"' I suppose they will all want dignity."' pg 212
Yes, yes we do. That's incredibly accurate as well. We are currently (as of 10:50 pm) at 6,840,507,003 and it's safe to asume that we all want dignity. Is that too much to ask for? Vonnegut makes it sound like an absurd request. From this we can assume that it is. Of the almost 7 billion of us, we have to conclude that some will be killed inhumanely, murdered, or abandoned and left for dead. However, that's not a nice thought to think about. Vonnegut has used this whole book to ake the reader think he would go into detail about a very unpleasant mark in history: the attack at Dresden, but it never really came. It's not a nice thought to think about, but it still happened. I feel like this quote should be continued to say "They will learn soon enough." If this book has taught me anything, it's that it's time for me to pop my bubble filled with happy thoughts and peace and innocence. I mean I want dignity, but it's not really innate. the other 6,840,507,002 people out there have to decide that they want to give dignity to me. In this world, I don't know if I can see this happening. Thank you Kurt Vonnegut, for making me cynical. I'm going to go to bed, talk to some alien friends, and pretend like this never happened.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Slaughterhouse five 9
"Still- if I am going to spend eternity visiting this moment and that, I'm grateful that so many of those moments were nice." pg 211
Did I miss something? What was the nice part of the book? I find it to be spectacular that Vonnegut can still see good in the world after all he witnessed in Europe. I really don't think I could ever understand that the good overwhelmingly outweighs the bad if I ever witnessed a war. I guess forever encompasses much more than just the war. Maybe the emotional trauma of the war fades over time. However, I think this part could never be understood by someone who hasn't served in the armed forces. Unless that is, they have visited Tralfamadore where the inhabitants do not spend their time dwelling on death and negative events. I ask again, is their any correlation between Billy's life and Vonnegut's? Maybe the man just has an alias.
Did I miss something? What was the nice part of the book? I find it to be spectacular that Vonnegut can still see good in the world after all he witnessed in Europe. I really don't think I could ever understand that the good overwhelmingly outweighs the bad if I ever witnessed a war. I guess forever encompasses much more than just the war. Maybe the emotional trauma of the war fades over time. However, I think this part could never be understood by someone who hasn't served in the armed forces. Unless that is, they have visited Tralfamadore where the inhabitants do not spend their time dwelling on death and negative events. I ask again, is their any correlation between Billy's life and Vonnegut's? Maybe the man just has an alias.
Slaughter house five 8
"'I could carve a better man out of a banana.'" Theodore Roosevelt pg 184
Billy Pilgrim is what we would label an antihero, in that nothing about his appearance or actions resembles any hero that I have ever read about. However, in order to have a hero there must be action and this book has none. Both the writer, Vonnegut, and his main character, Billy, skillfully avoid all major climactic events. But remember, both men served in war. That alone is far more heroic than anything I have ever done or probably will ever do. Soldiers seem to get overlooked if they don't make some heroic kill or sacrifice themselves to save others. Even Rumfoord, a fellow veteran, looks down on Billy simply because he is delusional. Billy's delusions do not lessen his time overseas to me. Billy's a man because he went to war, even if he did it in a toga.
Billy Pilgrim is what we would label an antihero, in that nothing about his appearance or actions resembles any hero that I have ever read about. However, in order to have a hero there must be action and this book has none. Both the writer, Vonnegut, and his main character, Billy, skillfully avoid all major climactic events. But remember, both men served in war. That alone is far more heroic than anything I have ever done or probably will ever do. Soldiers seem to get overlooked if they don't make some heroic kill or sacrifice themselves to save others. Even Rumfoord, a fellow veteran, looks down on Billy simply because he is delusional. Billy's delusions do not lessen his time overseas to me. Billy's a man because he went to war, even if he did it in a toga.
Slaughterhouse five 7
"There were to be no moon men at all." pg 180
How terribly ironic that Vonnegut writes this, and now in 2012 NASA has cancelled all moon exploration. There are literally no moon men. However, that's not what the quote's about (unless it is. In which case, Vonnegut is a genius or a psychic). The Dresden attack came with the intent to kill all. Moreover, war was created to eventually kill all. This is an anti-war novel after all. Once again, Vonngeut reminds us how war effects more than just the soldiers who die in battle. Not to get all political, but Vonnegut suggests that we have always been told about war is a lie. We think wars our country fights start with an intent to protect civilians at home, which they have considering only the Civil War has been fought on American soil since the founding of this country. But is that just a coincidence? Is it only a matter of time before wars come over here and civilians like us die? Vonnegut would say yes. The novel goes on to say American fighter planes shot at Billy, an American soldier.
How terribly ironic that Vonnegut writes this, and now in 2012 NASA has cancelled all moon exploration. There are literally no moon men. However, that's not what the quote's about (unless it is. In which case, Vonnegut is a genius or a psychic). The Dresden attack came with the intent to kill all. Moreover, war was created to eventually kill all. This is an anti-war novel after all. Once again, Vonngeut reminds us how war effects more than just the soldiers who die in battle. Not to get all political, but Vonnegut suggests that we have always been told about war is a lie. We think wars our country fights start with an intent to protect civilians at home, which they have considering only the Civil War has been fought on American soil since the founding of this country. But is that just a coincidence? Is it only a matter of time before wars come over here and civilians like us die? Vonnegut would say yes. The novel goes on to say American fighter planes shot at Billy, an American soldier.
