This too I shall pass....

I came, and hopefully conquered. We have finally made it to the end of this 20 something odd chapter novel that is my blog. AP Literature was not easy I struggled in staying on top of my work and time management, which seems to always be my struggle whenever I seem to be falling behind in a class, but it I feel as though it definitely helped me in preparing me for the AP exam. I really didn't like the Ap exam because it's so hard reading the passages in the multiple choice because they just seem so complex and they don't really make any sense. The questions they ask go from easy to hard and the hard ones were sometimes just as confusing as the passage. But overall the multiple choice went fairly well. The essays, which we have spent the entire year on, in hopes of grades above a five, were interesting to say the least. Normally when we look at poems there is some specific hidden idea that we look for; some type of journey, loss of innocence, or growth, I didn't really see that in this specific poem all I saw was a actual object that represented the past and the debate between holding on to the past and letting go of it, which I guess would sort of be the hidden meaning, but because of what we have learned in Lit all year I just felt that there was something more that I needed to have seen and I didn't. Literature has taught me to really look within the poem for what the poet is really trying to say about everyday life, and I just know there was more in this poem then holding on to the past life. With the prose piece I was able to comprehend what the author was saying about the women's situation and what she wanted to do with her life, but it just seemed so in your face about her situation and the kind of women that she is, that, once again, you thought there needed to be more. I talked about the symbolism of the vicar and the differences between the vicar and her husband and how that characterized the woman, but when we write prose essays in class we always have to go deeper in order to receive a better grade.It separates the 5 or 6 from a 7 or 8. With the free response I wrote about Emma and Box Hill because that is a pivotal moment, where she starts to do more introspection. It worked out really well because we spent a lot of time talking about Emma, in class. All in All I think AP Lit has definitely helped me on the exam.We're aiming for a 4

No Importance of Being Earnest

Why does Jack refuse to give his consent to Cecily’s marriage? How may this help his own case with Lady Bracknell?  

Jack refuses to give his consent to Cecily because if he says that Cecily can’t marry Algy then Lady Bracknell will try to convince him to let her marry him because she has a lot of money. Jack is using Cecily as leverage so that Lady Bracknell would first give him permission to marry Gwendolyn, and the longer that he holds out on Lady Bracknell then she will have to give in to Gwendolyn marrying Jack because lady wants the bounty that comes with Cecily. She has already given Cecily the right to call her aunt, so she has already accepted her, but it’s really only for the money.

Why do you think Algernon “kills” Bunbury? Why does he not need him anymore?

Algernon used Bunbury as an excuse to get out of going to his Aunt’s dinner parties, but now he has found a more logical reason to get out of the parties, Cecily. I think he killed Bunbury because he was tired of lying, after she found out that his name wasn’t really Earnest then which turned into a web of lies and so he wanted to be his true self and just be Algernon, and get rid of the lie of Earnest and Bunbury.

Describe the recognition scene in Act iii.  How is Jack’s discovery of his true identity ironic?

Jack realizes that he is actually related to Lady Bracknell and that he is the nephew of Lady Bracknell and Gwendolyn is his cousin. It is ironic that he turns out to be the brother of Algernon, so when he said that he was earnest in the city and Jack in the country it turned that not only did he actually have a brother but he was also true about the city, because he told Cecily and Miss. Prism that he had to visit his brother who was always getting into scrapes, which Algernon actually is. It was also ironic that when he questioned who his father was and it turned out that his father’s name was Earnest and he is named earnest which he wanted because Gwendolyn wanted to marry someone named Earnest. Everything that Jack said had turned out to be true without him actually realizing. He actually had a brother who lived in the city, his father’s name was Earnest and him being christened earnest was actually the right thing because his name was really Earnest. Wilde showed through the novel and the turn of events, and how no one actually got married that there really isn’t an “importance of being Earnest” and that earnest was really just a web of tangled lies, and earnest was just a trivial thing in order for Jack and Algernon to get Cecily and Gwendolyn, by lying and saying their name was earnest.

I hate sonnets

 I hate sonnets. I also hate the AP Lit Exam. I hate them both equally because there is a high chance that a sonnet will end up on the AP Lit Exam. I hate sonnets because I can never understand them, they are my kryptonite because I get under the impression that the sonnet is about some declaration or revelation about love, which most of them are, and all I really have to do is find out what it is about love that the speaker is trying to say, whether it is how the desire will grasp you and keep hold of you, or that the speaker's lover won't ever really dedicate herself to him. They also seem to be the same, or the ones we have read so far, that there is something that blocks the speaker from love. But all that is just the basic, very superficial understanding; It's how the structure and diction and imagery that describes why they speaker can't have what it is that he craves so desperately that doesn't make sense and frustrates me. It always takes me a minute to realize that a poem is actually a sonnet because I am so busy trying to make sure that I have enough time to really understand what it is that the author is trying to say about the speaker that I never actually realize that it is a sonnet. On top of all that I feel like I always misread the sonnet, like if you were to read it just line by line then you get one meaning, or if you read the whole thing it seems different, or if you divide it up by the octave and the sestet you feel like you are reading two different poems. They seem so hard to understand because those fourteen lines are jam packed with so much imagery and there are so many scenes that it seems so hard to understand what the speaker is trying to say. When we did our timed writing on the desire sonnet by Sir Philip, I remember looking at and establishing 2 things; one that the speaker was going through a rapid change of emotions in how desire had came to him, swept over him, and then eventually consumed him and secondly that the desire itself and what it felt like to have such a feeling. I could understand that but still I felt like something was off like there was more to the sonnet then I was actually understanding. With my thesis statement off, as always, I had a hard time setting up my paper the way that I wanted to, to accurately construct a well written essay even if was kind of off. I hate sonnets. So very much.

