Hey Mr. Coon,
Ya I see that my talking about the book assignment is there...one of them is blank but there is another right above it that is dated the correct date.
So hopefully you don't demerit me : ) because I did indeed have it done.
Thanks,
Rob
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Things Fall Apart
I wrote this already so I am annoyed with the computer now so this is now the abridged version.
I am doing my paper on Things Fall Apart by Achebe
I am writing it about the title and about the criticism coming from black and white authors and the possible opinions on Achebe's book.
I want to do things with criticism becaus of how...impassioned...Achebe was in his criticism of Heart of Darkness.
I have read half of the book.
I would like to also discuss the veracity of Achebe's depiction of Africa before white people show up.
Things are going well on this front for me...and things will definitely not be falling apart.
Rob
I am doing my paper on Things Fall Apart by Achebe
I am writing it about the title and about the criticism coming from black and white authors and the possible opinions on Achebe's book.
I want to do things with criticism becaus of how...impassioned...Achebe was in his criticism of Heart of Darkness.
I have read half of the book.
I would like to also discuss the veracity of Achebe's depiction of Africa before white people show up.
Things are going well on this front for me...and things will definitely not be falling apart.
Rob
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Warning is a Sandwich
“When You Are Old” by William Butler Yeats is a warning in 10 syllables and 3 stanzas. The male speaker of the poem (let’s call him William) warns the woman (let’s call her Lesbia, actually let’s call her Maud) that she will regret denying his love when she is old. Although the poem takes place at the end of Maud’s life, it seems clear that William is warning Maud when she is still young. The warning is a sandwich. The bread, the first and third stanzas, bookend the second stanza and discuss what will happen in the future if Maud chooses to deny William’s love. The meat, the second stanza, discusses William’s love and what is happening in present time. The first and last stanzas also depict what William believes Maud will be doing and thinking in the future, while the second stanza narrates how William himself feels about Maud.
The poem begins with Maud being “old and grey” and “full of sleep” and “ nodding by the fire” (line 1). These lines demonstrate her age and how close she is to death because old people sleep a lot. Lines 1 and 2 have a halcyon mood to them, but the tone starts to change with the word “once” in line 4. “Once” changes the tone because it is the first evidence that this poem is not going to be about pure, unwavering love.
The second stanza does have some elements of that pure, unwavering love idea. With the passing of each line in the second stanza, William further separates himself from other suitors through his real love for Maud. In the first line of the second stanza we learn that Maud was popular, attractive, and well loved by many through the phrase “many loved her moments of glad grace” (line 5). The word “moments” in this line reminds us of the contrast between the vacillating nature of the way most suitors only love the “glad grace” of Maud and the way William loves Maud. “Moments” also reminds us of the temporal nature of her beauty and of the poem. In line 6, William clearly separates himself as one of the people who “[truly]” loves Maude. In lines 7 and 8, William further separates himself as the “one man” who loves the real Maud, her “pilgrim soul,” and the “only man” who will love her after her “changing face” has changed so much that her “glad grace” and “beauty” are gone (line 5-8).
At stanza three, William returns to the future, in the same timeframe as in the first stanza. The first line of the third stanza is used to transport us back into the old woman’s room, now detailed with “the glowing bars” of a fire (line 9). Lines 10-12 reveal that “Love” will leave Maud, without William. The capitalized “Love” dually represents William and all love, in general. The last two lines of poem have two meanings as well. The “mountains” and the area “amid a crowd of stars” could represent an unreachable destination that Maud, without William, could not reach, and/or a desirable place that William will be end up even without Maud.
With the understanding of William’s points about his love at present time in stanza two, and about Maud’s sad future time in stanza one and three, the overall warning tone of this poem becomes clear.
This poem is good, but was William’s warning successful?
