"Song of Solomon" - post 2

In this post I will be discussing the very end of part 1.

I found the imagery in the last scene with drunk Milkman and Lena very interesting. Lena shows Milkman the dying maple tree. Lena informs Milkman that the tree grew from a twig that she had gathered with flowers that he had peed on when he was little and accidentally peed on Lena. She claims that by soiling the flowers and the twig (which grew into the tree), Milkman is responsible for their deaths. Lena also claims that by soiling Lena literally and all the women in his house figuratively (by not respecting them caring about them, and making fun of them), he is responsible for what happens as a result of his actions towards them, the most recent of which being ruining Corinthians' relationship with Porter by telling Macon. Lena's ending message ties the image of the dying, soiled tree and the "soiled" women toghether by warning Milkman to be wary of his actions or else Lena will take action in some way. I think that the image of her large eyes after putting on her glasses was very telling of her new watchfulness of her baby brother.  

"Song of Solomon" - post 1

In this post I will be discussing the use of the biblical names of some of the main characters, including the title, in Toni Morrison's novel, Song of Solomon. 

The title, Song of Solomon, comes from the Old Testament. It is a book of wise sayings and stories about King Solomon's wisdom. He was the second King of Israel (after David), and was initially a very good king. However, he became very greedy and focused on money, building ornate temples and places. God punished him by destroying his kingdom and all of his temples based on wealth, not faith.

Macon seems to be very similar to King Solomon. He is a very imporant man in his town in North Carolina (particularly in the African American community). He was very rich, and had followed the doctor (his father-in-law) as the richest African American man in town after the doctor's death. He may have been kinder or more generous with his money when he was first starting out (although I rather doubt it based upon what in the past he reflects upon), but he his now entirely consumed by his money and status, even sending Freddie up to get "his money" down from the pocket of a drunk man who tried to kill himself, but passed out before he could. Macon's name is one of the few non-biblical main character names, which is an interesting contrast to the rest of the main characters.

Pilate is Macon's younger sister. She was named at random when her father pointed to a word in the Bible. Pontius Pilate was the Roman Governor of Judea when Jesus was crucified. He is thus hated by many Christians, when he really was stuck in the confines of the laws in that province regarding the powers of the Jewish council and the punnishment that they want for their convicted person. However, for a long time, Pilate was seen as the source of all evil and that he had Jesus crucified because he wanted to not because he had to. Similarly, Pilate in the novel is hated by everyone and is seen by her brother as be source of all evil and something that could ruin his reputation. However, when Milkman goes to see her with Guitar, he finds that she isn't scary or evil, but that she is just represented that way because of what she does (runs a home winery), and the fact that she had a child out of wedlock. She is kind, caring, and leads a contented life that draws even Macon in to observe her happiness from afar.

First Corinthians is one of Macon's two daughters. First Corinthians is a letter from Paul (one of the disciples) to the people of Phillippi. The letter contains advice on how to follow the Christian way of being loving towards others (he includes things like love is patient and that love is the most important thing in life). First Corinthians emulates this principle by always being kind, and not very confrontational (except when she was little). She seems to be the "perfect child" -- doing everything her father wants her to, going to college, smoothing over arguments, etc. 

All of these characters resemble qualities of important biblical references that I think will play a large role in events to come in the novel. 

"Pride and Prejudice" - post 2

Why is Mr. Wickham Mr. Bennet's favorite son-in-law?

This question has bothered me every time I have read Pride and Prejudice. Why would the son-in-law he never wants to see again, who nearly ruined his family's reputation, be his favorite over a nice, rich man and another, very rich, man who has grown greatly since being humbled? The only slightly probable explanation I can think of is that Mr. Bennet sees himself in Mr. Wickham (although this is in itself a stretch for an answer).