A Discovery

In reading Emma by Jane Austen, I have discovered a few things; one is that I hate Emma and that Austen uses Emma to represent that self-centered and self-fulfilling in all of us, which I learned during our seminar. Three things; I have already said this but I really hate Emma, I hate her because she is a character that Austen has made so that no one likes. Emma is a gossip which I already don’t like, but what really makes me upset is that she does things, but they are not for the person she does it for, she does it for herself. When Emma decides that she is going to match Harriet with Mr. Elton, she does it because she wants to bring Harriet up in society and then she can take the credit for it. So basically she masks self- interest with a seemingly altruistic demeanor. He thinks that by setting them up Harriet will be raised in her social standings and then Mr. Elton will then receive a wife who is very impressionable.  Not only that but she told Harriet to end it with Mr. Martin, whom she really actually loved and wanted to be with but Emma thought that wouldn't be in good taste for her reputation. Emma wanted the credit of putting someone else together so that she could obtain some sort of creditability and some sort of accomplishment in Highbury other than she is one of the highest ranked people in the town and also has a lot of money. She wanted to be accomplished like Jane Fairfax , who even though is in a lower social rank because she is poor and was adopted, basically, by the Churchills is way more pleasant and talented. Jane caught the eye of Mr. Knightly, who admires her deeply and whoever it was that sent the piano. Which is actually weird when you think about it because if you were going to send a present to your secret admirer why would it be something as big as a piano? I was thinking that you but something that is easier for a person to be able to bring through their own doors. I also see a little bit of Emma in myself, which makes it hard to hate her because by admitting that I don’t like her because she is selfish is to admit that I hate the general population, and myself because of the fact that we are a little selfish. Emma is that person, the one who will do whatever it takes to make herself look accomplished, but then there will always be a Jane Fairfax, one who will always beat us by half an inch and we will never be on the same level as her. Emma represents that person who is always the runner up. Like on American Idol there are always two people in the finale, one of them will be the runner up and the other will actually win it all. One person is the person that you think will win it all; they have the look of a star, the voice, and the personality to make it there, then when they announce the winner it’s the other person and you’re confused as to how that person one because they didn’t seem nearly as good, but in some way they are better and they are obviously more appealing to a majority. That is Emma and Jane Fairfax.

The lovely people of Highbury

I like Emma by Jane Austen, I find myself awkwardly laughing to myself while other people just look at me funny. Emma is funny, because she’s kind of a smart ass. The only thing that is a little confusing to me is the wording which makes it a little hard to follow but then once you get it, it makes sense. I also get confused on how they explain people’s ages, for example Mr. Knightly is described as a ”sensible man about seven or eight-and –thirty” I’m pretty sure that means 37 or 38 but that is just such a weird way to express that. But I digress. It’s funny how everything is so handsome and favorable, like the letter that Frank wrote to his father was such a “handsome letter” and no one had ever seen such a handsome letter. That doesn’t make sense, is handsome a good thing or a bad thing? And if it is a good thing what could he have possibly written that would make it such a handsome letter? He probably just said congratulations on his wedding. It seems as if everyone in this town of Highbury are all just great and favorable people; Miss Taylor, The Woodhouses, Mr. Knightly, Captain Weston, and the Churchills.It is also interesting how in chapter 3 when they are describing how Mr. Woodhouse is in control of his small circle of friends and often they come over but how, in turn, he hates big events. The craziest thing about the statement of him being in control is that in the first chapter Austen describes Emma as having all the control, especially over her father who will basically do anything that she asks him to do because she is the lady of the house. All the women are natural or plain or beautiful which just makes you happy and makes you feel warm and fuzzy. All the women are great and plain and refined and beautiful and then the only person who seems to have experienced hurt and pain was Emma and that was only because Miss. Taylor when she left and got married. But there are no problems everyone is happy in Highbury. Then there is Harriet Smith who is nice to look like that, once again fair, light, and plump, but then she is also has nice manners, such as everyone else in the story so far, but she has nothing important to say. I have noticed that while people are very nice looking in the story and have really nice manners they don’t have anything important to say. It’s kind of like tea time is all the time. The tea time is where they have pleasant conversations and make small talk but there isn’t any in depth conversation, because everyone is pleasant and frothy and light. Mostly yellows and pinks without the reds and blacks. Because it is all about appearances and the better the appearance the more superior you are and in Highbury it’s all about superior and upper class and the froth.

