Ain´t about the money
Honey honey
Let´s runaway for the day
I got you under my skin
Last night I let the party get the best of me
Can barely stand on my feet
I´m upside down, bouncing off the ceiling
I got a feeling
Sexual heeling
Young money democrat
Tell me where have you been
All I do is win
That´s how it´s ´sposed to be
lunes, 16 de mayo de 2011
miércoles, 27 de abril de 2011
Searching
In his poem “Fog”, Carl Sandburg uses enjambment and personification to create the effect of fog. He makes it seem more real by saying “it sits looking” and “comes on little cat feet”. The poem has a nonchalant tone to emphasize again, how the fog casually passes by. Diction serves the same purpose. The use of casual words help to create the fog-like feeling.
In the poem “Constantly Risking Absurdity” Ferlinghetti juxtaposes a poet and an acrobat. Time imagery along with a nonchalant but yet exciting tone manages to represent the similarities between both. When he states “the poet like an acrobat”…. “Paces his way to the other side of day” he means that as time passes they both learn and finally get to the place close to perfection. The lack of punctuation and structure of the poem emphasize what the author is trying to transmit. The lines are in disorder as if they were swaging, just like the acrobat does on his ropes. And the lack of punctuation show the continuation and flow.
The poem In a Station of the Metro by Ezra Pound has an optimistic tone that demonstrates the unexpected beauty of nature in the city. There is an analogy since Pound compares nature to the city life while juxtaposing the “faces in the crowd” with the “petals on a wet black bough”. The word apparition applies to both of these and although they are being compared, the word unites them. And it shows how nature and the city can be similar.
*I have the first three and the other two timed writings hand written.*
lunes, 11 de abril de 2011
Milkman´s Tale
Song of Solomon tells a tale
About a guy whose name went with pale.
He had two sisters and a mother
Who left him without a brother.
It was said that he was born with wings
Of course we all know there´s no such thing.
He´s real name is Macon
And no, he doesn’t like bacon.
They all call him Milkman
Because of his mother´s game plan.
While searching for gold
Found out that Circe was very old.
At the end of his journey there was no gold
And realized there was a story untold.
Now he wanted to know his family history
Which everyone knew was a true mystery.
His trip was a way to escape his past
But he went back to that real fast.
Following the steps of his great-grand-father
He left Hagar without a lover.
And what does this have to do with flight? Morrison says:
“If you surrender to air you could ride it” (337).
That way Milkman lets go
And decides to grow.
About a guy whose name went with pale.
He had two sisters and a mother
Who left him without a brother.
It was said that he was born with wings
Of course we all know there´s no such thing.
He´s real name is Macon
And no, he doesn’t like bacon.
They all call him Milkman
Because of his mother´s game plan.
While searching for gold
Found out that Circe was very old.
At the end of his journey there was no gold
And realized there was a story untold.
Now he wanted to know his family history
Which everyone knew was a true mystery.
His trip was a way to escape his past
But he went back to that real fast.
Following the steps of his great-grand-father
He left Hagar without a lover.
And what does this have to do with flight? Morrison says:
“If you surrender to air you could ride it” (337).
That way Milkman lets go
And decides to grow.
jueves, 7 de abril de 2011
Toni Morrison
When I started reading Song of Solomon there were a few questions I wanted to ask Toni Morrison. I kept those questions in mind. On Monday, when I opened the blog page to see my assignment for the week I was surprised to see we had to watch an interview with Toni Morrison. Before watching it I thought to myself that probably my doubts would be all cleared up.
The first thing I saw made me a little confused. Below the video window a sign appeared and said: “a conversation with author Toni Morrison about her book A Mercy” I though it was going to be an interview about the book I was reading but I watched it anyway.
Even though she talks about a different book Morrison shares a lot about her writing in general, what she does before writing a novel, what´s most important to her, and she connects with the characters. I realized that Morrison (and I think other authors as well) don’t just have an idea and write about it, they do research because “you can´t say anything unless you know what was there” (minute 2:39). After talking a little about her other book she talks about slavery, “when everybody was for sale and for rent” (minute 3:24). Morrison mentions that her books, Beloved as well as her new novel talk about African American people. What vary are the story and the characters. She tries to portray new characters in each of them to reveal a different aspect of an African American life. This is the same for Song of Solomon. She narrates the story of a black family and how they suffer. She shares each characters thoughts so that the reader can understand them they way he or she wants. Morrison shares with us that she does not describe her characters that much because she does not want the reader to see them as she does. She wants to reader to connect to them and with that understand the character and role he or she plays in the novel.
Later on Morrison says :”everybody changes, all the time”. As I mentioned before characters are very important throughout her novel and the change their characters experience too. She compares that change to the one of a country because by changing they not only affect themselves but also their surroundings. When Macon Dead decided to become an arrogant complex man he was affecting his wife and his children. In the same way, Ruth´s attachment to her father hurts Macon. And as they learn new things and remember the past they change and make the relationship they have with others also change.
One of my main questions, was why did Morrison starts her book with Mr. Smith´s anecdote. Charlie Rose asks Morrison if she always starts her book with a question, and she yes. They discuss the “I wonder who, I wonder what, and I wonder what if” (minute 20:42). But then they both agree that why is the best. What happened to Mr. Smith is not exactly a question but by beginning her novel with that and then moving on to talk about the Dead family she creates doubt and the readers or at least myself asked why. Why would Morrison do that? She never relates Mr. Smith to the other characters but what happened to him is related with the other characters. He was able to express himself and think that he can fly. That is contrasted with the other character´s problems. All of them are fighting against something and its that something from their past that make the miserable while Mr. Smith was able to overcome that. Some of them like Guitar try to find something were they can release their anger and try to understand what is bothering him, that is why he decided to kill whites but still and Milkman knows for example that he is not cured, something still bothers him.
At the end Rise mentions president Obama. Since everything that Morrison has written has something to do with race Rose ask her how she feels. She says that Obama is a special case he is “that African American”. What Morrison portrays in her novel is the fear the characters experience due to racism and how they live because of it. This has changed know and she sets Obama as the example to show that they are not scared anymore.
Although the interview was not about the book I was reading I really liked Morrison’s honesty. By sharing with the reading what she does before every one and why she chooses the characters the way he does makes me see the novel in a different way. After watching the interview some point of why she writes about what she writes is also clear.
jueves, 31 de marzo de 2011
Complicated Relationships
My mother has always told me relationships are hard. I never believed that, when I was younger it seemed pretty easy to relate with people. You would hang out with someone if you had fun with him or her and supposedly all your family loves you and is there to help you. As I grew older I realized my mother was right. And I figured out that relationships are hard because people are complicated. When I was in seventh grade I had my first big fight with my best friend. We tried to fix it but neither of us ever got the bottom of the problem and I think she still has some resentment today, 4 years later. We tend to over react and make our self he victim no matter and the situation. With my family things happened differently. My mother has two brothers and one sister and I could have sworn they had a great relationship until I came home and found my mother crying. I´m not going to tell all the details but the main pint is that relationships are hard and learning to cope with people is also hard.
In chapter two of Song of Solomon Morrison continues to talk about the Dead family. We learned in chapter one that Macon Dead Jr. is a complicated man. He hates his wife and is obsessed with money. From these two chapters we can assume that the novel is going to include various situations where relationships are important. In my opinion they define the characters. Morrison never states a clear reason for the hatred that Macon feels towards his wife. Knowing what we know about him, he may feel that because of complex of inferiority. He finally gained power and was able to “approach the most important Negro in the city” (22). Although he overcame his difficulty he did not like the idea that his wife was, in a way, better than him.