Mr. Wickham is a servant's son greatly favored by the late Mr. Darcy (the current Mr. Darcy's father), but one who has fallen into gambling, promiscuity, and other "wild" behaviors. Mr. Bennet doesn't seem to have followed the same trajectory, but both men seem to have not been/are not economical and married very similar women with whom they fall quickly out of love. The narrator recounts Mr. Bennet's reflection on his marriage. He was young and thought the future Mrs. Bennet pretty, and as a result, married her. He never truly loved her, or at least not for very long. He is the polar opposite of his wife, and seems to find her quite annoying. In this reflection at the beginning of Chapter 19 of Volume II, he seems to regret that he cannot make her as happy as he perhaps should due to their varying differences and his unwillingness to change. Mr. Wickham appears to be very similar, finding Lydia attractive enough to allow her to come with him and elope when  he runs away from the militia. In the last chapter of the novel, the narrator informs readers that Mr. Wickham rapidly fell out of love with his wife. Neither men saved their money very well, and thus encounter problems in married life with rather expensive, superficial wives. Both men also put all their hopes for security in one person/event -- Mr. Bennet in having a son to ensure that Longbourn stayed in the family, Mr. Wickham in Mr. Darcy to always take care of him and give him whatever he wanted because he was included in his father's will. Neither one finds security in their person/event, thus they must rely on themselves for security, or become resigned to their fate.

How my Spring Break was "epic"

I went to Arizona for the first week and a half of Spring Break. For the first week, my parents and I went to a ranch in Southern Arizona and rode horses twice a day (or at least I did, my parents didn't). That was really fun because we haven't been in three years. However, the second part of my trip was the "epic" part: we went to the Grand Canyon. It was so huge and gorgeous. Probably the most "epic" part of visiting the Grand Canyon was watching sunset. It was kind of cloudy all day long, so sunset wasn't super pretty on the canyon itself. However, right before the sun finally went below the horizon line, it peeked out from the clouds and turned the sky into an amazing light show on the clouds over the canyon. Below are some pictures from that evening (the two on the bottom are from my iPhone, which is why they are lighter than the top one from my camera, which I haven't edited). 

"Pride and Prejudice" -- post 1

In this post, I will be discussing how various characters view vanity and pride in the first half of  Pride and Prejudice. Please note that my page numbers may be different because I have an ebook version.

 Mary defines both qualities during the Bennets' conversation with the Lucases about Mr. Darcy, saying, "Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves;vanity to what we would have others think of us" (Austen 55). Elizabeth seems to judge people whom she thinks as proud very harshly. This is the primary cause for her extreme dislike of Mr. Darcy, who has a persona of being excessively proud. He also insulted her pride  She also looks down on vanity with disdain, but doesn't judge vain people too harshly, but rather views them as silly, foolish, or immature (ex: Lydia and Kitty). Mr. Bennet's opinions of these two qualities are almost the opposite of his favorite daughter's. Although it is very hard to tell his true opinions due to his sarcastic/cruelly humorous nature, it has become evident in the first half of the novel that he despises vanity more than pride because vanity is entirely superficial (he is also surrounded by it). Mr. Darcy, a seemingly proud man, has several discussions with Elizabeth about pride, and he argues that pride isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is in fact, a trait of an honest person. He remarks to Elizabeth that "nothing is more deceitful ... than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast" (Austen 82). This point displays his opinion that pride, although probably not the best of virtues, is more honest (and thus more admirable) than being humble. All of these characters have different opinions of pride and vanity, which helps contribute to the dynamic of their interactions and relationships. 

"Purple Hibiscus" - post 3

In this post I will be discussing Kambili's relationship with her cousin, Amaka.