Attempt at short story

I am a bird. I am supposed to fly breath and discover a freedom that is so unfamiliar to the rest of us that you can’t even begin to understand the weightlessness I feel. But somehow you have not been to grasp that you cannot control me, you cannot cage me, but you feel as though you can. We have played this game of cat and mouse for a while, you think you can outsmart me, challenge me. You have, challenged me, for I will evade you, deceive you. This time I have won and now I have ended up in a dark hole. I am now alone waiting to fly again and be free but I can’t find my way out. There is a lake or it looks like a lake but it when I try to walk across it reaches up and grabs my foot and holds me. It pulls me down so I can go down and play with him and I can’t break free from him. So it seems this is my fate to go underneath and be trapped once again, in a world I don’t feel I necessarily belong. This world is different, it’s darker, and reeks of death. It is almost unnatural for a place to look like this and to be able to assume that there was once life or there’re is currently people living in such a wretched place. The ground shakes uncontrollably as if, it too, is ashamed that someone other than its own has to witness such a place, it brings a shiver in my spine and I feel my spine stiffen and crack. Looking up there is a whole and light shines through and washes my face and I taste a beautifulness that I almost forgot about. I need a way out, until I move and I realize he has changed me to floor so salvation seems unreachable. I will escape, I have to escape from a life in which I struggle to survive and continue on and die in death. It seems that he has taken pity on me, for he releases the chains but closes the whole, so we are back to the game of cat and mouse.What is wrong with society? Why are there duties that it seems I have to fill? Why can’t I be free to discover life? Why does it seem the life weighs more than death and the only escape is life? The only escape for me is freedom, the room to breathe and somehow something will chain me, trap me in a dungeon andsomehow I will break free and I will continue to fly and escape societal duties. For these will not hold or bind me, all chains can be broken or untangled. I am a bird and freedom is place of opportunity and discovery of both all the beauties and joys that the world has to offer after my escape from the dark and broken world that has so tried to suck me in.

Look the characters and beauty

Oh Clarissa, somehow she manages to turn the world inside out. In the heart of New York City, the old woman manages to find the small happiness the “endless, harsh punishments” and she stands out amongst it all. At 52 she might as well have been 22 because there is no denying her youth and liveliness. The chapter is named Mrs. Dalloway but that isn’t even her real name, her name is Clarissa Vaughn and she got the name “Mrs. Dalloway” from Richard. Richard assumed that because she was such a wonderful lady she didn’t need something plain and simple as “Vaughn” for it didn’t suit her. No, what she needed was something that would have people remember her, a name that had merit such as Jane Eyre, Isabel Archer, and Ana Karenina, great female figures in literature that represent independence, femininity, and strength, because even at 52 Clarissa was all of those things; love, independence, and strength. Clarissa was given a gifted fate, she was destined to happiness and love and success not disaster and failure. Where Clarissa was imaginative Richard was practical or seemingly obtuse he preferred wit (which we can connect to scenes in Hamlet where, Hamlet uses his wit and play on words to show superiority over others, such as Polonius when they have their little word war). Richard tells Clarissa “Beauty is a whore, I like money better.” Beauty and whore seem to be contrasting ideas, when one thinks of beauty they think of something alluring or something that captures the mind of people; captivating. The literal definition of beauty is “something that is appealing; an intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind.” When you think of a whore you think of a woman who has lowered her standards, degraded herself. The words dirty, seller, worthless, rascal come to mind but when one thinks of beauty you stop ponder, consider, take in, observe, enjoy. The ideas contrast then bring in the concept of money. Money is “ a type of currency used to cover the costs of goods or services.” They tie in with each other. Could we not see money as beauty? Is Richard trying to tell Clarissa to be more practical and realize that beauty is overrated and worthless and dirty, and that money, something that could take something beautiful and turn into a “whore” by turning it into something filthy and dirty, more practical? Or is he just witty? Being sarcastic to show how people no longer focus on beauty because they think it is overrated and perverted, so they settle for something that is supposed to be less perverted and clean like money, which can eventually consume a person turning them into something that could be considered dirty and filthy when greediness has taken over. There’s the part of Clarissa that too feels sluttish and dirtied, she tries and appreciates the days (beauty ) but feels herself to be the “sluttish widow” stuck in the triangle of her Louis and Richard. She is now the “money” which could be used for beauty and prosperityin the right hands but then in the wrong hands could also be considered dirty and filthy.

Body in the water

“The Hours” by Michael Cunningham is an interesting book; or rather the prologue is very interesting. It was slow at first but then you’re a little confused with what is going on because there is just so much detail, you feel as though you are standing at the edge of the bank, but still at a distance, watching the curiosity and the crinkled concentrated lines on her forehead slowly flatten out and peace and calm take over her features. You notice how she looks around questioningly and you watch with curiosity as she searches around the beach and she finds one stone that is “roughly the size of a pig’s skull (4).” You watch her approach the bank noticing how the water is actually a murky and disgusting yellow rather than the ugly brown, although in my personal opinion the yellow is worse. Dirty yellow just shows a more murky filth, tainted, or disturbed. As you ponder the disgustingness of the water you see Virginia start to walk towards the water, walking inside it with her shows still on and the water coming right up underneath her knees and you want to yell at her, tell her to come out but just as you’re about to you realize just how peaceful she is and how there is really no one who could really stop her at this moment so you pause and let her continue. For a moment you are at peace with her and then she is in the water and you don’t really pay attention because you figure that she can just swim back, but she doesn’t; she lets the current take her and she flows away and you don’t think that about that being the last time that you are going to see her, but it is. Cunningham has this way of writing where you feel as though you are standing near Virginia as she commits suicide, but then at the same time you’re in her thoughts and you can understand what this moment means to her. When she is standing in the water in her head she says “Here, then , is the last moment of true  perception (5)” to some it would seem as though a delusional woman just walked into disgusting water with all of her clothes on, to another it may seemed as though a woman was just in deep thought and she just didn’t understand how she ended up in the water, but if you really knew her you’d know that this was a phase a phase that she wouldn’t be able to escape from, oh she’s been here before, but this time she isn’t strong enough to break out of this phase and this is her way of helping everyone be happy again. The woman in the water is just a blank picture and anyone could make a story on she ended up there. Then it feels as though you are being yanked and you’re at Virginia’s house where her husband, Leonard, has just gotten home and the maid tells him that his wife has gone out and he doesn’t even realize that he is never going to see her again until he sees the note. The note that he will be happier without her and she was the happiest she had been when she was with him, he runs out the house and that is the end of the prologue and the chapter starts. And you wonder about how Virginia got there in the first place and what happens to Leonard. It’s weird the Cunningham opens the book with a suicide.

