So this Flannery girl seems pretty wierd to me. I sort of have this perception of her as this hick who grew up in the middle of no where, Georgia and raised chicken with her hick family. Her way to fame was teaching a chicken to walk backwards, other than that she would just sit around and make rediculous stories that have intense imagery and 'distorted christ figures'. Okay, other than being a goob, I must admit that her stories are really well thought out and are actually really interesting. However, I do get frusterated when we talk about them. Our discussion last week about "A Good Man Is Hard To Find" is what really confused me. Some people thought that the grandma was an evil figure and that she planned everything out but I'm just not covinced. It's so hard for me to imagine a grandmother trying to do that to her own kids and grandkids. Even letting go of my personal experiences, there is not enough evidence. To me, she seems like a lonely grandma who just wants to spend time with her grandkids. Even June Star said, "She wouldn't stay home for a million bucks. Afraid she'd miss something. She has to go everywhere we go". She's like any grandmother who just wants to spend time with her family and wouldn't want to miss anything. And even though she bugged her family to go to Tennessee, she later felt guilty was 'the first one in the car, ready to go'. She realized how selfish she had been and to make for less fuss, she gave in and did what her family wanted to do. It's not like she wanted to go to Florida in the first place, so how could she have planned out running into the Misfit? It just doesn't fit to me. My perception of the story is that she's almost like a christ figure and at the end she tries to save the Misfit by telling him that he's one of her children. When she reaches towards him it's like a moment of grace but the Misfit rejects it because he's not ready for it.
I thought these stories were really interesting and I liked that we had different views to the story. I can't wait for more short stories!
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
I found it!
A real live allusion in our modern day world! I was so excited I thought I would share it with you all!
Allusion to the Garden of Eden in “The Nightside of Eden” by HIM
“Divided we stand in the light of a frozen sun
Cursing the gods we have become
We steal the fire from a sacred heart
And bleed the wine unholy
We fall in love with the serpent's song
And fear nothing
In the nightside of Eden
We're born again dead
Forever we are
Forever we've been
Forever we'll be crucified to a dream
In the nightside of Eden
Deranged, we're tearing away the petals of desire
Learning the mathematics of evil by heart
We deceive ourselves to start a war
Within the realm of senses
And descend to the circle number four
Where we are nothing” (HIM).
History of the Garden of Eden:
When god was creating Earth, he created a man named Adam. In order for him to not be lonely, God created a woman named Eve. He created a garden in Eastward Eden and put his creations there. Both Adam and Eve were naked, however they were not ashamed. Then God planted trees and a Tree of Knowledge. He then told Adam that he could eat from any of the trees besides the Tree of Knowledge or else it would lead to his death. Then a serpent came and tempted Eve to take a bite of an apple from the Tree of Knowledge. She then convinced Adam to do the same. After this, Adam and Eve realized they were naked and thus, evil was created. It was also the separation of man from God.
The Garden of Eden in Relation to the Song:
The song clearly talks about the place where God sent Cain (East of Eden). It talks about the evil of the world and is basically describing the opposite of paradise, or hell. When the song talks about descending ‘to the circle number four’, meaning the fourth circle of hell, it means that there is constantly a war between good and evil and in the end, it really doesn’t mean anything. The title reveals the evil that came out of a good place. When you think of Eden, you usually think of a bright place, however, the ‘nightside’ of Eden makes you think of the sin and the temptation that happened in the garden. When the song says ‘we fall in love with the serpent’s song’, it is a direct reference to the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, thus creating evil on Earth. Overall, the song talks about the evil that came out of The Garden of Eden, or more appropriately said in the Nightside of Eden.
Allusion to the Garden of Eden in “The Nightside of Eden” by HIM
“Divided we stand in the light of a frozen sun
Cursing the gods we have become
We steal the fire from a sacred heart
And bleed the wine unholy
We fall in love with the serpent's song
And fear nothing
In the nightside of Eden
We're born again dead
Forever we are
Forever we've been
Forever we'll be crucified to a dream
In the nightside of Eden
Deranged, we're tearing away the petals of desire
Learning the mathematics of evil by heart
We deceive ourselves to start a war
Within the realm of senses
And descend to the circle number four
Where we are nothing” (HIM).
History of the Garden of Eden:
When god was creating Earth, he created a man named Adam. In order for him to not be lonely, God created a woman named Eve. He created a garden in Eastward Eden and put his creations there. Both Adam and Eve were naked, however they were not ashamed. Then God planted trees and a Tree of Knowledge. He then told Adam that he could eat from any of the trees besides the Tree of Knowledge or else it would lead to his death. Then a serpent came and tempted Eve to take a bite of an apple from the Tree of Knowledge. She then convinced Adam to do the same. After this, Adam and Eve realized they were naked and thus, evil was created. It was also the separation of man from God.
The Garden of Eden in Relation to the Song:
The song clearly talks about the place where God sent Cain (East of Eden). It talks about the evil of the world and is basically describing the opposite of paradise, or hell. When the song talks about descending ‘to the circle number four’, meaning the fourth circle of hell, it means that there is constantly a war between good and evil and in the end, it really doesn’t mean anything. The title reveals the evil that came out of a good place. When you think of Eden, you usually think of a bright place, however, the ‘nightside’ of Eden makes you think of the sin and the temptation that happened in the garden. When the song says ‘we fall in love with the serpent’s song’, it is a direct reference to the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, thus creating evil on Earth. Overall, the song talks about the evil that came out of The Garden of Eden, or more appropriately said in the Nightside of Eden.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Zora Neale Hurston
Since I decided to read Their Eyes Were Watching God, I wanted to find out more about the author so I could maybe connect some of the experiances in the book to the author. I found out some really interesting things about her life
- Born on January 7, 1891, in Notasulga, Alabama; however, she grew up in Eatonville, Florida. She considered it her real home.
- Eatonville was a black township with five lakes, three croquet courts, three hundred brown ckins, three hundred good swimmers, plenty guavas, two schools, and no jailhouse.
- She had a relatively good upbringing. Her mother was the main influence of her ambitions and her father was a preacher.
- Her mother died in 1904 when Zora was only thirteen years old. This began her thinkings of life.
- Her father quickly remarried to a girl that Zora almost killed in a fistfight.
- She eventually joined a Gilbert & Sullivan traveling troupe as a maid to the lead singer.
- At 26 she still hadn't finished high school. So in order for her to appear young so she could recieve free public schooling, she took off ten years of her life, saying that she was born in 1901. Always presented herself as ten years younger than she was
- She was a "handsome, big-bones woman with playful yet penetrating eyes, high cheekbones, and full, graceful mouth that was never without expression"
- Had a sense of humor
- Graduated from Barnard College in 1928
- by 1935, she published several short stories and articles, as well as a novel, Jonah's Gourd Vine, and a well-recieved collection of black Southern folklore, Mules and Men.
- Published Their Eyes Were Watching God in 1937.
- Never recieved the financial rewards she deserved. The largest sum of money she earned from her book was $943.75
- Died on January 28, 1960 at 69 from a stroke.
- Buried in a grave that remained unmarked until 1973.
I'm really looking foward to reading the book and I will post soon to tell you what I think of it!
Works Cited
Hurston, Zora Neale. Their Eyes Were Watching God. New York: HarperCollins, 2006.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A Poem
We haven't done a poetry reading in a while so I decided that I would do one right now! I chose "The Young Housewife" by William Carlos Williams
At ten A.M. the young housewife
moves about in negligee behind
the wooden walls of her husband's house.
I pass solitary in my car.
Then again she comes to the curb
to call the ice-man, fish-man, and stands
shy, uncorseted, tucking in
stray ends of her hair, and I compare her
to a fallen leaf.
The noiseless wheels of my car
rush with a crackling sound over
dried leaves as I bow and pass smiling.
My interpretation:
negligee- a dressing gown or robe, usually of sheer fabric and having soft, flowing lines, worn by women.
The girl is standing outside of her husband's house with wooden walls. I get the impression that she doesn't have a very good relationship with her husband. It seems like she's maybe pushed out of the way by her husband.
The man, to me, seems like he is blown away by this girl. He watches her and he doesn't want her to see him. It's almost like he is stalking her; however, I don't get a creepy vibe from it. It almost seems to me like this guy might be in love with her.
It then goes on to say that the woman is outside to call the ice-man and the fish-man. Is she in a city? Why is she alone? Why would she be on the streets to get fish? The man compares her to a 'fallen leaf'. When I think of a falling leaf, I think delicate and fragile. I can see the woman being fragile. Maybe she is going through a hard time and the man wants to help her but he is afraid to.
The man then passes the woman with his 'noiseless wheels', however, there is the 'crackling' sound of the leaves. Did the woman notice him? It then says that he bowed and smiled at her. Do they know each other? Maybe they are secret lovers?
I'm not too sure but this poem has a very mysterious tone to it. I just imagine a girl alone and a guy trying to reach out and help her; however, something is holding him back.
I really like this poem. I wonder what my classmates will say!
At ten A.M. the young housewife
moves about in negligee behind
the wooden walls of her husband's house.
I pass solitary in my car.
Then again she comes to the curb
to call the ice-man, fish-man, and stands
shy, uncorseted, tucking in
stray ends of her hair, and I compare her
to a fallen leaf.
The noiseless wheels of my car
rush with a crackling sound over
dried leaves as I bow and pass smiling.
My interpretation:
negligee- a dressing gown or robe, usually of sheer fabric and having soft, flowing lines, worn by women.
The girl is standing outside of her husband's house with wooden walls. I get the impression that she doesn't have a very good relationship with her husband. It seems like she's maybe pushed out of the way by her husband.