Slaughterhouse five 6
"Whenever the doorbell rings, have somebody else answer the door." pg 141
What an awful way to live. Knowing that one day you will be killed, but being paranoid until it actually happens. On second thought, that's how a lot of people live, even if they haven't been directly threatened, especially war veterans. The men who have served for our country will always remember what seeing death was like, and a small part of them will always worry that death is knocking at their door. Vonnegut uses Lazzaro's direct approach to remind the reader that for the soldiers in the slaughterhouse, the war won't be over when they leave Dresden. As we read through Billy's life, much of the tumult occurs after they have come home. Sure, most don't have to worry about murderers stalking their every move, but they don't know that. To some veterans it's as if the war never ended even though they're back home living a seemingly normal life. Such men, like Billy Pilgrim in a way, never left the war at all. That's a terrible way to live.
What an awful way to live. Knowing that one day you will be killed, but being paranoid until it actually happens. On second thought, that's how a lot of people live, even if they haven't been directly threatened, especially war veterans. The men who have served for our country will always remember what seeing death was like, and a small part of them will always worry that death is knocking at their door. Vonnegut uses Lazzaro's direct approach to remind the reader that for the soldiers in the slaughterhouse, the war won't be over when they leave Dresden. As we read through Billy's life, much of the tumult occurs after they have come home. Sure, most don't have to worry about murderers stalking their every move, but they don't know that. To some veterans it's as if the war never ended even though they're back home living a seemingly normal life. Such men, like Billy Pilgrim in a way, never left the war at all. That's a terrible way to live.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Slaughterhouse- five 5
"He had already seen a lot of their marriage, thanks to time-travel, knew that it was going to be atleast bearable all the way." pg 120
I feel so bad for this guy! Nothing can be new and exciting because he sees it all before it happens! Where's the joy in that? No wonder he has no emotion! Better question, what would drive a girl to marry such a crazy man? And if he time-travels so much, why doesn't he just change the way things play out? He has the ability to rewrite his whole life as he sees fit! One would think he'd open up to his wife because he's been to the future and knows that what she wants. But no, that would be the right thing to do. The main character never does the right thing this early in the book. Billy still has half of a book to screw up, hide emotions, and vaguely talk about a war. Maybe by the end he might write a whole paragraph about Dresden. I can dream.
Last question to ponder: Do you think Billy knows the difference between traveling in time and actually living in that time?
I feel so bad for this guy! Nothing can be new and exciting because he sees it all before it happens! Where's the joy in that? No wonder he has no emotion! Better question, what would drive a girl to marry such a crazy man? And if he time-travels so much, why doesn't he just change the way things play out? He has the ability to rewrite his whole life as he sees fit! One would think he'd open up to his wife because he's been to the future and knows that what she wants. But no, that would be the right thing to do. The main character never does the right thing this early in the book. Billy still has half of a book to screw up, hide emotions, and vaguely talk about a war. Maybe by the end he might write a whole paragraph about Dresden. I can dream.
Last question to ponder: Do you think Billy knows the difference between traveling in time and actually living in that time?
Slaughterhou-five 4
"'She upset Billy simply by being his mother. She made him feel embarrassed and ungrateful and weak because she had gone to so much trouble to give him life, and to keep that life going, and Billy didn't really like life at all."' pg 102
Just when I thought I had figured Billy out, he shows deeper reasoning than sane people. I've never been anywhere near a war and I still don't give my mom any credit for simply being my mother. Anways, I am adding depression to Billy's list of psychological disorders. Most war men come back feeling manly and tough and rugged, but not Billy. He just hates life. He always seems to hate love. Everyone knows mothers don't think like that. Just as Billy refuses to feel the extreme emotions attached to death, he rejects the thought of love. He doesn't even acknowledge his mother's love. This worries me. I hope this isn't some suicide novel.
Just when I thought I had figured Billy out, he shows deeper reasoning than sane people. I've never been anywhere near a war and I still don't give my mom any credit for simply being my mother. Anways, I am adding depression to Billy's list of psychological disorders. Most war men come back feeling manly and tough and rugged, but not Billy. He just hates life. He always seems to hate love. Everyone knows mothers don't think like that. Just as Billy refuses to feel the extreme emotions attached to death, he rejects the thought of love. He doesn't even acknowledge his mother's love. This worries me. I hope this isn't some suicide novel.
Slaughterhouse- five 3
"Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time." pg 23
And so the book begins. Being unstuck in time is a difficult concept so here I am explaining it in the larger context of the book. Slaughterhouse-five as a whole is a flashback of when Billy is writing his book about Dresden. The book about Dresden is a flashback of Billy's war experience. During the war Billy travels backwards and forwards in time. In other words, it's a flashback of a flashback of Billy flashing back and seeing ahead. I know, it's enough to make me go crazy too and I'm just typing it out. Billy is a Psychology phenomenon. Just like our multiple choice passage today, time doesn't exist to Billy. So to him, he's not really going backward and forward in time. Just as his alien friends take in whole novels all at once instead of reading page by page, Billy's life is more of a mash up rather than a chronological timeline. Or so he claims. The flashbacks are understandable, but the seeing forward in time is making me a skeptic. The guy is clearly crazy. How do we know he's not just making it up?