For faith??

“Faith” is a fine invention

"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see—
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency. 

Emily Dickinson

In “’Faith’ is a fine invention,” Emily Dickinson explores the vulnerability of faith through the more tangible aspect of man and invention.

Faith is the idea of believing in something that is not necessarily tangible but rather an idea or concept that will help pull through or deal with a situation. Dickinson describes faith as a “fine invention” suggesting that it could be a tactic that “Gentlemen” create when they see that things aren’t exactly going the way they should “in an Emergency”.  Faith becomes a fine invention when men are able to see where they are in a situation but then Dickinson cuts the sentence showing an unfinished thought which produces the questions of what it is that faith helps the gentleman see. The microscopes seem to take a higher rank than faith. Microscopes serve as invention for finer analyzing.Dickinson contrasts the microscope and faith, where “microscopes are prudent” meaning that they can be more careful or precise in predicting the future and that faith isn’t given the choice between the two in an emergency.  In the poem, “Gentleman”, “Microscopes” and “Emergency” are all capitalized showing a sense of importance of an Emergency where Gentleman must use a Microscope to better predict the outcome of the emergency, because faith alone will not help in seeing the future of the emergency but just the belief that they will make it through the emergency, but then how can a microscope really help in a emergency? Microscopes would easily be thrown aside in the time of an emergency rather than faith, but the poem suggests that microscopes are at a higher standard than faith. Dickinson questions what the Gentleman will use in an emergency will they use microscopes, which symbolize fact or practicality or faith a conjured concept when they can see that they will make it through. The first line shows a sense of vulnerability. “Faith is a fine invention,” faith is not only a belief that something will happen but also the vulnerability in the belief that something has to happen. When the Gentleman can see, faith becomes a fine invention, when Gentleman, proper, dignified men, are vulnerable faith is a “good, just, or a good choice” for an invention. Structurally it is interesting that that the second line doesn’t come before the first, so that it was “When Gentleman can see-/ “Faith is a fine invention” to show that when Gentleman are no longer blind and everything is clear and they have become more knowledgeable, that faith is a good virtue to have. For the last two lines it is interesting that Dickinson says, “But Microscopes are prudent/ in an Emergency” rather than, “but in an Emergency/ Microscopes are prudent.” The structure of the poem Dickinson’s way, sets the tone of endearing saying that when the men have become more knowledgeable that faith is clearer and allows more focus but then the tone shifts to  a more knowledgeable, superior , knowing tone when she says that in an emergency, microscopes are more helpful as if they have discovered through personal experience.

And we're back :)

I love poetry. I think it’s the best form of expressional writing. There is so much that you can get from poetry and the best thing about it is that the writer doesn’t have a specific meaning. The meaning of the poem is left up to the interpretation of the reader. You can get so much out of poetry. “Poetry is the universal language which the heart holds with nature and itself” – WilliamHazlitt. Poetry is universal, it transcends across the world. Anyone can read a poem, a sonnet, a villanelle, or a free verse and interpret it however they want and make it personal for them. Poetry connects us and intertwines us all to not just each other but to nature and the world around us. The purpose of poetry is to convey an important life moment that could either is insignificant or a very big moment like graduation, or being potty trained or your first day of college, but the moments are all things that everyone can relate too. It’s as if in the entire poetry library has poetry that is specific to everyone; every feeling and every moment you can connect with. “Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese” – G.K. Chesterton. I think what Chesterton is trying to say here is that poets will talk about almost anything. The corner of every topic and moment in life turned. Cheese represents the simple, basic topics that poets don’t talk and it almost doesn’t make sense that the all the complicated events or dark topics, or the life changing moments they talk about but very basic things they don’t talk about. Mary Oliver talked about walking through a swamp; it makes you wonder just how many people can really relate to that? How many people have walked through a swamp other than the people who live in the Everglades? Something so basic like food, which satisfies our physiological needs and won’t allow us to do anything else until those needs are met, is very interesting. Poetry kind of reminds me of short stories, in the way that we look at the meaning and the angle at which you interpret it. Both and poetry has a meaning that the author or poet had in mind when they were writing the work, but the meaning that you and I have when reading the work is not only different between the two of us but also the poet or writer. The difference that short stories have from poetry is the meaning is more solid in short stories. There is still interpretation but you’re more guessing of what happens next or what happens first, depending on how it is written, but you’re mainly focusing on sequence because the meaning is clearer. On the other hand poetry is more informal and it’s the meaning that is left to interpretation. The reader could ultimately discover a completely different poem with the same words that the poet uses. The similarity between the two is that there is a lot of reading in between the lines with both.