I can´t really say anything about the relationship with his daughters yet. But further into the chapter Morrison describes a father-son moment. Milkman had spent a whole afternoon in his aunt’s house even though his father does not permit it. When he found out he claims to his why he went and they get into a discussion, Milkman states that he feels “like a twelve-year old baby”(50). He asked his father if he was treated that way when his twelve and immediately Macon has a flashback to his youth and tells Milkman a story. “Macon paused and let a smile come on. He had not said any of this in many years.” (51). His son listens with attention because his father had never shared anything like that with him. “His voice sounded different to Milkman. Less hard, and his speech was different” (52). With this conversation, Morrison reveals a change in their relationship. We could se Macon softening a little bit. As he remembered what his childhood was like and how much he admired his father he wanted his son to feel that way about him. There may be some things he regret and does not want to make the same mistakes. He even tells his son that he´ll teach him to “own himself and other people too” (55). Macon becomes a little less complicated.
miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2011
Out Of The Ordinary
Book titles often call my attention. Every time I’m going to start a new book I make a picture in my head of what the book can be about based on its title. Most of the times I’m wrong, still I enjoying doing it because titles fascinate me. When I read the title of my new book: Song of Solomon nothing came to head. I was blank. So the only thing left to do was read.
After 40 minutes more or less I was done with the first thirty pages. And, unlike before there was a whole lot going through my head. Toni Morrison starts her novel with a note. A note left by the insurance agent and it said: "At 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday the 18th of February 1931, I will take off from Mercy and fly away on my own wings” (3). Already this makes the novel interesting. Why would Mr. Smith want to commit suicide? Was he trying to prove a point or was he just desperate with his life? My thoughts are that he was desperate and could not take it anymore because “none of them (people) suspected he had in it him” (9).
After Mr. Smith´s episode occurred, Morrison starts describing the family of a doctor. It was said that his wife and daughters lived a peaceful life but “it was not peaceful, for it was preceded by and would soon be terminated by the presence of Macon Dead” (10). We can guess then, that he is a complicated man because the family doesn’t enjoy his presence. Due to this we see his wife Ruth as a struggling character. Her husband feels hatred towards her and she can´t do anything but find comfort in a watermark. “Like a lighthouse keeper draw to his window to gaze once again at the sea” (11). It was something that made her feel secure and gave her tranquility because somehow she knew it was hers. Another thing that helped her escape from harsh reality was breastfeeding her son. He was old enough for that still, “she felt him. His restraint, his courtesy, his indifference, all of which pushed her into fantasy” (13).
Characters and their names are unique in the novel. Morrison portrays each of them with they struggle that they have. Macon hates his family and it addicted to wealth. Ruth struggles because of her husband. Pilate his sister has a name that makes allusion to the bible. And she struggles with the fact that she lost her mother and her life is a mess, “she had no electricity because she would not pay for the service” (27).
Up to know the description of the family and the individual characters give clues that the novel is going to be about struggles. It is placed in a time where racisms was present reinforcing the suffering that the characters may have. I will continue reading to see what happens with all of them but definitely my first impression of the novel is that it´s out of the ordinary.
After 40 minutes more or less I was done with the first thirty pages. And, unlike before there was a whole lot going through my head. Toni Morrison starts her novel with a note. A note left by the insurance agent and it said: "At 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday the 18th of February 1931, I will take off from Mercy and fly away on my own wings” (3). Already this makes the novel interesting. Why would Mr. Smith want to commit suicide? Was he trying to prove a point or was he just desperate with his life? My thoughts are that he was desperate and could not take it anymore because “none of them (people) suspected he had in it him” (9).
After Mr. Smith´s episode occurred, Morrison starts describing the family of a doctor. It was said that his wife and daughters lived a peaceful life but “it was not peaceful, for it was preceded by and would soon be terminated by the presence of Macon Dead” (10). We can guess then, that he is a complicated man because the family doesn’t enjoy his presence. Due to this we see his wife Ruth as a struggling character. Her husband feels hatred towards her and she can´t do anything but find comfort in a watermark. “Like a lighthouse keeper draw to his window to gaze once again at the sea” (11). It was something that made her feel secure and gave her tranquility because somehow she knew it was hers. Another thing that helped her escape from harsh reality was breastfeeding her son. He was old enough for that still, “she felt him. His restraint, his courtesy, his indifference, all of which pushed her into fantasy” (13).
Characters and their names are unique in the novel. Morrison portrays each of them with they struggle that they have. Macon hates his family and it addicted to wealth. Ruth struggles because of her husband. Pilate his sister has a name that makes allusion to the bible. And she struggles with the fact that she lost her mother and her life is a mess, “she had no electricity because she would not pay for the service” (27).
Up to know the description of the family and the individual characters give clues that the novel is going to be about struggles. It is placed in a time where racisms was present reinforcing the suffering that the characters may have. I will continue reading to see what happens with all of them but definitely my first impression of the novel is that it´s out of the ordinary.
lunes, 28 de marzo de 2011
The "Dark Continent"
I am almost sure that if you ask anyone what happened in World War II they know at least about the Nazis. Events like that one that create such a big impact are often remembered. By reading Joseph Conrad´s Heart of Darkness and Adam Hochschild´s King Leopold´s Ghost I realized that the Congo suffered from European imperialism but it´s not really known. Hochschild narrates the exploitation of the Congo when King Leopold was its ruler. It focuses on African slavery. Although this country already had slavery it was “more flexible and benign than the system Europeans would soon establish in the New World”. (Prologue)
In a different way Conrad reveals the same truth. Through Kurtz and Marlow he shows how the natives behaved with the Europeans and how the exploitation of ivory took place. Many people have this squared vision of Africa. They think it is the place and the uncivilized and a lower race that has always been oppressed by people that are superior to them. After reading these two texts I thought of a movie I had seen a long time ago: Blood Diamond. It shows how the country was tearing apart by the international abuse to get diamonds. The situation is different from the ones of the text but still they relate. The three of them manage to show in a different way that Africa throughout history has exploited, its people and natural resources.
King Leopold’s Ghost has a different approach on the topic because it narrates something that actually happened. While Heart of Darkness narrates a story that gives a picture of Congo and what was happening. Instead of taking a side, both texts expose a situation. In neither of them do you feel that the author is defending Africa nor Europe. It is inevitable to show how the whites mistreated the black, it is part of what happened. In a way, I would say the texts have a way to balance each other. One of them gives the reader detail and more facts on the topic while the other allows the reader to get into the situation. They both portray Africa as a mystery and they want to discover what they have. Once they people manage to do that they take advantage and use what it has in their benefits. in neither texts do they show compassion for the mysterious continent and they should not. Both texts are trying to expose and truth and should do it exactly like it is. The main point is this: “for Europeans Africa, remained the supplier of valuable raw material-human bodies and elephants tusks. But otherwise they saw the continent as a faceless, black, empty, a place on the map waiting to be explored”. I think they were intimidated by the “Dark Continent” but to their advantage knew how to conquer it.
In a different way Conrad reveals the same truth. Through Kurtz and Marlow he shows how the natives behaved with the Europeans and how the exploitation of ivory took place. Many people have this squared vision of Africa. They think it is the place and the uncivilized and a lower race that has always been oppressed by people that are superior to them. After reading these two texts I thought of a movie I had seen a long time ago: Blood Diamond. It shows how the country was tearing apart by the international abuse to get diamonds. The situation is different from the ones of the text but still they relate. The three of them manage to show in a different way that Africa throughout history has exploited, its people and natural resources.