Turns out the poem directly parallels William Butler Yeats’s "unrequited" love for Maud Gonne. The speaker, William, could actually be William Butler Yeats and the woman, Maud, could actually be Maud Gonne! If the poem is trying to get Maud to be with him, it fails. Gonne never returned Yeats’s love and Yeats ended up marrying another woman, Georgie Hyde-Lees. Hyde-Lees must be the “mountains” and “stars” that William, the speaker, moves onto when Maud, the woman, chooses not to be with him (Lives of the Poets 1217). But luckily for us, Yeats tried to warn Gonne, and therefore we still have the poem, “When You Are Old.” (676)
The poem begins with Maud being “old and grey” and “full of sleep” and “ nodding by the fire” (line 1). These lines demonstrate her age and how close she is to death because old people sleep a lot. Lines 1 and 2 have a halcyon mood to them, but the tone starts to change with the word “once” in line 4. “Once” changes the tone because it is the first evidence that this poem is not going to be about pure, unwavering love.
The second stanza does have some elements of that pure, unwavering love idea. With the passing of each line in the second stanza, William further separates himself from other suitors through his real love for Maud. In the first line of the second stanza we learn that Maud was popular, attractive, and well loved by many through the phrase “many loved her moments of glad grace” (line 5). The word “moments” in this line reminds us of the contrast between the vacillating nature of the way most suitors only love the “glad grace” of Maud and the way William loves Maud. “Moments” also reminds us of the temporal nature of her beauty and of the poem. In line 6, William clearly separates himself as one of the people who “[truly]” loves Maude. In lines 7 and 8, William further separates himself as the “one man” who loves the real Maud, her “pilgrim soul,” and the “only man” who will love her after her “changing face” has changed so much that her “glad grace” and “beauty” are gone (line 5-8).
At stanza three, William returns to the future, in the same timeframe as in the first stanza. The first line of the third stanza is used to transport us back into the old woman’s room, now detailed with “the glowing bars” of a fire (line 9). Lines 10-12 reveal that “Love” will leave Maud, without William. The capitalized “Love” dually represents William and all love, in general. The last two lines of poem have two meanings as well. The “mountains” and the area “amid a crowd of stars” could represent an unreachable destination that Maud, without William, could not reach, and/or a desirable place that William will be end up even without Maud.
With the understanding of William’s points about his love at present time in stanza two, and about Maud’s sad future time in stanza one and three, the overall warning tone of this poem becomes clear.
This poem is good, but was William’s warning successful?
Turns out the poem directly parallels William Butler Yeats’s "unrequited" love for Maud Gonne. The speaker, William, could actually be William Butler Yeats and the woman, Maud, could actually be Maud Gonne! If the poem is trying to get Maud to be with him, it fails. Gonne never returned Yeats’s love and Yeats ended up marrying another woman, Georgie Hyde-Lees. Hyde-Lees must be the “mountains” and “stars” that William, the speaker, moves onto when Maud, the woman, chooses not to be with him (Lives of the Poets 1217). But luckily for us, Yeats tried to warn Gonne, and therefore we still have the poem, “When You Are Old.” (676)
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Semi-Tragedy of a Salesman
We sort of touched on the idea of this play being a tragedy–I think–but now that I have read the “Tragedy and the Common Man” essay I don’t think I want to write about anything else. I am not sure if I am convincing myself that we talked about tragedy so I can blog about it, or if we really talked about it in class, but regardless, I am going to talk about it in this blog.
*Also, I was wondering if anyone else feels this way, I am always mad at myself at Sunday blog time because every week I say to myself, “Robert, don’t say all of your thoughts in class or you will be left idea-less when blog time comes.” Every week I fail. Every week I say all of my ideas in class and then I sit down at the computer devoid of ideas at blog time.
I am similar to a sponge that has squeezed all of its water onto a table to clean it out of enjoyment and the kindness of his heart, and then when the sponge really needs to clean something it is all dry and useless because it spent too long cleaning the table. But I plan to continue telling all my ideas in class anyway.
So here we go.
I think the more important part of this play is not the actual death of the salesman, Willie, but the culmination of his death. This tragic culmination, as it were, is true the “death” of Willie. By the time his physical death takes place, Willie, and everything Willie stood for, hoped for, and dreamed of was dead.
After reading Arthur Miller’s essay I agree with what he says without saying. What he says without saying is that the Death of a Salesman is a tragedy. I am sorry Arthur, but I semi-disagree. I think the play is a Semi-Tragedy (and yes I will coin my own term for this idea and refer to Arthur in the vocative as if I am on a first name basis with him).