He's only a tad bit innocent

I'm almost a little parts of me that wants to dislike Grendel because he is in fact a monster but then the other half is sad for him because he is just trying to fit in with the men so that maybe hell be apart of something. Grendel is obviously a monster who is not apart of the human world but rather threatens thems and terrorizes them. There was the time where he got his foot caught in between to the two tree trunks and that was where he first discovered man. In discovering man he seems that they and him are not that much different from each other in that they both speak the same language. What I'm confused about is whether or not Grendel is actually talking. We are reading his thoughts but we haven't actually heard hi, communicate. In the beginning when his foot gets stuck he tries to talk to them but they don't understand him or that he is trying it attack them or when he sees the dead man outside and he picks him up and throws him over his shoulder and runs into the meadhall and yells out" Mercy!Peace! Friend!" hes almost trying to ask for their forgivensee trying to connect with them but theynrejct him and think thatbhe is trying to attsck them.So then you begin to think that the whole story is just his thoughts, he has told us that he speaks the same language as the humans but then at the same time when he has tried to communicate with them it's not the same language . It is possible that he could just speak like his mother (she is always saying drool , drool) but thinks like the humans do. Which would make his mind very sophisticated. Then what confuses me even more is that when he is hiding in the forest and he talks about how Hrothgar has violence and shame etched into his face and Unferth is asleep but guarding the meadhall and he is just watching them then someone in the forest is asking who is there and he says " the Destroyer" it seems as if the priest can understand him and he can understand what Grendel is saying to him which makes no sense to me. I don't think that Grendel is necessarily evil, I think that he , like Adam and eve , has been influenced by evil to embrace his evil side. The evil side we all posess but must be pressured so that it comes out because before he was curious at the world and angry that was why he was attacking the meadhall but then he comes into his role after talking to the dragon and becomes "the Destroyer"

The red sweater

 For the prose timed writing essay that we had to write about the short story, Eleven. Elevwn is about a little girl in class who is unable to communicate with her teacher that a lost sweater isn’t hers. The sweater is really ugly and smells funny and the teacher is quite certain that it is hers until she is told otherwise. In the beginning the girl is reflective in that she thinks that as people age we don’t know the difference in each year as we get a little older. She goes on to mention how she is turning eleven but she doesn’t feel eleven. She also describes how even though we get older we still repeat actions from the years younger. She compares aging with an onion or the rings of a tree. Ad we grow older we start off in the very center of the tree and then we make our way outward but then an event or test will stop us from continuing outward and moving on to the next ring, but will in fact make us revert to the ring that we have already passed. Then the teacher comes to her table and tells her that the sweater is hers and the narrator says how because the teacher is older and she is only eleven that the teacher must be very wise. This goes along with the idea that as you do get older you are creating more rings on the tree, that represents your growth in age, but also provides more opportunity for you to revert back into your childhood. I looked at this prose through the prospective that this was an internal battle between maturity and childhood. The girl was trying to find her way to maturity by it being her birthday she figured that because there were no physical changes she would just have adult- like actions. This was  a failed test on her journey to maturity because the  red sweater was the test to prove that she would be able to handle the situation in a adult matter and continue on her journey to adulthood and have less moments where she would revert back into her childhood . The red sweater isn’t just a red sweater but it symbolizes the test that could potentially stop us from maturing. Once we have passed our red sweater then we may continue to explore the world while being on the road to maturity. Because the girl, whose name I think might be Rachel, failed the red sweater test and cried she had regressed back into her childhood making it seem that the journey of her maturity was almost nonexistent. She went back to the time where she was three and sat and cried in front of her class. So now she must start over and prep herself to find the road to maturity and begin again. This ending shows that when we, as people, fail our red sweater test we must start over again , kind of like going from that childhood moment and starting again.

Under the ice

"Krogstad: under the ice perhaps? Down into that cold, black water? Then spring comes and you float up again hideous, can't be identified, hair all gone (1206)." there is a period of time where everyone seems to be the most important, where they are noticed by either masses of people, a few people, or just one person but still they are noticed. Nora is noticed for being the doll, the quite woman who is to be seen and not heard. She plays the role very well. The realm in which she lives in is the dollhouse and there is nothing in there that separates her, nothing that other woman will see as right for a woman in her day.so she sinks back farther into the dollhouse and when it comes time for the rebirth (the spring).  To happen then we grow and change into our mature selves but by then no one cares who or what we are.
"Nora: well there are people you love, and people you'd rather be with (1203)." nora doesn't love Torvald, but can we necessarily say that she loves rank either? She is doing what her father has taught her is best for herself financially. From one rich guy and handed straight to another. But Nora wants someone who really understands her, listens to what she needs and she knows that she can't get that from Torvald because they have never really talked, never gotten to understand each other. She is saying that in this time people don't end up with the people they love, they end with the people who it is most confident and who society will approve of with disregards to actual love and  love, feeling and emotions.
The characters in a A Doll House   by Henrik Ibsen are hard to understand at first you think that everyone acts one way or their personality is one way but it turns out it really isn't. Originally you think that Nora is naive and innocent, that she can't seem to do anything real but please her husband, but then you find out that she has this huge secret and it turns out she is a lot sneaker and deceptive then you had originally anticipated. The plot, I believe, was centered around The Wonderful and that Nora really wanted to get out if the dollhouse from a long time ago but she couldn't. Secretly everyone wants The Wonderful but not like Nora did. She knew that eventually the secret would come out her hope was that when it did, Torvald would stand and and try and take the blame for everything and then she would let everyone know that it was really her and Torvald was just trying to take the fall for it, soon she wouldn't be able to handle the burden so she would kill herself. Most females want the security of knowing that the person their with will throw themselves into the raging fire tin order to douse the flames that she has so created. Also tthere is the setting, the fact that the play takes place over three days coincides with the birth, the life and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This play is also broken up into three scenes, which we see three different sides of Nora. In the first scene we see the doting and loving and following side of Nora, the wife who does whatever her husband tells her to and only and answers to him. In the second act we see Nora as nervous, she has told Kristine her secret and now she knows it is only a matter of time before everyone else finds out about it. She is frantic in trying to keep Torvald in the dark about the secret, as to not lead to the breakdown of the dollhouse. But she is hoping and praying that when the secret does come out the wonderful will happen. Then in the third act she is almost indifferent  like she knows the inevitable will happen and is going to happen. She knows she must leave to find herself and explore the world.