Although the girls are about the same age, their different upbringings lead them to be very different and seemingly always in confrontation. Kambili, as we know, is raised in a rich, strict, Catholic, family in the city. However, her life is far from the perfect one that Amaka judges her by; she leads an unhappy life filled with fear and hidden abuse. Amaka, on the other hand, has grown up poor in the area surrounding the university where her mother, a widow, works. Although her life can be extremely hard, it is at least one that is never dull and is filled with laughter and people who love each other. When Amaka and Kambili first interact in Abba, Amaka is very hostile towards Kambili, judging her for her family's opulence (for example, buying the TV that they don't use). This hostility and judgement almost to a point of being condescending throughout their trip to Abba and then when Kambili and Jaja come to visit Aunty Ifeoma and her family in Nsukka. Aunty Ifeoma stands up for Kambili for most of her visit, chiding Amaka to stop saying mean, judgmental things to her cousin. However, towards the end of the visit, Aunty Ifeoma turns the tables and instead chides Kambili for not speaking up for herself, or even speaking above a whisper. This moment forces Kambili to overcome the "bubbles" in her throat that prevent her voice and opinions from flooding out in order to get her cousin to stop teasing her and judging her just because she appears to have a much easier life than Amaka. This moment is also the turning point in the girls' relationship. After she stands up to her and tells her to stop, Amaka seems to respect Kambili and wants to spend time with her. She no longer begrudges her having to teach Kambili how to do basic cooking skills, and she no longer judges her for not having things like shorts or never playing soccer. She even gives Kambili her unfinished portrait of Papa-Nnukwu before Kamibli and Jaja go back to the city. Kambili is amazed by this transformation, and is very grateful not to be teased all the time any more, signifying her being accepted by her extended family. She is sad to leave Nsukka at the end of the 10 days, rather than being elated like she would have been had she gone home after one or two days. Later in the story, Amaka even invites her to her confirmation, something that Kambili was touched by and wanted to attend if she was allowed.

I think that Amaka did not respect Kambili because she had no voice, and thus was entirely dependent on someone else. She may have even tried to provoke her into speaking for herself with all of her teasing and judging. Once Kambili learned to use her voice, learned to be her own person that was capable of laughing and smiling and not just following orders, Amaka was happy to be around her. Perhaps Amaka was uncomfortable by the idea that someone who had so much and yet was unable to be her own person, whereas being her own person was something that was innate in Amaka's less fortunate family. Perhaps she realized that she was jealous for the wrong reasons, and once they were on semi-equal footing as people, Amaka could put aside her jealousy and her potential guilt. With the gaining of her voice and confidence, Kambili also seemed to stop seeing her cousin as a "wild child" and someone who was too far advanced for her to ever be anything close to resembling friends (which Kambili doesn't really have in the first place). I think that the newfound friendship and amicable relationship between Amaka and Kambili will prove invaluable in the rest of the book as Kambili recovers in Nsukka from her beating and when she returns to the city and to her father (Kambili has another family to go to, an ally in both her aunt and Amaka, and someone who can give an outside opinion should she need help).

"Purple Hibiscus" -post 2

In this post I will be discussing Kambili's complicated relationship with her father. In many instances throughout the first 106 pages of the book, Kambili exhibits symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome. This disorder is often simply defined as growing attached to a captor or abuser to the point of even defending them after long durations of captivity or abuse. Kambili seems to nave been periodically abused by Eugene throughout her whole life, and lives in constant fear of failing to meet his insanely high expectations or not following his incredibly strict rules. She essentially does not have any friends because her father makes her run from class to meet Kevin so that she does not waste any of his time nor get behind on her schedule. Her father permits her and Jaja from getting to know their dying grandfather or expierence anything of their cultures heritage because they are all "pagan."He also does not really let them see their cousins, the closest people to their own age who don't go to their school, because their mother supports their "pagan" grandfather, and won't convert to Catholicism. One would think that all of these restraints on her life and even being beaten or watching her family being beaten would create animosity between Kambili and Eugene. On the contrary, Kambili practically worships her father, craving his love and attention, desiring to make him happy (although that could be self defense), and defending his actions. She even critizies Aunt Ifeoma and her cousins for their failure to see her Papa as "special."

I am interested to learn how this Sockholm Syndromeesque relationship between Kambili and Eugene changes (if at all) as she gets older and after she returns from a week with her comparitively extremely liberal Aunt and cousins without her parents or servants.

                                                               Works Cited

"Stockholm Syndrome: The Psychological Mystery of Loving an Abuser, Page 1." CounsellingResourcecom Library RSS. Ed. Dr Greg Mulhauser. N.p., 20 Dec. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2016. <http://counsellingresource.com/lib/therapy/self-help/stockholm/>.