His essay is very good, but the only thing I didn’t think he had good support for was the idea of the “fall.” Although he argues that the flaw makes the fall into just losing what he “conceives to be…his image of his rightful status” (Arthur 1833). I think that is unfortunate to lose one’s image of one’s rightful status, but I do not think that loss constitutes a fall. What it constitutes is a trip that one stumbles from but gathers oneself and stands once again. Willie does not stand, but he definitely gathers himself. Maybe Arthur was not very athletic and struggled with this gathering-falling concept.
I think the fall of the protagonist in a tragedy is so important to the effectiveness and definition of a tragedy. What makes Death of a Salesman a less effective tragedy is that Willie hardly falls. In the play Willie’s past is left ambiguous by Arthur on purpose. This ambiguity is effective to show the confusion in Willie’s mind, but it also harms our ability to recognize a true fall in the protagonist. It seems fully possible that Willie has always been this unsuccessful as a salesman and as a person. It seems more likely that he was at least a little bit better than he is at the end of his life; however, this small difference between earlier Willie and Willie at his death shows evidence of the minimal fall Willie has made as a character.
Although Miller is a modern Aristotle in discussing tragedy, I think that because of the lack of a true and large enough fall in the Death of a Salesman it is not actually tragedy, but only a Semi-Tragedy. (633)
*Also, I was wondering if anyone else feels this way, I am always mad at myself at Sunday blog time because every week I say to myself, “Robert, don’t say all of your thoughts in class or you will be left idea-less when blog time comes.” Every week I fail. Every week I say all of my ideas in class and then I sit down at the computer devoid of ideas at blog time.
I am similar to a sponge that has squeezed all of its water onto a table to clean it out of enjoyment and the kindness of his heart, and then when the sponge really needs to clean something it is all dry and useless because it spent too long cleaning the table. But I plan to continue telling all my ideas in class anyway.
So here we go.
I think the more important part of this play is not the actual death of the salesman, Willie, but the culmination of his death. This tragic culmination, as it were, is true the “death” of Willie. By the time his physical death takes place, Willie, and everything Willie stood for, hoped for, and dreamed of was dead.
After reading Arthur Miller’s essay I agree with what he says without saying. What he says without saying is that the Death of a Salesman is a tragedy. I am sorry Arthur, but I semi-disagree. I think the play is a Semi-Tragedy (and yes I will coin my own term for this idea and refer to Arthur in the vocative as if I am on a first name basis with him).
His essay is very good, but the only thing I didn’t think he had good support for was the idea of the “fall.” Although he argues that the flaw makes the fall into just losing what he “conceives to be…his image of his rightful status” (Arthur 1833). I think that is unfortunate to lose one’s image of one’s rightful status, but I do not think that loss constitutes a fall. What it constitutes is a trip that one stumbles from but gathers oneself and stands once again. Willie does not stand, but he definitely gathers himself. Maybe Arthur was not very athletic and struggled with this gathering-falling concept.
I think the fall of the protagonist in a tragedy is so important to the effectiveness and definition of a tragedy. What makes Death of a Salesman a less effective tragedy is that Willie hardly falls. In the play Willie’s past is left ambiguous by Arthur on purpose. This ambiguity is effective to show the confusion in Willie’s mind, but it also harms our ability to recognize a true fall in the protagonist. It seems fully possible that Willie has always been this unsuccessful as a salesman and as a person. It seems more likely that he was at least a little bit better than he is at the end of his life; however, this small difference between earlier Willie and Willie at his death shows evidence of the minimal fall Willie has made as a character.
Although Miller is a modern Aristotle in discussing tragedy, I think that because of the lack of a true and large enough fall in the Death of a Salesman it is not actually tragedy, but only a Semi-Tragedy. (633)
Monday, February 23, 2009
It is a Vicious Cycle
It is a vicious cycle. Poor Nora. In the beginning of A Doll’s House I was sure that Nora was a weak, shallow, and coquettish (not my word–I wish it was–but Mr. Coon used it before me, so I am accrediting him) young woman. By the end of the play though Nora become strong, or stronger as she goes through a sort of rebirth with a corresponding life path. Helmer insultingly says that she is acting like “child,” but I thought this was actually a fitting complement because that is an improvement.