What's so wonderful?

I am unsure of how exactly I feel about Nora and Torvald in "A Doll House" by Henrik Ibsen . In this play Ibsen exploits the  true dynamic of a family. He uses the Helmers to show the audience how superficial and appearance based one family is, but how their "doll house" is slowly breaking down. Throughout the play I've noticed a few things for one thing the dollhouse itself. In a way the dollhouse reminds me of a glass house in that it is delicate and fragile. For the Helmers  the dollhouse is a game of pretend with Torvald being the owner and Nora as the doll. The pretend that what they have is real so others will think what they have is beautiful and be envious of their happiness. Torvald likes to show Nora off as his carefully made up doll, in which he controls and she will follow his lead. This idea of the dollhouse as the glasshouse is that the dollhouse must be kept beautiful, free of debt, and pure for that is what makes a perfect home, not loyalty, honesty, and love. But imagine a glasshouse; it's one of those things that if set up correctly it is beautiful to look at and looks as though it has been so carefully thought out that you don't want destroy it. But there's a problem with a glasshouse it's contents are completely visible to everyone, there are no secrets. Also as perfectly and carefully as it has been designed it takes one sharp enough thing from the outside to strike it at the right spot then the whole glasshouse comes down, and we know that broken glass is painful. So when this house breaks down everyone inside is affected. Let me take the whole glasshouse metaphor and apply that to dollhouse. Torvald prides himself that his home is debt-free, because he says that a beautiful home is not beautiful if it is not free. He has built thus house to be completely superficial to give the presence of something real. For those who look at the Helmer's home they see a very loving home, children, and two madly in love parents but it's all an act. Then there is Kristine and Krogstad, who can see the truth. They see the disconnect that lies inside the dollhouse, they see the lack of understanding between man and wife, but they are outsiders. They don't fit in with the dollhouse. The
letter  Krogstad leaves in the mailbox is the rock that hits the glasshouse. Once Torvald reads the note, and realizes how Nora has committed forgery everything has changed. And now the glasshouse is breaking affecting Torvald , Nora and the kids in the process. This is where the idea of the wonderful is supposed to kick in. The wonderful is the response Nora thought Torvald was going to have once he found out what she did. She thought he would take the blame for her actions and handle the situation and she,in turn, would not let him then she would've killed herself , but they would have developed a true family. But that's not what happens at all. Torvald realizes he will have succumb to Krogstads threat . Nora can't believe this and eventually leaves.

Paper oh paper, what have I done wrong?

So in my paper about the short story “Fiesta” I understand what I did wrong and how I can better improve my paper. First thing is that i need to improve on my academic voice. One thing I struggle with when I am writing a paper is I want it to be as relatable as possible; I want people to feel as though they have really connected with me through my paper, as if they have heard my voice. That is not necessarily a bad thing but what is bad about that is that when I try to make my paper easier to relate to I lose my academic voice, I’m no longer identifying the characters by their names, but I start saying kid or people. When I depersonalize my characters makes my paper less academic. Secondly I tend to go off on tangents; when I make a thesis that is the idea or thought or argument I plan on writing my paper on. When I actually start writing my paper the paragraph normally falls right along with the thesis statement, but in this paper I start to fall away from the thesis. I think that in this particular paper my thesis is not strong enough to cover what it is that I am trying to prove in my paper. Then there are my grammatical errors; not ending quotes the way they should be ended and putting commas in the right place which stem from the lack of proofreading my essay before it gets turned in. Another issue is when I made a claim then went on to try and incorporate my quotation to support my claim rather than completely dissecting that quotation so that it fit into my claim and supported the thesis I more summarized what was happening in the story around that quotation rather than analyzing how that quotation fits into my paper based off of the literary element that I was supposed to be talking about.  Summarizing is OK to point but it should just be adding detail to my claim rather than fully explaining. So I really need to focus on analyzing the text. Not just analyzing though but working on including more text support. I think that when I am actually discussing a novel or short story in a seminar I use more text support and dissect the text more than when I am actually writing a paper about the novel or short story because sometimes I feel like I am using so much text that my whole paper is the novel rather than the dissection. I need to work on balancing using the text and dissecting the text. The last thing that Mrs. Clinch pointed out in my paper was to watch for awkward and wordy constructions; what I have noticed in this paper is that my sentences are either too long or awkwardly put together, I need to work on clearly organizing each sentence, shorten them add in commas, colons, semicolons, etc. by being more concise in my sentence I will be able to better produce stronger, clearer papers.

Who are ya dude?

Most of what I write is me fighting with myself on different issues such as themes, imagery, symbolism, or reoccurring motifs that I have noticed in the novels we have been reading in class. They are normally based off of ideas and discussions that we have in class or something that I’ve discussed in a group that I really want to elaborate on. This post won’t be that different but there are two different things I want to discuss in this blog; what I have noticed so far and what I have read of All the King’s Men by Robert Penn Warren up until this point and my college essays (since that is something that is really important right now).

