Conversations between characters and/or authorsLeonardo:
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Federico García Lorca Journal 2 (Com)
Compare how writers in your study have explored the themes of judgment and punishment, or disguise and deceit, or love and friendship, and with what effect.On Lorca I will discuss judgment and punishment and on Ibsen I will discuss disguise and deceit:
The Blood Wedding
Lorca explores the theme of judgment and punishment [] Lorca does this to the effect of []
The Wild Duck
Ibsen explores the theme of disguise and deceit [] Sophocles does this to the effect of []
IOP Journal 5
Difficulties:
Determining the significance of things. It was very difficult for me to settle on a topic because it felt like there were so many different directions that I could go. Thinking back on it now, it may be that my mind was just filled with ideas that did not necessarily fit with all of the text. It came to potential conclusions that could be supported by some text, yet shot down by others. I am glad for this process because it helped me to better realize that I should know more context for things. Although I love history and I love stories, remembering context can be strenuous. It had not occurred it me until recently (though it probably should have) that I could actually go online or read books that would give me an insight into Camus' life and his beliefs. I am a student who abhors putting words into other people's mouths, or trying to find meanings out of things that might or might not even have meaning. Upon reading some of his work, I have come to be more comfortable in making assertions on Camus' text. In analyzing a text, as with analyzing artwork, one can better appriciate/understand the authors intentions by understanding the author or artist's context. Their childhood growing up, the lifesyle they lived or other things that happened to them or during their lives. In doing this I have a better appriciation and understanding for why Wecker gives us context before we begin any of our World Lit plays. Although I am sadded by the quality of the context in that I wish there was more time to consolidate and let the information sink in.
Determining the significance of things. It was very difficult for me to settle on a topic because it felt like there were so many different directions that I could go. Thinking back on it now, it may be that my mind was just filled with ideas that did not necessarily fit with all of the text. It came to potential conclusions that could be supported by some text, yet shot down by others. I am glad for this process because it helped me to better realize that I should know more context for things. Although I love history and I love stories, remembering context can be strenuous. It had not occurred it me until recently (though it probably should have) that I could actually go online or read books that would give me an insight into Camus' life and his beliefs. I am a student who abhors putting words into other people's mouths, or trying to find meanings out of things that might or might not even have meaning. Upon reading some of his work, I have come to be more comfortable in making assertions on Camus' text. In analyzing a text, as with analyzing artwork, one can better appriciate/understand the authors intentions by understanding the author or artist's context. Their childhood growing up, the lifesyle they lived or other things that happened to them or during their lives. In doing this I have a better appriciation and understanding for why Wecker gives us context before we begin any of our World Lit plays. Although I am sadded by the quality of the context in that I wish there was more time to consolidate and let the information sink in.
IOP Journal 4
Techniques &&Stuff:
Thesis: Albert Camus’ The Stranger depicts his absurdist view. Through the use of structure and paralleled concepts Camus portrays that “the absurd is not in man nor in the world but in their presence together”Through the text the reader should be able to come to the conclusion that there can still be meaning in life and that one can still achieve happiness by embracing the absurdist view.
Thesis: Albert Camus’ The Stranger depicts his absurdist view. Through the use of structure and paralleled concepts Camus portrays that “the absurd is not in man nor in the world but in their presence together”Through the text the reader should be able to come to the conclusion that there can still be meaning in life and that one can still achieve happiness by embracing the absurdist view.
Why. Is a verrry broad question.
4) Parallels in the his name
Nevermind. I am not looking to this because there are too many potential variations.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Federico García Lorca Journal 1 (Dis)
Stylistic techniques (imagery, figurative language, sensory detail)
Motif -
Imagery -
IOP Journal 3
IOP Date: (Wednesday) May 19
IOP Novel & Topic: The Stranger & Society v. Individual
Thesis: TBA
To better structure myself, during this process of working on my IOP, I shall use this (journal 3) to talk on my presentation, I'll use journal 4 to talk on parallels that I find in the text, and I shall use journal 5 to express my difficulties in the process of my IOP.