It is odd to realize that Nora acting like a child is actually a positive change for her. She used to act like a sky lark, a squirrel, and other “pets.” So she when she starts to transform into a stronger person she goes from a pet to a child. By the end of the play she seems to have grown from a child to a young adult who is ready to search for who she really is.
This change came about because she realized that her whole existence before her rebirth was very meaningless. She lived her life the way a parrot does: she was entertaining but just did and said things that seemed human-like but they were really just primitive behaviors to make her father and husband happy respectively. She started as a parrot in her “fathers hands” and then stayed a parrot when she was passed into her husband’s hands.
The vicious cycle is that Nora is not to blame for her weak personality; because she was never allowed become a strong person. To become a strong person, according to this play, one must experience difficult situations, deal with them, and solve them. Nora was coddled her whole life so she was never able to become a strong person. And then when she tries to solve problems, she fails because she is so inexperienced because she was coddled her whole life. I blame the father and the husband.
I think Nora at the very end of the play is a strong young adult because she escaped the cycle that kept her in the role of a subservient pet and then began moving out of her comfort zone (that wasn’t that comfortable anyway) to go on a walkabout to find herself (I realize she is not an aboriginal boy but I think this right of passage situation fits well).
It takes a strong person to realize your whole life has been almost meaningless, and then at that point of realization, start completely again leaving behind everything you know. (432)
It is odd to realize that Nora acting like a child is actually a positive change for her. She used to act like a sky lark, a squirrel, and other “pets.” So she when she starts to transform into a stronger person she goes from a pet to a child. By the end of the play she seems to have grown from a child to a young adult who is ready to search for who she really is.
This change came about because she realized that her whole existence before her rebirth was very meaningless. She lived her life the way a parrot does: she was entertaining but just did and said things that seemed human-like but they were really just primitive behaviors to make her father and husband happy respectively. She started as a parrot in her “fathers hands” and then stayed a parrot when she was passed into her husband’s hands.
The vicious cycle is that Nora is not to blame for her weak personality; because she was never allowed become a strong person. To become a strong person, according to this play, one must experience difficult situations, deal with them, and solve them. Nora was coddled her whole life so she was never able to become a strong person. And then when she tries to solve problems, she fails because she is so inexperienced because she was coddled her whole life. I blame the father and the husband.
I think Nora at the very end of the play is a strong young adult because she escaped the cycle that kept her in the role of a subservient pet and then began moving out of her comfort zone (that wasn’t that comfortable anyway) to go on a walkabout to find herself (I realize she is not an aboriginal boy but I think this right of passage situation fits well).
It takes a strong person to realize your whole life has been almost meaningless, and then at that point of realization, start completely again leaving behind everything you know. (432)
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Method to the Madness
Questions: Act II #5 = Blog Inspiration
Polonius [aside]: Though this be madness, yet there is method in ‘it–Will you walk out of air, my lord?
I think this quote is a very important quote in Act II and in taking a position on Hamlet’s actions. I think Shakespeare is directly talking to his audience/reader through this quote. I realize that the quote is an aside already, but this aside is even more directed at the audience than other asides in the play because this aside has a specific purpose: to gets the audience thinking about whether or not Hamlet has a goal and whether or not Hamlet has a plan to reach that goal. Polonius’s quote functions as a hammer to nail into Shakespeare’s desire to want his audience/reader to be thinking about the motives behind Hamlet’s actions.
By this time the audience/reader has started to think about whether or not Hamlet’s love for Ophelia is genuine, or if the relationship between the characters is a part of Hamlet’s plan that required Marcellus and Horatio to swear to act unaware of any motives behind anything Hamlet may do after that night with the ghost.
