change much of McCarthy's last sentence, which did not represent McCarthy's main style throughout the majority of the book. Since McCarthy's last sentence is not blunt and is actually rather vague, I think Fitzgerald would keep it more or less the same. McCarthy's ending uses the trout and imagery of nature to divulge the cause of the world crisis as environmental. Fitzgerald would like the descriptive language McCarthy uses to describe the trout that used to exist, and would not change much about the ending to The Road.

Hamlet v Hamlet

It was a little difficult to compare the different interpretations since the soliloquy that each clip showed was different, so I also watched the Act 2 Scene 2 clip of the 1996 version to get a more extensive view of that Hamlet's interpretation. I thought the two interpretations Hamlet were very similiar and only had subtle differences.
As far as similarities, each clip used close-up camera angles because that angle helps focus less on the surroundings and more on Hamlet's actions. Hamlet was grief-stricken in each clip, but the way he handles his grief is where the interpretations differ. Each clip showed Hamlet being sad and angry, but they came in different orders in the clips.
The two plays differed in their interpretations of Hamlet's inner character. The first clip shows Hamlet angry from at the beginning, trashing the video camera and acting very violent. His anger turns into an exhausted sadness as he continues through the soliloquy. In the first clip, Hamlet's thoughts of revenge on Claudius seem more like impulses that were created out of his anger and desperation. In the second clip, Hamlet seems to be more rational because he starts out sad and comes to a realization that he has reason to be angry. His suspicion that Claudius murdered his father appears to be more justified, and instead of acting on impulse, he has little doubt that Claudius murdered King Hamlet. The 1996 version leans more toward a logical Hamlet who has reason to be angry while the first clip interprets Hamlet as a victim of his emotions. Either way Hamlet has plenty of reason to be suspicious and angry at Claudius.

The Ghost of Krapp

I think Samuel Beckett describes Krapp eating bananas in the beginning of the play to show a similarity between the old Krapp speaking on the tape, who ate "three bananas and only with difficulty restrained a fourth." There are definitely similarities between the two Krapps, like the fact that they are lonely, sitting by themselves in the darkness. Neither will ever sing.
Despite the similarities, the current Krapp is more morose, the burnt ashes of what used to be somebody.

"Perhaps my best years are gone. When there was a chance of happiness. But I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now. No, I wouldn't want them back."

The 39 year-old Krapp still had a "fire" in him, and although he recognized, as the current Krapp also would, that the best might be behind him, Krapp at 39 was not a lost cause. He still had hope, because he did not regret the way things had turned out to be, and he did not want the "best years" back. I think the current Krapp would "want them back," because the "fire" that burnt inside Krapp 39 years ago burnt out long ago. As Krapp listens to himself 30 years ago, I think he is trying to start the fire back up, but he fails. Although Krapp used to be lonely, he was still somewhat optimistic on what could come later in his life. The old Krapp lived in the present, but the current Krapp has given up hope, and is literally living in the past, listening to old tapes of his life.

Repetition

Beckett utilizes repetition "Krapp's Last Tape." From the beginning, Krapp repeats "Box three, spool five. Spool. Spooool!" Krapp appears to have gone crazy. I have this impression because partly because he does eccentric things like strokes his banana before peeling it, gets mad at the boxes on the table ans sweeps them onto the floor, and talks to himself. While talking to himself, he continually repeats certain aspects that he either enjoys or does not understand. He enjoys the word "spool." He does not understand the significance of "memorable equinox." Repetition signifies importance. The importance of "moments" is made clear by the words repetition after the tape retells Krapp's experience with his mother dying and the "black ball." "Moments. Her moments, my moments. The dog's moments." Krapp is retelling his past year as a series of memories of the most important moments he has had. When his mother passed away, it was so important to him that he can still recall the feeling of the little, black, rubber ball that was in his hand when it occurred. He remembers everything about that moment, how when the blind went down, he just stood there with the dog pawing at the ball.

Another critical moment for the Krapp on tape as well as the current Krapp was his "farewell to love." Whatever "vision" the 39 year-old Krapp had was unimportant to the current Krapp, because he skipped over that part of the tape. The important part was the moment he had with this girl. Even though everything was "hopeless and no good going on," Krapp still remembers, thirty years later, that "under [them] all moved, and moved [them], gently, up and down, and from side to side."