Rather then talking in front of the class for 10-15 minutes or having a PP, the techniques that I will use my presentation shall include T charts of parallels. My first point will be on the structure that Camus chooses in making a part one and a part two. The first T chart will be why Camus chose to create two parts and on the parallels in part one and part two. The second T chart will be the parallels between Meursault himself. Essentially, his growth.
My presentation will be broken into 3 parts.
1) Establishing context for the structure of the novel. What is the significance of part one? What is the significance of part two? Determine the parallels that create that significance.
2) Establish context for Meursault's growth. Determine the parallels that demonstrate his growth.
3) Ask why should any of this matter. What significance does the creation of the two parts have on me as an individual? What should I get from the text? Anyone who knows me knows that I have difficulty putting opinions on anything or making assertions. I realize that part of the reason why I don't feel that I have the qualifications to have certain opinions or make certain assertions is because I know that there are things that I do not know. So I am beginning to think of the context that Camus was in when he wrote his novel. Having gone through World War 2, (in his biography) Camus writes that many people had the believe that life was merely just existing and that it really had no rational or redeeming meaning. People had to believe in this in order for them to accept all of the deaths that were happening around them. I guess in a way Meursault is like a soldier. In killing the Arab and to have no emotion or thought involved, Meursault was perfect in that he treated life as merely just exisiting. I see that I have gone off a little from my tracks. Basically my 3rd point would be to express my difficultly in trying to make an accurate analysis without context.
I may choose to ask the class to express their beliefs on the meaing of life. Or an individual's purpose in life. If the class thinks that there is meaning to it. And take their answer and put it into comparison with Camus' context. Through the use of Meursault Camus can express to us the mindset of an individal who lived in the war times of WWII. I will make the connection that it almost makes it difficult for many of "us" (people in present day America) to feel empathy toward a character like Meursault because we don't the mindset of those in wartimes. We don't understand as well the need to cope with death because we do not feel it all around us as obvious as people living in WWII. This will transition me into my last point which is that
4) I will go back to how Camus structures his novel into two parts. I will say that he establishes the 1st to give the reader an insight into Meursault's character (an invdivual level) and he established a 2nd to give the reader an insight into the judgement of society on Meursault's character (a societal levlel ). Through Meursault we can see an indivudal with absurdist views who (at the beginning; part 1) does not yet understand his views. He just understands why he does not have other views (his loss of ambition). Then at the end, for a brief moment (beginning of part 2) has in inkling of humanity -is able to be like the rest of his community by looking to the past and future and potentially seeing value, creating one's one meaning- but after that brief moment, goes back to his orginal train of thought -which was the there was no value to things, that life is just existing- and is able to embrace his death in the end (end of part 2). Basically Camus creates these parallels to contrast the absurtist idea to what one might call a (for lack of better wording) "moral" idea (what the society believes as right and good, that there is reason/purpose).
IOP Novel & Topic: The Stranger & Society v. Individual
Thesis: TBA
To better structure myself, during this process of working on my IOP, I shall use this (journal 3) to talk on my presentation, I'll use journal 4 to talk on parallels that I find in the text, and I shall use journal 5 to express my difficulties in the process of my IOP.
Rather then talking in front of the class for 10-15 minutes or having a PP, the techniques that I will use my presentation shall include T charts of parallels. My first point will be on the structure that Camus chooses in making a part one and a part two. The first T chart will be why Camus chose to create two parts and on the parallels in part one and part two. The second T chart will be the parallels between Meursault himself. Essentially, his growth.
My presentation will be broken into 3 parts.
1) Establishing context for the structure of the novel. What is the significance of part one? What is the significance of part two? Determine the parallels that create that significance.
2) Establish context for Meursault's growth. Determine the parallels that demonstrate his growth.