King Leopold’s Ghost has a different approach on the topic because it narrates something that actually happened. While Heart of Darkness narrates a story that gives a picture of Congo and what was happening. Instead of taking a side, both texts expose a situation. In neither of them do you feel that the author is defending Africa nor Europe. It is inevitable to show how the whites mistreated the black, it is part of what happened. In a way, I would say the texts have a way to balance each other. One of them gives the reader detail and more facts on the topic while the other allows the reader to get into the situation. They both portray Africa as a mystery and they want to discover what they have. Once they people manage to do that they take advantage and use what it has in their benefits. in neither texts do they show compassion for the mysterious continent and they should not. Both texts are trying to expose and truth and should do it exactly like it is. The main point is this: “for Europeans Africa, remained the supplier of valuable raw material-human bodies and elephants tusks. But otherwise they saw the continent as a faceless, black, empty, a place on the map waiting to be explored”. I think they were intimidated by the “Dark Continent” but to their advantage knew how to conquer it.
domingo, 27 de marzo de 2011
I Wonder
Richard Holmes narrates the voyage of Captain James Cook and Joseph Banks to the island of Tahiti. Their journey is an exploratory voyage where they are able to appreciate the natives that live in the island. “This voyage may count as one of the earliest distinctive exploits of romantic science, not least because it involved a long stay in the beautiful but ambiguous version of paradise-Otaheite or the South Pacific island of Tahiti”. (prologue) I wanted to understand what romantic science was and by reading chapter one I realized it was finding answers in nature and understand the human life.
Banks and Cooks got to the island and they started to explore it. Most of what is narrated is Banks experiences that he recorded in his journal. As time passed Banks got more accustomed to the island and related with the natives. He found their life style fascinating. In The Heart of Darkness Joseph Conrad describes a similar situation. His character Charlie Marlow narrates his own story about his journey to the heart of Africa. The novel revolves around Kurtz, a man who became part of the native tribe from the Congo. Both novels portray two different lifestyles. Let´s call them the civilized ones and the natives. And in each story there is a character that changes his lifestyle. Kurtz related very well with the colonized ones that he actually lived among them. And the Tahitian natives captivated Banks.
Besides the fact these novels have characters that are similar, they emphasize on the journey. Marlow was comfortable telling us his story because he was able to meditate on his experience while he told it. And through his diary entries Banks does they same thing. They both “find” themselves. Journeys are wonder. If you look up the word wonder in the dictionary the definition is the following: to think or speculate curiosity and to be filled with admiration or amazement. According to Plato “wonder was central to all philosophical thought, in wonder all philosophy began in wonder it ends but the first wonder is the offspring of ignorance and the last is the parent of adoration”. (Prologue) We humans do everything because of curiosity is what drives us and what leads us to new things. Banks Endeavor voyage originated an era of curiosity where he discovered things and shared them. Although Conrad´s novel is a work of fiction, they both reveal a truth about human nature: we all wonder for things we don’t know.
Banks and Cooks got to the island and they started to explore it. Most of what is narrated is Banks experiences that he recorded in his journal. As time passed Banks got more accustomed to the island and related with the natives. He found their life style fascinating. In The Heart of Darkness Joseph Conrad describes a similar situation. His character Charlie Marlow narrates his own story about his journey to the heart of Africa. The novel revolves around Kurtz, a man who became part of the native tribe from the Congo. Both novels portray two different lifestyles. Let´s call them the civilized ones and the natives. And in each story there is a character that changes his lifestyle. Kurtz related very well with the colonized ones that he actually lived among them. And the Tahitian natives captivated Banks.
Besides the fact these novels have characters that are similar, they emphasize on the journey. Marlow was comfortable telling us his story because he was able to meditate on his experience while he told it. And through his diary entries Banks does they same thing. They both “find” themselves. Journeys are wonder. If you look up the word wonder in the dictionary the definition is the following: to think or speculate curiosity and to be filled with admiration or amazement. According to Plato “wonder was central to all philosophical thought, in wonder all philosophy began in wonder it ends but the first wonder is the offspring of ignorance and the last is the parent of adoration”. (Prologue) We humans do everything because of curiosity is what drives us and what leads us to new things. Banks Endeavor voyage originated an era of curiosity where he discovered things and shared them. Although Conrad´s novel is a work of fiction, they both reveal a truth about human nature: we all wonder for things we don’t know.
martes, 15 de marzo de 2011
A Black Vocabulary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
1. Lugubrious: mournful, dismal, or gloomy especially in an affected exaggerated or unrelieved manner.
2.Lanky: ungracefully thin and rawboned.
3.Scoundrel: a dishonorable person. Mean in nature, villainous
4.Wade: to walk in water when partially immersed. To make one´s way slowly.
5.Foliage: the leaves of a plant, architectural ornament.
6.Futility: the quality of being futile.
Futile: incapable of producing any result. Useless
7.Lustrous: having luster, shining luminous.
8.Preeminently: superior, surpassing.
9.Moured: to secure in particular place, as by cables and anchors or by lines.
10.Asylums: an institution for the care of the mentally ill, orphans or people requiring special attention; temporary refuge.
11.Wraith:a visible spirit.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
1. Lugubrious: mournful, dismal, or gloomy especially in an affected exaggerated or unrelieved manner.
2.Lanky: ungracefully thin and rawboned.
3.Scoundrel: a dishonorable person. Mean in nature, villainous
4.Wade: to walk in water when partially immersed. To make one´s way slowly.
5.Foliage: the leaves of a plant, architectural ornament.
6.Futility: the quality of being futile.
Futile: incapable of producing any result. Useless
7.Lustrous: having luster, shining luminous.
8.Preeminently: superior, surpassing.
9.Moured: to secure in particular place, as by cables and anchors or by lines.
10.Asylums: an institution for the care of the mentally ill, orphans or people requiring special attention; temporary refuge.
11.Wraith:a visible spirit.
lunes, 14 de marzo de 2011
Marlow´s Voyage Tips
It turns out Marlow is telling a story to his friend aboard The Nellie. Narrating his voyage and how he traveled “deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness” (105). He is a great storyteller and the story actually becomes the book. More than a story, I think Marlow is learning from it as he narrates it. He already lived it and now while telling it he states lessons and tricks. His story can be seen as a manual for someone who wants to make an expedition to Africa during an imperialist era. The idea of voyage is important and recurs throughout the novel. And I mean a journey like the one Marlow is doing. Not like the ones we do today. It´s much easier to buy a ticket go to the airport board a plane, and once we get to the destination get a taxi and got to a hotel. Mostly everything is done for us we just pay. A manual for a journey now a day would be pointless. What good would it be for us to have tips on how to know at what times there are less people in the airport. Pointless. We don’t have to know about the weather and how it can affect our trip, they just announce to us if something is wrong. Marlow did have to worry about that. And make decisions of weather to continue sailing or not at night for example. More than a journey it is his passion, he was a man that “followed the sea”(66). And that´s one of the reasons why he tells his story with such emotion and the reader feels secure that Marlow knows what he talking about. As I read today, I imagined that I was going to take Marlow´s voyage and some tips that I saw as important were the following:
“Going up the river was like travelling back to the earliest beginning of the world, when vegetation rioted on the earth and big trees were kings”. (102) He warns us about geography and that you have to respect it because it has been there long before us.
“There were moments when one´s past came back to one, as it will sometimes when you have not a moment to spare to yourself, but it came in the shape of an unrestful and noisy dream, remembered with wonder amongst the overwhelming realities of this strange world of plants, and water, and silence”. (103) If you have passion for the journey it will help you to look at your past objectively and recognize mistakes.
“The reality-the reality , I tell you fades”. (103)
“We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth that wore the aspects of an unknown planet”. (105) Like when we travel we go to places that are not our own. Where we do not dominate.
“The earth seemed unearthly”. (105) We all travel into the unknown.
If we were to follow most of these “tips” and apply them to our own journeys we would experience the same passion as Marlow. Of course we have to go to places that interest us. That is what the Heart of Darkness does, it stimulates the want to go on a journey so the reader can learn just as Marlow did.
“Going up the river was like travelling back to the earliest beginning of the world, when vegetation rioted on the earth and big trees were kings”. (102) He warns us about geography and that you have to respect it because it has been there long before us.
“There were moments when one´s past came back to one, as it will sometimes when you have not a moment to spare to yourself, but it came in the shape of an unrestful and noisy dream, remembered with wonder amongst the overwhelming realities of this strange world of plants, and water, and silence”. (103) If you have passion for the journey it will help you to look at your past objectively and recognize mistakes.