Hamlet's Production Introduction

I expect a pretty accurate representation of the play, and I expect it will have good acting and scenery. I do not expect that I will like it, because I am not a huge fan of Shakespeare movies. This did look like it would be better than any I have seen so far, but I have not seen a single Shakespeare movie or play that I have liked, so my expectations are low. The aspects of the work that intrigue are whether or not the acting will be good and if I will like it or not. I think it is hard to do a good job reenacting Shakespeare while still using the language he used, because the audiences watching are not used to the type of language Shakespeare uses. I thought Branagh's idea to use a hall of mirrors to "mirror" the action of Hamlet's monologue's and "reflections" about himself was very smart. I also think using beautiful scenery in northern Europe will help the movie's success because the scenery will help bring the play to life. Other Shakespeare reenactments that I have seen often take place on stage, as they would have in Shakespeare's time, but I find this dull because of what movie producers are capable of doing now.

Canterbury Remix - The Wife of Bath

There was once a man who was full of lust.
He was a scum bag with a heart of dust.
Because he was rich he did as he pleased.
His attitude led to many bad deeds.
He raped a woman and then went to court.
To say the least his trial was quite short.
The judge was about to send him to jail,
When he was saved by an anxious female.
She was an influential feminist,
And she was angered by this chauvinist.
To raise the man’s ethical awareness,
She needed to act without violence.
He was at the feminist’s disposal,
And she kindly offered this proposal:
“You must now go and find the truth for me,
About what women most desire to see.”
I hope this criminal will not chance her
By providing her with the wrong answer.
He set out searching high and low to find
A truthful woman who would speak her mind.
And though he set out searching far and wide,
All the honest women would only hide.
Anyone who would speak to him
Only made his future appear more grim.
They said fine gifts or pampering one’s wife,
Was the answer that could help end his strife.
The dejected man knew this would not work,
But away from her he chose not to lurk.
On his way back to face his penalty,
He ran into a hag who was ugly.
After he begged the woman to save him,
She said she could if she could enslave him.
The desperate man agreed to this request,
So the two went to try to pass the test.
The feminist was quite delighted when
The man’s answer deserved ten out of ten.
There was no way this man she could accuse
After he showed such a change in values.
By saying women want to have control,
He dug himself out of a giant hole.
He should have fluttered high up to Cloud Nine,
But there was no way he could feel less fine.
The fat, old, poor, hag just reminded him
Of his previous promise binding them.
Now the man would have to marry the hag,
Which the man saw as the ultimate drag.
When his wife asked him, “What is wrong with you?”
He replied simply, “My problem is you.”
“It should not matter to you that I’m poor,
Because at least I’m not a skanky whore.
I can be ugly and always faithful,
Or beautiful and always untruthful.
I offer you this perplex choice to make,
I hope the decision is no headache.”
“I believe your offer I will refuse.
I now realize that only you can choose.”
“Since you have given the power to me,
I will be faithful and really pretty.”

The Road - Last Blog

"'I want to be with you.'  'You cant.'  'Please.'  'You cant.  You have to carry the fire.'  'I dont know how to.'  'Yes you do.'  'Is it real?  The fire?'  'Yes it is.'  'Where is it?  I dont know where it is.'  'Yes you do.  It's inside you.  It was always there.  I can see it'" (278-279).  The man and the boy have always been "the good guys" because they "carry the fire."  The still have hope, and they still have love for each other.  Throughout The Road, the boy asks if there are other good guys, and the man says yes, as any good father would, but the reader never knows if there actually are other good guys out there.  My doubt that there were any more good guys left decreased as the story went on, especially after the man and boy's encounter with "Ely," and the man who tries to steal their belongings when they are on the beach.  When the man leaves the thief to die, I was skeptical as to whether or not the man himself had turned into a bad guy, because as the boy points says, "But we did kill him" (260).  As the man is dying, he brings back up the concept of "the fire" that boy must now "carry" on his own.  The father is dying and the boy is now the only person who has any love left inside him, love for his dead father.  That fire might have burned out, because because the boy was going to die.  But "goodness finds the little boy" (281).  The "veteran of old skirmishes" comes while "the fire" is still burning, and by offering to take the boy with him, he will save the boy and the fire will not burn out.  The boy has come upon another group of people who will become his family, and the fire inside the boy will continue to burn for his them, as well as for his dad, who started the fire.