3) Ask why should any of this matter. What significance does the creation of the two parts have on me as an individual? What should I get from the text? Anyone who knows me knows that I have difficulty putting opinions on anything or making assertions. I realize that part of the reason why I don't feel that I have the qualifications to have certain opinions or make certain assertions is because I know that there are things that I do not know. So I am beginning to think of the context that Camus was in when he wrote his novel. Having gone through World War 2, (in his biography) Camus writes that many people had the believe that life was merely just existing and that it really had no rational or redeeming meaning. People had to believe in this in order for them to accept all of the deaths that were happening around them. I guess in a way Meursault is like a soldier. In killing the Arab and to have no emotion or thought involved, Meursault was perfect in that he treated life as merely just exisiting. I see that I have gone off a little from my tracks. Basically my 3rd point would be to express my difficultly in trying to make an accurate analysis without context.
I may choose to ask the class to express their beliefs on the meaing of life. Or an individual's purpose in life. If the class thinks that there is meaning to it. And take their answer and put it into comparison with Camus' context. Through the use of Meursault Camus can express to us the mindset of an individal who lived in the war times of WWII. I will make the connection that it almost makes it difficult for many of "us" (people in present day America) to feel empathy toward a character like Meursault because we don't the mindset of those in wartimes. We don't understand as well the need to cope with death because we do not feel it all around us as obvious as people living in WWII. This will transition me into my last point which is that
4) I will go back to how Camus structures his novel into two parts. I will say that he establishes the 1st to give the reader an insight into Meursault's character (an invdivual level) and he established a 2nd to give the reader an insight into the judgement of society on Meursault's character (a societal levlel ). Through Meursault we can see an indivudal with absurdist views who (at the beginning; part 1) does not yet understand his views. He just understands why he does not have other views (his loss of ambition). Then at the end, for a brief moment (beginning of part 2) has in inkling of humanity -is able to be like the rest of his community by looking to the past and future and potentially seeing value, creating one's one meaning- but after that brief moment, goes back to his orginal train of thought -which was the there was no value to things, that life is just existing- and is able to embrace his death in the end (end of part 2). Basically Camus creates these parallels to contrast the absurtist idea to what one might call a (for lack of better wording) "moral" idea (what the society believes as right and good, that there is reason/purpose).
Sunday, May 16, 2010
IOP Journal 2
IOP Date: (Wednesday) May 19 [3 days away. Also when point recovery for commentary is due]
IOP Novel & Topic: The Stranger & Society v. Individual
Thesis: TBA
*People are often afraid of what they don't understand. Things are out of one's comfort zone are (duh) not comforting. The establishment of one's comfort zone stems from society & its rules/guidelines. It then branches out to how one interacts with actual individuals in a society (though it must be noted that those other individuals have also felt society & its rules/guideline to as much of an extent as one has, therefore those who are not at least majorly like society & its rules/guidelines are deemed to be not of the comfort zone, and essentially: strangers)
IOP Novel & Topic: The Stranger & Society v. Individual
Thesis: TBA
- I found my copy of The Stranger by Albert Camus
- Presentation points to cover:
- Introduce thesis concept
- Introduce different characters who help to emphasis thesis: Meursault, Maman, Salamando, Marie, Raymond.. (Perhaps may only do Meursault, Salamando & Marie/Raymond. Maybe even just Meursault & Salamando)
- Explain the significance of the particular character to the text
- Analysis of significance to real life
- Connections of society rules from text to real life
- Real life application to how individuals lives their lives: How do we determine our morals? What makes them so significant that we should follow them? Essentially, why do we do what we do?