The man, to me, seems like he is blown away by this girl. He watches her and he doesn't want her to see him. It's almost like he is stalking her; however, I don't get a creepy vibe from it. It almost seems to me like this guy might be in love with her.
It then goes on to say that the woman is outside to call the ice-man and the fish-man. Is she in a city? Why is she alone? Why would she be on the streets to get fish? The man compares her to a 'fallen leaf'. When I think of a falling leaf, I think delicate and fragile. I can see the woman being fragile. Maybe she is going through a hard time and the man wants to help her but he is afraid to.
The man then passes the woman with his 'noiseless wheels', however, there is the 'crackling' sound of the leaves. Did the woman notice him? It then says that he bowed and smiled at her. Do they know each other? Maybe they are secret lovers?
I'm not too sure but this poem has a very mysterious tone to it. I just imagine a girl alone and a guy trying to reach out and help her; however, something is holding him back.
I really like this poem. I wonder what my classmates will say!
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Frankenstein Part 3
Wow! What an awesome book! I really enjoyed Shelley’s writing style and how she created a realistic sci-fi book. Even though you know that could never really happen, Shelley put a realistic sense to it. I also like how the ending was not a happy one. Sometimes happy endings are almost hard to believe.
There’s one question that I have been pondering a lot ever since I finished the book. Is the monster pure evil or did he have some good in him? I feel like the times when we read the story through the monster’s eyes, I often felt sympathetic towards him and I understood where he was coming from. However, towards the end when we were reading it through Victor’s eyes again, the monster just seemed cruel and insane. I don’t think it was necessary for the monster to threaten Victor and go around and kill all of his loved ones. The monster even goes so far as to threaten Victor on his wedding day, saying “I will be with you on your wedding-night!” (Shelley 203). The one day that could bring happiness to Victor and the monster threatens to kill him on it! I thought that was really cruel. I also thought that the monster forcing Victor to see all the deaths of his loved ones was also really harsh. I couldn’t imagine having to go through that pain. At the end of the book, however, we see more human qualities in the monster. He basically apologizes for the murders and realizes that they did not do him any good. He explains that, “For while I destroyed [Victor’s] hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires” (Shelley 240). Then the monster vows to take his life in order to ‘finish his work’. The monster asks himself, “where can I find rest but in death?” (Shelley 242). I would have to agree with the monster for wanting to take his life because in a lot of ways, the monster is like another Victor. And since Victor died, the monster should die too because it is Victor’s creation. However, we never know for sure if the monster kills himself. It really makes you wonder and I can’t wait to discuss this in my lit circle!
Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Hertfordshire, Denmark: Wordsworth Classics, 1993.
There’s one question that I have been pondering a lot ever since I finished the book. Is the monster pure evil or did he have some good in him? I feel like the times when we read the story through the monster’s eyes, I often felt sympathetic towards him and I understood where he was coming from. However, towards the end when we were reading it through Victor’s eyes again, the monster just seemed cruel and insane. I don’t think it was necessary for the monster to threaten Victor and go around and kill all of his loved ones. The monster even goes so far as to threaten Victor on his wedding day, saying “I will be with you on your wedding-night!” (Shelley 203). The one day that could bring happiness to Victor and the monster threatens to kill him on it! I thought that was really cruel. I also thought that the monster forcing Victor to see all the deaths of his loved ones was also really harsh. I couldn’t imagine having to go through that pain. At the end of the book, however, we see more human qualities in the monster. He basically apologizes for the murders and realizes that they did not do him any good. He explains that, “For while I destroyed [Victor’s] hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires” (Shelley 240). Then the monster vows to take his life in order to ‘finish his work’. The monster asks himself, “where can I find rest but in death?” (Shelley 242). I would have to agree with the monster for wanting to take his life because in a lot of ways, the monster is like another Victor. And since Victor died, the monster should die too because it is Victor’s creation. However, we never know for sure if the monster kills himself. It really makes you wonder and I can’t wait to discuss this in my lit circle!
Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Hertfordshire, Denmark: Wordsworth Classics, 1993.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Wife of Bath
Here is what I found out about the Wife of Bath. It's actually really interesting once you tear everything apart!
Gap-toothed
Back then, gap-toothed usually represented a prostitute or a whore
Face was bold, handsome, ruddy; a worthy woman
Ruddy- having a healthy reddish color, ‘ruddy liar’- (she’s a gossiper)
Bold- courageous and daring; not hesitating to break the rules; imaginative; flashy showy
Worthy- a person of eminent worth, merit or position. However, she is of the lowest rank. Maybe Chaucer the pilgrim is sympathetic towards her.
Somewhat deaf, ‘which was a shame’
Her mouth is bigger than her ears meaning she loves to gossip and only listens to the things she wants to hear.
Chaucer the pilgrim’s comment could mean that he felt pity for her.
Chaucer the writer could be criticizing her. Maybe he is being sarcastic.
Wore a hat- as broad as buckler or shield
Wore handkerchiefs on her head- weighed 10 pounds.
Covered her ears. The handkerchiefs show that she is very showy.
Wore scarlet red hose- laced tightly
Red often represents sin. The fact that they are laced tightly could mean that she is passionate.
Laughed and gossiped well
Goes along with the fact that she is deaf. Likes to talk a lot, and not necessarily listen.
Wore sharp spurs on her feet
She’s controlling
From near Bath
Bath- a town or resort visited for medical treatment by bathing; a spa. A city in Avon, Southwest of Bristol in England. Famous for its Georgian architecture and its hot mineral springs. Maybe she is a person of renewal.
Well-whimpled
Wimple- to veer. She is in control of herself. Goes along with her being a wanderer.
A wanderer- went on many pilgrimages before. Went to Jerusalem three times. Also went to Rome, Boulogne, the Shrine of Saint James at Galicia, and Cologne.
Maybe she has sinned and goes on these pilgrimages to seek forgiveness. From this you can tell that she is somewhat religious.
Had 5 husbands. Chaucer does not say anything else about her husbands. ‘but of that there is no need to speak now’
Wife
Goes back to the idea that she ‘gets around’. She might have used her husbands for money in order to go on her voyages.
Who is she a wife of?
Sat ‘easily’ on an ambling horse
Ambling- (of a horse) to go at a slow pace with the rider’s legs on both side.
Had a talent for making cloth ‘of the finest fabric’ and surpassed the weavers of Ypres and Ghent.
Ypres and Ghent- prosperous cities.
Talented. She is of some use.
She knew the remedies of love and art’s old dance
Got around. Goes along with her having 5 husbands.
Foot-mantle was lose about her hips
Mantle- a loose, sleeveless cloak or cape.
Of the Urban Rank; however, Chaucer does not mention that. Chaucer also does not give much physical description of her.
Maybe she is overlooked as a slut, but inside she is really more than that. I think Chaucer the pilgrim is sympathetic towards her.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
My Biggest Fear
The other day in art class we had to journal about our biggest fear. No monsters came to mind, nor spiders or snakes or any of the usual things that scare people. To me, my biggest fear is time. I'm always worried that I'm going to run out of time and I will not be able to finish what I was meant to do on Earth. This reminded me of the poem I wrote last year and I just thought I would share it:
Time is a fear
That wraps around you
And rips away timeless memories
It hurts you and haunts you
And makes you never want to look back
Time is age and length
It beats like a strong drum
Creeping up behind you
Like a murderer in the dark of night.
Time runs out
And soon you realize
What you have
And what you don’t.
Time is like poison
It turns love cold
It will hurt and tear apart lives
Time will be the death of love.
Time does not care
It changes thoughts and opinions
Along with passionate feelings
Time makes even best friends grow apart
Time is the Devil’s work,
Slowly slipping people away from life
If He had His way, time would not exist
Life would live on forever
Time creates loss
Feelings are hurt and emotions run wild
Life becomes empty
Like an endless pit of sorrow
Time is disgusting
It should disappear like the switch of a light
It is evil and wretched
Time is my biggest fear
Time is a fear
That wraps around you
And rips away timeless memories
It hurts you and haunts you
And makes you never want to look back
Time is age and length
It beats like a strong drum
Creeping up behind you
Like a murderer in the dark of night.
Time runs out
And soon you realize
What you have
And what you don’t.
Time is like poison
It turns love cold
It will hurt and tear apart lives
Time will be the death of love.
Time does not care
It changes thoughts and opinions
Along with passionate feelings
Time makes even best friends grow apart
Time is the Devil’s work,
Slowly slipping people away from life
If He had His way, time would not exist
Life would live on forever
Time creates loss
Feelings are hurt and emotions run wild
Life becomes empty
Like an endless pit of sorrow
Time is disgusting
It should disappear like the switch of a light
It is evil and wretched
Time is my biggest fear
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Canterbury Tales
So i've just read the first part of the Canterbury Tales, and here are my first impressions:
- I love how Chaucer describes every character in detail; however, you have to read between the lines to really get what he's trying to say about this character.
- He's funny! Not only are his descriptions sarcastic, but I skipped ahead a little bit and read a part from the Miller's Tale and I laughed out loud! Chaucer is no middle english nun!
- He's trying to say something, and I love when authors have a hidden agenda. From what I learned in class, he is trying to poke fun at the classes that were made up during that time.
- You can relate to it in a way. The social classes he is talking about in the tales are alot like the social classes we have today. The rich, the middle class, the poor. His aren't as straight foward but still! I think alot of the characters, if modernized, could deffintely fit into our generation.
- The structure of his poem is mind-blowing. I think it is so interesting that he did this for fun even though it's so wonderfully structered! This guy must have been really brilliant.
