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.
lunes, 31 de enero de 2011
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)