And so the book begins. Being unstuck in time is a difficult concept so here I am explaining it in the larger context of the book. Slaughterhouse-five as a whole is a flashback of when Billy is writing his book about Dresden. The book about Dresden is a flashback of Billy's war experience. During the war Billy travels backwards and forwards in time. In other words, it's a flashback of a flashback of Billy flashing back and seeing ahead. I know, it's enough to make me go crazy too and I'm just typing it out. Billy is a Psychology phenomenon. Just like our multiple choice passage today, time doesn't exist to Billy. So to him, he's not really going backward and forward in time. Just as his alien friends take in whole novels all at once instead of reading page by page, Billy's life is more of a mash up rather than a chronological timeline. Or so he claims. The flashbacks are understandable, but the seeing forward in time is making me a skeptic. The guy is clearly crazy. How do we know he's not just making it up?
Slaughterhouse- five 2
"So it goes." pg 9... and just about every other page
I'm growing to hate this phrase. It is the sole purpose that I believe the narrator, Vonnegut, has suppressed everything about the war, including death. Later my theory expands to explain that Billy justifies his absence of emotion by making up Tralfamadore. I think he wants answers but cannot cope with the real ones so he's made up a whole separate world that he can escape to when the memories come creeping in. What I dislike about the phrase is that it makes the book completely anticlimactic to parallel Billy's (and now that I think about it, the narrator's) lack of emotion. Everytime war narration is getting good, Vonnegut briefly exaplins the gory parts in a phrase or sentence, says "so it goes" and goes right back to explaining trivial matters in great detail. He's not even trying to get the hard hitting, actual war action into his book! It won't be an actual portrayal of anything besides his twisted version of reality. There's no way the book within the book will be any good.
question to ponder: Billy's characteristics and sayings ("so it goes") are incredibly similar to the narrator's. Could they be the same person?
I'm growing to hate this phrase. It is the sole purpose that I believe the narrator, Vonnegut, has suppressed everything about the war, including death. Later my theory expands to explain that Billy justifies his absence of emotion by making up Tralfamadore. I think he wants answers but cannot cope with the real ones so he's made up a whole separate world that he can escape to when the memories come creeping in. What I dislike about the phrase is that it makes the book completely anticlimactic to parallel Billy's (and now that I think about it, the narrator's) lack of emotion. Everytime war narration is getting good, Vonnegut briefly exaplins the gory parts in a phrase or sentence, says "so it goes" and goes right back to explaining trivial matters in great detail. He's not even trying to get the hard hitting, actual war action into his book! It won't be an actual portrayal of anything besides his twisted version of reality. There's no way the book within the book will be any good.
question to ponder: Billy's characteristics and sayings ("so it goes") are incredibly similar to the narrator's. Could they be the same person?
Slaughterhouse-five 1
"'You'll pretend you were men instead of babies, and you'll be played in the movies by Frank Sinatra and JohnWayne or some of those other glamorous, war- loving, dirty old men. And war will look just wonderful, so we'll have a lot more of them. And they'll be fought by baies like the babies upstairs." pg 14
Vonnegut quickly makes it clear that this is not your typical war novel through Mrs. O'Hare's dialogue. She wants the book to be candid instead of glamorous. However, what I find interesting is that Vonnegut hasn't even written about Dresden yet, or even the war. The war obviously affected the men who served and their families, like Mrs. O'Hare, but I'm curious to know what exactly happened to make her so skeptical. It may just be her mother's intuition to hate violence for her children's sake. The war robbed these men of much of their innocence. The reference to babies comes again later when the men are actually prisoners of war. Even other soldiers realize how young fellow soldiers are. Vonnegut is painting a very young and almost ironic picture of war. These men are so young. How could they even know what they're fighting for? ANd how can you write a book about a war you don't understand?
Vonnegut quickly makes it clear that this is not your typical war novel through Mrs. O'Hare's dialogue. She wants the book to be candid instead of glamorous. However, what I find interesting is that Vonnegut hasn't even written about Dresden yet, or even the war. The war obviously affected the men who served and their families, like Mrs. O'Hare, but I'm curious to know what exactly happened to make her so skeptical. It may just be her mother's intuition to hate violence for her children's sake. The war robbed these men of much of their innocence. The reference to babies comes again later when the men are actually prisoners of war. Even other soldiers realize how young fellow soldiers are. Vonnegut is painting a very young and almost ironic picture of war. These men are so young. How could they even know what they're fighting for? ANd how can you write a book about a war you don't understand?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Frankenstein 10
"Fear not that I shall be the instrument of future mischief"
pg 165
Modern Translation? Yea I've killed a whole family, but I'm gonna kill myself now. Trust me
Walton is seriously dumb. He listens to this horrific story of a monster, then just lets it go. Talk about anticlimactic. With the Creature's reasoning, it could justifiably kill every family in the world,so why end it all now? I think this is the final proof that the Creature has a heart. The big lug feels bad, and obviously French novelists never write about therapy becauses Creature has learned that death is the only way out. A bit drastic, but thus it's the end of the sotry... sort of. My theory is that Mary Shelley was through with listening to bogus scary stories so she finished hers quickly to really get the vacation going. Either that, or she was hoping an actual writer would finish it for her via sequel. I really hope no one thinks this is a sufficient ending.
pg 165
Modern Translation? Yea I've killed a whole family, but I'm gonna kill myself now. Trust me
Walton is seriously dumb. He listens to this horrific story of a monster, then just lets it go. Talk about anticlimactic. With the Creature's reasoning, it could justifiably kill every family in the world,so why end it all now? I think this is the final proof that the Creature has a heart. The big lug feels bad, and obviously French novelists never write about therapy becauses Creature has learned that death is the only way out. A bit drastic, but thus it's the end of the sotry... sort of. My theory is that Mary Shelley was through with listening to bogus scary stories so she finished hers quickly to really get the vacation going. Either that, or she was hoping an actual writer would finish it for her via sequel. I really hope no one thinks this is a sufficient ending.