"Purple Hibiscus" - post 1

In this post, I will be comparing and contrasting Purple Hibiscus's Eugene and Things Fall Apart's Okonkwo. 

Both Eugene and Okonkwo are important men in their societies (for Eugene, more so in Abba than in the city). They are wealthy and titled, and display their wealth through large houses/compounds. Eugene and Okonkwo are also very controlling of their families, threatening and dolling out abuse if they do not follow every order, meet every expectation. Both men have very high expectations stemming from their hardships in life in order to get to the place of high status that they are at the start of their respective stories. Their high expectations also come from their strong relgious beliefs. Okonkwo's faith is very deeply rooted in the ancestral tribal religion, and fights Christianity with all of his might when the missionaries arrive to Mbanta and Umofia. He even disowns his eldest son for converting to Christianity. Eugene is a Christian in the most extreme form. He practically erases his father from his life because he will not covert to Catholicsm, will not let "pagans" into his compound in Abba, and makes his family focus on God and religion at every moment of every day. Eugene is ashamed of his father's reluctance to convert, just as Okonkwo is ashamed of his for his laziness and indebetness. 

Although these two men are very similar, they have some notable differences. First of all, their religous differences creates a divide in their reactions to their actions, particularly abusing their family. Okonkwo never shows signs of remorse about hurting his family, except when he is forced to by the rest of community because he broke a sacred time of peace. However, every time Eugene abuses his family, he is sinning. As a result, he seems to show some sort of remorse, asking if they are hurt or bleeding after he beats them with a belt for letting Kambilli eat breakfast on Sunday in order to take medicine. Eugene is at the mercy of other people for his security as a factory owner and newspaper publsiher. Okonkwo is a farmer and a warrior, thus he could be independent of the community if he wanted to. Eugene, despite his abusive and extremely controlling nature, seems to genuinely care for his immediate family (although he shuns his father and occasionally his sister and her family). He had the opportunity to take a second wife and replace Kambili, Jaja, and their mother with a new, more reproductive family after Kambilli's mother had several miscarriages, but he chose not to. Okonkwo on the other hand, does not seem to know how to demonstrate affection (which he sees as a weakness-- his focus rather than Eugene's focus on sin), but he does not seem to care for all of his wives and thier children to the same degree.

Both seem to be used by their respective authors to demonstrate the extremes of society, which I think will be used in both novels to demonstrate the power of colonialism and the effects that cultural eradication has on people. 

"Things Fall Apart" - Part 2

Part Two of Things Fall Apart details Okonkwo's seven years in exile. During this time, the villages experience their first interactions with white men and Christianity. I found it interesting that when Mr. Bryan and Mr. Kiaga came to Mbanta, they didn't gain many followers when they conveyed their message to the villagers, but they gained the majority of their followers by not dying. The people of Mbanta gave the Christians part of the Evil Forest to build their church, figuring that the gods would kill them for simply coming, as well as for building in the Evil Forest. They lived. The same thing happened when they started rescuing twins from the forest. It was as if the converts converted because their gods seemed to be distant, or even dead, due to their lack of action over the breaking of so many rules. The converts figured they had a better chance of a good afterlife with the mighty Christians who defied the gods and lived than with their traditional gods.

The transformation of the attitude of the converts was also interesting to me. In Chapter 18, the town's outcasts were admitted into the church, but not without a major debate among the converts and Mr. Kiaga. During the debate one of the converts said, "'What will the heathen say of us when they hear we receive osu into our midst?'" (156) I was surprised when the convert referred to his fellow clansmen as "heathen" when just a short time ago he was fully enthralled in their traditional religion. "Heathen" has the connotation of being lesser than the speaker. Mr. Kiaga (the African interpreter for Mr. Brian who runs the Mbanta mission) also uses this term, even though this othering and superior nature is often associated with the European missionaries, and not with their converts who now look down upon those who were their friends, family, and equals (or more titled in society) before they converted and moved apart from the clan.