"The Great Gatsby Revisited" Response

I have only read The Great Gatsby once.  Maybe I should read it again, because I might be able to understand much more about the text.  The eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg were one of the most intriguing parts of The Great Gatsby to me.  As I read the novel, it was clear to me that the eyes were a symbol, but I could not decide what I thought they symbolized.  Mr. Wilson acts as if the eyes were the eyes of God.  I am not sure if they represent the eyes of God, because Wilson is the only person who thought the eyes were like God's eyes watching everyone; some of the worst events in the story happen under the gaze of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg.  No one else in the novel seemed to think the eyes symbolized anything, they just seemed llike a pair of faded eyes to them.  The fact that the eyes are located in the valley of ashes seems important to me.  The eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg are located in a desolate area of gray ash.  The valley of ash seems to be where the superficial areas of the Eggs become real.  The crash happens on the road overlooking the valley of ashes, and in Manhattan, Tom hits Myrtle, and Gatsby confronts Tom.  Even when Mr. Wilson goes to shoot Gatsby, which he does in West Egg, he is coming from the valley of ashes.  So the eyes lay in a barren "valley" that seems to spur bad incidents.  According to the blog post, the eyes "[disturb] the reader with a sense of formless moral scrutiny."  I did understand the "moral scrutiny" part, but I do not get how it is "formless," because the form is the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg.  If the eyes symbolize God, or moral scrutiny, why does Mr. Wilson ignore them when going to shoot Gatsby?  Maybe the death of Myrtle caused him to lose faith in God, or the symbol of God.  The loss of the meaning of the green light, another symbol, occured also, when Gatsby told Nick about what the light meant to Gatsby.  The conclusion I have come to is that the symbols are important only if the characters allow them to be.  I wonder if Fitzgerald  thinks it is good for characters to give the symbols meaning or not.
I know we are supposed to "respond" to this blog post, not evaluate it, but I just want to say that I did not like it.  I have not seen the movie of The Great Gatsby, so I am not counting the fifth point the author makes, but I thought the third and fourth points were the only insightful ones.  Nick makes a long point talking about how the story was a tale of the West, so I figured it was a tale about the West, even if I did not know why.  The author gives examples of Fitzgerald's great sentences, but says that she cannot describe how they are great.  That is not very impressive to me.  I am not saying I could describe the greatness of the sentences, but all the author does is say that the sentences are in fact, great.

The Road - Blog 3

"Oh my God, he whispered.  Oh my God" (138).  As the man and child were entering the second padlocked door, McCarthy used the same language he used when they were entering the first padlocked door.  This time, because the child had warned the man not to enter the room, and because of the repetition of the man's reaction, I was practically too afraid to read on to see what happened next, because I was expecting a room full of humans.  Needless to say, I was pretty relieved when the contents of this room was "the richness of a vanished world" instead of something horrific (139). 
"What he didnt find was a gun.  He took the battery lantern and walked over the floor and he checked the walls for any hidden compartment.  After a while he just sat on the bunk eating a bar of chocolate.  There was no gun and there wasnt going to be one" (143).  After reading this, I decided that I think guns symbolize something in The Road.  My first thought was that guns symbolize safety.  The revolver saved the man and child from the "bad guys" on the road by killing one of the "bad guys."  In this case, there was no gun, so they were not actually safe despite the fact their food was plentiful and they had shelter, because they were still very close to the house with the bad guys.  However, I am not sure a gun exactly symbolizes safety because when they were hiding in the ditch, the man gave the child the gun and told him to "put [the gun] in [his] mouth and point it up," to "do it quick and hard" (113).  The gun was going to kill the child.  This could still be safety, because suicide might have been the only way to be safe from the bad guys who were going to do worse things to the child than kill him. 

