Shakespeare wrote many histories. He wrote these with a specific intent on how to portray the characters to appeal to his audience. Through his writing he develops Richard as a menace while he develops Henry as a hero. This was to appeal to the crowd at the time, as well as to make an entertaining play.
Passage Comparasion:
Shakespeare's main use of character development is through dialogue. The lengthy passage in the beginning of Richard III lets the audience know right away that he is a villain before they even see him in action.
In this passage he starts by mentioning happy things going on in England, and how the country is in peace after a war. He then mentions how bitter he is about how he cannot enjoy the festivities and the attention of a woman because of his physical deformity. This could quickly lead to the audience sympathizing with Richard rather than despising him, but Shakespeare quickly changes their emotions by the language he uses. "And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain, And hate the idle pleasures of these days. Plots have I laid..." The character of Richard comes out, showing the audience that if he cannot have fun, then he will take the rest of the people down with his own suffering. This selfishness clearly portrays a villain, rather than a sympathetic hero. Richard is willing to ruin the peace and happiness of England for his own entertainment and glory.
The physical deformity of Richard also shows the audience that this is an evil character. Shakespearean heroes always tend to be remarkably handsome, and the unattractiveness of Richard is a physical manifestation of what is going on inside him. Even in the same first speech Richard ends it by telling the audience about the rumor he has spread which ultimately ends up in the death of his one brother. Richard does not mention one good thing about his character, and proves to the audience that he is a villain. He sacrifices his own family for his selfish needs.
On the contrary, the inspiring language Henry uses helps portray the essence of a true hero. In his famous speech in Act IV scene iii, he raises the morale of his troops by telling them basically that they are going to die, but that they should be so proud to do it for the glory and honor of their country. Henry's motivational force through out the whole play is honor and glory. This says much more about his character than Richards, whose motivational force was power and wealth."We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother..." Henry invites is soldiers in a part of comradery and brotherhood, where he would be honored to fight and die with these men. Richard on the other hand kills off both of his blood-brothers. King Henry is willing to fight along side these men and not leave them until the end. This is a great contrast to Richard who hires assassins to kill people who get in his way.
Genre Commentary:
Ultimately, the histories were written to appeal to the monarch at that time. The factual events were very stretched, as well as the character development. Richard III is more entertaining as this self-absorbed villain, whether that was the truth or not. And even though Henry started a war over a small insult from France, Shakespeare needed to make him an honored hero for England. The common theme through out the histories is taking factual events and dramatizing them for entertaining purposes. After all, Shakespeare was trying to make a living off of entertainment, not history books.
And because most of the histories are written about rulers and kings, there is usually a war in them. The audiences emotions are tied up in the battles fought. They want Richard to fail so badly, especially when all the ghosts come out and they can see how many people he betrayed. And as for Henry, they are right there cheering him on. The battles are used so the audience can see the villain or hero in action, and so there emotional needs are satisfied, whether it is being relieved that Richard never succeeded, or shouting for joy as Henry wins his battle.
Personal Reflection:
I really enjoyed the histories. Reading Richard III was very entertaining, and I am glad we read it in class first. That helped me understand what I should be looking for in Henry V. But while reading these, I understand that I do not know much about England's history, and I know I have not learned much about it from reading these. These were meant to be entertaining, and that is exactly what they were. But now I really want to read up on the factual events behind these exciting and glorified tales.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Shakespearean Comdedies
While reading an assortment of Shakespearean Comedies, one can see that many contain very similar aspects. Shakespeare understood what was needed to build plot, keep his audiences entertained, and ultimately in a comedy, to make them laugh.
Passage Comparasion.