I can't wait till we read more and discuss the tales in class! :)
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Monster Project
I thought our monster projects were actually really good! Everyone was really creative in their presentations and I got some more insight on people's different takes on monsters. I think we agreed on somethings like that there can be no universal monster. A monster is different for every person and things that are scary for me may not be as scary to other people. We also agreed that the unknown and darkness is an important part in making a monster because as humans it is scary when facing the unknown because we do not know what is going to happen. Even though monsters can be inhumane, like grendel or frankenstein, they still have human qualities. Like they are sensitive and they have feelings and a sense of humor. They are greatly misunderstood and they are outcasts. Even though monsters are scary they are necessary. They teach us things about ourselves and in the end they make us better people. Woo hoo for monsters!!!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
What is a monster?
I've started thinking about our monster project and I was actually surprised because I had trouble figuring out what a monster was to me. Does a monster have fur? A tail? Talons? Scales? Would that even be scary at all? To me, monsters don't really scare me. Murderers, on the other hand, scary the bajeezles out of me. A masked murderer hiding in my closet does not mix well with me. But what about a monster. Could a murderer be considered a monster? They're both scary and both torture people. I decided to look up the definition for monster and here's what came up:
Monster: (n.) a legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination, as a centaur, griffin, or sphinx; any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people; any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character; a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.
So a monster can be a human. This should help me with my project. But honestly, I think what scares people the most is the unknown. For example, the dark. We, as humans, cannot see in the dark and that is scary. That's why in horror films, the lights always go out and something pops out. I think it will be really interesting to see what everyone comes up with for their monster. I'm actually looking forward to it and it should be fun especially on Halloween! :)
Monster: (n.) a legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination, as a centaur, griffin, or sphinx; any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people; any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character; a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.
So a monster can be a human. This should help me with my project. But honestly, I think what scares people the most is the unknown. For example, the dark. We, as humans, cannot see in the dark and that is scary. That's why in horror films, the lights always go out and something pops out. I think it will be really interesting to see what everyone comes up with for their monster. I'm actually looking forward to it and it should be fun especially on Halloween! :)
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Frankenstein Part Two
The book is really starting to escalate and it’s getting really intense! I love that we’re getting the point of view from the monster. Shelley did it in a really creative way and she made it easy to read. I’m starting to feel bad for the monster because he longs so much to have a companion or someone to talk to. He’s an outcast and he even knows it: “I am full of fears; for if I fail there, I am an outcast in the world forever” (Shelley 140).
His relationship with the De Lacey family was really interesting to read about as well. It’s amazing how just by watching the family he learned so much and he actually fell in love with them like they were his own family. He says that he, “tenderly love[s] these friends” (Shelley 141) even when he has not even met them before. I think he loves them because the family actually gives the monster a purpose and something to live for. After the family leaves, the monster becomes really depressed saying that he, “could no longer be alleviated by the bright sun or gentle breezes of spring; all joy was but a mockery, which insulted [his] desolate state, and made [him] feel more painfully that [he] was not made for the enjoyment of pleasure” (Shelley 149). It’s clear that the monster longs for a purpose or a companion.
I was shocked at how smart the monster was as well; however, his knowledge makes him even more of an outcast: “Increase of knowledge only discovered to me more clearly what a wretched outcast I was” (Shelley 137). It seems like everything the monster learns only saddens him because he knows he will never enjoy the simple things in life that humans get to experience. Because of this knowledge, he takes it out on his creator saying that he “declare[s] everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who formed [him], and sent [him] forth to this insupportable misery” (Shelley 143). Soon the monster feels rage and wants revenge. I was shocked to find out that he actually killed young William; however he does it solely for the purpose of hurting his creator: “I, too, can create desolation; my enemy is not invulnerable; this death will carry despair to him, and a thousand other miseries shall torment and destroy him” (Shelley 151). I wasn’t surprised when he went to seek his creator. I would be mad too. He comes to Victor and offers him an ultimatum. He explains to Victor that “[he] must create a female for [him], with whom [he] can live in the interchange of these sympathies necessary for [his] being” (Shelley 153). He soon convinces Victor and he goes back to Germany to start working on the new monster, but he is procrastinating. I’m not sure if Victor is going to go through with his promise. I think something bad is going to happen soon that will make either the monster mad, or will make Victor go insane again. I can’t wait to find out what happens next!
His relationship with the De Lacey family was really interesting to read about as well. It’s amazing how just by watching the family he learned so much and he actually fell in love with them like they were his own family. He says that he, “tenderly love[s] these friends” (Shelley 141) even when he has not even met them before. I think he loves them because the family actually gives the monster a purpose and something to live for. After the family leaves, the monster becomes really depressed saying that he, “could no longer be alleviated by the bright sun or gentle breezes of spring; all joy was but a mockery, which insulted [his] desolate state, and made [him] feel more painfully that [he] was not made for the enjoyment of pleasure” (Shelley 149). It’s clear that the monster longs for a purpose or a companion.
I was shocked at how smart the monster was as well; however, his knowledge makes him even more of an outcast: “Increase of knowledge only discovered to me more clearly what a wretched outcast I was” (Shelley 137). It seems like everything the monster learns only saddens him because he knows he will never enjoy the simple things in life that humans get to experience. Because of this knowledge, he takes it out on his creator saying that he “declare[s] everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who formed [him], and sent [him] forth to this insupportable misery” (Shelley 143). Soon the monster feels rage and wants revenge. I was shocked to find out that he actually killed young William; however he does it solely for the purpose of hurting his creator: “I, too, can create desolation; my enemy is not invulnerable; this death will carry despair to him, and a thousand other miseries shall torment and destroy him” (Shelley 151). I wasn’t surprised when he went to seek his creator. I would be mad too. He comes to Victor and offers him an ultimatum. He explains to Victor that “[he] must create a female for [him], with whom [he] can live in the interchange of these sympathies necessary for [his] being” (Shelley 153). He soon convinces Victor and he goes back to Germany to start working on the new monster, but he is procrastinating. I’m not sure if Victor is going to go through with his promise. I think something bad is going to happen soon that will make either the monster mad, or will make Victor go insane again. I can’t wait to find out what happens next!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Our Discussion on Grendel
I think our discussion today might have made some of us even more confused than we thought we were. However, our discussion did open my eyes to a new light on Grendel.
The hardest question that I was faced with during the discussion was whether Grendel's final words "Poor Grendel's had an accident, so may you all," (Gardner 152) were positive words. It sounds so negative at first and when I finished reading the book the first time, I read these words like he was taking sympathy on himself. I took it as if Grendel couldn't live with him being defeated so he tried to blame it all on an 'accident'. Now that we have talked about it, I think I have come to a different understanding of these words. The fact that Grendel said may and not will has had a major affect on me. To me, if Grendel were still influenced by the dragon, I think Grendel would have said and so will you all; however, I think this is the point in the book when Grendel dismisses the dragon's existentialist views and decides on something for himself. If he said will it would have meant that Grendel would have already known that we would make mistakes and it will happen to us. Since he says may, it totally changes the meaning. He is instead inviting us, and it seems like he is not very sure about whether or not we will make the same mistake or accident. I kind of view it like Grendel has finally become a human because he doesn't know the future and things did not turn out the way he thought they were going to (hence an 'accident').
So... is this a positive thing? I think in the light of Grendel, it is because he has showed growth. To me, I think Grendel finally let go of the dragon's theories and instead, he accepted that this was something way bigger than him and that he had no control over it.
The hardest question that I was faced with during the discussion was whether Grendel's final words "Poor Grendel's had an accident, so may you all," (Gardner 152) were positive words. It sounds so negative at first and when I finished reading the book the first time, I read these words like he was taking sympathy on himself. I took it as if Grendel couldn't live with him being defeated so he tried to blame it all on an 'accident'. Now that we have talked about it, I think I have come to a different understanding of these words. The fact that Grendel said may and not will has had a major affect on me. To me, if Grendel were still influenced by the dragon, I think Grendel would have said and so will you all; however, I think this is the point in the book when Grendel dismisses the dragon's existentialist views and decides on something for himself. If he said will it would have meant that Grendel would have already known that we would make mistakes and it will happen to us. Since he says may, it totally changes the meaning. He is instead inviting us, and it seems like he is not very sure about whether or not we will make the same mistake or accident. I kind of view it like Grendel has finally become a human because he doesn't know the future and things did not turn out the way he thought they were going to (hence an 'accident').
So... is this a positive thing? I think in the light of Grendel, it is because he has showed growth. To me, I think Grendel finally let go of the dragon's theories and instead, he accepted that this was something way bigger than him and that he had no control over it.
Monday, October 20, 2008
John Gardner's Letter
I'm really not surprised by this guys cockiness. I knew it was coming. Even if I look past his rudeness and sarcasm, I still cannot find out what this guy is talking about! He's constantly contradicting himself and it gets really confusing! Like when he is talking about theories. We all know from his interview that he does not like books that are constantly talking about theories; however, he is doing exactly this in his book! There's theories of existentialism and nihilism in Grendel. I don't know if he thinks these don't count or what? In his essay, he says, "It's also true that man can only learn control of nature and himself by making up theories, and the worst thing one can do is adopt Grendel's position, that all theories are nonsense" (Gardner, par 7). I'm still confused on whether or not this guy supports theorizing and philosophising.
Overall, I honestly think John Gardner's point with Grendel and his letters/interviews is to confuse us and make us think, which I actually totally respect. I like that we had really deep discussions about Grendel and it brought up a lot of really good theories on life. This book really made me think about what the point of life was (hence my blog a couple of weeks ago). Are we all here for a purpose or is life a total void, and nothing really matters? Yeah, Gardner was cocky and arrogant but that's what makes his book so interesting and fun to read. I must say that I liked Grendel a lot more than Beowulf simply because it made me think more.