Frankenstein 9
"A grin was on the face of the monster;" pg 145
I have two scenarios for this
ONE
Think about a toddler who has just done something awfully wrong, but then smiles their way out of it. Accurate, right? The Creature is still just a child. It's merely pointing at what it did as a "look daddy" kind of gesture. This is followed by what the Creature probably thinks is a rousing game of tag or hide-and-go-seek (ironic, eh?).
TWO
Think about the most horrifying episode of Criminal Minds. The one where the killer is so delusional and corrupted that they actually get pleasure from watching others' suffer. Still accurate, right? The Creature has lost touch with sanity. The Creature is toying with Victor until it can get him right where it wants him.
But which scenario is correct?I think that's the beauty of the novel. Both narrators (Creature and Victor) are clearly biased to themself, so we can never be sure of either one's motives. Vctor is notoriously wrong about the Creature's emotions or motives, or atleast we assume so. Nothing actually proves that, except for the Creature's melancholy stories, but can we even believe those? Jusat saying, the Creature is pretty smart, and the story did lure Victor in to what could be the Creature's trap.
I have two scenarios for this
ONE
Think about a toddler who has just done something awfully wrong, but then smiles their way out of it. Accurate, right? The Creature is still just a child. It's merely pointing at what it did as a "look daddy" kind of gesture. This is followed by what the Creature probably thinks is a rousing game of tag or hide-and-go-seek (ironic, eh?).
TWO
Think about the most horrifying episode of Criminal Minds. The one where the killer is so delusional and corrupted that they actually get pleasure from watching others' suffer. Still accurate, right? The Creature has lost touch with sanity. The Creature is toying with Victor until it can get him right where it wants him.
But which scenario is correct?I think that's the beauty of the novel. Both narrators (Creature and Victor) are clearly biased to themself, so we can never be sure of either one's motives. Vctor is notoriously wrong about the Creature's emotions or motives, or atleast we assume so. Nothing actually proves that, except for the Creature's melancholy stories, but can we even believe those? Jusat saying, the Creature is pretty smart, and the story did lure Victor in to what could be the Creature's trap.
Frankenstein 8
"when suddenly I heard a shrill and dreadful scream" pg 144
Woops. Guess Victor didn't think that one through.There does always seem to be two people at a wedding night, but hey it's a reasonable mistake I suppose. It's really hard to take this scene seriously when the outcome is painstakingly obvious to the reader. Again, I question Victor's genius. Maybe Mary Shelley was trying to poke fun at the incompetence of man. I mean, it's your wedding night. Why would any man be more concerned with pacing through the house than say, i don't know, his new wife?! Also, this scene points to Victor's great love.... for himself. He doesn't even think about Elizabeth's well-being. He's so preoccupied with himself he leaves her vulnerably open to die. Actually, this happens for all the murderers. For loving all of these people, Victor never seems to be around.
Woops. Guess Victor didn't think that one through.There does always seem to be two people at a wedding night, but hey it's a reasonable mistake I suppose. It's really hard to take this scene seriously when the outcome is painstakingly obvious to the reader. Again, I question Victor's genius. Maybe Mary Shelley was trying to poke fun at the incompetence of man. I mean, it's your wedding night. Why would any man be more concerned with pacing through the house than say, i don't know, his new wife?! Also, this scene points to Victor's great love.... for himself. He doesn't even think about Elizabeth's well-being. He's so preoccupied with himself he leaves her vulnerably open to die. Actually, this happens for all the murderers. For loving all of these people, Victor never seems to be around.
Frankenstein 7
"Think not, Walton, that in the last moments of my existence I feel that burning hatred, and ardent desire of revenge, I once expressed, but I feel myself justified in desiring the death of my adversary. During these last days I have been occupied on examining my past conduct; nor do I find it blameable." pg 161
Actual human beings can't play the innocent card, Victor. Wanting to kill someone is still expressing hatred. You can't rationalize murder. One would think Victor would've learned that after watching all of his loved ones die. I am beginning to think Victor only told Walton the story so Walton can side with Victor and Victor will feel better about himself. NO matter which way you spin it, murder is murder and it's never right. Moreover, there'd be nothing to murder if Victor would've been a normal college kid and joined a fraternity instead of creating the creature! This is so your fault, man! Sure, you didn't know how awful life would be for the creature, nor did you think it'd become a depressed serial killer, but you didn't have to make it. Also, this could've been avoided if you showed some love. Sad to say, Victor fits the stereotype for a teenage parent perfectly. First, he becomes obsessed with making the child, but when the child comes he runs away. Then the child cries desperately for attention and when it doesn't get any it begins to rebel. Lastly, the parents play the "I have no idea why they're acting like this" card to help them sleep at night, but deep down they know it's their fault. Remember, Victor is only in his early to mid 20's at this point. He's a mere statistic of failed families.