The Road - Blog 2

The boy keeps asking his dad if they are going to die, and he does not believe the dad when the dad tells him  they are not going to die.  "If they find us they'll kill us, wont they Papa" (115).  The boy seems to have more common sense than the man.  While the boy is aware that their chances of survival are extremely slim, the man has almost convinced himself that they are going to live, partly because of his efforts to reassure his son.  The boy says, "I dont think we should go up there," when they come upon a large house along their journey, but the father, blinded by his hunger, decides "it's okay," and that they have "got to find something to eat" (106).  The man should have followed the boy's natural instincts of fear in this situation, but "desperation...led him to...carelessness" and he nearly got them both killed, or worse (117).  The child is commonly afraid of entering abandoned houses, but in this case his fear turned out to be justified.  The two seemed to be growing further and further apart along their journey, but now maybe the father will listen to the child more and their bind will strengthen.  The father realized that he can not give be careless out of desperation again, "no matter what" (117).  I think this is good news for the father/son relationship, but I do not know how they are going to find food now.  The part with the people locked in the room disgusted me.  I think I am going to have nightmares tonight.  I guess the "bad guys" lock the other people up in that room and eat them.  I find that repulsive and I think I would prefer to die.  The man  and child seem to be in pretty bad shape right now and I do not know how they are going to keep surviving since the boy already looks "like something out of a deathcamp" (117).  A particularly disturbing line in my opinion was, "Could you crush that beloved skull with a rock?" (114).  The situation has come to the point where he has to consider killing his own son, and that is messed up.  McCarthy has created a scenario so scary that I can almost imagine why the man is thinking about taking this twisted form of action - because he does not want his child to be eaten by the freaks that live in the big house.  McCarthy has put inside the head of the man through his literary devices like rhetorical questions and the dialogue between the man and the son.  It is kind of creeping me out.

The Road - Blog 1

The Road has not reminded me of any book I have read.  The writing style is similiar to McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses, using sentence fragments, lots of similies, and no quotation marks, but the story is very different.  The motion in the novel is walking, at least for the man and his child.  They move through the vast, gray wasteland of a country that few people now inhabit.  The men in the truck that the man and child have to run from are moving by truck, but their truck breaks down and they too have to walk a ways.  McCarthy's juxtaposes short, sentence fragments with long sentences involoving many actions.  "A pool of guts....No pieces of clothing.  Dark was coming on again and it was already very cold and he turned and went out to where he'd left the boy and knelt and put his arms around him and held him" (71).  This sentence structure allows the reader to feel what the man is feeling.  He is quickly looking around, noticing the pool of guts and everything lying around the dead man that he shot, and then he is doing what he can to make his child feel safe.  The sentence structure creates a feeling of confusion with the fragments, and then quick action with the long sentence using many verbs. 
The man and the boy are "each the other's world entire" (6).  On the last night the man and his wife are together, she tells him, "The one thing I can tell you is that you wont survive for yourself.  I know because I would never have come this far.  A person who had no one would be well advised to cobble together some passable ghost" (57).  The only reason the man and the child are surviving is that they have each other.  For some reason, the man and child were not enough for the mother to want to survive, but I do not know why.  Why was her heart "ripped out the night [the child] was born?"  The father and son love each other so much but the mother did not even care.  I am worried that the father and son are going to be torn apart because of everything that is happening through the course of the story, like the father not helping the man struck by lightning, and the father shooting the man from the truck.  We'll see.

Destiny's Dinner

My group decided that a recurring theme throughout The Canterbury Tales is destiny.  Our graphic organizer was a dinner table with the names of the four tales eating at each side, and the quotation we chose from each written on their plates.  These are the four quotes we chose from each of the tales we have read so far to represent the theme we chose:

The Knight's Tale:  "I shall see to it carefully that Palamon, who is your own knight, shall have his lady as you have promised him...Although Mars shall help his knight" (1619-1620).

The Miller's Tale:  "And thanne shul we be lordes al our lyfe of al the world, as Noe and his wyf" (396-396).

The Tale of the Wife of Bath:  "Yet may the hye God, and so hope I, grante me grace to liven vertuously.  Thanne am I gentil, whan that I biginne to liven vertuously and weyve sinne" (317-320).

The Pardoner's Tale:  "If that yow be so leef to find Deeth, turne up this croked wey, for in that grove I lafte him, by my fey, under a tree, and ther he wol abyde" (298-301).

In all the quotations, there is foreshadowing of what will occur to the character that the quotation is about.  The foreshadowing often involves religion, and also often comes true, so the characters often have a "destiny" that can be seen before it actually occurs.  I could not always recognize the character's destiny the first time I read the tales, but when one follows the steps about becoming a better reader that we listened to in class, the desitiny is recognizable.  So when you read the last two pages of "The Pardoner's Tale" and then go back looking for parts in the tale that contribute to the overall picture, the foreshadowing of the old man telling the three sinners that Death is waiting for them at the tree is clear foreshadowing of what their outcome will be if they continue "looking for Death," which they do.  In the Wife of Bath's quotation, the Wife's destiny is that she will live a good life, and she does because she gets what she wants, having the knight as an obedient husband. 