Overall, I honestly think John Gardner's point with Grendel and his letters/interviews is to confuse us and make us think, which I actually totally respect. I like that we had really deep discussions about Grendel and it brought up a lot of really good theories on life. This book really made me think about what the point of life was (hence my blog a couple of weeks ago). Are we all here for a purpose or is life a total void, and nothing really matters? Yeah, Gardner was cocky and arrogant but that's what makes his book so interesting and fun to read. I must say that I liked Grendel a lot more than Beowulf simply because it made me think more.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Frankenstein
I must say that I am really enjoying this book. The way Mary Shelley describes the events are really interesting and it makes for a fun read. It’s hard to believe that this was her first book because it’s so well-made!
There are a couple of things that I am confused about. The letters in the beginning of the novel threw me off a bit. Who is the man writing these letters? And why is he telling this to his sister? What was he in search of? The man that he met on the frozen lake, was that Victor Frankenstein? And the large man that they saw in the distance, was that the monster that Victor created? I wonder if the man that wrote the letters has anything to do with the story later on. I also get confused with the members of the Frankenstein family. I know that Victor was their first child, then they had Elizabeth; however, she was adopted, I think. Then they also adopted William? Or did they have William? This is the part that I get confused about. Then they found Justine, who they made their servant, but not in a bad way. They described Justine’s duty as, “not [including] the idea of ignorance, and a sacrifice of the dignity of a human being” (Shelley 61). It seems like the Frankenstein family is really close and they all help each other in some way. When Victor becomes ill, his family writes to him often, and they seem really worried about him. Then Clerval, Victor’s friend, comes to visit him and he helps Victor regain his sanity. This friendship and closeness of their family reminds me of my family. My family is also really close, and even though we live far apart, we always find a way to keep in touch.
I must say that the way this book is going is a lot different from the way I pictured Frankenstein to be. I always imagined a crazed scientist flicking a switch and screaming, “It’s alive, it’s alive!” It’s actually a lot different from that and a lot more realistic. I think the evolution of Victor into his crazed manner was really well thought out. I was so convinced of his madness and the way he became obsessed with science and learning every single aspect of it.
So far, I think that Frankenstein (or the monster because he is not officially named Frankenstein yet) is responsible for the murder of William. There’s no doubt about it because Justine is so obviously innocent. She was basically a mother to William and I do not think she would do something like that. I think that Frankenstein ran away and he didn’t know any better and maybe he killed young William on accident. I kind of picture it like being Lennie in Of Mice and Men. I think Frankenstein might not realize his strength so I come to the conclusion that the murder was an accident. I think that Frankenstein might be greatly misunderstood like Grendel.
I really like the novel so far. It’s surprisingly realistic and it’s very suspenseful. I can’t wait to see what happens next!
There are a couple of things that I am confused about. The letters in the beginning of the novel threw me off a bit. Who is the man writing these letters? And why is he telling this to his sister? What was he in search of? The man that he met on the frozen lake, was that Victor Frankenstein? And the large man that they saw in the distance, was that the monster that Victor created? I wonder if the man that wrote the letters has anything to do with the story later on. I also get confused with the members of the Frankenstein family. I know that Victor was their first child, then they had Elizabeth; however, she was adopted, I think. Then they also adopted William? Or did they have William? This is the part that I get confused about. Then they found Justine, who they made their servant, but not in a bad way. They described Justine’s duty as, “not [including] the idea of ignorance, and a sacrifice of the dignity of a human being” (Shelley 61). It seems like the Frankenstein family is really close and they all help each other in some way. When Victor becomes ill, his family writes to him often, and they seem really worried about him. Then Clerval, Victor’s friend, comes to visit him and he helps Victor regain his sanity. This friendship and closeness of their family reminds me of my family. My family is also really close, and even though we live far apart, we always find a way to keep in touch.
I must say that the way this book is going is a lot different from the way I pictured Frankenstein to be. I always imagined a crazed scientist flicking a switch and screaming, “It’s alive, it’s alive!” It’s actually a lot different from that and a lot more realistic. I think the evolution of Victor into his crazed manner was really well thought out. I was so convinced of his madness and the way he became obsessed with science and learning every single aspect of it.
So far, I think that Frankenstein (or the monster because he is not officially named Frankenstein yet) is responsible for the murder of William. There’s no doubt about it because Justine is so obviously innocent. She was basically a mother to William and I do not think she would do something like that. I think that Frankenstein ran away and he didn’t know any better and maybe he killed young William on accident. I kind of picture it like being Lennie in Of Mice and Men. I think Frankenstein might not realize his strength so I come to the conclusion that the murder was an accident. I think that Frankenstein might be greatly misunderstood like Grendel.
I really like the novel so far. It’s surprisingly realistic and it’s very suspenseful. I can’t wait to see what happens next!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
What are we doing here?
These questions are consantly on my mind.
What are we all doing here on earth? What is our purpose? What does God want us to do with our lives? What is life all about?
I know these are some really difficult questions that no one will probably be able to answer until we're dead. But I sometimes find that I cannot stop thinking about them. The problems that we face every day seem so small considered to the world as a whole. Like the drama we face in school or what outfit I am debating about wearing tomorrow. What's the point? There's so much more to life than that.
This is why I think the books of our world are so important because they give different explainations of why we are all here. Each book or novel or short story or poem or whatever it is gives us insight to different opinions on what our purpose is. Some people live for the money, some people live for love. Some are just as lost as I am. I know it makes me feel sane when I read books because I know that I am not alone in this bustling world. Books help me keep motivated and never let me lose my way
What are we all doing here on earth? What is our purpose? What does God want us to do with our lives? What is life all about?
I know these are some really difficult questions that no one will probably be able to answer until we're dead. But I sometimes find that I cannot stop thinking about them. The problems that we face every day seem so small considered to the world as a whole. Like the drama we face in school or what outfit I am debating about wearing tomorrow. What's the point? There's so much more to life than that.
This is why I think the books of our world are so important because they give different explainations of why we are all here. Each book or novel or short story or poem or whatever it is gives us insight to different opinions on what our purpose is. Some people live for the money, some people live for love. Some are just as lost as I am. I know it makes me feel sane when I read books because I know that I am not alone in this bustling world. Books help me keep motivated and never let me lose my way
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Heroes
Since we are on the theme of heroes, I thought that it would be appropriate talk about what a hero to me is.
A hero to me is not someone with superhuman powers or someone who can fly or jump over 20 story-high buildings. A hero is someone who goes out of their way to do something in consideration of another. The biggest hero in my life is my mom because she has saved me from what could have been several problems in my life. My mom is by no means perfect and she's no nun, but that is what I love about her. She takes the mistakes that she has made in her life and has learned from them. When my mom got a divorce, I saw all the pain and drama she went through and it made me realize that when I get married I want to be absolutely positive about it because I would never want to go through what my mother did and I wouldn't want my children to go through the things I did. I feel as if the mistakes my mother made has made not only her stronger, but has made me stronger as well.
I also feel that every mistake I have made in my life so far and every unfortunate thing that has happened to me has made me into a better person. I was brought up in a strict home and I learned the hard way that money does not grow on trees. Everything that I have recieved I have worked for in some way and I am glad for that. I know that if everything was handed to me, I would honestly not be the same person I am today. I think the mistakes we make in our lives makes us into the heroes of the future.
"My heroes are the ones who survived doing it wrong, who made mistakes, but recovered from them." -Bono
A hero to me is not someone with superhuman powers or someone who can fly or jump over 20 story-high buildings. A hero is someone who goes out of their way to do something in consideration of another. The biggest hero in my life is my mom because she has saved me from what could have been several problems in my life. My mom is by no means perfect and she's no nun, but that is what I love about her. She takes the mistakes that she has made in her life and has learned from them. When my mom got a divorce, I saw all the pain and drama she went through and it made me realize that when I get married I want to be absolutely positive about it because I would never want to go through what my mother did and I wouldn't want my children to go through the things I did. I feel as if the mistakes my mother made has made not only her stronger, but has made me stronger as well.
I also feel that every mistake I have made in my life so far and every unfortunate thing that has happened to me has made me into a better person. I was brought up in a strict home and I learned the hard way that money does not grow on trees. Everything that I have recieved I have worked for in some way and I am glad for that. I know that if everything was handed to me, I would honestly not be the same person I am today. I think the mistakes we make in our lives makes us into the heroes of the future.
"My heroes are the ones who survived doing it wrong, who made mistakes, but recovered from them." -Bono
Sunday, October 5, 2008
What I Think of Grendel Thus Far
I really like the new way we are doing our discussions. I seems so much more relaxed and people aren't interjecting as much like before. I don't feel as stressed to find something in the book and try to make something irrelevent fit into the conversation.
Our discussion about Grendel was awesome and it really helped me. Even though it was only on the first chapter, I thought we found out a lot about Grendel's personality. To me, I think Grendel is greatly misunderstood. All he knows is to kill people and he was brought up as the 'monster'. I think he feels like it's almost his duty to be bad and to kill. I'm also starting to feel really bad for him because he's such an outsider. He doesn't have anyone to talk to and his only companion is his shadow. I think that would be the worst feeling because I know my friends get me through everything and if I didn't have them, I would be completely lost. I also think Grendel's relationship with his mom is enduring. The way she would hold him under her fat and when she came to rescue him when he got stuck (even though it took her a couple of days) was really powerful. It seems like she really cares for him, most mothers would, but it's just wierd to picture because we don't really know what Grendel is supposed to look like. I think that's an important point because even though we don't know what he looks like, we still get that feeling of love and kinship when they describe Grendel and his mother's relationship. It's almost like I can relate to it and it kind of makes me feel like Gardner is giving human traits to this 'monster'.