- Leads to bigger question: Should it matter? ("it" being reasons behind our decisions; this question only rising if one believes that what society wants is more powerful then what the individual wants)
- In regards to: passages that would support my main points, I need to first settle on which characters I want to focus on. I'm thinking (due to time) I may just do Meursault (how he is effected by his society, how he reacts to those in his society, how he deals with the loss of this mother) & Salamando (how he is effected by his society, how he reacts to those in his society, how he deals with the loss of his dog)
- On how I want to present my topic: I want something visual (but PPs can get redundant), I don't want to just stand there with notecards and talk (or even without notecards, I don't want to just talk), interation with the audience would be nice. So here's what I think I'll do:
- A T-Chart transparancy of Meursault and Salamando
- I will read specific passages pertaining to the text
- When I am done with explaining Meursault/Salamando, done developing the impact of socety rules in the text, then I will move onto the application to real life
- To do this I will attempt a discussion by asking simple questions (like the ones in italics above), eventually this will lead to questioning how much our society impacts who we are, and how questioning this can impact how we treat ourselves as well as others in our society (ambition, Meursault's boss, Paris, relationships)
*People are often afraid of what they don't understand. Things are out of one's comfort zone are (duh) not comforting. The establishment of one's comfort zone stems from society & its rules/guidelines. It then branches out to how one interacts with actual individuals in a society (though it must be noted that those other individuals have also felt society & its rules/guideline to as much of an extent as one has, therefore those who are not at least majorly like society & its rules/guidelines are deemed to be not of the comfort zone, and essentially: strangers)
Ibsen Journal 4 (Cre)
Reactions to specific situations by charactersAs Hedvig, this is my reaction to the specific situation that: I am no longer certain of where I am from and I no longer know if the man who I thought was my father even loves me.
I think I'll die from all this! That wild duck! It's brought more chaos into my home. But no.. no. It's not he duck's fault. Maybe it is mine. Ohh, mine alone. It will not matter if I shoot the duck. My father will never love me anymore. And shooting the duck won't make him love me. I don't even know who my real father is. This is all my fault. But maybe I can fix it. Maybe if I weren't born none of this would have happened. Maybe they would be better without me.
As Haakon Werle, this is my reaction to the specific situation that: I ruined my old partner Old Ekdal and his family
I must make amends for what i had done to Old Ekdal. The only way I know to do this is to become the Edkals provider. But they cannot know of the past. I cannot let Old Ekdal know what I had done with Gina. Things have gone too far along for me to fix that particular situation, but maybe I can help them out another way. This is the only way I know to show that I am sorry for my old ways. I can only do so much, it is up to them if they choose to accept my help (apology).
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Ibsen Journal 3 (Dis)
Themes and ideasThe Wild Duck. The wild duck is both a literal and metaphorical concept throughout the play.. TBC
Blindness. Because blindness is what I am tracking during this course, I have noted many areas in the play where the concept of blindness has occurred.. TBC
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Ibsen Journal 2 (Com)
A dramatist often creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know. With reference to at least two plays, discuss how and to what effect dramatists have used this technique.The dramatists: Sophocles and Ibsen, both create a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know through their own techniques.
In Oedipus, Sophocles is very obvious in his dramatic irony. By saying, "A dramatist often creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know" it is very blatantly referring to dramatic irony. Sophocles does this in the sense that he structures his play knowing that the audience/reader already knows the outcome of the story. Because of this knowledge and awareness of the audience/reader, it leaves Sophocles (the dramatist) with the challenge of creatively unfolding the story in a way that the reader/audience cannot always anticipate or in a way that reader/audience can be drawn in. Because the gap is already there, Sophocles reinforces the gap to widen by emphasizing and making obvious the dramatic irony. He makes statements that are so blatant yet off the radar that if a person who did not know of the story previously, the person would have just glanced over that portion of the reading. The effect of this is it brings more attention and focus on (not necessarily the plot or storyline, but) the significance, attitudes and reasons for particular scenes or characters.
In The Wild Duck, Ibsen also creates this gap between what the audience knows and what the character knows. He does this through his creation of an illusionary world. By illusionary world, it is meant that Gregers finds himself blind to the realities around him; the same goes for other characters as well. Gregers especially in the scenes where he has "claims of the ideal", and where he would like a life based on truth, yet we as the audience knows that the people (given their particular situations) often create these illusions to give purpose and meaning to their lives. As the audience, we know and understand (and can think objectively) about the situation (that is their particular lives). The effect is that it gives us a better understanding of the characters themselves. As well as an instight into what Ibsen may personally have on topics such as a person's purpose/meaning in life or what people do to sustaint themselves during their lives.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Ibsen Journal 1 (Com)
A writer usually attempts to create a bond of trust between writer and reader. How and to what extent have at least two writers you have studied been able to elicit your trust?In Oedipus, Sophocles was able to elicit my trust as the story progressed. He did this by tailoring his characters to portray a certain emotion, by eliciting particular effects through his usage of dialogue, as well as by the structure of his words. Sophocles was able to build this bond of trust to the extent that (seeing as the reader/audience already knew the outcome of the story) Sophocles had the challenge of creatively unfolding a story in the way so the reader/audience would still find enjoyment and that would put them in anticipation. In this sense, Sophocles achieved the reader's/audience's trust because I believe he masterfully accomplished planting anticipation and evoking particular emotions in the reader/audience.