“The reality-the reality , I tell you fades”. (103)
“We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth that wore the aspects of an unknown planet”. (105) Like when we travel we go to places that are not our own. Where we do not dominate.
“The earth seemed unearthly”. (105) We all travel into the unknown.
If we were to follow most of these “tips” and apply them to our own journeys we would experience the same passion as Marlow. Of course we have to go to places that interest us. That is what the Heart of Darkness does, it stimulates the want to go on a journey so the reader can learn just as Marlow did.
domingo, 13 de marzo de 2011
Camouflaged Mystery
The story continues as Charles Marlow keeps narrating his voyage. I mentioned in my last blog that Conrad uses vivid imagery and detailed description. Instead if giving action he narrates situations calmly and gives emotion to them by description. Another thing that caught my attention as I read was the sense of mystery. But it is a different mystery not the once I was used to. I had read mystery books before like Nancy Drew. Where they give you hints through out the novel and you read to find out what the next clue is going to be and everything makes sense at the end. I would not qualify this book as a mystery novel in fact I´m pretty sure it´s not, still it creates doubt to the reader. In comparison to the other mystery books, this one does not give you hints, it tells us story and by vaguely mentioning characters, situations, and places it creates mystery. One page 84 a Mr. Kurtz is mentioned for the first time.
“He was a first class agent” (84).
“Mr. Kurtz was at present in charge of a trading post , a very important one, in the true ivory country,. Sends in as much ivory as all the others put together. From the moment I read that questions ran through my mind. Why would Conrad mention him? What role is going to play in the novel?
When they mention him again, the narrator states, “there were rumors that a very important station was in jeopardy, and its chief Mr. Kutz, was ill. What station? Are Kurtz and Marlow going to have to work together in the future? Questions arise again.
The head of the company then mentions to Charles “Mr. Kutz was the best agent he had, an exceptional man, of the greatest importance to the company.” (89)
“I heard the name of Mr. Kurtz pronounced, then the words “take advantage of this unfortunate accident”. One of the men was the manager.” (90) my immediate reaction with this sentence was jealousy, men that were supposedly working together with Kurtz want to take advantage that he is ill, because they are jealous that he is loved that much.
Finally, in page 92 Marlow asks “ who is this Mr. Kurtz and the answer does not help us much “the chief of the inner station “ I don’t know about you but still after knowing who he is I want to know more.
The examples sated above are just a few of the times that the mentioned. I suspect that further into the novel he will really appear instead of blending in the story and being part of situations like he is right now. Although he´s currently not playing part in the novel he can be seen as an example. Most of the times that Marlow is talking to someone higher ranked than him they mention Kurtz. Others are jealous and plan to take advantage of the fact that he´s ill. So far the novel has not been really exciting. Still Conrad includes little aspects like this one of Mr. Kurtz so that the reader will want to continue. It´s like camouflaged mystery because all the talk about Kurtz does give the reader some clues. What makes it different is that right know that novel does not revolve around Kurtz but around Marlow. Kurtz was up to know “just a word” (94).
miércoles, 9 de marzo de 2011
Conrad Evokes Passion
From the first few pages, imagery and description are present in the novel. By narrating the story of Marlow, Conrad depicts the passion that he feels toward what he does. The story is not very interesting. He tells us how he got the job to be the commander of the boat that will travel to the Congo River. What´s interesting, is the way he narrates it, using intense description and vivid imagery. With this, he reveals to the reader the passion that he feels towards the sea. The unknown narrator tells us this and when he mentions their captain, the Director of Companies, he said that he “resembled a pilot, which to a seaman is trustworthiness personified” (65).
When talking about the sea, the narrator includes himself and the other four men that were with him, including Marlow. They all feel the same passion but Marlow was the only one “who still followed the sea” (67). This gives me a hint, (besides the fact that he is the only character with a name), that the book will be mostly based on him. He is not like the others. Most seaman as the narrator states live a sedentary life but Marlow is wanderer. And to describe that, the narrator states: “to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside, enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze, in the likeness of one of these misty halos that sometimes are made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine” (68). Here we can see the description and imagery I mentioned at the begging. He uses the glow and haze to express how Marlow likes to go beyond what happens and know why they happened. He then tells the story of the places in his childhood, specifically one that had become “a place of darkness” (71). And imagery comes up again with the way he describes the river “resembling an immense snake uncoiled, with its head in the sea, its body at rest curving afar over a vast a country and its toil lost in the depth of the land” (71). By comparing the river with the snake the reader gets a vivid image and can imagine it much better.
The way Charles Marlow talks about the sea evokes passion to the reader. My impression is that Conrad and Marlow don´t give much importance to the situations that happen through out the book, instead they focus on the description to evoke passion and feeling to the reader.
When talking about the sea, the narrator includes himself and the other four men that were with him, including Marlow. They all feel the same passion but Marlow was the only one “who still followed the sea” (67). This gives me a hint, (besides the fact that he is the only character with a name), that the book will be mostly based on him. He is not like the others. Most seaman as the narrator states live a sedentary life but Marlow is wanderer. And to describe that, the narrator states: “to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside, enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze, in the likeness of one of these misty halos that sometimes are made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine” (68). Here we can see the description and imagery I mentioned at the begging. He uses the glow and haze to express how Marlow likes to go beyond what happens and know why they happened. He then tells the story of the places in his childhood, specifically one that had become “a place of darkness” (71). And imagery comes up again with the way he describes the river “resembling an immense snake uncoiled, with its head in the sea, its body at rest curving afar over a vast a country and its toil lost in the depth of the land” (71). By comparing the river with the snake the reader gets a vivid image and can imagine it much better.
The way Charles Marlow talks about the sea evokes passion to the reader. My impression is that Conrad and Marlow don´t give much importance to the situations that happen through out the book, instead they focus on the description to evoke passion and feeling to the reader.
martes, 15 de febrero de 2011
Thank you Gaev
The first three acts of The Cherry Orchard are pretty much the same. There is a family with economical problems and they have to sell their cherry orchard. While this problem happens each character narrates to us their individual problems although they have no relation whatsoever to the other problem. The characters complicate themselves. Instead of looking for solutions they complain and complicate the selling of the orchard more than it is.
In act III the solution to the problem arrives but of course the characters don´t see it that way. Lyubov asks “is the cherry orchard sol?” and Lopahin, who had bought says “it is sold” (105). She was devastated since it only hit her in that moment that she had lost her orchard. The drama continues until Varya decides to look on the bright side and says, “A new life is beginning mamma”(112). Finally the character decide to leave the problem behind and forget about it. Chekhov makes this clear when Gaev says, yes, really, everything is all right now. Before the cherry orchard was sold, we were all worried and wretched, but afterwards, when once the question was settled conclusively, irrevocably, we all felt calm and even cheerful. I am a bank clerk now-I am financier-cannon off the red. And you Lyuba, after all, you are looking better, there´s no question of that” (112). The solution was the one they were avoiding all along.
Varya and Gaev experience anagnorisis. Like all the characters they were attached to the problem, but once it was sold and there was no other option they realized that was the key to pull them out id their depression. Since the play is absurd and monotonous, this is Chekhov making fun of us again. We often have problems and disagree with the solution that will be the best. Firs finishes the play with a line that I think is a little exaggerated but then again it´s Chekhov. He says, “life has slipped by as though I hadn’t lived”. That is anagnorisis again. And applies to the reality that Chekhov portrays. We often get to attached to our problems and we may end up like Firs “god for nothing”. (117)
In act III the solution to the problem arrives but of course the characters don´t see it that way. Lyubov asks “is the cherry orchard sol?” and Lopahin, who had bought says “it is sold” (105). She was devastated since it only hit her in that moment that she had lost her orchard. The drama continues until Varya decides to look on the bright side and says, “A new life is beginning mamma”(112). Finally the character decide to leave the problem behind and forget about it. Chekhov makes this clear when Gaev says, yes, really, everything is all right now. Before the cherry orchard was sold, we were all worried and wretched, but afterwards, when once the question was settled conclusively, irrevocably, we all felt calm and even cheerful. I am a bank clerk now-I am financier-cannon off the red. And you Lyuba, after all, you are looking better, there´s no question of that” (112). The solution was the one they were avoiding all along.