I'm really liking Grendel so far; a lot more than Beowulf. I like that you know more about the characters and how they think. I can't wait to see what happens next!
Our discussion about Grendel was awesome and it really helped me. Even though it was only on the first chapter, I thought we found out a lot about Grendel's personality. To me, I think Grendel is greatly misunderstood. All he knows is to kill people and he was brought up as the 'monster'. I think he feels like it's almost his duty to be bad and to kill. I'm also starting to feel really bad for him because he's such an outsider. He doesn't have anyone to talk to and his only companion is his shadow. I think that would be the worst feeling because I know my friends get me through everything and if I didn't have them, I would be completely lost. I also think Grendel's relationship with his mom is enduring. The way she would hold him under her fat and when she came to rescue him when he got stuck (even though it took her a couple of days) was really powerful. It seems like she really cares for him, most mothers would, but it's just wierd to picture because we don't really know what Grendel is supposed to look like. I think that's an important point because even though we don't know what he looks like, we still get that feeling of love and kinship when they describe Grendel and his mother's relationship. It's almost like I can relate to it and it kind of makes me feel like Gardner is giving human traits to this 'monster'.
I'm really liking Grendel so far; a lot more than Beowulf. I like that you know more about the characters and how they think. I can't wait to see what happens next!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
John Gardner
So after listening to John Gardner's interview today, I got a pretty good idea of what this guy was all about. Sure he was cocky and arrogant, but I knew where he was coming from and I can understand why he was frustrated with the literary world.
I really liked when he talked about the difference between his type of fiction and everyone else's type of fiction. People during his time did not think that it was necessary for fiction to tell some type of truth or moral: however, Gardner did. He thought that even though fiction stories are not true, does not mean they cannot tell some sort of moral. He resented books that kept the mind from thinking, or 'perfect' books: ones that end perfectly and tie up in a nice little bow. John thought a book was better when it left you thinking and you did not completely understand everything and I agree with him here. I must admit that there are still some things I don't understand about All the King's Men, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and even Beowulf, yet that is what makes those books so interesting. I love going back and reading Harry Potter books and picking up on more facts that I missed the first time. It makes reading so much more interesting.
I also like how Gardner wanted to talk about morals, but not religious and culural morals. He wanted to write about morals that were universally sustaining or deeper than the typical, "be nice to your mother" or "pray to God everyday" kind of morals. Honestly, those morals can get really boring and when I read books that have those types of morals in them, I don't take much away from that book. I leave the book dissapointed, wondering if there is a deeper meaning to life than just 'being a good citizen'. I like that Gardner challenges this and is not afraid to be out there about it. He shows this with his far-fetched book about Grendel. It was so different and out there that at first no one liked it and no one saw what it was worth. I really like the idea of taking the monster out of Beowulf and showing everyone his point of view. I think that would be really cool if they did that with Voldemort from Harry Potter. Maybe a modern day John Grendel will step up to the plate! Hey, you never know!
I really liked when he talked about the difference between his type of fiction and everyone else's type of fiction. People during his time did not think that it was necessary for fiction to tell some type of truth or moral: however, Gardner did. He thought that even though fiction stories are not true, does not mean they cannot tell some sort of moral. He resented books that kept the mind from thinking, or 'perfect' books: ones that end perfectly and tie up in a nice little bow. John thought a book was better when it left you thinking and you did not completely understand everything and I agree with him here. I must admit that there are still some things I don't understand about All the King's Men, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and even Beowulf, yet that is what makes those books so interesting. I love going back and reading Harry Potter books and picking up on more facts that I missed the first time. It makes reading so much more interesting.
I also like how Gardner wanted to talk about morals, but not religious and culural morals. He wanted to write about morals that were universally sustaining or deeper than the typical, "be nice to your mother" or "pray to God everyday" kind of morals. Honestly, those morals can get really boring and when I read books that have those types of morals in them, I don't take much away from that book. I leave the book dissapointed, wondering if there is a deeper meaning to life than just 'being a good citizen'. I like that Gardner challenges this and is not afraid to be out there about it. He shows this with his far-fetched book about Grendel. It was so different and out there that at first no one liked it and no one saw what it was worth. I really like the idea of taking the monster out of Beowulf and showing everyone his point of view. I think that would be really cool if they did that with Voldemort from Harry Potter. Maybe a modern day John Grendel will step up to the plate! Hey, you never know!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Music Defines Me
Have you ever realized that musicians are a lot like poets? Think about it. They create the rhymes, meter, lyrics, beats, and the composition. Not only that but they also think of a meaning to the song. That's a lot to think about!
Music defines me because music is never the same. There are never two of the same songs. They always manage to be different, someway, somehow. That's how I am. I like music that is really different, apart from everyone elses. It's almost like it's my own. When I listen to my music, it's like I'm in my own little world and I can let go of the pains of reality and just live in the song. Nothing beats listening to a song that really describes you.
My favorite band is called HIM (stands for His Infernal Majesty). The band often gets a bad reputation for being a goth band because of it's dark style and often theme of death; however, we read a lot of things about death. Why should music be any different? The band has one song called "Join Me In Death" and it is rather notorious for its name. When asked about it, the lead singer, Ville Valo, said that he meant for it to be a tribute to Romeo and Juliet. It went along with the theme of two people being so greatly in love that they were willing to risk their lives for it. Valo also thinks that if Romeo and Juliet came out today, that it would be really scandalous, and I think he is right. Our society fears death way too much. To me, death is not a bad thing. It's something you look forward to (at least in my religion) and something everyone will one day go through. The song uses strong words and strong language and I like that. It's not the same old rap song or pop song about teenage love or booties rockin everywhere. It's real and I really respect that.
The band's symbol, the heartagram (as shown as my profile picture) also has a lot of meaning to it as well. The heart represents life and love while the triangle represents death and hate and the circle is the unity among them. It's kind of like a yin and yang thing and I think it's really cool. To me, you cannot live your life without love and you cannot live it without hate and I think that the symbol really shows that.
Music defines me because music is never the same. There are never two of the same songs. They always manage to be different, someway, somehow. That's how I am. I like music that is really different, apart from everyone elses. It's almost like it's my own. When I listen to my music, it's like I'm in my own little world and I can let go of the pains of reality and just live in the song. Nothing beats listening to a song that really describes you.
My favorite band is called HIM (stands for His Infernal Majesty). The band often gets a bad reputation for being a goth band because of it's dark style and often theme of death; however, we read a lot of things about death. Why should music be any different? The band has one song called "Join Me In Death" and it is rather notorious for its name. When asked about it, the lead singer, Ville Valo, said that he meant for it to be a tribute to Romeo and Juliet. It went along with the theme of two people being so greatly in love that they were willing to risk their lives for it. Valo also thinks that if Romeo and Juliet came out today, that it would be really scandalous, and I think he is right. Our society fears death way too much. To me, death is not a bad thing. It's something you look forward to (at least in my religion) and something everyone will one day go through. The song uses strong words and strong language and I like that. It's not the same old rap song or pop song about teenage love or booties rockin everywhere. It's real and I really respect that.
The band's symbol, the heartagram (as shown as my profile picture) also has a lot of meaning to it as well. The heart represents life and love while the triangle represents death and hate and the circle is the unity among them. It's kind of like a yin and yang thing and I think it's really cool. To me, you cannot live your life without love and you cannot live it without hate and I think that the symbol really shows that.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Seafarer
I thought "The Seafarer" was an interesting poem, however it annoyed me in several ways.
When I first read the poem, I really wanted to know who this guy was and where he was going and why he was even on a ship. He seemed so miserable to the point that it was almost like he was forced to be there. Because of this, I thought that maybe this guy was a slave, maybe being traded across the ocean. I was also annoyed by how he was preaching about God and then went on to say in the last stanza how "We all fear God". This was so contradictory and made me really confused. After finishing the poem, I thought that maybe he fears God's greatness because there are both good and evil things on Earth but at the same time he looks up to him and admires him. He also says that, "death leaps at the fools who forget their God" so maybe he is criticizing the people of that time and maybe this was a time of questioning God. I realized that since he was talking so much about Christianity, I knew that it couldn't have been written in the same time as Beowulf because Beowulf was written during Pagan times.
But seriously, what is this poem about? Our discussion about it in class helped me a lot. It still bugs me that it's an anonymous poem. I know there was no possible way to know the actual guy who wrote this but I just wish that we knew something about him, like what was going on in his society when he wrote this? You can tell this is an Anglo-Saxon poem because it has tons of alliteration and follows the same style format, however it is not as strict as Beowulf. (Nothing is). I can also see the Anglo-Saxon style from how the guy talks about his kinsman and how while on the sea, he lacks that companionship. I liked how we talked about how important honor was for them and how it is lost in our generation. I understand that honor was really important to them, but I think that our society has gotten a lot more independent and we are more 'every man for himself'. I like that because I'm a really independent person and I feel that if I lived in an Anglo-Saxon society, I would be really annoyed because I hate depending on other people.
This was definitely a poem of mourning. You can tell from the several references to winter (ice cold, icy bands, frozen chains, freezing waves, icicles) and how he complained of his 'sea-weary' soul. But what is he mourning? He definitely feels trapped. This could be because he is on the sea, therefor he is not around his kin and he is lonely. However, why does he do it if he's so miserable? He says that, "[He] puts [himself] back on the paths of the sea". Why? Is he doing it for the good of someone else? Is it his job? Is it his responsibility and duty? Or is this guy just really unhappy and cannot make up his mind? Or is this just his fate? I still don't know but I thought this was really cool to read, especially after Beowulf. I thought they were totally different, however they still kind of had the same theme of fate and a person's purpose.