Firstly who is the king and who are all his men? This would sound like a stupid question but when you really think about it, it makes you wonder. So far I have gathered that this book is about a politician, Willie Stark, he already has the title of “The Boss” but where would he get the name “The King?” Then that leads to another question; who are all his men? Would that mean be people such as Jack and the rest of the posse? Why, because they are Willie Stark? They are his every decision, his every political move, his every statement, wardrobe, they are his source and friend. They are what make Willie, Willie. But then i suppose that kind of makes sense, a king is more of a representative symbol then an actual person of influence. I’m not saying that they aren’t influential just not nearly as influential as a president. The thing about kings is that they think they are in control like they are the puppeteers but really they are the puppets.  Then there is the whole thing about Jacks relationship with his mom. Well I for one thing that it’s a tad creepy. There’s no way that a woman of her age, should get excited like an innocent little girl when her son comes home. It’s weird. Then the couch scene when Jack’s head is in her lap and she is rubbing his face, I connected that to the end of the chapter where they are talking about Lucy and how she wanted to hold Tom back, I think that deep down Jack’s mom is trying to hold Jack back so that he can be in the position of lover whenever she is in-between lovers. Lastly you start to wonder how important Jack is. Who is he really? For someone who was working on his PHD how did he end up underneath serving someone like Willie? I just wonder so much about Jack.

Now college, they ask you all these hypothetical questions where you have to write your response in 32,000 characters. Some of the questions ask you to tell those more about yourself and your unsure as to which angle you should take. Do you say too much? Is what I have already said enough? Too informative?Did I give enough details? That’s the kind of essay I’m writing and I know I want it to be moving but I don’t quite know how to go about that without feeling like I have shared too much. Food for thought I suppose.

Reality vs fantasy.......or not

In what I have read of All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren, which only two chapters (so far), there is this theme of reality vs. fantasy. The narrator of the story,  Jack Burden, seems to be traveling between these two worlds that are both fantasy and what's actually happening as he sets the scene of what is currently going and by going backwards to explain how the current events came to be. But Jack isn't the only one who bounces between the two worlds; the main character, Willie Stark, seems to be also. But before I continue I'm going to veer from the topic a little to vent about the things I have noticed about this book; firstly Warren introduces the main character and the minor characters but as you continue reading, you realize that the main character and the narrator are two different people, now that isnt that unusual but in the way that Warren writes this novel it just sounds a little weird. Secondly because you realize that narrator is a different person, there is a period of time where you're wondering who the main character is and why it's taking Warren so long to introduce him. Jack Burden thinks of himself as the wallpaper, the one who is constantly forgotten and the fact that Warren takes so long to introduce makes me feel as though Burden isn't as important to the story as the other characters , when he actually is. But i digress so anyways back to reality vs. fantasy. I see the theme as less of reality vs fantasy but more of real vs. fake. For Jack the life that he wished he had vs. the one he's lived and is living is the difference between real and fake. For example Jack says, "I was so much in love with her that I lived in a dream. In that dream my heart seemed to be ready to burst, for it seemed that the whole world was inside it swelling to get out and be the world. But that summer came to an end. Time passed and nothing happened that we had felt so certain at one time would happen (Warren 39-40)." In Jack's dreams ( the fantasy world) things between him and Anne  are perfect. She is no longer a little girl but now she has grow into a woman. But in this world both of their feelings run wild and then would meet at the same time , but in reality what was only a fling wont go to be anymore than that . In Burden's fantasy he is happy have his girlfriend but in the real world he doesn't have her because they don't last after that summer. then there is the idea of change in that when Jack returns back to Mason City everything is different than how he remembers it so that it really can't be real " they ain't real, I thought as I walked down the hall, nary one. But I knew they were. You come into a strange place , into a town like Mason City, and they don't seem real but you know they are (Warren 57)."  When Jack thinks about the town he thinks of the people , the people he sees now can't be real because they aren't the same people that he used to know, there's no way that they can be different even though it is common for the people of Mason city like that, in his fantasy world the people are different they are who they used to be. Then there is Willie Stark who is the Boss, his personality fits right in with real vs. fake. It's as if Stark is many different people; his fake side is when he is politician mode, he does whatever he can to appeal to the masses, to make them feel like there is some common ground between them. Even Lucy knows that this isn't his true self. But there is also his real self the self that isnt politician mode like when he is talking to Lucy, his pappy, or his posse. The way to notice the difference is in his voice,"In his old voice, his own voice. Or was that his voice? Which was his true voice, which one of all the voices, you would wonder (Warren 10)." his changes in his voice show the real self but also show the fake self. Most people who know can't decipher which one is real or which voice is fake. He uses so many different personalities that it's almost hard to tell who is Willie Stark reall.