Actual human beings can't play the innocent card, Victor. Wanting to kill someone is still expressing hatred. You can't rationalize murder. One would think Victor would've learned that after watching all of his loved ones die. I am beginning to think Victor only told Walton the story so Walton can side with Victor and Victor will feel better about himself. NO matter which way you spin it, murder is murder and it's never right. Moreover, there'd be nothing to murder if Victor would've been a normal college kid and joined a fraternity instead of creating the creature! This is so your fault, man! Sure, you didn't know how awful life would be for the creature, nor did you think it'd become a depressed serial killer, but you didn't have to make it. Also, this could've been avoided if you showed some love. Sad to say, Victor fits the stereotype for a teenage parent perfectly. First, he becomes obsessed with making the child, but when the child comes he runs away. Then the child cries desperately for attention and when it doesn't get any it begins to rebel. Lastly, the parents play the "I have no idea why they're acting like this" card to help them sleep at night, but deep down they know it's their fault. Remember, Victor is only in his early to mid 20's at this point. He's a mere statistic of failed families.
Frankenstein 6
"When I run over the frightful catalogue of my sins, I cannot believe that I am the same creature whose thoughts were once filled with sublime and transcendent visions of the beauty and the majesty of goodness." pg 165
How can you be mad at that? If antihero goes as far as being a murderer yet still being good, then the Creature is definitely an antihero. It doesn't even know how it became so corrupt. This is my official diagnosis of depression for the poor Creature. Walton wants an explanation for everything Creature has done, but Creature honestly doesn't have one. The reader's heart brekas when the creature continues to explain that "the fallen angel becomesa malignant devil". It's impressive how it can be obviously evil yet I'm still sympathizing with it. Unfortunately, this is not what I wanted. I was expecting more of a hulk smash kind of finale.
How can you be mad at that? If antihero goes as far as being a murderer yet still being good, then the Creature is definitely an antihero. It doesn't even know how it became so corrupt. This is my official diagnosis of depression for the poor Creature. Walton wants an explanation for everything Creature has done, but Creature honestly doesn't have one. The reader's heart brekas when the creature continues to explain that "the fallen angel becomesa malignant devil". It's impressive how it can be obviously evil yet I'm still sympathizing with it. Unfortunately, this is not what I wanted. I was expecting more of a hulk smash kind of finale.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Frankenstein 5
"I did confess; but I confessed a lie. I confessed, that I might obtain absolution;but now that falsehood lies heavier at my heart than all my other sins."
I don't want to think about the awful relationship between Frankenstein and creature anymore. Justine has an excellent moral compass. According to her, even lying about committing the crime is enough to make her feel worthy of death. She cared more about the status of her religion than people's opinion of her as a person. More than anything she wanted to be right with God and that is admirable. The fact that the lie is hurting her so much leads me to believe she is innocent. I love Creature too so I don't think it was it(?) either, but she would not have given this long ornate speech about her awful sin if it weren't true. No one was expecting her to give such a speech because it had already been decided that she was the killer and people were content with that. She literally could not hold the hurt caused by the lie in anymore.
I don't want to think about the awful relationship between Frankenstein and creature anymore. Justine has an excellent moral compass. According to her, even lying about committing the crime is enough to make her feel worthy of death. She cared more about the status of her religion than people's opinion of her as a person. More than anything she wanted to be right with God and that is admirable. The fact that the lie is hurting her so much leads me to believe she is innocent. I love Creature too so I don't think it was it(?) either, but she would not have given this long ornate speech about her awful sin if it weren't true. No one was expecting her to give such a speech because it had already been decided that she was the killer and people were content with that. She literally could not hold the hurt caused by the lie in anymore.
Frankenstein 4
"All men hate the wretched; how then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. "
Creature is way too smart. I'm guessing he really tried to conform to humanity and no one accepted him. I think it's sort of adorable that he went out into the world, and still desperately seeks attention from his creator or dare I say father. The pair still resemble a family. I can't see how Frankenstein is still blind to the good intentions of the Creature. I hope Creature ends up blaming Frankenstein and only Frankenstein for making him an evil monster. He deserves it. The Creature has never been nurtured. Frankenstein should've known better than to create something than set it free and think it wouldn't be corrupted especially because of Creature's appearance. For being a mad scientist, Frankenstein is not that bright. Creature learned about the power and importance of family at age two, so you would think Frankenstein would understand it by now, too. It's not like he came from a bad family. Shelley spends a lot of time explaining how open the Frankenstein's are.
Creature is way too smart. I'm guessing he really tried to conform to humanity and no one accepted him. I think it's sort of adorable that he went out into the world, and still desperately seeks attention from his creator or dare I say father. The pair still resemble a family. I can't see how Frankenstein is still blind to the good intentions of the Creature. I hope Creature ends up blaming Frankenstein and only Frankenstein for making him an evil monster. He deserves it. The Creature has never been nurtured. Frankenstein should've known better than to create something than set it free and think it wouldn't be corrupted especially because of Creature's appearance. For being a mad scientist, Frankenstein is not that bright. Creature learned about the power and importance of family at age two, so you would think Frankenstein would understand it by now, too. It's not like he came from a bad family. Shelley spends a lot of time explaining how open the Frankenstein's are.
Frankenstein 3
"[a] flash of lightning illuminated the object and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect, more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that it was the wretch,"
That is no way to talk about your technical son Frankenstein! Seriously, what was he expecting? While creating it, he knew the creature was looking pretty disgusting, and coming to life wouldn't magically make it pretty. Also, he made the conscious decision to make Creature really tall. Most importantly, Creature was never even given a chance to be thought of as human! This is racism on whole new levels. It's like Frankenstein is trying to act innocent when he knew what he was creating all along. This guy isn't winning my favor and probably isn't convincing Robert of anything either. Maybe the Creature is intentionally made massive and instantly hated to create sympathy from the reader. All I know is that the more I read the more I hate Frankenstein.