When I first read the poem, I really wanted to know who this guy was and where he was going and why he was even on a ship. He seemed so miserable to the point that it was almost like he was forced to be there. Because of this, I thought that maybe this guy was a slave, maybe being traded across the ocean. I was also annoyed by how he was preaching about God and then went on to say in the last stanza how "We all fear God". This was so contradictory and made me really confused. After finishing the poem, I thought that maybe he fears God's greatness because there are both good and evil things on Earth but at the same time he looks up to him and admires him. He also says that, "death leaps at the fools who forget their God" so maybe he is criticizing the people of that time and maybe this was a time of questioning God. I realized that since he was talking so much about Christianity, I knew that it couldn't have been written in the same time as Beowulf because Beowulf was written during Pagan times.
But seriously, what is this poem about? Our discussion about it in class helped me a lot. It still bugs me that it's an anonymous poem. I know there was no possible way to know the actual guy who wrote this but I just wish that we knew something about him, like what was going on in his society when he wrote this? You can tell this is an Anglo-Saxon poem because it has tons of alliteration and follows the same style format, however it is not as strict as Beowulf. (Nothing is). I can also see the Anglo-Saxon style from how the guy talks about his kinsman and how while on the sea, he lacks that companionship. I liked how we talked about how important honor was for them and how it is lost in our generation. I understand that honor was really important to them, but I think that our society has gotten a lot more independent and we are more 'every man for himself'. I like that because I'm a really independent person and I feel that if I lived in an Anglo-Saxon society, I would be really annoyed because I hate depending on other people.
This was definitely a poem of mourning. You can tell from the several references to winter (ice cold, icy bands, frozen chains, freezing waves, icicles) and how he complained of his 'sea-weary' soul. But what is he mourning? He definitely feels trapped. This could be because he is on the sea, therefor he is not around his kin and he is lonely. However, why does he do it if he's so miserable? He says that, "[He] puts [himself] back on the paths of the sea". Why? Is he doing it for the good of someone else? Is it his job? Is it his responsibility and duty? Or is this guy just really unhappy and cannot make up his mind? Or is this just his fate? I still don't know but I thought this was really cool to read, especially after Beowulf. I thought they were totally different, however they still kind of had the same theme of fate and a person's purpose.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Harry Potter and Beowulf are so much alike!
Ok, so I can't ignore this anymore. I can't even count how many times I've thought of Harry Potter while reading over the ancient words in Beowulf. I think it's so interesting how a book in the 21st century can have so many of the same qualities as a book written back in the Anglo-Saxon era. Honestly, I think J.K. Rowling should be titled a 'literary beast' because to me Harry Potter is the perfect hero story, but that's just me. People are entitled to their opinions!
So I'm going to go ahead and list all of the allusions I've seen between Harry and Beowulf. Remember when Beowulf went underwater to fight Grendel's mom? Ummmm helloooo??? TRIWIZARD TOURNAMENT MUCH! I related how Beowulf used the sword underwater to how Harry used the gillyweed to breathe underwater. Both of these things helped them survive and allowed Harry to save his friends and Beowulf to defeat Grendel's mother. Another big comparison is how both of the heroes have to fight a dragon, even though they are at different parts of the books. Even the way the characters carry themselves are alike. Both Harry and Beowulf are confident and extremely brave and seem to have supernatural powers (Harry with his dark magic and ability to speak parstletounge and Beowulf with his endurance when fighting the monsters). Even the way the Anglo-Saxons had their eating place reminds me of the Great Hall. Everyone comes together there and celebrates. Both of these places have hosted guests, like Durmstrang and Beauxbaton in HP, and how Heroet hosted Beowulf. Tell me if you've seen any others!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Beowulf: The Perfect Hero and His Journey
Even though the novel Beowulf is not exactly my cup of tea, it portrays the role of a hero perfectly.
An epic hero is usually of great importance, the ideal man of his culture. He has superhuman or divine traits and is greater than the common man. The hero also displays morals that were important to that society from which the epic originated. The hero is boastful, yet it is his duty to remain confident. The most important thing about an epic hero, is that the hero participates in a journey or quest, faces obstacles which try to defeat him, and returns home successfully from his journey.
Beowulf contains all of these. He is very important because the city of Heorot is depending on Beowulf to defeat the evil Grendel. Beowulf most definitely contains superhuman traits, especially when he defeats Grendel's mother underwater with just a sword. You can also tell that Beowulf was from the Anglo-Saxon culture because when Grendel died, his mother seeked the price of the death of Beowulf. Not only that, but Beowulf gives many speeches in which he boasts of his confidence in defeating Grendel. He contains superhuman courage and when first looked at, he seems a little cocky. (Or at least that's what I thought when I first read Beowulf's speech on how he was going to defeat Grendel. Then I realized that he was doing that to put confidence in the people of Heorot and it was actually his duty to be confident.) Beowulf's journey is very important. He feels like it is his duty, since he is the son of Ecgtheow, to help the city and defend them. He faces three evils: Grendel, Grendel's mother, and a dragon. I have not read Beowulf's last battle, yet if he is anything like the epic hero I think he is, I predict that he is going to win the last battle and complete his journey by returning home.
An epic hero is usually of great importance, the ideal man of his culture. He has superhuman or divine traits and is greater than the common man. The hero also displays morals that were important to that society from which the epic originated. The hero is boastful, yet it is his duty to remain confident. The most important thing about an epic hero, is that the hero participates in a journey or quest, faces obstacles which try to defeat him, and returns home successfully from his journey.
Beowulf contains all of these. He is very important because the city of Heorot is depending on Beowulf to defeat the evil Grendel. Beowulf most definitely contains superhuman traits, especially when he defeats Grendel's mother underwater with just a sword. You can also tell that Beowulf was from the Anglo-Saxon culture because when Grendel died, his mother seeked the price of the death of Beowulf. Not only that, but Beowulf gives many speeches in which he boasts of his confidence in defeating Grendel. He contains superhuman courage and when first looked at, he seems a little cocky. (Or at least that's what I thought when I first read Beowulf's speech on how he was going to defeat Grendel. Then I realized that he was doing that to put confidence in the people of Heorot and it was actually his duty to be confident.) Beowulf's journey is very important. He feels like it is his duty, since he is the son of Ecgtheow, to help the city and defend them. He faces three evils: Grendel, Grendel's mother, and a dragon. I have not read Beowulf's last battle, yet if he is anything like the epic hero I think he is, I predict that he is going to win the last battle and complete his journey by returning home.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Poetry Readings
So these poetry readings have really opened my mind to not only to more literary devices but also to the different ways people think. I've never really given poetry a shot, i've usually just dismissed it because the meanings are not obvious, you actually have to think about it. I've come to appreciate poetry because it can make you feel so many different emotions from so little words. I think it's so cool to describe how you feel and then get so many different opinions and ideas flowing.
What's also helping me is when we read them aloud because one could read a poem entirely different from someone else. I think it's good that we discuss it and give advice and we all agree on a final reading. I think this is also going to really help on the AP lit exam (which I'm totally dreading). I'm starting to underline things more and pay attention to the diction, but most importantly the tone. The tone is probably the most difficult thing I have trouble with. Can you ever really be sure what that person was thinking about? Plus there are so many words to describe tone and it's so hard to pick out just one. I liked that tone project we did too. I learned so many new tone words, I couldn't help but get excited! (not)
Anyways, I would just like to say that I like these poetry readings and I think everyone is doing really well. I was surprised, I didn't think I would ever read poetry in front of a class but I tried it and I liked it. Can't wait for the next dirty poem!
What's also helping me is when we read them aloud because one could read a poem entirely different from someone else. I think it's good that we discuss it and give advice and we all agree on a final reading. I think this is also going to really help on the AP lit exam (which I'm totally dreading). I'm starting to underline things more and pay attention to the diction, but most importantly the tone. The tone is probably the most difficult thing I have trouble with. Can you ever really be sure what that person was thinking about? Plus there are so many words to describe tone and it's so hard to pick out just one. I liked that tone project we did too. I learned so many new tone words, I couldn't help but get excited! (not)
Anyways, I would just like to say that I like these poetry readings and I think everyone is doing really well. I was surprised, I didn't think I would ever read poetry in front of a class but I tried it and I liked it. Can't wait for the next dirty poem!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Beo-what??
So, I started reading Beowulf, and let me just say that I'm already confused!! I know this is trnaslated but it's still kind of hard to comprehend at times, at least for me. Basically, it's the characters that are confusing me.
So this Shield Sheafson guy is the ruler right? Is he good or bad? It says that he was a "wreaker of mead-benches, rampaging among foes" (Heaney 3). First of all, I don't know what mead-benches are so I can't really tell whether that's a good thing or a bad thing! But then at the end of the stanza it says, "that was one good king" (Heaney 3). Confusing much! And ok, is Beow the same as Beowulf? If so, then is Beowulf Shield's son? Ok and on page five it says, "Shield was still thriving when his time came" (Heaney 5). Does that mean he died? If he did die, how did he die? They talk alot about 'gear' and 'weapons', who are they fighting against and what for? Are they just the fighting kind of people? I read that on the Anglo-Saxon website that they were constantly defending their kins, so did these people just attack other tribes randomly? That's kind of wierd!
So ok, going over this is kind of helping me. I think Shield did die and Beowulf has to now protect his tribes because his father died. I hope i'm right! Now, it starts talking about these people with names starting with H's. This is where I got confused. It says on the side note, "Shield's heirs: son Beow succeeded by Halfdane, Halfdane by Hrothgar" (Heaney 7). So maybe Beow is not the same thing as Beowulf???