The Raven

I believe the raven in "The Raven" is supposed to symbolize death, specifically the death of Lenore and the "death" of the narrator's soul due to the loss of Lenore.  I think Lenore is a woman the narrator used to love, and she died.  The narrator desperately wants her back or wants to forget all about her, but without her, he is nothing.  He wants to forget her - "respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore," because without her the narrator's "soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor / Shall be lifted - nevermore!"  The narrator is so devastated by the loss of Lenore that his soul will never be happy again.

The Pardoner's Tale

The Pardoner, as he makes it clear in his prolugue, is a hypocrit.  He preaches about thed disasters of greed in order to cheat people out of their money.  After he is done telling his tale, he tries to convince his fellow pilgrims to give him their money in exchange for a "pardon," which he has already told them is fake.  I did not understand why he tried to trick the pilgrims into giving him an offering when he already told them that he was a fraud.  Did he really believe the pilgrims were stupid enough to pay for a pardon when he had already divulged all the secrets of his scam?  In the prologue of the Miller and the Pardoner, they both admit to being drunk, and sinning plays a large role in both the tales.  Drinking seems to be a bad sin that always causes trouble, as the Pardoner describes it in his tale; there is no difference "betwix a man that is out of his minde and a man which that is dronkelewe."  Religion reappears in this tale.  The three "ryotoures" end up dying in the story because of their greed and their sins; however, the Pardoner, who is equally greedy and sinful, does not have any bad consequences occur to him.  I cannot tell if Chaucer sees religion as a powerful force that one should follow or not.

The Wife of Bath's Tale

The Wife of Bath's Tale shows the Wife's opposition to patriarchal society.  The knight who rapes a woman is handed over to women who will decide his fate, a woman tells him an answer that saves him from being killed, and the answer is that "wommen desyren to have sovereyntee as wel over hir housbond as hir love, and for to been in maistrie him above."  Finally, the knight ends up with a beautiful and faithful wife only by giving her control of their relationship.  This is the first of the tales in which everyone ends up happy; in "The Knight's Tale" Arcite dies, and in "The Miller's Tale" John the carpenter is thought to be crazy by everyone in the town.  This could be because the Wife of Bath wants her tale of a more matriarchal society to be remembered as happy.  Just as the knight told a tale with a galiant duke, Theseus, the Wife's tale involves an old woman who has a wonderful personality and transforms into physically beautiful person as well.  The characters telling the tales portray the character who most represents themselves within the tale as someone almost unbelievably perfect.

The Wife of Bath's Prologue

The Wife of Bath is upset with the patriarchal society that exists during her time.  She does not want men to have, or think they have, control of women.  She talks describes how she was in control of her husbands, and describes what she did to manipulate them, which establishes her rebellion from traditional patriarchal expectancies.  Love is referred to again in this prologue, as is the role of Gods in human's lives.  The pattern of jealousy acting as a destructive force continues in this prolugue, because Alison's husbands are always jealous of her open attitude towards other men (and they have reason to be).  Alsion says she only married her first three husbands for money, but she seems to be happy while with them; Jankyn is the husband Alison loves the most, but she fights constantly, even physically.  Although someone seems to always end up happy in the tales, love is also always causing pain.  Alison blames her desire to have fun on Venus, instead of taking responsibility for her actions.  In "The Knight's Tale," Palamon and Arcite look to the God's for help before their big battle.  There is a tendency for the humans in the story to think they cannot behave a certain way without the influence of Gods, underlining a theme that Gods have control of humans. 