"Things Fall Apart" - Part 1

In Part One of Things Fall Apart, Achebe seems to have created Okonkwo as a tragic hero. He is one of the most titled men in his community, and is revered as one of the strongest men. However, he is quick to anger and violence, which often gets him in trouble with both the community and the gods. He was warned by Ezeudu, one of the oldest men in the village, not to take part in the sacrifice of Ikenfuna, but Okonkwo was the one who killed Ikenfuna in the woods. This action seemed to have marked Okonkwo in the eyes of the gods, with the nearly fatal illness of Ezinma, her later summoning by Agbala, and then his fatal mistake of accidentally killing Ezeudu's son at his funeral. This mistake (described as something that had never happened before) results from his flaw of insecurity covered by excessive pride/desire to demonstrate his strength/manliness (pride is the most common flaw in tragic heroes). Okonkwo's punishment comes in the form of exile for seven years in order to save the community from the god's wrath. The other men burn his compound, the symbol of his wealth and status that he built himself. It will be interesting to see if Okonkwo's story continues to follow the path of a tragic hero, or if Okonkwo will realize his flaw and try to change himself for the better to rebuild the life that has seemingly fallen apart.

"Things Fall Apart" - Chapters 1-5

Okonkwo is a very powerful man in his tribe. One way he demonstrates this is through polygamy. He has three wives, and there is clearly a hierarchy between them. The first wife always gets preference, and her son is Okonkwo's eldest child, giving her a lot of clout among the family. Okonkwo always eats her food first, and then moves along to the second wife. The second wife, Ekwefi, seems to always be in trouble. She fell in love with Okonkwo when she was 15 when Okonkwo defeated the Cat in the wrestling match. She even ran away from her first husband to be with him. She was once the prettiest girl in the town, which is why Okonkwo fell in love with her. However, now that she is 45 she often is the only wife who dares to speak against her husband's actions, and thus often results in her being at the receiving end of Okonkwo's violent anger. Her endurance of Oknokwo's abuse confuses me, because if she left her husband once, why does she not leave Oknokwo for someone kinder towards her. Oknokwo's "tough love" and constant demonstrations of his dominance/strength leave his family in a state of almost constant fear that confuses me as a female living in a twenty-first century Western nation as to why any of his wives would endure this torturous lifestyle. Her daughter, Ezinna, is often ridiculed by her father, but she is also one of his favorite children. She is more of a tomboy than her sisters, but her father tries to squash these tendencies by reminding her to act like a lady and telling her that certain things are only for boys. The third wife is rarely mentioned in the first five chapters, but it is clear that she is at the bottom of the hierarchy. Her children are the youngest, thus the least helpful (and consequently less "loved" by their father), and Okonkwo always eats her meals last (so he probably doesn't eat much of them after already eating two meals).

In many other works of literature that I have read that involve polygamous families, all of the wives share one house and there is intense competition between the wives for the affection of their husband. In Things Fall Apart, Oknokwo is rich enough to let each wife have their own hut in his compound. There doesn't seem to be much competition between the wives, but rather a sense of cooperation to make sure that everything is just so in order to stay Oknokwo's wrath, as well as to produce a good harvest to feed the family throughout the year. Oknokwo forces his wives into submission through abuse in order to make himself feel strong and to cover up any inkling of weakness -- emotion that he might have for any of his wives or his children who just long for one kind word from their father, but only receive a stream of criticisms and incessant work. He sees weakness as the epitome of his failure father; someone who Oknokwo is determined to never resemble in any way.

"Image of Africa"