Then, it starts talking about Grendel. Is Grendel a person or a monstrous beast? And why does Grendel do bad? Does he just feel like it? I think it's confusing how the story starts kind of in the middle of things, leaving a confused reader! Who is the king during the time that Grendel started attacking all these people? Oh yeah, and is Dane a type of person? Like a social class or something?? If Halfdane? And is Heorot a place? Where is it? Greatland?
Then there's this Hygelac guy and it says that, "there was no one else like him alive. In his day, he was the mightiest man on earth" (Heaney 15). So is he going to help fend off Grendel? If so, why did the Danish coastguard question him when he arrived at their kingdom? Wouldn't he have known that they were coming?
Anyways, that was just a rambling of all my questions so far in this book. Other than all these questions, I think it's going to be a really good book; it sounds really intense! I hope Mrs. Clinch or any of you guys can help me with my questions in class!
Works Cited
Heaney, Seamus. Beowulf. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000.
So this Shield Sheafson guy is the ruler right? Is he good or bad? It says that he was a "wreaker of mead-benches, rampaging among foes" (Heaney 3). First of all, I don't know what mead-benches are so I can't really tell whether that's a good thing or a bad thing! But then at the end of the stanza it says, "that was one good king" (Heaney 3). Confusing much! And ok, is Beow the same as Beowulf? If so, then is Beowulf Shield's son? Ok and on page five it says, "Shield was still thriving when his time came" (Heaney 5). Does that mean he died? If he did die, how did he die? They talk alot about 'gear' and 'weapons', who are they fighting against and what for? Are they just the fighting kind of people? I read that on the Anglo-Saxon website that they were constantly defending their kins, so did these people just attack other tribes randomly? That's kind of wierd!
So ok, going over this is kind of helping me. I think Shield did die and Beowulf has to now protect his tribes because his father died. I hope i'm right! Now, it starts talking about these people with names starting with H's. This is where I got confused. It says on the side note, "Shield's heirs: son Beow succeeded by Halfdane, Halfdane by Hrothgar" (Heaney 7). So maybe Beow is not the same thing as Beowulf???
Then, it starts talking about Grendel. Is Grendel a person or a monstrous beast? And why does Grendel do bad? Does he just feel like it? I think it's confusing how the story starts kind of in the middle of things, leaving a confused reader! Who is the king during the time that Grendel started attacking all these people? Oh yeah, and is Dane a type of person? Like a social class or something?? If Halfdane? And is Heorot a place? Where is it? Greatland?
Then there's this Hygelac guy and it says that, "there was no one else like him alive. In his day, he was the mightiest man on earth" (Heaney 15). So is he going to help fend off Grendel? If so, why did the Danish coastguard question him when he arrived at their kingdom? Wouldn't he have known that they were coming?
Anyways, that was just a rambling of all my questions so far in this book. Other than all these questions, I think it's going to be a really good book; it sounds really intense! I hope Mrs. Clinch or any of you guys can help me with my questions in class!
Works Cited
Heaney, Seamus. Beowulf. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
"Say what?" --Me after our discussion about ATKM
So I feel like our discussion on Friday about All the King's Men really helped but I'm still confused on some things. Like I don't think we came up with a solid answer for who the main character is. I mean, is there a solid answer? Is there ever a solid answer in literature? It's all so ambiguis! Ahhhhh! I just wish these authors were still around so we could ask them what they were thinking when they wrote these brilliant novels. I mean, I would love to know what was going on in Robert Penn Warren's head while he wrote the book. There are so many different opinions on his book, but I want to know what he wanted us to feel. What are his opinions and what does he feel strongly about? I think we could dig through his work and maybe find a clue to that question but it would be so much easier to just ask the dude!
Anyway, I feel alot more passionate towards this novel. I remember when I first read it, I felt like my brain was on fire and that I never wanted to read another metaphoric passage again. I can remember my friend's mom asking, "So do you like it?"
My response, "Well I'm sure this is a really good book, but I'm just not getting it!" That's honestly how I felt throughout the whole book. I wish I had Mrs. Clinch by my side throughout the summer to point things out like she does during school (you know you did too) but I know I have to become more independent as a reader and start thinking of these kind of things on my own. That's where I think annotating plays such a big role in this. Honestly guys, I'm really greatful for the annotating because it's going to make reading in the long run a lot easier, at least for reading in school. And you know you love to look back and flip through the book and see all those marks and be like "Yeah, I did that". (You know you do it!!!!)
Anyways, I have come to the decision that I liked the novel, that's right, I did! I know it was long and got a little heavy at times, but in a sense, it was brilliant. I mean, I could have never of come up with all those metaphoric passages and the way he casually connecting Cass to Jack, or Jack to Gilbert (depending on where you stand on the issue, once again ambigious!) And it wasn't the most boring story either. Let's just agree that it was better than Winesburough (sorry Mrs. Clinch!)
Anyway, I feel alot more passionate towards this novel. I remember when I first read it, I felt like my brain was on fire and that I never wanted to read another metaphoric passage again. I can remember my friend's mom asking, "So do you like it?"
My response, "Well I'm sure this is a really good book, but I'm just not getting it!" That's honestly how I felt throughout the whole book. I wish I had Mrs. Clinch by my side throughout the summer to point things out like she does during school (you know you did too) but I know I have to become more independent as a reader and start thinking of these kind of things on my own. That's where I think annotating plays such a big role in this. Honestly guys, I'm really greatful for the annotating because it's going to make reading in the long run a lot easier, at least for reading in school. And you know you love to look back and flip through the book and see all those marks and be like "Yeah, I did that". (You know you do it!!!!)
Anyways, I have come to the decision that I liked the novel, that's right, I did! I know it was long and got a little heavy at times, but in a sense, it was brilliant. I mean, I could have never of come up with all those metaphoric passages and the way he casually connecting Cass to Jack, or Jack to Gilbert (depending on where you stand on the issue, once again ambigious!) And it wasn't the most boring story either. Let's just agree that it was better than Winesburough (sorry Mrs. Clinch!)
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Shakespeare a Fraud?
The other day in acting class, we were going over Theatre History. As we talked about the Elizabethan era, my teacher told me that the top three theaters were run by William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, and Ben Johnson. As I was about to fall asleep on my notes, my teacher said something that caught my attention. He said there was a theory that Marlowe and Shakespeare were the same person.
"Ludicrous!" That's what I thought.
Wrong! I decided to go home and do some research and I found several sites that offered information supporting this theory. One site claimed that, "Marlowe was 29 when he died, except that “he didn’t die” and “HE wrote Shakespeare thereafter... and that Shakspeare was a provincial nonentity, some-time actor and scribbler.”" (Jarvis par 1). I was completely shocked at what I was reading. Could it be true that the famous Shakespeare who wrote so many plays that we look up to is a fraud?? The site also claims that Marlowe could have been a payed spy, hiding away for who knows what reason. Then, I had to ask myself, why would Marlowe want to 'become' Shakespeare? Why couldn't he keep his own name? In several other sites it says that Shakespeare and Marlowe were friends. How could the same person be friends? Of course, this happened quite some time ago, so the story might be altered. Who knows! I thought it was really interesting myself and kind of gave me a scare! Check out the site and tell me what you guys think!
Works Cited
Jarvis, Brian. "Candidates for Shakespeare." Rogues, Vagabonds, and Sturdy Beggars: A Beginners Guide to the Shakespeare Authorship Mystery (2007) 3 Sep 2008.
"Ludicrous!" That's what I thought.
Wrong! I decided to go home and do some research and I found several sites that offered information supporting this theory. One site claimed that, "Marlowe was 29 when he died, except that “he didn’t die” and “HE wrote Shakespeare thereafter... and that Shakspeare was a provincial nonentity, some-time actor and scribbler.”" (Jarvis par 1). I was completely shocked at what I was reading. Could it be true that the famous Shakespeare who wrote so many plays that we look up to is a fraud?? The site also claims that Marlowe could have been a payed spy, hiding away for who knows what reason. Then, I had to ask myself, why would Marlowe want to 'become' Shakespeare? Why couldn't he keep his own name? In several other sites it says that Shakespeare and Marlowe were friends. How could the same person be friends? Of course, this happened quite some time ago, so the story might be altered. Who knows! I thought it was really interesting myself and kind of gave me a scare! Check out the site and tell me what you guys think!
Works Cited
Jarvis, Brian. "Candidates for Shakespeare." Rogues, Vagabonds, and Sturdy Beggars: A Beginners Guide to the Shakespeare Authorship Mystery (2007) 3 Sep 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
I'm Talkin' Bout Love
Have you realized that almost everything we read is about love? Every song, every story, every movie. It's always about a love for something. It might not always be a love for a person, but a love for anything. For example, in Candide, Miss Cunegonde is Candide's love, and in All the King's Men, Willie has several love affairs and Jack is in love with Anne. Why is that? Why is love so interesting, and why is love the only thing that can make a person so obsessed, depressed, and estatic? Is love really that powerful to overtake someone and make them completely enslaved? Another example is Romeo and Juliet. They were so in love that they were willing to take each other's lives in order to live on together in death.
To me, I think love is one of the most important feelings in the world. Without love, I do not think our world would be the same. Everyone has a love for at least something and people who do not have a love for anything cannot make it in the world. For example, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we all know what happened to Voldemort [I don't want to give it away to those of you who havn't read it] because he has absolutely no love in his soul and Harry did. Think about it, without love for your parents, you would not have a childhood, or without love for your favorite hobby, you would be bored all the time. Love is such a powerful feeling that I think it makes the world go round. I don't want to sound all hippie either, but I really think it does. So give someone a hug, tell your parents you love them! Cause without love, our world would be so much more difficult!