In The Wild Duck, Ibsen is having a troubled time eliciting my trust. This may be due to the fact that I have not finished the story yet. Strangely enough, I find that I have more empathy toward Oedipus' character and his story and it almost feels like I do not have as much, if any, toward the families in The Wild Duck. Their story of money issues and familiy issues is not so much to my interest. The reader's/audience's interest is a heavy percentage of trust because if the reader is not interested, then the reader will not follow the storyline as well. This says a little (not a lot) about the author's ability to write. Rather, it says more specifically on their ability to capture the reader's/audience's attention at the beginning of the play. Though Ibsen has somewhat given me a reason (being that by Act 2 he has introduced the literal wild duck) I still find myself lacking interest and therefore still lacking a whole lot of trust in his work. But I guess we will see as the story progesses.
Question 2
(Goldilocks and the Three Bears)
Evaluate the role of Goldilocks and the significance of her being able to walk into the the Three Bears' house. Does that give any insight into the society back then?
Evaluate the role of Goldilocks and the significance of her being able to walk into the the Three Bears' house. Does that give any insight into the society back then?
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Sophocles Journal 4 (Cre)
Letters the characters might have written.
(From Jocasta -the queen, wife of Oedipus- to Oedipus)
My dear son,
I fear for you. Your future pains me. It is not because of what you are- my dear sweet child- but what you will become, that I must rid you of this life. Your life will be full of pains and I cannot bear to see that happen. At your birth Apollo told me you would shed your father's blood and make love to your mother. You are my greatest joy, but I cannot allow you to suffer how you will. But I am not strong enough. I cannot kill you with my own hands. I will give you to another. Let them do the deed. Your future will hold no joy that exceeds its pains, and for that I am frightened.
(From A Shepard to Apollo)
O Apollo!
The son of Laius was given to me by his wife. She told me to kill it. She was afraid of frieghtening prophecies. The prophecies told of this child who would kill his parents. But I cannot, cannot do it! I am conflicted. I fear for the child. Fear for what he will become. But I pity him. The poor little baby. Perhaps if I gave him to another man that man would take him off to his own country. Perhaps that would save this child from his fate. This child was born for pain. O Apollo, I hope by giving this child to another his pain will be spared!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Sophocles Journal 3 (Com)
Readers are attracted to moments of intensity in a writer's work. By what means and with what effect have writers in your study offered heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention?
A moment of intensity in Sophocles' work is when Oedipus finally comes to the revelation that Apollo's prophecy was true, that he did kill his father and that he did make love to his mother. Oedipus says: O god -all come true, all burst to light! O light -now let me look my last on you! I stand revealed at last -cursed in my birth, cursed in marriage, cursed in the lives I cut down with these hands! After saying this, Oedipus rushed through the doors with a great cry. The effect that Sophocles offers by this heightened emotional moment, is one of deep remorse and empathy. The audience/reader is able to feel for the protagonist because (through the usage of words like "curse") Oedipus' actions do not seem like his own. Rather, it portrays his actions as if it is not his fault for what he had done. This moment arrests the reader's attention because it draws together the cumulation of events collected by the reader throughout the work. It ties previous actions together and gives the audience/reader an understanding of Greek dramas which concentrate a lot of energy and power onto the protagonist (Oedipus).
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Sophocles Journal 2
Journal: How does the background information on Greek Theater and History inform your reading of Oedipus? Use specific examples to explore the connections between context and content.