Varya and Gaev experience anagnorisis. Like all the characters they were attached to the problem, but once it was sold and there was no other option they realized that was the key to pull them out id their depression. Since the play is absurd and monotonous, this is Chekhov making fun of us again. We often have problems and disagree with the solution that will be the best. Firs finishes the play with a line that I think is a little exaggerated but then again it´s Chekhov. He says, “life has slipped by as though I hadn’t lived”. That is anagnorisis again. And applies to the reality that Chekhov portrays. We often get to attached to our problems and we may end up like Firs “god for nothing”. (117)
lunes, 14 de febrero de 2011
So Random, So Funny
My favorite movies are full of clichés. Today for example I saw Valentine´s Day on the plane. The movie tells the story about different couples and how they are related with each other. I usually don´t enjoy those movies that are random and somewhat stupid that apparently are made to make people laugh. The only one that I enjoyed and laughed from the beginning till the end was the Hangover. That movie revolves around a plot. One guy is married and decides to go to Vegas for his bachelor party. He goes with four friends and they encounter obstacles through the trip. But those complications were not normal things like the airline lost my luggage, they were pointless and random. They were so drunk that one of the guys the responsible, got married to an prostitute and lost a tooth. That same morning when they woke up there was a baby waiting outside their hotel door and a tiger in bath room. Those things are not common you would not expect them to happen to you but you laugh when you see them.
I know that different people have different taste and what may be funny for you may not be funny for some one else but I have seen that absurd and random things usually make us laugh. The Cherry Orchard is a comedy that in my opinion reflects the reality of a family´s life. Reading it I did not find it funny, instead I though it was confusing. The play is full of characters and each of them narrate their own problems. When I got home, after I saw Valentine´s Day I saw act III of The Cherry Orchard and I laughed. Reading the play I was bored and then I found myself laughing at the same thing. I realized that what I was reading was meant to be watched, I am sure that if I read the script of the Hangover before watching the movie it would have been the same thing, the tiger in the bathroom would have just been absurd but when I saw the character’s face while looking at the tiger I could not control my laughter. The same thing happened with the play. When I read that Charlotta says “ Here´s a pack of cards. Think of any you like.” (96) it was ridiculous to me. They were all united waiting for the verdict of the auction and she decides to make magic tricks with cards. In the video it was different. Although it was still random it was funny because you see the way the characters reacted. All of sudden Lyubov enters the room with a worried face but when Charlotta takes out her deck of cards everyone forgets the worry and start laughing and enjoying themselves. Pishtchik also made me laugh, he was stressed out because he must pay “ the day after to-morrow 310 roubles” (95) but was enjoying himself very much laughing, clapping his hands and telling Charlotta he loved her. Things change again when Lyubov and Trimonov were discussing his relationship with Anya. They were frustrated and mad but all of sudden “Petya´s fallen downstairs” (100), the fall makes no sense but how random it was made it funny at least for me.
So there are different types of comedy and each approaches each viewer in a different way. And although The Cherry Orchard does not fall into my top five funniest movies, I do admit that I laughed at how random Chekov portrays his characters. He doesn´t make them do or say funny things but the story is funny. How a family is suffering because they have to sell their proudest possession but meanwhile each character has different problems that they share with everyone else even if they or are not interested in them. And how while those things happen random acts appear in the play that distract the character and makes the viewer (reader) laugh. It is those acts of randomness that makes The Cherry Orchard a comedy. It is reflecting our reality and we encounter random acts everyday that also makes us laugh even if we have problems like the people in the play.
P.S Here´s the tiger scene I have talking about.
I know that different people have different taste and what may be funny for you may not be funny for some one else but I have seen that absurd and random things usually make us laugh. The Cherry Orchard is a comedy that in my opinion reflects the reality of a family´s life. Reading it I did not find it funny, instead I though it was confusing. The play is full of characters and each of them narrate their own problems. When I got home, after I saw Valentine´s Day I saw act III of The Cherry Orchard and I laughed. Reading the play I was bored and then I found myself laughing at the same thing. I realized that what I was reading was meant to be watched, I am sure that if I read the script of the Hangover before watching the movie it would have been the same thing, the tiger in the bathroom would have just been absurd but when I saw the character’s face while looking at the tiger I could not control my laughter. The same thing happened with the play. When I read that Charlotta says “ Here´s a pack of cards. Think of any you like.” (96) it was ridiculous to me. They were all united waiting for the verdict of the auction and she decides to make magic tricks with cards. In the video it was different. Although it was still random it was funny because you see the way the characters reacted. All of sudden Lyubov enters the room with a worried face but when Charlotta takes out her deck of cards everyone forgets the worry and start laughing and enjoying themselves. Pishtchik also made me laugh, he was stressed out because he must pay “ the day after to-morrow 310 roubles” (95) but was enjoying himself very much laughing, clapping his hands and telling Charlotta he loved her. Things change again when Lyubov and Trimonov were discussing his relationship with Anya. They were frustrated and mad but all of sudden “Petya´s fallen downstairs” (100), the fall makes no sense but how random it was made it funny at least for me.
So there are different types of comedy and each approaches each viewer in a different way. And although The Cherry Orchard does not fall into my top five funniest movies, I do admit that I laughed at how random Chekov portrays his characters. He doesn´t make them do or say funny things but the story is funny. How a family is suffering because they have to sell their proudest possession but meanwhile each character has different problems that they share with everyone else even if they or are not interested in them. And how while those things happen random acts appear in the play that distract the character and makes the viewer (reader) laugh. It is those acts of randomness that makes The Cherry Orchard a comedy. It is reflecting our reality and we encounter random acts everyday that also makes us laugh even if we have problems like the people in the play.
P.S Here´s the tiger scene I have talking about.
lunes, 7 de febrero de 2011
Just Like My Family
It was an ordinary Sunday. Bertha was sitting in her big arm chair reading the paper while Joaquin walked from side to side across the room with his arms crossed at his back. They were waiting for the clock to strike twelve to go take a shower and wait until their children came to have lunch.
BERTHA: Joaquin go take a shower, you know you take forever shaving.
JOAQUIN: Later.
BERTHA: Now or they will get here and you won´t be ready.
(Without saying a word and walking very slowly Joaquin leaves the room and goes to the bathroom. Bertha finishes the paper and goes to her bathroom. She comes out before Joaquin showered and ready, sits in her arm chair and reads another paper.)
(The doorbell rings. Myriam opens the door)
CLAUDIA: Hi mother. (kiss on the cheek)
BERTHA: (with a frowned face) Ahh I told your father he would not be ready. That indolent old man. Did my granddaughters come?
CLAUDIA: yes, they must be in the kitchen. (sits down on the couch, looks closely at some reading glasses on the table) I remember when my grandfather first bought those, it was such along time ago. Do you remember mother?
(Bertha was not there she had gone to the kitchen) (doorbell rings)
LUCIA: lulii lulii! Where are you? (with her Joaco, Marcela, Carmen, and Emilia also arrive)
JOACO: Hey Claudia. Do you know what medicine to take for a bad knee ache?
CLAUDIA: Why what happened?
JOACO: Oh nothing I was jogging and it started hurting. Just like last year while running the marathon and I had to stop when I was missing just a mile, probably I won´t be able to run it this year.
(doorbell rings) (Enters Paula, John, Matilde, Thomas, and Juliana)
(Matilde goes to play with Emilia while Thomas turns on the T.V and watches the football game)
PAULA: Does anyone know at what time does Jorge come?