A technique that was used in Shakespeare's writing was putting two extreme emotions side-by-side in the same scene to make the dialogue more comedic. This technique can be seen in A Midsummer-Night's Dream in Act III Scene ii. While Lysander is complimenting Helena with phrases such as "Gentle Helena...my love, my life, my soul, fair Helena!" and "Helen, I love thee; by my life I do," he then expresses his extreme disgust for Hermia in phrases such as "Out, loathed medicine! hated potion, hence!" and "Get gone, you dwarf; you minimus, of hindering knot-grass made; you bead, you acorn."
The two opposite extremes of language that Lysander uses proves to be humorous to the audience because they know that Lysander truly loves Hermia and does not like Helena. Lysander declares his love so confidently, even though the audience knows that it is just because of the fairy potion that Lysander is acting this way. It is important for Lysander to express a more extreme dislike towards Hermia because the insults he throws at her are not only entertaining, but are important for comedic effect because the audience knows that Lysander and Hermia were once lovers. Although the insults are offensive, it still has a light-hearted effect because without the aide of fairy magic, Lysander really does not mean those things. Having Lysander express his annoyance and dislike for Hermia makes the scene much more entertaining than having him just ignore her and focus his attention on Helena. The scene would lose it's humor if only love for Helena was expressed; it is insulting people that never fails to make the audience laugh.
The extreme opposite exchanging of words shows up again in another one of Shakepeare's comedies, The Taming of the Shrew. Act II Scene i is where Kate and Petruchio meet for the first time. Kate is spitting out insults to Petruchio, calling him names such as "swain," and "crab." But every insult that Kate gives him, Petruchio throws it right back as a compliment. He even states at one point "I find you very passing gentle. 'Twas told me you were rough and coy and sullen, and now I find report a very liar; for thou art pleasant. gamesome, passing courteous, but slow in speech, yet sweet as spring time flowers." The contrast of the ways that they talk to each other proves to be quite humorous. The strong language through out the passage makes it much more interesting. The passage would have been much more passive and boring if Shakespeare did not have a contrast of two extreme opposite feelings. Again, the play on words is funny, as is the insults that Kate provides.
Shakespeare knew the comedic elements that made the audiences entertained and laugh. The contrast of two extreme opposite emotions never failed to do both. This is why he included them in many of his comedies.
Comedy Commentary
There are many similar plot elements that occur in comedies. In regards to the plays A Midsummer-Night's Dream, The Taming of the Shrew, and The Tempest, love is very prominent. In every play there are characters that fall in love with each other.
All the plays end with weddings and celebration. A wedding is a happy time where people are brought together and express their love; there is not a happier note to end a comedy on. By ending the plays happily, the audience can leave the theater with a smile on their face, which is the ultimate goal of a comedy.
The structure of the plots also have similarities. There are usually always a "blocking figure," or a character who gets in the way of the main character obtaining or accomplishing their main goals. This was seen in A Midsummer-Night's Dream with Egeus. Egeus was blocking Hermia and Lysander from being together. Because of Egeus, the two lover's found themselves in the forest where magic and faeries become the main substance of the plot. In The Taming of the Shrew Kate is the blocking figure between Bianca and Lucentio. Bianca and Lucentio cannot be together until Kate is married first, thus driving the plot forward. In the The Tempest, Prospero sets up certain obstacles before he will allow Ferdinand and his daughter Miranda to marry. Each example of blocking characters is blocking two lovers from being together, again emphasizing the importance of love and romance in Shakespearean comedies.
The comedies have five acts in each of them as well. Although the importance of having five acts is not apparent, it is still a part of what makes a Shakespearean comedy a comedy.
Personal Reflection:
I very much enjoyed reading the Shakespearean comedies. The plots were always light-hearted and the evident word play made me laugh. I really enjoyed the stories and they were a fun read. Shakespeare knows how to make a successful play and how to keep his audiences entertained, even years after they were written. Shakespeare knows the true nature of human enjoyment.
Passage Comparasion.