The Miller's Tale

The Miller's Tale reflects Chaucer's relation of the nature of each character's tale to the personality of the character telling it.  While the Knight's Tale was a noble, heroic story of two men battling for love, with the noble Duke Theseus making things better in the end, the Miller's tale is a nasty tale told by the drunken Miller when it is not even his turn to tell a tale.  While Theseus is portrayed as noble by the Knight, the Miller portrays hende Nicholas as cunning and good with girls, and Nicholas ends up with the carpenter's wife in the end.  While the Nicholas's actions are obscene, grabbing Alison's crotch and farting in Absalon's face, he still ends up with the carpenter's wife, who is "ful moore blisful on to see than is the newe pere-jonette tree" (3247-3248), while the whole town thinks John is crazy.  The Miller's Tale provides a contrast to  The Knight's Tale.  In The Knight's Tale, the characters pray to the God's, make sacrifices to the Gods, and promise to be obedient to the Gods in hopes that the Gods will help them.  In The Miller's Tale, Nicholas can use astronomy to predict God's will, and he even pretend to know what God will do in order to trick John, the carpenter. 

The Knight's Tale Parts 3 and 4

Parts 3 and 4 of The Knight's Tale provide further evidence of "literature in motion;"  Egeus consoles Theseus after Arcite's death by describing life as "a thurghfare ful of wo" in which they are "pilgrymes, passynge to and fro."  The pilgrims telling the stories are travelling by foot through literature, and the characters in The Knight's Tale are travelling by foot through life. 
The description of the altars in the battle stadium evoke negative images.  "Love's servants" experience "sacred tears" and lamenting" instead of the joy and happiness one typically associates with love.  I believe there is a message in The Knight's Tale that humans cannot rely on Gods to make their prayers come true.  The Gods seem to bring about nothing but trouble in this story, besides Saturn, who ultimately brings Palamon and Emelye together, but who does so through killing Arcite.  Mars helps Arcite win the battle, but Arcite only stays married to Emelye for a few days.  In fact, Theseus is the final factor in allowing Palamon and Emelye to be together.  For these reasons, I believe The Knight's Tale conveys the fact that humans are responsible for their own actions.  Is it Chaucer or just the knight telling the tale who believes this?

What is a blog?

A blog is a place where someone can share his/her ideas and thoughts.  The blogger can post anything he/she thinks, and others can read and comment their reaction to the original post.  This can lead to valuable discussions and give new perspectives to anyone reading the blog and comments about the blog.  This is my first time owning or even reading a blog, and I am looking forward to the new form of communication (new to me, at least).  I think a blog can spark more ideas than formal writing in some ways because the writer and the people commenting on the ideas of the blogger can focus less on making what they need to say sound nice, and just write the raw idea, without any fluff. 

Parts 1 and 2 of The Knight's Tale

Parts 1 and 2 of The Knight's Tale from The Canterbury Tales demonstrate "literature in motion," when motion is considered as emotional ups and downs, not physical movement.  After all, the "ups and downs" on the "ride" of life are based on emotions, not physical location.  The characters in the story are constantly having changes in emotion.  Theseus goes from being elated, at the very beginning of the story, to vengeful, after he meets the widows, who were victims of Creon.  Palamon is bitter about being locked up in the tower until he sees Emelye, with whom he immediately falls in love;  his excitement about being in love quickly turns to anger when Arcite falls in love with Emelye.  Arcite, who seems to be very fortunate after he is released from prison, is actually devastated because he can no longer see Emelye.  Parts 1 and 2 also show that love, which is an extremely positive force in the ideal situation, can tear people apart when infused with jealousy.  Love's positive and negative aspects are displayed in Parts 1 and 2;  Palamon and Arcite's love for Emelye gives them hope while they are imprisoned, but it also turns them against each other and nearly kills them both before Theseus finds them and puts an end to their battle.

"Migrations" by Dorian Merina

I interpreted "Migrations" by Dorian Merina as a connection between high economic demands and slavery.  The poem lists many goods being brought across the ocean, from "untwisted silk" to "sapphires"  to "cherries."  The people working on the boat, bringing the goods to the greedy buyers "sleep or fight to sleep" and "awake to the damp air" with "salt in the throat and cough to awake to the dark night," which is a constant pattern for them.  This poem reminds me of the movie Blood Diamonds.  The ignorant buyers of goods either are not aware of or pay no attention to the harsh realities others live in to ensure they can have diamonds, "quantities of velvets," or any other product.  I did not understand the purpose of the list of "[words] like achuete" and "tacayo."  The most effective part of the poem to me was "On the boats come the blood, the blood, the blood."  This made me imagine that along with the goods being shipped across the ocean is the blood of the slaves, slaves who are toiling to help make the materialistic, ignorant middle/upper class people happy.