To me, I think love is one of the most important feelings in the world. Without love, I do not think our world would be the same. Everyone has a love for at least something and people who do not have a love for anything cannot make it in the world. For example, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we all know what happened to Voldemort [I don't want to give it away to those of you who havn't read it] because he has absolutely no love in his soul and Harry did. Think about it, without love for your parents, you would not have a childhood, or without love for your favorite hobby, you would be bored all the time. Love is such a powerful feeling that I think it makes the world go round. I don't want to sound all hippie either, but I really think it does. So give someone a hug, tell your parents you love them! Cause without love, our world would be so much more difficult!
Evaline
Personally, I did not like the story of Evaline. I thought it was too short and it left you hanging and I hate when stories do that! The ending is what really made me not like the story. I think that Frank could have offered her more of a life than what she had with her father and her other family. I hate that she left Frank to go back to her abusive father. She could have escaped her past, but instead she felt obligated by her dead mother to stay. Honestly, I do not think that Evaline was really needed at home because all of her siblings were grown up and I think that they could have take care of themselves on their own. The father deserved to be alone because of what he did to Evaline. I always wonder when I read about the father whether he was always absusive toward his family when his wife was alive. Maybe when she was alive, he was not abusive. That's kind of how I imagine it. If this is true, then I think the father needs to get over his wife's death and stop taking out his problems on his family. I know death is hard but there's no excuse to take it out on other people, especially your family, people you love. I also didn't like how the father expected Evaline to pay for dinners and such. The father should have taken care of dinners on his own. I think that if Evaline did leave, that maybe the father would realize that. I kind of think that Evaline needed to leave in order to be happy again, because throughout the whole story she was so unhappy and she was so caught up in what other people would think about her. Maybe if she left, she could find herself and realize what she has been missing in life.
I do like James Joyce's writing style. It all flows very nicely together and I love her strong adjectives. Whenever she describes something, it's almost like you're there and I can really see it. I love writers with that capability. Just from the first paragraph, when she says, "She sat at the window watching evening invade the avenue. Her head was leaned against the window curtains and in her nostrils was the odor or dusty cretonne. She was tired," you get such a good idea of where the story is and it pulls you in (Joyce 218). Just from reading those three sentences, I had already so many questions in my mind; Who is she, is the window opened or closed?, what is cretonne?, what was she tried about?. Already you are involved in the story and that is what I like most about her; you're sucked in and want to know more. That's what I think makes a good writer.
I do like James Joyce's writing style. It all flows very nicely together and I love her strong adjectives. Whenever she describes something, it's almost like you're there and I can really see it. I love writers with that capability. Just from the first paragraph, when she says, "She sat at the window watching evening invade the avenue. Her head was leaned against the window curtains and in her nostrils was the odor or dusty cretonne. She was tired," you get such a good idea of where the story is and it pulls you in (Joyce 218). Just from reading those three sentences, I had already so many questions in my mind; Who is she, is the window opened or closed?, what is cretonne?, what was she tried about?. Already you are involved in the story and that is what I like most about her; you're sucked in and want to know more. That's what I think makes a good writer.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Nature vs Nurture?
While reading over some of the essays on Volatire in class, I couldn't help but to think about the famous psychology theory of Nature vs Nurture that has caused some major debates. The theory argues over whether people are the way they are because they were born that way, or whether the life they live in molds them into the person they will soon become. In simpler terms, is a person the way they are because of nature, or nurture? This theory popped into my head while I was reading over some of the philosophers studied in Robert Adam's essay. The philosophers were theorizing over good and evil, and why God made evil on earth, or whether evil was inevitable. For example, Saint Augustine thought that God created a world of good but the decisions of Satan made the evil in the world. On the other hand, Bernard Mandeville believed that "man is inherently vicious and selfish, and that most virtues are simply well-disguised and publicly-approved vices" (Adams 82). In other words, he thought that evil was man-made. Mandeville's theory would go hand and hand with the side of nature, that a person is the way they are and the things they do are already predetermined by the brain. In the book, Forty Studies that Changed Psychology, I learned that those who believe in the nurture side of the argument are called behaviorists. Behaviorism states, "that all human behavior is controlled by environmental factors... [and] that experience is the primary or exclusive architect of human nature" (Hock 19). Saint Augustine would most likely agree with this theory.
Now it's time for my opinion on this heated debate! I think that people are a mixture of nature and nurture. I believe some things are predetermined, like your sense of humor or the way you deal with things, but I think that things like your likes and dislikes are molded by the people around you and the experiences that you face. I also believe that God created evil for a reason. I think everything happens for a reason. Everytime something unfortunate happens to me, I think that this must have happened to show me something or to make me stronger; it is all a part of God's bigger plan for me.
What do you guys think? Tell me your ideas and let's have a blog convo that will make Mrs. Clinch ecstatic! Comment comment comment!
Works Cited
Hock, Roger R.. Forty Studies that Changed Psychology. 5th. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.
Monday, August 18, 2008
My Philosophy
My philosophy on life is to live it to the fullest. If you want to do something, then do it because you only have one life and you might as well live it the way you want to. I hate people who care about what others' think and revolve their life around that. Screw everyone else and do the things that you love most, even if it makes you look like a total nerd. I hate people who give into the crowd, people who do things just to fit in. If you don't want to do something, don't do it. For example, in The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri, Gogol wants to fit into the American lifestyle but since he is Indian, he finds it hard for him to adjust. I support Gogol's decision because it's his choice and it was the way he wanted to live his life. Just because his parents held on to their Indian backround, does not mean that Gogol had to hang onto his. I say whatever makes a person happy is what the person should do.
I also like to look at my life with an optimistic point of view life Pangloss from Candide. I like that no matter what happened to Pangloss, he always held onto his belief that life was for the best. I believe that everything happens for a reason and it's a part of God's plan for you. Even the mistakes you make, shape you into the person you later form into. You should be happy with what God has given you, even if it is not the best. I also believe in karma, and because of that I treat people the way I would want to be treated. (I know sounds cliche).
Overall I believe that hardwork pays off in the end and that people who live their lives the way they want to have the overall happiest lives.
I also like to look at my life with an optimistic point of view life Pangloss from Candide. I like that no matter what happened to Pangloss, he always held onto his belief that life was for the best. I believe that everything happens for a reason and it's a part of God's plan for you. Even the mistakes you make, shape you into the person you later form into. You should be happy with what God has given you, even if it is not the best. I also believe in karma, and because of that I treat people the way I would want to be treated. (I know sounds cliche).
Overall I believe that hardwork pays off in the end and that people who live their lives the way they want to have the overall happiest lives.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
My Favorite Summer Reading: All The King's Men
After reading all of the summer reading books, I would have to say that my favorite was All The King's Men by Robert Penn Warren. It dealt with the classic theme of the American Dream and how the main character strived to achieve the dream, but never actually received it. The rise and fall of Willie Stark was really entertaining and I couldn't help thinking that this is probably what real politicians go through. I never realized what went through a politicians head until I read through Jack Burden's eyes and read Willie's experiences: whether to work for the sake of goodness or work for the sake of money, all the affairs involved, and how politics can change one's life.
I thought it was interesting that Willie started off as a country boy and had the best intentions at heart when he first started running for politics. Willie's need to do good shows a side of the American Dream that most people start off looking to do. Once he received more experience, Wille began to change into the business-type; wearing a white suit and tie, but still hanging on to his past with his old felt hat. He strives to do good, wants to build a hospital for anyone to be able to use and not have to pay anything. He seeks the perfect doctor that also has the ambition of working purely for the goodness of it: Adam Stanton. The fall of Willie begins when he gives into Gummy Larson's offer to help him with the hospital plans, involving reasons not purely for the goodness of it. Even though Willie tries to take back his agreement with Larson, he never gets to because of his tragic death, thus leading to his intangibility of the American Dream.
Some people view the American Dream as working hard in order to make a lot of money, to own the best of things. I think Robert Penn Warren showed both of the sides of the American Dream through Willie Stark. He started off working for the goodness of it, then he fell into the trap of wanting to have the fame and fortune.
After reading the book, I had several questions. Was Willie really a "good" man? Willie's wife said she was forced to think that Willie was a good man. Did Willie do all he wanted to do during his term as governor? Will his legacy live on after he is dead and Larson is the replaced governor? What was the role of Jack in the story? I look forward to discussing this in class!!
I thought it was interesting that Willie started off as a country boy and had the best intentions at heart when he first started running for politics. Willie's need to do good shows a side of the American Dream that most people start off looking to do. Once he received more experience, Wille began to change into the business-type; wearing a white suit and tie, but still hanging on to his past with his old felt hat. He strives to do good, wants to build a hospital for anyone to be able to use and not have to pay anything. He seeks the perfect doctor that also has the ambition of working purely for the goodness of it: Adam Stanton. The fall of Willie begins when he gives into Gummy Larson's offer to help him with the hospital plans, involving reasons not purely for the goodness of it. Even though Willie tries to take back his agreement with Larson, he never gets to because of his tragic death, thus leading to his intangibility of the American Dream.
Some people view the American Dream as working hard in order to make a lot of money, to own the best of things. I think Robert Penn Warren showed both of the sides of the American Dream through Willie Stark. He started off working for the goodness of it, then he fell into the trap of wanting to have the fame and fortune.
After reading the book, I had several questions. Was Willie really a "good" man? Willie's wife said she was forced to think that Willie was a good man. Did Willie do all he wanted to do during his term as governor? Will his legacy live on after he is dead and Larson is the replaced governor? What was the role of Jack in the story? I look forward to discussing this in class!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)