Especially because I got (packet #3) the Sophocles reading I have a clearer understanding of Sophocles as a man and as a poet. For example, the reading mentioned how his tragedies are "never ruffled by the intrusion of contemporary politics" and that "it would be impossible, in any of his extant dramas, to point to a s single passage which can be regarded as a direct allusion to passing events" In that sense, one would come to think of Sophocles' tragedies as timeless or ageless because their maxims are "of the most general description" and therefore do not reflect particular belief systems (concerning politics) in his works that are unique to only his time period.
I feel that the way Sophocles weaves his words helps to make his concepts more susceptible to the reader. This is done in a very obvious manner with the way Sophocles' chooses his words. For example, when Creon asks (few after line 695): What do you want? You want me banished? And then to which Oedipus replies (on the line after): No, I want you dead. This is a short but concise example of the way Sophocles chooses his words very precisely to convey the character of Oedipus. Being that he is the protagonist (principle character) all of the energy and power of this play is focused on him. His words are very prompt and the way characters describe him are also very point blank. On page 193 there is a very long monologue (that I will not type out) which describes and puts even more energy on to Oedipus.
On females- Another thing I learned from the Greek Theater and History was that there were no female actors and therefore the roles of females in plays would be performed my males. When Jocasta (queen, &wife of Oedipus) was first introduced in what I read earlier, I could not help but imagine a male figure playing her role. It was an interesting sight.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Sophocles Journal 1 (Dis)
PoV/Characters: From whose pov is the story told? Does this change? How reliable is the narrative voice?How well does the reader get to know the characters? How credible are they? How are they presented? How does the reader persuade us to like/sympathize with some characters and dislike others?
From whose pov is the story told? Since the format of the story is meant for an audience (being that it is a play), there is not a definitive "point of view". Rather, the only povs that the author elicts comes from presenting a scene and having the cognition of the audience run wild with their own understanding. Because Sophocles was meant for an audience who already knew the story of Oedipus that factors into the cognitive process.
Does this change? It does not change that (a) character(s) would act out a scene and the audience would view this process.
How reliable is the narrative voice? Currently, I do not think there is a narrative voice. Although, it any, it may be he chorus. And in terms of if the chorus is reliable, the chorus is the overall people of the community and so I don't believe they are that reliable because they have their own special bias to their community. Rather then what factually happened, there is a lot of focus on the "gods".
How well does the reader get to know the characters? I am under the impression that Sophocles wrote under the impression that the readers already knew the story of Odeipus(?) In terms of what I have read so far (using my knowlege from what I remember hearing in class) there is a LOT of irony/ blatant words that if taken literally actually mean what they say. Yet those blantant words (if one did not know the story) would be glossed over the first time reading through the play.
How credible are they? How are they presented? I will just focus on the characters: Oedipus, the king of Thebes & Tiresias, the blind prophet. Basically from pages 177-184, there is this scene with just the two of them where Oedipus wants to know who the murder of the last king is and Tiresias knows but intially does not want to say but then he does say but Oedipus does not believe the prophet anymore because he does not like the answer (that the prophet called him the murderer) If a reader already knew the conclusion of the play the reader would immediately catch on to the unreliablity of characters like Oedipus (who rejects the answer he does not understand) and the reliablilty of characters like Tiresias (who may be blind -though that blindness might enhance his credibility- but whose sole purpose to know truth and to speak truth)
How does the writter persuade us to like/sympathize with some characters and dislike others? Sophocles persuades the reader to sympathize with some characters by using others as a contrast. Such as with Odeipus and Tiresias, Oedipus is portrayed in this very powerful and almost ignorant manner; whereas Tiresias is portrayed also very resolute in his actions with this passive aggression. Both have very strong personalities, which serves to enhance and contrast certain qualities that each has. Depending on the audience, the reader may like or dislike a certain character for those reasons.
[Personally] I really enjoyed reading this poem. I like that I already knew what the conclusion was going to be, and so I was able to better pick up on topics that I would have generally glanced over.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