Final thoughts

Since we are finishing up Winesburg, Ohio, I’ll just make this post about my final thoughts of Winesburg. Well to begin with I really did enjoy this book, well actually the book is a tad bit confusing but the discussions we have had based off the book helped me better understand the book, look at it in a different way but then at the same time I questioned more. It made me wonder how Anderson really intended for this book to be read. Did he want people to read it as if it were a collection of short stories that just seemed to be intertwined? Or as a novel and each of the short stories were just really flashbacks and a description of the people who were once young and innocent and then in a moment of their innocence, something came and disrupted them, causing them to become grotesques? Anderson allowed you to build a connection with these characters’ you weren’t angry at them, you pitied them. As I learned about Doctor Reefy, Elizabeth, Wing Biddlebaum, Tandy, Enoch, and Doctor Parcival, my heart opened up a little more because of their loneliness. With these people who are considered grotesques I think more about the people that I see every day. We all start off innocent, as a baby we are filled with excitement and amusement for the world and at the same time filled with youth and innocence.  But how many times do we see people that walk past us that may be dressed a little different, look a little different, act a little bit more dramatized, walk a little funny, or seem a little bit more out there? And what do we do? We judge them. We get an idea in our heads and that’s it, there is no stop to think that they might have some kind of story, one that would make us feel sorry for them and want to comfort them rather than poking fun at the things that we see is wrong in them. Winesburg, Ohio makes me consider how many of us are really grotesque; it’s as if Anderson has created this guide for us to ultimately recognize that in a way we are all grotesque and that we are no better than the woman on the street who tries to dress like her daughter. The structure of the work had me reconsidering what it means for a text to be a novel vs. a short story; here the lines blur a bit, and I was a little unsure. But concluded that it is a slight combination of both in that , each short story is a chapter that is part of the “The Book of the Grotesque”, but that also each of the “chapters” could stand alone and tell their own story. I related it to the structure of the bible and how it is one story that is the Bible but within in the overall collection of the bible there are little stories inside it , that make up chapters that can stand alone.

Is he the Philosopher?

Doctor Parcival is a confused man. There is a lot in "The Philosopher" that seems to contradict each other. The chapter starts off with Parcival being described as "a large man with a drooping mouth covered by a drooping mustache. He always wore a dirty white waistcoat, out of the pockets of which protruded a number of the kind of black cigars known as stories" (Anderson 34). From this passage Anderson shws how Parcival cannot take care of himself but when he is with George he finds ways to relate to him , by telling long stories about himself. There are some insecurities within Parcival where he needs someone to listen to him, to believe in everything he says, and to take him seriously. He finds this in George, someone who will actually believe in him. Especially someone like George, who is the reporter for the town and can get other people to listen to what Parcival says. Parcival's priorities are a little bit hazy because his book is the most important thing to him, while he is Winesburg, rather than his practice of being a doctor. But strangely Parcival is supposedly a doctor and yet the chapter is called "The Philosopher". Anderson contradicts Parcival when talking about his book because Paricval's main point for his to book is to let everyone know that we are all Christ therefore we are all crucified . But he himself  joins into the unchristian society when he refuses to go and help the girl who died because she fell from the stagecoach. He becomes paranoid because he thinks it will become known by the town and they will all whisper about it until they all join together and form a mob to run him out of town. In reality no one notices that he didn't come to help but he tells George that they will come soon, if not now later down the road. I am confused by the fact of whether or not he is considered a grotesque. Anderson describes the grotestque as distorted and unsure and Parcival reveals himself to be very insecure , and these insecurities allow him to not be able to live the life that he intended on living. One thing I really questioned about Parcival was his family. His father went to an asylum and his brother was a railroad painter and brought in the money for him , Parcival and his mother. His brother was a drunk who would make the money and tell him and his mother they couldn't touch, then he would go spend it all , and make up to his family by sending them gifts. Through this he still considered his brother a "superior being" and he tell George that he want him to be just like his brother. In what ways does he mean? Selfish and uncaring of others? Or the ultimate man, who makes money and takes care of the family without really being there? What is it he sees in his brother that he believes makes him superior ?

The philosopher

For the most part Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson is a pretty weird book; there are a lot of characters to remember and a lot of different things that happen to them that make them all eventually tie in with each other. In a way most of these characters are grotesque. The actual meaning of the word grotesque is marked by ludicrous or incongruous; distortion; outlandish or bizarre. Anderson takes from that and describes all the people the writer had ever met as grotesque. Not that they were horrible people but because each person had a truth about them and they took up another truth that basically wasn’t theirs. With this in mind I think of Doctor Parcival. He’s one guy who’s a fire short a couple of sticks. To begin things one of the first pictures you have of him is dirty blackened and yellowed, just untidy. It’s actually really gross because I think at some point some crazy lady goes away with him, although why I will never know… but I digress. So anyways Doctor Parcival develops this thing for George, for a collection of short stories that seem to be completely different he definitely shows up a lot, which I wonder is it a fondness that he has taken with Willard, some kind of admiration, like one would admire a son or child? Or is it something more serious like love or lust? Does he relate to Biddlebaum who never openly says that he has a liking for boys but suggests so when he says that he thinks of the little boy. George Willard is quite the stud though, he gets everybody. But back to Parcival who is trying to convince people that he is something he isn’t that he’s more advisable when in reality he’s not worth actually listening to. But what makes him a grotesque is the truth about him which is that the reason he moved from Chicago to Winesburg in the first place was not to write a book but because him and some other people killed a man then out him in a trunk. When he first arrives in Windeburg he and the baggeman get in a little fight over a trunk then in the next page he goes on the tell George about the men and the man they murdered which is interesting that Anderson put them on paged that are right next to each other and in relatively the same spot as if Anderson was trying to show how Parcival was contradicting himself. Everyone in the town knew he got in a fight over a trunk when he first arrived, and then on the second page he goes and tells this story which makes you automatically connect the dots and say that yes Parcival really killed this man so it’s like he is separating himself from his own actions by telling the story from a different perspective. I almost wonder why he set the particular part that way. Then there is the thing where the child had passed away and the town had called all the practicing doctors to come and check to see if the child was going to be ok but then they all say that she is dead but when Doctor Parcival was asked he said no then later was freaking out for inexplicable reasons about how the town would start whispering about how he didn’t come to help her and eventually they will find him and chase him out of town or hang him which sounds and awfully like another grotesque charcter, Wing Biddlebaum.