Achebe's essay, "Image of Africa," is a criticism of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. However, it has a much more profound effect on readers as a commentary on the underlying racism in Western cultures. This commentary runs throughout the essay. Before jumping into his criticism of Heart of Darkness, Achebe recounts a conversation with a fellow professor at the University of Massachusetts. His colleague at first didn't know he was a professor, and then said that "he never had thought of having that kind of stuff..." This comment reveals the point that Achebe tries to prove throughout his criticism: the underlying racism in Western culture drives the ignorance and open racism that plague modern society. Achebe uses several passages from Heart of Darkness to demonstrate Conrad's racist portrayal of the African people. Achebe discusses how Conrad uses many comparison between things and their antithesis, just as historically Europeans viewed the people of African nations as the antithesis of themselves (whom they saw as an almost Aryan race). Achebe attributes this unjust comparison (the only thing different about them was the color of their skin) to a Western inferiority complex, and a desire to see that they are "beating" someone. This inferiority complex is difficult to explain, but its putting down of Africans and African culture was the impetus of the underlying racism in Western culture. Achebe also comments on how Conrad loves things to be in their proper place. In American society when Conrad was born in 1857, people of color were at best free, but second-class citizens; at worst they were slaves. Achebe attributes this to some of Conrad's racist views, but he doesn't think that ignorance and cultural upbringing accounts for all of his racist views. Towards the end of his essay, Achebe addresses how the public views both Conrad and Heart of Darkness. Achebe mentions that a book written by Dr. Bernard C. Meyer to explain Conrad. He mentions nearly everything, including his antisemitism, but leaves out his racist ideology. Achebe takes this and the fact that Heart of Darkness on a list of the six "'greatest short novels in the English language'" and is "the most commonly prescribed novel in twentieth-century literature courses in English departments of American universities" to mean that Conrad's racism is accepted in Western/American culture.

Achebe's commentary on the underlying racism is supported by two more examples in his essay as well as current events. Achebe references an article in The Christian Science Monitor, a newspaper renown for being "more enlightened than most." This article uses the term "dialects" to refer to African tribal languages. Achebe attributes this to the idea that they tribes were not civilized to have true languages, another manifestation of the underlying racism of Western culture. Achebe mentions letters he receives from students who have read Things Fall Apart, saying that they enjoyed learning about African culture, something that is not widely taught in schools. On the last day of the semester, Severn had an assembly for Martin Luther King Day. We did a silent, stand up-sit down exercise with anonymous surveys that students had completed earlier in the week. For the statement, "I do not study the culture of my ancestors in school," a startling number of students stood. This was a prime example of how Western culture's underlying racism against all non-white people has defined how we learn about history: almost always from the white, predominately male, European perspective. This racism is carried into all aspects of our culture, including the entertainment industry. Many famous actors and actresses are boycotting the Academy Awards because of a lack of diversity among nominees. This is a reflection of the racism in the film industry as a whole, which makes it incredibly harder for non-white actors to be cast in films. This, along with many other current events, proves that Chinua Achebe's commentary the underlying racism in Western/American culture is very accurate and poignant even almost sixty years later.

"Hamlet"- overall reflections and questions

Reflections:

I enjoyed reading this play, although it was a challenge to read at the beginning, I slowly got better at it. However, I didn't enjoy it just because it got easier to understand. I enjoyed reading it because of how much was going on and thus how many different interpretations could be taken and discussed. I liked how we weren't assigned anyone we "had to like" because almost all of the characters were flawed that you could make your opinions of them and they didn't  have to change because the author says so (although the opinon's of many characters often still didchange because of new actions/information). For example, Hamlet can be disliked by many people because he kills people and is cruel to people, or he can be pitied because his sense of obligation and desire to do well by his father drives him to these actions, or he slowly grows on people as the play goes on because he is slowly revealed to be a very moral person who is stuck in a hard position (having to kill his uncle to avenge his ghost father that keeps reminding him of his task) while acting/being insane. 

Questions: 

Why poison all the swords? In their planning, Laretes and Claudius makes it seem like will only be Laretes' blade that positioned. Is it Laretes' guilt that makes him decide to poison all of them?

Why was it so important that Ophelia be buried in "Christian" ground? Why were victims of suicide not given this privilege? 

Is Hamlet, or any other character, able to be considered a tragic hero? 

"Hamlet"- the end (Act V post)

In this blog post I will be discussing the final lines of the play with Fortinbras and Horatio. 