Polonius’s quote is also very interesting to me because there of much evidence for Polonius to draw from that would allow him to believe that Hamlet’s relationship with/for Ophelia is a part of any plot, but surprisingly Polonius still is very suspicious of Hamlets actions to some degree. I have not read Hamlet before so I am not sure if Hamlet’s dealings with Ophelia will have any specific purpose in the end, but my ideas about Hamlet’s plot and Ophelia’s questionable role in his plot are these:
I think the true reasoning for Hamlet’s love-struck and odd behavior towards Ophelia is important and a part of a plan, but not because Ophelia is involved. I think Hamlet just needs a credible witness to his “madness.”
To continue: Polonius’s quote is still correct in two ways: one, to Polonius, he believes Ophelia is a player in some sort of game Hamlet is playing. I think Polonius is not correct in his beliefs, but those are the beliefs in which relate to what Polonius meant by his quote. And two, I think the method to his madness is the madness. I think madness is literally the method Hamlet has chosen to achieve whatever he wants to achieve. I think Hamlet, for some reason feels as though he needs everyone to think he is mad or going mad for the rest of his plan to work the way he has designed it. I think Shakespeare wants us to see this meaning of the quote as well, before he reveals more about Hamlet’s madness, method, and plan.
All of the above discussion assumes that Hamlet has indeed chosen a goal and has already commenced a plan to achieve his goal, but to some that may not be true. I believe Hamlet does have a goal and a plan to achieve his goal. I think the ambiguous true meaning of Polonius’s quote could be the true meaning of the quote itself. Maybe the purpose of the quote is not to make us decide what the point of the quote’s meaning is, but rather the purpose of the quote is just to get us to think about the different points the quote reveals. (562. BOOM, Roasted)
Polonius [aside]: Though this be madness, yet there is method in ‘it–Will you walk out of air, my lord?
I think this quote is a very important quote in Act II and in taking a position on Hamlet’s actions. I think Shakespeare is directly talking to his audience/reader through this quote. I realize that the quote is an aside already, but this aside is even more directed at the audience than other asides in the play because this aside has a specific purpose: to gets the audience thinking about whether or not Hamlet has a goal and whether or not Hamlet has a plan to reach that goal. Polonius’s quote functions as a hammer to nail into Shakespeare’s desire to want his audience/reader to be thinking about the motives behind Hamlet’s actions.
By this time the audience/reader has started to think about whether or not Hamlet’s love for Ophelia is genuine, or if the relationship between the characters is a part of Hamlet’s plan that required Marcellus and Horatio to swear to act unaware of any motives behind anything Hamlet may do after that night with the ghost.
Polonius’s quote is also very interesting to me because there of much evidence for Polonius to draw from that would allow him to believe that Hamlet’s relationship with/for Ophelia is a part of any plot, but surprisingly Polonius still is very suspicious of Hamlets actions to some degree. I have not read Hamlet before so I am not sure if Hamlet’s dealings with Ophelia will have any specific purpose in the end, but my ideas about Hamlet’s plot and Ophelia’s questionable role in his plot are these:
I think the true reasoning for Hamlet’s love-struck and odd behavior towards Ophelia is important and a part of a plan, but not because Ophelia is involved. I think Hamlet just needs a credible witness to his “madness.”
To continue: Polonius’s quote is still correct in two ways: one, to Polonius, he believes Ophelia is a player in some sort of game Hamlet is playing. I think Polonius is not correct in his beliefs, but those are the beliefs in which relate to what Polonius meant by his quote. And two, I think the method to his madness is the madness. I think madness is literally the method Hamlet has chosen to achieve whatever he wants to achieve. I think Hamlet, for some reason feels as though he needs everyone to think he is mad or going mad for the rest of his plan to work the way he has designed it. I think Shakespeare wants us to see this meaning of the quote as well, before he reveals more about Hamlet’s madness, method, and plan.
All of the above discussion assumes that Hamlet has indeed chosen a goal and has already commenced a plan to achieve his goal, but to some that may not be true. I believe Hamlet does have a goal and a plan to achieve his goal. I think the ambiguous true meaning of Polonius’s quote could be the true meaning of the quote itself. Maybe the purpose of the quote is not to make us decide what the point of the quote’s meaning is, but rather the purpose of the quote is just to get us to think about the different points the quote reveals. (562. BOOM, Roasted)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)