That is no way to talk about your technical son Frankenstein! Seriously, what was he expecting? While creating it, he knew the creature was looking pretty disgusting, and coming to life wouldn't magically make it pretty. Also, he made the conscious decision to make Creature really tall. Most importantly, Creature was never even given a chance to be thought of as human! This is racism on whole new levels. It's like Frankenstein is trying to act innocent when he knew what he was creating all along. This guy isn't winning my favor and probably isn't convincing Robert of anything either. Maybe the Creature is intentionally made massive and instantly hated to create sympathy from the reader. All I know is that the more I read the more I hate Frankenstein.
Frankenstein 2
"'The labours of men of genius, however erroneously directed, scarcely ever fail in ultimately turning to the solid advantage of mankind.'"
My worst nightmare came true. The book is depressing. Finally, Frankenstein seems to understand what I was getting at earlier. Creating life, without an egg and a sperm, is more than a huge leap for mankind. Sure there are a few kinks to work out (like not fearing what you created and leaving it to die), but it's a huge advancement in the world of Science. Frankenstein has surpassed his professors and his idols and he was only my age. Something must have gone mro ethan awfully wrong for him to regret it. I also have a random thought: I wonder if Shelley thought the plot of Frankenstein to be futuristic. Maybe she thought creating people rather than birthing them would be reality in the future (kind of liek Brave New World). The only troubling thing is that the future would be right now. Pretty sure I'd still be freaked out by the Creature. Also, I wonder if crazy scientists are actually trying to do this kind of thing.... I take it back. It's better that I don't know.
My worst nightmare came true. The book is depressing. Finally, Frankenstein seems to understand what I was getting at earlier. Creating life, without an egg and a sperm, is more than a huge leap for mankind. Sure there are a few kinks to work out (like not fearing what you created and leaving it to die), but it's a huge advancement in the world of Science. Frankenstein has surpassed his professors and his idols and he was only my age. Something must have gone mro ethan awfully wrong for him to regret it. I also have a random thought: I wonder if Shelley thought the plot of Frankenstein to be futuristic. Maybe she thought creating people rather than birthing them would be reality in the future (kind of liek Brave New World). The only troubling thing is that the future would be right now. Pretty sure I'd still be freaked out by the Creature. Also, I wonder if crazy scientists are actually trying to do this kind of thing.... I take it back. It's better that I don't know.
Frankenstein 1
"I have no friend, Margaret: when I am glowing with the enthusiasm of success, there will be none to participate my joy; if I am assailed by disappointment, no one will endeavour to sustain me in dejection."
Someone is a Debby downer. It's weird that, even though he's only looking for magnets, Robert has so much in common with Victor. Above all, both men felt alone because of their pursuits for greater knowledge and accomplishments. However, Robert seems to be forgetting that Margaret is his friend technically. This book is beginning to seem like it will be depressing cover to cover if it's based off of two men's sob stories, loneliness, and demise. I think that accomplishing the trip to the North Pole or creating life from lifeless matter is incredibly rewarding, even if there's no one there to enjoy it with. Besides, now Robert has Victor. I really hope Victor doesn't talk him out of it.
Someone is a Debby downer. It's weird that, even though he's only looking for magnets, Robert has so much in common with Victor. Above all, both men felt alone because of their pursuits for greater knowledge and accomplishments. However, Robert seems to be forgetting that Margaret is his friend technically. This book is beginning to seem like it will be depressing cover to cover if it's based off of two men's sob stories, loneliness, and demise. I think that accomplishing the trip to the North Pole or creating life from lifeless matter is incredibly rewarding, even if there's no one there to enjoy it with. Besides, now Robert has Victor. I really hope Victor doesn't talk him out of it.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Glass Minagerie 3
"I know so well what becomes of unmarried woman who aren't prepared to occupy a position. I've seen such pitiful cases in the South - barely tolerated spinsters living upon the grudging patronage of sister's husband or brother's wife! - stuck away in some little mousetrap of a room - encouraged by one in-law to visit another - little birdlike women without any nest - eating the crust of humility all their life!
Is that the future that we've mapped out for ourselves? I swear it's the only alternative I can think of! [She pauses.] It isn't a very pleasant alternative, is it? [She pauses again.] Of course - some girls do marry." (2.34, Amanda).
The mother daughter relationship in this play is sickening. How do you forget that your daughter is physically and mentally handicapped? She's obviously not going to lead a normal life. Marriage is not a duty, but a gift that is optional in women's lives. Ruth and Amanda will be just find without a gentleman caller. This is only encouraging the young girl to derrive all of her self-esteem from male attention, which will in turn cause her to have low self esteem. Marriage isn't for everyone, but it has to be in this family because all of the pretty and popular girls are doing it. It's all so cliche and petty.
Is that the future that we've mapped out for ourselves? I swear it's the only alternative I can think of! [She pauses.] It isn't a very pleasant alternative, is it? [She pauses again.] Of course - some girls do marry." (2.34, Amanda).
The mother daughter relationship in this play is sickening. How do you forget that your daughter is physically and mentally handicapped? She's obviously not going to lead a normal life. Marriage is not a duty, but a gift that is optional in women's lives. Ruth and Amanda will be just find without a gentleman caller. This is only encouraging the young girl to derrive all of her self-esteem from male attention, which will in turn cause her to have low self esteem. Marriage isn't for everyone, but it has to be in this family because all of the pretty and popular girls are doing it. It's all so cliche and petty.