BERTHA (Lifting her head from the paper) he told me he would be here at 1: 30.
JOHN: well its already 2:00 he probably got caught up playing golf. Tommy don´t sit to close to the T.V.
(Thomas ignores his fathers order.)
(Myriam walks to the living room)
MYRIAM: Señora Bertha what should I do for lunch?
BERTHA: I don’t know Myriamsita. Isa what do you want for lunch?
ISABELLA: Luli I ate pasta yesterday so…
MYRIAM(laughs and interrupts Isabella) Ayy Señora Bertha I forget to tell you, my sister say thank you for the money you sent her over Christmas.
BERTHA: Oh ok I am glad.
ISABELLA: you should do fish for lunch with French fries but do it fast please because I am starving.
BERTHA: Isa do you want to have lunch with me on Wednesday? We can to this new Peruvian restaurant, and tell your boyfriend to come.
ISABELLA: yes Luli I would love to!
BERTHA: when will your sister get a boyfriend huh? I remember my first boyfriend (smiles) she was called Felipe and used to give me roses every Tuesday.
CARMEN: Isa I have to go the bathroom.
(Isabella gets up from the couch leaves Bertha speaking alone and takes Carmen to the bathroom)
MYRIAM: (yells from the kitchen) Go to the dining room! Lunch is ready.
(they all stop what they are doing and go have lunch) (while all are sitting down at the table the doorbell rings 4 times)
(Myriam opens the door and enters Jorge)
JORGE: Hello everybody! Ok I have a proposition (almost screaming and very excited)
JOAQUIN: (entered the dining room after Jorge) Kuibo Jorge.
ANDREA: what´s the proposition tell us!
JORGE: we should all, the 4 us buy a house in Colorado, that way we can go in the summer and ski every winter.
( all start talking at the time) (Juan laughs really hard)
JUAN: are you serious?
CLAUDIA: think about honey, the girls would love it.
JORGE: it would be great! Just like when I was college me and my friends we would go skiing every weekend.
JOHN: I think its a great idea I am in.
MARCELA: Joaco say yes. We can make amazing trips and invite all our friends plus the girls love it.
JOACO: Marcelita you come from Palmira, please let me decide.
JORGE: I already looked it up it´s very expensive if we divide the cost in four and we rent it the times that were are not using it.
ISABELLA: yes! Jorgie buy it.
JUAN: considering we all have the other two farms it would be a waste of money.
(everyone ignores Juan´s comment)
JOAQUIN: I will you half the money and you four divide the rest.
(everyone stays quiet and keep eating their lunch)
BERTHA: don´t be stupid if your father will give you half the money buy it now!
The Cherry Orchard is different to compared to the other plays I have read. In his writing he incorporates lots of detail while the characters narrate different aspects of their life. As I read act ii I could not help but think of my family. Of course my dialogue above is quite different from Chekhov´s but it shares one thing, not all the events that occur lead to the end of the story. We were deciding weather to buy a house or not and while that decision was taking place each person on my family did something. In Chekhov´s play they have to convince Lyubov to sell the cherry orchard. But meanwhile that takes place Charlotta tells us her past life while she “(takes a cucumber out of her pocket and eats)” (81). By doing those types of things Chekhov manages to portray reality to the point that I identified my family with his play. Each character represents an important part of the plot although he does not say much. For example in my family Carmen only speaks one time but it happens so its real, we should not hide just because its insignificant. At some point Epihodov says “ I´m a cultivated man, I read remarkable books of all sorts, but never make out the tendency I am myself precisely inclined for, weather to live or t shoot myself, speaking precisely, but nevertheless I always carry a revolver” (82). That has nothing to do with what the other characters are talking about. But if random comments do appear in real conversations then why not include it? Chekhov adds these sorts of details and absurd comments to support the reality he tries to portray.
BERTHA: Joaquin go take a shower, you know you take forever shaving.
JOAQUIN: Later.
BERTHA: Now or they will get here and you won´t be ready.
(Without saying a word and walking very slowly Joaquin leaves the room and goes to the bathroom. Bertha finishes the paper and goes to her bathroom. She comes out before Joaquin showered and ready, sits in her arm chair and reads another paper.)
(The doorbell rings. Myriam opens the door)
CLAUDIA: Hi mother. (kiss on the cheek)
BERTHA: (with a frowned face) Ahh I told your father he would not be ready. That indolent old man. Did my granddaughters come?
CLAUDIA: yes, they must be in the kitchen. (sits down on the couch, looks closely at some reading glasses on the table) I remember when my grandfather first bought those, it was such along time ago. Do you remember mother?
(Bertha was not there she had gone to the kitchen) (doorbell rings)
LUCIA: lulii lulii! Where are you? (with her Joaco, Marcela, Carmen, and Emilia also arrive)
JOACO: Hey Claudia. Do you know what medicine to take for a bad knee ache?
CLAUDIA: Why what happened?
JOACO: Oh nothing I was jogging and it started hurting. Just like last year while running the marathon and I had to stop when I was missing just a mile, probably I won´t be able to run it this year.
(doorbell rings) (Enters Paula, John, Matilde, Thomas, and Juliana)
(Matilde goes to play with Emilia while Thomas turns on the T.V and watches the football game)
PAULA: Does anyone know at what time does Jorge come?
BERTHA (Lifting her head from the paper) he told me he would be here at 1: 30.
JOHN: well its already 2:00 he probably got caught up playing golf. Tommy don´t sit to close to the T.V.
(Thomas ignores his fathers order.)
(Myriam walks to the living room)
MYRIAM: Señora Bertha what should I do for lunch?
BERTHA: I don’t know Myriamsita. Isa what do you want for lunch?
ISABELLA: Luli I ate pasta yesterday so…
MYRIAM(laughs and interrupts Isabella) Ayy Señora Bertha I forget to tell you, my sister say thank you for the money you sent her over Christmas.
BERTHA: Oh ok I am glad.
ISABELLA: you should do fish for lunch with French fries but do it fast please because I am starving.
BERTHA: Isa do you want to have lunch with me on Wednesday? We can to this new Peruvian restaurant, and tell your boyfriend to come.
ISABELLA: yes Luli I would love to!
BERTHA: when will your sister get a boyfriend huh? I remember my first boyfriend (smiles) she was called Felipe and used to give me roses every Tuesday.
CARMEN: Isa I have to go the bathroom.
(Isabella gets up from the couch leaves Bertha speaking alone and takes Carmen to the bathroom)
MYRIAM: (yells from the kitchen) Go to the dining room! Lunch is ready.
(they all stop what they are doing and go have lunch) (while all are sitting down at the table the doorbell rings 4 times)
(Myriam opens the door and enters Jorge)
JORGE: Hello everybody! Ok I have a proposition (almost screaming and very excited)
JOAQUIN: (entered the dining room after Jorge) Kuibo Jorge.
ANDREA: what´s the proposition tell us!
JORGE: we should all, the 4 us buy a house in Colorado, that way we can go in the summer and ski every winter.
( all start talking at the time) (Juan laughs really hard)
JUAN: are you serious?
CLAUDIA: think about honey, the girls would love it.
JORGE: it would be great! Just like when I was college me and my friends we would go skiing every weekend.
JOHN: I think its a great idea I am in.
MARCELA: Joaco say yes. We can make amazing trips and invite all our friends plus the girls love it.
JOACO: Marcelita you come from Palmira, please let me decide.
JORGE: I already looked it up it´s very expensive if we divide the cost in four and we rent it the times that were are not using it.
ISABELLA: yes! Jorgie buy it.
JUAN: considering we all have the other two farms it would be a waste of money.
(everyone ignores Juan´s comment)
JOAQUIN: I will you half the money and you four divide the rest.