A technique that was used in Shakespeare's writing was putting two extreme emotions side-by-side in the same scene to make the dialogue more comedic. This technique can be seen in A Midsummer-Night's Dream in Act III Scene ii. While Lysander is complimenting Helena with phrases such as "Gentle Helena...my love, my life, my soul, fair Helena!" and "Helen, I love thee; by my life I do," he then expresses his extreme disgust for Hermia in phrases such as "Out, loathed medicine! hated potion, hence!" and "Get gone, you dwarf; you minimus, of hindering knot-grass made; you bead, you acorn."
The two opposite extremes of language that Lysander uses proves to be humorous to the audience because they know that Lysander truly loves Hermia and does not like Helena. Lysander declares his love so confidently, even though the audience knows that it is just because of the fairy potion that Lysander is acting this way. It is important for Lysander to express a more extreme dislike towards Hermia because the insults he throws at her are not only entertaining, but are important for comedic effect because the audience knows that Lysander and Hermia were once lovers. Although the insults are offensive, it still has a light-hearted effect because without the aide of fairy magic, Lysander really does not mean those things. Having Lysander express his annoyance and dislike for Hermia makes the scene much more entertaining than having him just ignore her and focus his attention on Helena. The scene would lose it's humor if only love for Helena was expressed; it is insulting people that never fails to make the audience laugh.
The extreme opposite exchanging of words shows up again in another one of Shakepeare's comedies, The Taming of the Shrew. Act II Scene i is where Kate and Petruchio meet for the first time. Kate is spitting out insults to Petruchio, calling him names such as "swain," and "crab." But every insult that Kate gives him, Petruchio throws it right back as a compliment. He even states at one point "I find you very passing gentle. 'Twas told me you were rough and coy and sullen, and now I find report a very liar; for thou art pleasant. gamesome, passing courteous, but slow in speech, yet sweet as spring time flowers." The contrast of the ways that they talk to each other proves to be quite humorous. The strong language through out the passage makes it much more interesting. The passage would have been much more passive and boring if Shakespeare did not have a contrast of two extreme opposite feelings. Again, the play on words is funny, as is the insults that Kate provides.
Shakespeare knew the comedic elements that made the audiences entertained and laugh. The contrast of two extreme opposite emotions never failed to do both. This is why he included them in many of his comedies.
Comedy Commentary
There are many similar plot elements that occur in comedies. In regards to the plays A Midsummer-Night's Dream, The Taming of the Shrew, and The Tempest, love is very prominent. In every play there are characters that fall in love with each other.
All the plays end with weddings and celebration. A wedding is a happy time where people are brought together and express their love; there is not a happier note to end a comedy on. By ending the plays happily, the audience can leave the theater with a smile on their face, which is the ultimate goal of a comedy.
The structure of the plots also have similarities. There are usually always a "blocking figure," or a character who gets in the way of the main character obtaining or accomplishing their main goals. This was seen in A Midsummer-Night's Dream with Egeus. Egeus was blocking Hermia and Lysander from being together. Because of Egeus, the two lover's found themselves in the forest where magic and faeries become the main substance of the plot. In The Taming of the Shrew Kate is the blocking figure between Bianca and Lucentio. Bianca and Lucentio cannot be together until Kate is married first, thus driving the plot forward. In the The Tempest, Prospero sets up certain obstacles before he will allow Ferdinand and his daughter Miranda to marry. Each example of blocking characters is blocking two lovers from being together, again emphasizing the importance of love and romance in Shakespearean comedies.
The comedies have five acts in each of them as well. Although the importance of having five acts is not apparent, it is still a part of what makes a Shakespearean comedy a comedy.
Personal Reflection:
I very much enjoyed reading the Shakespearean comedies. The plots were always light-hearted and the evident word play made me laugh. I really enjoyed the stories and they were a fun read. Shakespeare knows how to make a successful play and how to keep his audiences entertained, even years after they were written. Shakespeare knows the true nature of human enjoyment.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A Tale of Two Cities
Analysis: Literary Device; foreshadowing
Dickens writing is thick with literary devices. One imparticular was used quite well in the beginning of the novel A Tale of Two Cities. Through his metaphorical writing, he foreshadows the French Revolution early on in his book. Many other literary devices were used through this foreshadowing, such as the use of metaphor, descriptive language, and repetition of the word hunger.