In the final lines of the play, Horatio suggests that he explain what happened to result in 4 deaths at one party in the form of a play. This proposition and then the following preparations made me wonder at what the rest of the play was: was it Horatio's play or was it a more "truthful" play because Horatio hadn't been in every scene, but just heard about the scenes he wasn't in from other people. This second play recounting the same story as the play I was about to finish reading reminded me of many of the conversations we had in class about what is "real" and what is not while we were reading The Things They Carried. I think that Horatio's proposed play within a play, along with other ironic allusions to acting and stages throughout the play, and with the inclusion and focus on madness (something which can be caused by a difficulty at determining what is real and what is not) that Shakespeare was trying to challenge the idea that people immerse themselves in entertainment/literature and make it "real" when in it isn't truly "real", only a story being told by a group of people who take on the personas of fictitious (even if they were potentially based upon actual people) characters in order to tell it.

"Hamlet"- Gertrude and the Ghost

Why can Gertrude not see or hear the Ghost in Act 3 Scene 4?

One possible answer to this question could be that only those who have the desire for revenge can see the ghost. Gertrude has no desire for revenge, or at least revenge through violence, so she cannot see/hear the cause of her son's insanity (desire for revenge caused by the Ghost's story, thus the Ghost is the cause of Hamlet's madness). However, if this is the reason why Gertrude cannot see/hear the Ghost, then what drives the guards to want revenge? Perhaps the guards can see the Ghost because they will be involved in Hamlet's revenge or they are lying in wait for Fortinbras' army of revenge to come attack them.

Another, simpler, explanation could be that the Ghost can choose who is able to see him. He could have chosen not to reveal himself to Gertrude in order to keep her from going into any further shock, or to keep Hamlet's persona of a madman alive in order to ensure that he will get his revenge (thus helping the Ghost), or a combination of the two, or for some other inexplicable reason.

"Hamlet"- Challenges

In this post I will be discussing how reading Hamlet has been different for me than reading other Shakespeare plays.

Shakespeare is one of my favorite authors, so I'm really excited that we are reading Hamlet. Overall, I am enjoying the play so far, but this play is much more challenging than any play I have ever read before. In the past with Shakespeare, I can read it normally like a book and pick up what it is saying (or look up a few things in the side notes).  However, so far with Hamlet, I have had some trouble understanding what is going on and have had to look at the notes frequently for guidance on what the characters are saying. I think that this challenge comes from several places. First, I haven't read Shakespeare for English class in two years (we read Macbeth sophomore year), but I have read several plays for fun in the years between, as well as for my Independent Study in Theatre this year (A Midsummer Night's Dream), which sort of negates this reason. Secondly, and I think more accurately, that Hamlet is a more complex play with respect to underlying meaning/themes than many of the others that I have read, and thus the language needs to be more complex to reflect that. I think that, as we discussed in class, that Hamlet focuses much more on the psychological (which results in more difficult readability in contemporary English) than on action. To overcome this challenge, I will read more closely and possible check things that I am still very confused on with No Fear Shakespeare (although I typically don't like their translations, but it might help clear some plot confusion up). 

"The Dead" - response

In this post I will be discussing the similarities and differences between Joyce's "The Dead" and Ibsen's A Doll's House.

It is difficult to tell when "The Dead" is set, but it seems to be around the late 1800s in Ireland, which is the same time period as A Doll's House, except that that was set in the Netherlands.

The male main characters of these two works are also very similar. Gabriel is a successful, intellectual, upper-class man with a seemingly happy marriage, a patriarchal view of women (mostly his wife), and a desire to travel to the more sophisticated Continent. Torvald is a successful, upper-middle/upper class man with a seemingly happy marriage, a patriarchal view of all women, and a high moral code. Both men love and think of their wives in accordance with their societies' traditions: that she is in charge of the household, doesn't have complex thoughts, and exists for no other purposes other than to be his wife and to be a mother to his children (this last piece is very explicitly shown in Torvald). Due to their similar time periods and classes, both Gabriel's and Torvald's societies are similar as well. Both of them express something similar to Victorian age morality, with one of the gravest errors a person can make is lying, as expressed through Torvald's sentiments on the subject, and the lyrics to the song that the party guests sing to the aunts after Gabriel's speech.