(everyone stays quiet and keep eating their lunch)
BERTHA: don´t be stupid if your father will give you half the money buy it now!
The Cherry Orchard is different to compared to the other plays I have read. In his writing he incorporates lots of detail while the characters narrate different aspects of their life. As I read act ii I could not help but think of my family. Of course my dialogue above is quite different from Chekhov´s but it shares one thing, not all the events that occur lead to the end of the story. We were deciding weather to buy a house or not and while that decision was taking place each person on my family did something. In Chekhov´s play they have to convince Lyubov to sell the cherry orchard. But meanwhile that takes place Charlotta tells us her past life while she “(takes a cucumber out of her pocket and eats)” (81). By doing those types of things Chekhov manages to portray reality to the point that I identified my family with his play. Each character represents an important part of the plot although he does not say much. For example in my family Carmen only speaks one time but it happens so its real, we should not hide just because its insignificant. At some point Epihodov says “ I´m a cultivated man, I read remarkable books of all sorts, but never make out the tendency I am myself precisely inclined for, weather to live or t shoot myself, speaking precisely, but nevertheless I always carry a revolver” (82). That has nothing to do with what the other characters are talking about. But if random comments do appear in real conversations then why not include it? Chekhov adds these sorts of details and absurd comments to support the reality he tries to portray.
lunes, 31 de enero de 2011
Chekhov´s Way
Anton Chekhov uses a unique technique in his play or maybe that’s just my impression. I have read Shakespeare and Beckett this year too and the three are very different. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet he portrays a lot of emotion within the plot. Beckett tells the story of a man remembering his past but it´s ambiguous why the character is doing it. In The Cherry Orchard Chekhov focuses on each character intensely, he exposes the characters a groups of people that are connected with each other, but focuses on them individually. He gives more importance to what they say than to why. It is as if each character were speaking to them selves when really they are engaged in a conversation with other characters.
When Lyubov arrives to the house, she gives slight importance to her welcome, instead she says “my nursery, sight delightful room… I used to sleep here when I was little… And here I am, like a little child”. (66) she says that aloud but really no one cares except her.
Anya had just arrived from the trip too and the maid Dunyasha was excited to see her and tell her about the proposal. Rather than paying attention to her, she says: “I haven´t slept for four night on the journey. I feel dreadfully cold.” (66)
Dunyasha had received a proposal and even though she had shared it with other characters, she was thinking to herself “he does love, he does love me so”. (66)
Characters seem to be engaged in each other’s conversation but momentarily doze off to think something that only involves them. Anya was telling Dunyasha that “ it´s always the same with you” and then she says “I´ve lost all my hair pins” (66) which has nothing to do with what they were talking and does not include Dunysasha at all.
Varya was talking to her sister to her sister. “All day long darling, as I go about looking after the house, I keep dreaming all the time. If only we could marry you to a rich man, then I should feel more at rest. Then I would go off by myself on a pilgrimage to Kiev to Moscow…” (68) but as she talks to her she says her thoughts out loud of she wants to do.
The girls uncle Gaev was stating his opinion about his sister with Varya her daughter, but since he was to some degree talking to himself she says “Uncle dear, you´d better be quiet” (78) because of what he had said.
The characters personal thoughts play an important part in the play because they reveal ideas that later on I suspect will be important. Their opinion, even though know don’t make sense will later on connect. And I must also add I like this way of presenting a character. First because you can identify with it easier, and second because it adds excitement to the play. You never know why the characters dozes off and express their true thoughts.
When Lyubov arrives to the house, she gives slight importance to her welcome, instead she says “my nursery, sight delightful room… I used to sleep here when I was little… And here I am, like a little child”. (66) she says that aloud but really no one cares except her.
Anya had just arrived from the trip too and the maid Dunyasha was excited to see her and tell her about the proposal. Rather than paying attention to her, she says: “I haven´t slept for four night on the journey. I feel dreadfully cold.” (66)
Dunyasha had received a proposal and even though she had shared it with other characters, she was thinking to herself “he does love, he does love me so”. (66)
Characters seem to be engaged in each other’s conversation but momentarily doze off to think something that only involves them. Anya was telling Dunyasha that “ it´s always the same with you” and then she says “I´ve lost all my hair pins” (66) which has nothing to do with what they were talking and does not include Dunysasha at all.
Varya was talking to her sister to her sister. “All day long darling, as I go about looking after the house, I keep dreaming all the time. If only we could marry you to a rich man, then I should feel more at rest. Then I would go off by myself on a pilgrimage to Kiev to Moscow…” (68) but as she talks to her she says her thoughts out loud of she wants to do.
The girls uncle Gaev was stating his opinion about his sister with Varya her daughter, but since he was to some degree talking to himself she says “Uncle dear, you´d better be quiet” (78) because of what he had said.
The characters personal thoughts play an important part in the play because they reveal ideas that later on I suspect will be important. Their opinion, even though know don’t make sense will later on connect. And I must also add I like this way of presenting a character. First because you can identify with it easier, and second because it adds excitement to the play. You never know why the characters dozes off and express their true thoughts.
lunes, 24 de enero de 2011
lunes, 17 de enero de 2011
"Not A World-Shaking Idea"
The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn, narrates a “tangled story about a race and about America”. A boy narrates the story and the article “A Scholar Finds Huck´s Finn Voice in Twain´s Writing About A Black Youth states that Twain got the idea for Huck´s character from a negro boy he had met before he began to write the novel.
Including this one, I have already read two articles that somehow criticize an aspect of Twain´s novel. And both of them seem illogical to me. One of them talked about banning the word “nigger” from the book because for modern-day readers it was considered an insult. And this one says that if the backgrounds of African American roots are found the book would also have to be changed. The examples given in the article about “Sociable Jimmy”, the negro who supposedly inspired Twain are very plausible. “Jimmy allows him to liberate the language that laid buried in Twain´s linguistic repertoire”. And I do not see anything wrong with that, instead it is something positive, that gives the novel more credibility about the topic that its talking about. The book is already written, there is no purpose in changing it for it was done the way it is. Professor Fishkin´s argument is right but it is pointless that the novel will decay if the ideas did actually come from a negro boy.
Huckleberry Finn would still be the same. And the black roots that influenced Twain will give more support to the moral changes the characters encounters in the novel. He depicts his character as someone that although was pressured by society, does the right thing and maybe could not be done as well if Twain had not had that conversation with Jimmy. The criticism expressed in both articles is valid. But there is no point in changing a classic because of aspects that give it its importance. Instead of looking at this as Dr. Fishkin said, we should see that what was discovered is that “ the black American linguistic voice which forms the structuring principle, of the great American novel, and that ain´t bad”.
Including this one, I have already read two articles that somehow criticize an aspect of Twain´s novel. And both of them seem illogical to me. One of them talked about banning the word “nigger” from the book because for modern-day readers it was considered an insult. And this one says that if the backgrounds of African American roots are found the book would also have to be changed. The examples given in the article about “Sociable Jimmy”, the negro who supposedly inspired Twain are very plausible. “Jimmy allows him to liberate the language that laid buried in Twain´s linguistic repertoire”. And I do not see anything wrong with that, instead it is something positive, that gives the novel more credibility about the topic that its talking about. The book is already written, there is no purpose in changing it for it was done the way it is. Professor Fishkin´s argument is right but it is pointless that the novel will decay if the ideas did actually come from a negro boy.
Huckleberry Finn would still be the same. And the black roots that influenced Twain will give more support to the moral changes the characters encounters in the novel. He depicts his character as someone that although was pressured by society, does the right thing and maybe could not be done as well if Twain had not had that conversation with Jimmy. The criticism expressed in both articles is valid. But there is no point in changing a classic because of aspects that give it its importance. Instead of looking at this as Dr. Fishkin said, we should see that what was discovered is that “ the black American linguistic voice which forms the structuring principle, of the great American novel, and that ain´t bad”.
domingo, 16 de enero de 2011
Just Like "El Pueblo".