The scene where the peasants are lapping up the muddy wine from the streets shows great poverty and desperate measures. The impoverished people are drinking the muddy wine from the streets, almost like animals. This shows how bad things have gotten in France and that the standard of living is so so low that the people have to start acting like animals in order to survive. This scene is then followed by a paragraph with the repetitious word of "Hunger." This paragraph produces even more of an idea of the poverty that is going on, but mainly portrays the people's hunger for wanting more than what they had. They were not yet satisfied with their standard of living and hints to an overthrow.
The author also metaphorically uses red wine and mud to represent the blood that will be shed in this revolution. The red wine is not only trying to satisfy their physical hunger, but also their political hunger for change. The blood stains the streets as well as the peoples hands and faces. This represents the people who are marked to die during this bloody revolution that will occur. Blood will be poured in the streets, and the people will use that actual blood to satisfy their hunger for political change, rather than the muddy wine to satsify their physical hunger.
Passage Analysis: Book One, Chapter 3
"A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration, when I enter a great city by night, that every one of those darkly clustered houses encloses its own secret; that every room in every one of them encloses its own secret; that every eating heart in the hundreds of thousand of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest it!"
This passage contains such a wonderful thought: that everyone has their own secrets. It is again bringing forth a bit of humanity that gets lost when talking about large numbers of people such as a town. The author immediately pulls you into one house, one beating heart, and the secrets that may never surface out of it. But at the same time, he takes us to absolutely every house in that town.
He hits upon an important issue: how some peoples secrets may never surface to the public. They never are fully understandable by outside minds. Everyone's secrets are unique to themselves and cannot be interpreted 100% accurately to an outside mind. This is evident in Manette who begins to have physical problems as a result of his private secrets (almost like a Dimmesdale character.)
Opinion:
This book was alright. I feel like I can appreciate how the author wrote and why he wrote like he did. I do believe I could have enjoyed this book further if I was not so pressed to read. My new understanding is that Dickens is something that one must stumble upon sometime in their life, but must have it happen at their own pace. Using my new understanding, this may not have been the right time in my life to read Dickens, but the reading was still slightly rewarding.
Dickens writing is thick with literary devices. One imparticular was used quite well in the beginning of the novel A Tale of Two Cities. Through his metaphorical writing, he foreshadows the French Revolution early on in his book. Many other literary devices were used through this foreshadowing, such as the use of metaphor, descriptive language, and repetition of the word hunger.
The scene where the peasants are lapping up the muddy wine from the streets shows great poverty and desperate measures. The impoverished people are drinking the muddy wine from the streets, almost like animals. This shows how bad things have gotten in France and that the standard of living is so so low that the people have to start acting like animals in order to survive. This scene is then followed by a paragraph with the repetitious word of "Hunger." This paragraph produces even more of an idea of the poverty that is going on, but mainly portrays the people's hunger for wanting more than what they had. They were not yet satisfied with their standard of living and hints to an overthrow.
The author also metaphorically uses red wine and mud to represent the blood that will be shed in this revolution. The red wine is not only trying to satisfy their physical hunger, but also their political hunger for change. The blood stains the streets as well as the peoples hands and faces. This represents the people who are marked to die during this bloody revolution that will occur. Blood will be poured in the streets, and the people will use that actual blood to satisfy their hunger for political change, rather than the muddy wine to satsify their physical hunger.
Passage Analysis: Book One, Chapter 3
"A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration, when I enter a great city by night, that every one of those darkly clustered houses encloses its own secret; that every room in every one of them encloses its own secret; that every eating heart in the hundreds of thousand of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest it!"