Glass Minagerie 2
"Yes, I have tricks in my pocket, I have things u p my sleeve. But I am the opposite of a stage magician. He gives you illusion that has the appearance of truth. I give you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion." (1.1, Tom).
Tom's honesty from the start is admirable. He knows he won't retell the story perfectly, but the emotions will be conveyed. I enjoyed how real Tom's narration felt because of this speech. While his family is pretty far fetched, his emotions are not. It's typical for a young boy to feel abandoned or unloved, but it is rare for that same boy to have a dillusional mother and an impaired sister. However, the mom's mental capacity and the sisters physical capacity were minor details in the play. The emotion really carries the reader from scene to scene.
Tom's honesty from the start is admirable. He knows he won't retell the story perfectly, but the emotions will be conveyed. I enjoyed how real Tom's narration felt because of this speech. While his family is pretty far fetched, his emotions are not. It's typical for a young boy to feel abandoned or unloved, but it is rare for that same boy to have a dillusional mother and an impaired sister. However, the mom's mental capacity and the sisters physical capacity were minor details in the play. The emotion really carries the reader from scene to scene.
Glass Minagerie 1
"House, house! Who pays rent on it, who makes a slave of himself to—" (3.17, Tom).
Tom doesn't feel at home at his own house throughout the play, and it quickly becomes a major conflict. Tom has wasted his childhood in order to support his mother and sister, and gets no thanks for his sacrifices. He is enslaved to his mother. Tom is at an age of exploration, but his mother has cut his dreams down. This scene foreshadows Tom's departure. We can assume arguments like this one happened frequently. Tom wanted to spread his wings and fly, but his home cut his wings right off. It's interesting to see how long it took him to leave though, as if he felt indebted to his family.
Tom doesn't feel at home at his own house throughout the play, and it quickly becomes a major conflict. Tom has wasted his childhood in order to support his mother and sister, and gets no thanks for his sacrifices. He is enslaved to his mother. Tom is at an age of exploration, but his mother has cut his dreams down. This scene foreshadows Tom's departure. We can assume arguments like this one happened frequently. Tom wanted to spread his wings and fly, but his home cut his wings right off. It's interesting to see how long it took him to leave though, as if he felt indebted to his family.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
As You Like it 3
"I know you are my eldest brother: and in the gentle condition of blood, you should so know me. The courtesy of nations allows you my better in that you are the first-born; but the same tradition takes not away my blood, were there twenty brothers betwixt us: I have as much of my father in me as you, albeit; I confess, your coming before me is nearer to his reverence." (I.i)
Look who has the last laugh, Oliver! Just because you're the older brother doesn't mean you can be a jerk. Yes, you normally get to inherit your father's position, but that doesn't make your little brother garbage. Oliver feels a sense of entitlement, while Orlando just wants some respect. Orlando wants Oliver to realize that family treats eachother better than that. Unfortunately, Oliver was just to cruel in the beginning so I knew he would convert and learn to love Orlando. However there was a throller in the end when Orlando gets the Duke's land and title. Can royals really just choose which son gets it? I always thought it had to be succession. Anyway, it is a perfect example of karma. I just wish Oliver wouldn't have been alright with his father's decision. Atleast one character needs to have a sad ending in every piece of literature.
Look who has the last laugh, Oliver! Just because you're the older brother doesn't mean you can be a jerk. Yes, you normally get to inherit your father's position, but that doesn't make your little brother garbage. Oliver feels a sense of entitlement, while Orlando just wants some respect. Orlando wants Oliver to realize that family treats eachother better than that. Unfortunately, Oliver was just to cruel in the beginning so I knew he would convert and learn to love Orlando. However there was a throller in the end when Orlando gets the Duke's land and title. Can royals really just choose which son gets it? I always thought it had to be succession. Anyway, it is a perfect example of karma. I just wish Oliver wouldn't have been alright with his father's decision. Atleast one character needs to have a sad ending in every piece of literature.
As You Like it 2
"Men are April when they woo, December when they wed: maids are May when they are maids, but the sky changes when they are wives." (4.1.154)
To be honest, I was a little taken back my all of the weddings, and fake weddings throughout this play. People do not coincidentally all find their true love that quickly at the same time. Then I decided that the marriages had to be symbolic of something because this is literature. According to the quote, men are blossoming and new when they are searching for Mrs. Right, but cold when they get married while women also start out bright and cheery but change for the worst because of marriages. I think this means in a nutshell that marriages force people to grow up. With that in mind, Shakespeare is merely making all of his characters grow up and become mature. Marriage opens another chapter in a couples life just as December brings about the new year. These people don't need to be silly anymore because they've found love.
To be honest, I was a little taken back my all of the weddings, and fake weddings throughout this play. People do not coincidentally all find their true love that quickly at the same time. Then I decided that the marriages had to be symbolic of something because this is literature. According to the quote, men are blossoming and new when they are searching for Mrs. Right, but cold when they get married while women also start out bright and cheery but change for the worst because of marriages. I think this means in a nutshell that marriages force people to grow up. With that in mind, Shakespeare is merely making all of his characters grow up and become mature. Marriage opens another chapter in a couples life just as December brings about the new year. These people don't need to be silly anymore because they've found love.