The wives too, are very similar to each other (although not nearly as similar as their husbands). Both Nora and Gretta are not understood by their husbands and harbor secrets from their husbands that are revealed at the end of the work. However, their goals are very different. Nora wants Torvald to treat her as an equal, or at least as a fellow human being. She leaves her husband and children in order to discover herself.  It is hard to discern what Gretta desires, but I think she would like to be respected by Gabriel as an intellectual human being. She does not do anything but tell Gabriel the story of the boy she loved when she was young.

As similar as these characters, and the works they are a part of are, there are major differences in aspects not relating to the characters. "The Dead" takes place at Gabriel's old aunts' party, whereas A Doll’s House takes place in the Helmer family home over several days. "The Dead" alludes to political conflicts in Ireland and human mortality (hence the title), in contrast, A Doll's House seems timeless in terms of allusions to events and discusses illusion vs. reality of many things, as well as feminist ideals. "The Dead" as a whole is a much simpler plot structure than A Doll's House, but is much more dense than Ibsen's play and has complex themes concerning morality and patriotism (though A Doll's House has complicated themes in its own right, but due to the style of the play, they can appear to be much more transparent than Joyce's short story's themes).

"The Dead" - word

Mechanical.

"The Dead" - question

What was the "secret life"  that Gabriel mentions several times towards the end of the story?

When I first read about this "secret life", I was very confused, but I thought that it could mean that they really were in love (many couples at the time this was set weren't due to arranged marriages/status marriages). However, by the second time it appears in this short story, I wasn't so sure that it was a happy "secret life". I thought that it could be saying that they really hated/disliked each other, and maybe even lived separate lives under the outward-facing image of a happy marriage.

After thinking about "The Dead" for a little while, I am still very confused about what this "secret life" really is, but I have a couple more theories. One of which is that maybe their "secret life" is their history together; perhaps they were lovers first and got married out of obligation, or that there is some other complication (or even several complications) in the past that Gabriel can define as a "secret life". My second, and final, theory is that their "secret life" is nothing so dramatic as lost love or a complex history, but instead is just that they have a life away from their young children, the elaborate social gatherings, and his aging aunts; a life just as a married couple, however unhappy or happy they might be.

"As I Lay Dying"- clues into Darl's instability

In the last few chapters of the book, we learn that Darl set Gillespie barn on fire and that he is not well psychologically. The only possible reason for why Darl did what he did is in Cash's second to last chapter: that Darl set fire to the barn to burn Jewel's horse (take away its trade value). Darl's actions that were confusing in earlier parts of the book (for example, laughing at Addie's coffin) are now closely replicated (crying after the barn burned and laughing after he has been exposed) and can signal his instability growing. Darl is also described as a little odd earlier in the book, meaning that he could have been mildly unstable or even just different, in general, not just psychologically. His elevated vocabularly suggests an education that none of the other characters recieved, which is puzzling because Cash would have been educated first, thus probably gone father as the eldest son of a southern family in the early 20th century. It is interesting that Jefferson is the place they burry Addie, the home of the new Mrs. Bundren, the largest town closest to the Bundren's home, and the name of the prison/insane asylum (as they would have called it) that Darl is sent to because using only one name makes it seem that they are all the same thing: death, containment, and renewall. By his last chapter, Darl sounds incredibly like Vardaman. Readers can assume that he is in his cell in the Jefferson asylum/prison for insanity (that probably isn't what he had, but they really only had one mental health diagnosis in those days -- though mental illness diagnosis was slowly getting better). 

Perhaps, the philosophy of The Things They Carried had too much of an influence on me and this di super out-there, but Darl's omniscience, his intersection of his language into other's chapter (particularly Dewey Dell), and his comment to Jewel when he asks about who his father is ("your mother is a horse..") that matches exactly what Vardaman thinks/says, and his complete change in diction and syntax to mimik Vardaman's makes me wonder if this entire story was real or if only the basic facts and some of the people were real, or if all of this is what Darl expierenced and is recounting in his mind as he sits in Jefferson. The characters, who are probably real, could be talking as he views them and they change their diction, etc. when Darl's mind goes back to the way that he thinks, not the way the characters think; or the characters could all be real to an extent, but Vardaman's story isn't his but Darl's "insane" one because their syntax and diction are so similar.