This passage contains such a wonderful thought: that everyone has their own secrets. It is again bringing forth a bit of humanity that gets lost when talking about large numbers of people such as a town. The author immediately pulls you into one house, one beating heart, and the secrets that may never surface out of it. But at the same time, he takes us to absolutely every house in that town.
He hits upon an important issue: how some peoples secrets may never surface to the public. They never are fully understandable by outside minds. Everyone's secrets are unique to themselves and cannot be interpreted 100% accurately to an outside mind. This is evident in Manette who begins to have physical problems as a result of his private secrets (almost like a Dimmesdale character.)
Opinion:
This book was alright. I feel like I can appreciate how the author wrote and why he wrote like he did. I do believe I could have enjoyed this book further if I was not so pressed to read. My new understanding is that Dickens is something that one must stumble upon sometime in their life, but must have it happen at their own pace. Using my new understanding, this may not have been the right time in my life to read Dickens, but the reading was still slightly rewarding.
The Importance of Being Earnest
Analysis: Food Fight
In the third act, Gwendolen and Cecily have a very heated fight, all using food and verbal formalities as their choice weapon. Cecily asks if Gwendolen would rather have cake or bread and butter and if she would like sugar in her tea. When Gwendolen suggests she would like no sugar and bread and butter, Cecil responds with absolute evil! She gives Gwendolen a slice of cake and lumps of sugar in her tea!
This absolutely shows the values these women have. Instead of getting angry and expressing that, they still want to maintain the their "proper" and "polite" behavior. The ladies believe they are engaged to the same guy!! It seems that throughout this entire book, things that should be important and skipped over lightly, and things that should not matter at all are held with the highest regard (such as both Jack and Algy wanting to be Earnest.) The food fight clearly demonstrates to the reader just how far formalities and etiquette extend into the lives of these shallow characters. Even in a moment of embarrassment, anger, and frustration (such as realizing you are engaged to the same guy as someone,) both Cecily and Gwendolen put appearances and formalities before the expression of true emotion.
Passage Analysis:
"
Lady Bracknell: ...Now to minor matters. Are your parents living?
Jack: I have lost both my parents.
Lady Bracknell: To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness...
"
The absurdity of this statement does what it is exactly intended to do; make the reader sincerely question the I.Q and mental health of the character Lady Bracknell. She does not have an emotional bone in her body and instead the only values that guide her are the shallow ones of looks and materialism which she holds so dear to her heart. Etiquette guides her rather than morals.
Lady Bracknell makes a comment about something that is supposed to be a tragedy and turns it around to look like Jack's carelessness. This question is part of a series of questions that she uses to evaluate Jack to make her opinion on weather Jack would be a good fit for Gwendolen. She also starts off the inquiry about Jack's parents by saying "now on to more minor matters." This shows how she would not even care if Jack's parents did did not approve of their marriage, and that her opinion is the only true standing one. She also does not even think about the mental toll that may have been placed upon Jack for having no parents. Instead of thinking about if Jack is okay, she merely scolds him instead saying he was "careless." She scolds him because she is obsessed with how things look from the outside, and for Jack not to have any parents is no longer an inquiry, but a value judgment and social judgment that will be put on him in society. Lady Bracknell does not want the best for her daughter, but instead wants to live in the physical picture of how she thinks Gwendolen's world should look like. Her motivation is far from caring about ones character, and more about their pocketbook and famous (family) name of some sort.
Opinion:
I rather liked this play. It was light-hearted and funny which always makes for a great read. It is actually funny and re-enforces my point that I found it light-hearted, when every issue in the book was actually incredibly important to the characters. It all the more characterized their ridiculousness because the reader is not going to go around and tell someone when the proper time to eat muffins is and when it is not appropriate. It was very funny and the author did a fine job developing (or underdeveloping) these shallow and snobby characters.