As You Like it 1
"Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits." (1.2.59)
This "comedy" isn't very funny at all, so I was thinking maybe Shakespeare had a weird sense of humor. Mass marriages just aren't very funny. Cross dressing doesn't make me laugh. Sexual innuendos lose their hilarity after age thirteen. This is not how I like it, Shakespeare. I feel like this play is only a comedy because it's technically not a tragedy and it had to be something. In the absence of death, everything is funny I suppose. It's a sick world out there. I was just hoping for some good, clean old time humor, but I'm coming to learn that there isn't such a thing.
This "comedy" isn't very funny at all, so I was thinking maybe Shakespeare had a weird sense of humor. Mass marriages just aren't very funny. Cross dressing doesn't make me laugh. Sexual innuendos lose their hilarity after age thirteen. This is not how I like it, Shakespeare. I feel like this play is only a comedy because it's technically not a tragedy and it had to be something. In the absence of death, everything is funny I suppose. It's a sick world out there. I was just hoping for some good, clean old time humor, but I'm coming to learn that there isn't such a thing.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Reflective Essay
Certain themes have entertained people throughout the ages. These themes create works that are considered to be classic or timeless. Interestingly enough, most works of literature, entertainment, and music share the same base theme based on popularity of older works. Themes, like jealousy and manipulation are key components of many works because they create conflict amongst characters that will forevermore evoke a great response in most audiences. Othello, in particular, portrays the destructive ability of manipulation and jealousy on love. Although they are more modern, the movie Mean Girls, and the song Suspicions by Tim McGraw mirror the Shakespearean tragedy Othello by having common themes of being manipulated into being jealous of a very close companion.
In Mean Girls, best friends turn against each other when a new girl comes to town and tests their relationship. With Cady’s help, Gretchen realizes that she is just as desirable as Regina and Regina must be taken down. “Gretchen Wieners had cracked” (Mean Girls). Gretchen never would have thought to question Regina if it were not for Cady just as Othello would not have been suspicious of Desdemona if it were not for Iago. Iago knew that Cassio had a “smooth dispose” (I.iii.397) and because Othello was” of a free and open nature” (I.iii.399), it would be easy to deceive him. This kind of manipulation creates the central conflict in both pieces. Without the manipulation, neither Regina nor Othello would have become jealous, their relationships would have remained perfect, and both works would have been utterly boring and ultimately forgettable.
Similarly, In Suspicions (Suspicions by Tim Mcgraw Lyrics), Tim McGraw can’t shake the thought of infidelity. Their love cannot grow because Tim “just know(s) what's on every man's mind” (McGraw). Once unfaithfulness is implanted in someone’s mind it is nearly impossible to move on from the thought. Othello leads himself to kill his own beloved wife, while Tim merely hate(s) (himself) for what (he’s) thinkin' of” (McGraw). While the extreme jealousy is an indication of the extraordinary love that these men have for their women, but it ultimately leads to their self-destruction. Also, neither man came up with their suspicions on their own, but was deceived into becoming critical of their relationship and coming to the conclusion that their lover was unfaithful. An outside force destroyed their love to the point that “she must die, else she'll betray more men” (V.ii.1-7).
A perfect mix of manipulation and jealousy make plays, movies, and songs both entertaining and timeless. Othello was just a start to a never ending line of movies with these themes. Shakespeare’s brilliance paved the way for some of the best chick flicks and country blues ballads of every other time period. The play is so timeless because its conflicts are so relatable. Unfortunately, people will always be able to relate to being manipulated, and being jealous. Jealousy will always make an audience sympathetic while manipulation will always make the audience empathetic. Shakespeare may have lived hundreds of years ago, but his almost psychic ability to tap into such controversial themes of modern society will help Othello remain a spectacular and frequently studied piece of literature.Works Cited
McGraw, Tim. ”Suspicions”. Let it Go. Curb, 2004. CD.
Mean Girls. Dir. Mark S. Waters. Perf. Lindsay Lohan, Rachel
McAdams, and Tina Fey. Paramount, 2004. Film.
Perrine, Laurence. Othello. 2002. Perrine's Literature:Structure, Sound, and Sense. Fort Worth: Harcourt College. 1361-462. Print.
Rihanna- California King Bed Lyrics
My song, California King Bed by Rihanna, from the point of view of Othello perfectly describes a decaying romance while hints at a little bit of irony. While I'm sure that the song wasn't written with Othello in mind, it still fits. Rihanna sings about how while she is romantically involved with someone, she feels like the love in the relationship is gone just as Othello, for a short time, is married to Desdemona but questions her love for him. In the bridge Rihanna refuses to question the man about his love for her just as Othello resorts to killing to Desdemona instead of asking her if she was cheating. Both Rihanna and Othello associate showing emotion as weakness, but both are filled with emotion.Also in the bridge, Rihanna has moments where she can feel the love but it almost makes her even more upset just as Othello was distraught just before he killed Desdemona because she was being so calm and faithful to him. On the ironic side of things, the song describes how a couple feels distant while laying on a bed. Now, I believe that one person being dead on the bed while the other if alive and murdering is just about as distant as it gets. Othello and Desdemona were separated by death, and I am pretty sure that death constitutes for more than ten thousand miles.
"Just when I felt like giving up on us, You turned around and gave me one last touch That made everything feel better And even then my eyes got wetter. So confused, when I asked you if you love me But I don't wanna seem so weak Maybe I've been California dreaming"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)