A minstrel show is a “troupe of performers in blackface typically given a comic program of negro songs and jokes” (wordnetweb.princeton.edu). Basically the performers are mocking the negros. And more important than the actual conversation that is the taking place is the negros answer. What is funny for the audience or at least for me was Bones’ answers. For example, Bones says:
Bones. “Yes, saw. De day I went to de house, I -- golly! -- I dressed myself to kill, and my ole trunk was empty. Well, just as de
gal seed me, she cove right in -- she was a gone coon. When I left, she edged up to me and whispered, "you're too sweet to
live." Next day I got a billy-doo.”
And the interlocutor says:
Interlocutor. “How do you know it was a billet-doux?”
And then Bones responds like this:
Bones. “Cause Billy Doo was de name of de boy dat brought it.”
Obviously, Bones did not understand what the interlocutor was saying. And the point of that was to show hot negros were uneducated and naïve. The article questions whether Twain in a camouflaged way was using Huck and Jim to illustrate a minstrel show. Looking as the examples given I have to agree with the author when he says that in “Hucks´ lines one hears the correct accent of Mr. Interlocutor, and in Jim´s replies, the comic inadequacies of Mr. Bones”. In one of the examples given in the article there is a conversation between Huck and Jim about Jim´s investment. Huck asks Jim:
“What did you speculate in, Jim”
And Jims says:
“ Well fust I tackled stock”
Huck asks:
“What kind of stock?”
And Jim answers:
“Why, live stock -- cattle, you know. I put ten dollars in a cow. But I ain' gwyne to resk no mo' money in stock. De cow up 'n' died on my han's."
More or less it’s the same situation that I is written above. Jim and Bones don’t understand what they are being, they think its something different reflecting their stupidity. Before they got to talking about the investment they were talking about bad luck signs and Huck asks Jim if “if there warn't any good-luck signs. He says there were. And explains to Huck that if you had a hairy chest and arms you were going to be rich. This reminded me of my maid and the people that I know from Colombia that live in “pueblos”. Just like Jim believed in those good and back luck charms, they believe in things that for us seem completely irrational. Some believe that if you take a pill with lemon, since the lemon is too acid it would cut (cortar) the effect of the pill. Others believe that if the slept while their hair was wet they would go crazy. There is no reason to offend them for that for we just find it funny.
There are two ways in which I see this. Either Mark Twain was trying to portray Jim as a real as he possibly could. Or he was disguising a minstrel. I believe and agree with the article because the examples are very clear. People may see it as something bad and offensive like the nigger word in the book. But I see it as another way that Twain was making his novel more adopted to the situation that was going on at the time.
Bones. “Yes, saw. De day I went to de house, I -- golly! -- I dressed myself to kill, and my ole trunk was empty. Well, just as de
gal seed me, she cove right in -- she was a gone coon. When I left, she edged up to me and whispered, "you're too sweet to
live." Next day I got a billy-doo.”
And the interlocutor says:
Interlocutor. “How do you know it was a billet-doux?”
And then Bones responds like this:
Bones. “Cause Billy Doo was de name of de boy dat brought it.”
Obviously, Bones did not understand what the interlocutor was saying. And the point of that was to show hot negros were uneducated and naïve. The article questions whether Twain in a camouflaged way was using Huck and Jim to illustrate a minstrel show. Looking as the examples given I have to agree with the author when he says that in “Hucks´ lines one hears the correct accent of Mr. Interlocutor, and in Jim´s replies, the comic inadequacies of Mr. Bones”. In one of the examples given in the article there is a conversation between Huck and Jim about Jim´s investment. Huck asks Jim:
“What did you speculate in, Jim”
And Jims says:
“ Well fust I tackled stock”
Huck asks:
“What kind of stock?”
And Jim answers:
“Why, live stock -- cattle, you know. I put ten dollars in a cow. But I ain' gwyne to resk no mo' money in stock. De cow up 'n' died on my han's."
More or less it’s the same situation that I is written above. Jim and Bones don’t understand what they are being, they think its something different reflecting their stupidity. Before they got to talking about the investment they were talking about bad luck signs and Huck asks Jim if “if there warn't any good-luck signs. He says there were. And explains to Huck that if you had a hairy chest and arms you were going to be rich. This reminded me of my maid and the people that I know from Colombia that live in “pueblos”. Just like Jim believed in those good and back luck charms, they believe in things that for us seem completely irrational. Some believe that if you take a pill with lemon, since the lemon is too acid it would cut (cortar) the effect of the pill. Others believe that if the slept while their hair was wet they would go crazy. There is no reason to offend them for that for we just find it funny.
There are two ways in which I see this. Either Mark Twain was trying to portray Jim as a real as he possibly could. Or he was disguising a minstrel. I believe and agree with the article because the examples are very clear. People may see it as something bad and offensive like the nigger word in the book. But I see it as another way that Twain was making his novel more adopted to the situation that was going on at the time.
It´s Not The Word.
As I read New Huckleberry Finn edition censors ” n-word” I was surprised. More than a novel this book is a classic. And by narrating the story of a boy with a runaway nigger represents a real situation that had a great impact on the American history.
Dr. Gribben said he decided to ban the word because “ the n-word possessed, then as now, demeaning implications more vile than almost any insult that can be applied to other racial groups”. He is right. That word has been seen as an insult but banning is not the solution. The book was written that way, using that word because Twain was representing a reality. It would not be as real or strong if he used another word. And still, the problem is not the word. Gribben said it indirectly I think, or at least I understood it that way. He praises Twain for being able to represent such a historical reality but states that the racial insults “repulse modern-day readers”
That should not be the cause for banning the word. Gribben and others may think this will increase the popularity of the book and to me that’s pointless. Even if the book will be read more its significance would change. Just the use of the word nigger empathizes how Twain is against racisms. His character shows a change in the novel when he decides to help Jim gain freedom by going against racisms. And “n-word” supports that change. “Twains books are not just literary documents but historical documents, and that word is totemic because it encodes all of the violence of slavery”. Censoring the word would cause the book to loose its purpose so the people that have a problem with the word should not read it then.
If the banning of the word would actually happen then they should ban anything that historically and even today is an insult to any racial group or population. And if that were to be done than many books just like Huckleberry Finn would loose their purpose. Those that do have these “insults” have them for a reason, to show and stress what they are talking about. As Sarah Churchwell said “the whole pint of literature is to expose us to different ideas and different eras” and by doing such things as banning the word nigger would be a loss mostly for us.
Dr. Gribben said he decided to ban the word because “ the n-word possessed, then as now, demeaning implications more vile than almost any insult that can be applied to other racial groups”. He is right. That word has been seen as an insult but banning is not the solution. The book was written that way, using that word because Twain was representing a reality. It would not be as real or strong if he used another word. And still, the problem is not the word. Gribben said it indirectly I think, or at least I understood it that way. He praises Twain for being able to represent such a historical reality but states that the racial insults “repulse modern-day readers”
That should not be the cause for banning the word. Gribben and others may think this will increase the popularity of the book and to me that’s pointless. Even if the book will be read more its significance would change. Just the use of the word nigger empathizes how Twain is against racisms. His character shows a change in the novel when he decides to help Jim gain freedom by going against racisms. And “n-word” supports that change. “Twains books are not just literary documents but historical documents, and that word is totemic because it encodes all of the violence of slavery”. Censoring the word would cause the book to loose its purpose so the people that have a problem with the word should not read it then.
If the banning of the word would actually happen then they should ban anything that historically and even today is an insult to any racial group or population. And if that were to be done than many books just like Huckleberry Finn would loose their purpose. Those that do have these “insults” have them for a reason, to show and stress what they are talking about. As Sarah Churchwell said “the whole pint of literature is to expose us to different ideas and different eras” and by doing such things as banning the word nigger would be a loss mostly for us.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)