In the third act, Gwendolen and Cecily have a very heated fight, all using food and verbal formalities as their choice weapon. Cecily asks if Gwendolen would rather have cake or bread and butter and if she would like sugar in her tea. When Gwendolen suggests she would like no sugar and bread and butter, Cecil responds with absolute evil! She gives Gwendolen a slice of cake and lumps of sugar in her tea!
This absolutely shows the values these women have. Instead of getting angry and expressing that, they still want to maintain the their "proper" and "polite" behavior. The ladies believe they are engaged to the same guy!! It seems that throughout this entire book, things that should be important and skipped over lightly, and things that should not matter at all are held with the highest regard (such as both Jack and Algy wanting to be Earnest.) The food fight clearly demonstrates to the reader just how far formalities and etiquette extend into the lives of these shallow characters. Even in a moment of embarrassment, anger, and frustration (such as realizing you are engaged to the same guy as someone,) both Cecily and Gwendolen put appearances and formalities before the expression of true emotion.
Passage Analysis:
"
Lady Bracknell: ...Now to minor matters. Are your parents living?
Jack: I have lost both my parents.
Lady Bracknell: To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness...
"
The absurdity of this statement does what it is exactly intended to do; make the reader sincerely question the I.Q and mental health of the character Lady Bracknell. She does not have an emotional bone in her body and instead the only values that guide her are the shallow ones of looks and materialism which she holds so dear to her heart. Etiquette guides her rather than morals.
Lady Bracknell makes a comment about something that is supposed to be a tragedy and turns it around to look like Jack's carelessness. This question is part of a series of questions that she uses to evaluate Jack to make her opinion on weather Jack would be a good fit for Gwendolen. She also starts off the inquiry about Jack's parents by saying "now on to more minor matters." This shows how she would not even care if Jack's parents did did not approve of their marriage, and that her opinion is the only true standing one. She also does not even think about the mental toll that may have been placed upon Jack for having no parents. Instead of thinking about if Jack is okay, she merely scolds him instead saying he was "careless." She scolds him because she is obsessed with how things look from the outside, and for Jack not to have any parents is no longer an inquiry, but a value judgment and social judgment that will be put on him in society. Lady Bracknell does not want the best for her daughter, but instead wants to live in the physical picture of how she thinks Gwendolen's world should look like. Her motivation is far from caring about ones character, and more about their pocketbook and famous (family) name of some sort.
Opinion:
I rather liked this play. It was light-hearted and funny which always makes for a great read. It is actually funny and re-enforces my point that I found it light-hearted, when every issue in the book was actually incredibly important to the characters. It all the more characterized their ridiculousness because the reader is not going to go around and tell someone when the proper time to eat muffins is and when it is not appropriate. It was very funny and the author did a fine job developing (or underdeveloping) these shallow and snobby characters.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Cat's Cradle
Analysis: Hundred Martyrs to Democracy and Science
The Hundred Martyrs to Democracy in the novel Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut stands for the stupidity of war, and how fragile human life is. Science vs. Religion is a dominant theme in this novel, but the Hundred Martyrs to Democracy is just a reminder to the reader that no matter how much technology advances and aids in the war effort, war and the killing of people will not become anymore humane. An atomic bomb can be dropped and the pilot just has to turn the plane around and not see the lives he destroyed, but it won't be any different than battles fought with foot soldiers in reality.
Human stupidity also plays a big role in this novel. The Hundred Martyrs to Democracy strengthens this theme. Here are one hundred men, sent to fight in a war and before they even get there and make an impact on anything, they died by a German submarine. Another ironic thing about this is that San Lorenzo is a dictatorship and sent a hundred men to fight in the name of "democracy." Even if these men were to have made it to the United States, they were fighting for a cause not of their own and it would not have made an impact in their life at San Lorenzo. Also, San Lorenzo said they declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor. But San Lorenzo is a comparatively small island who declared war with a huge European power, Germany, and sending one hundred men to fight with the United States would probably have made little to no impact in the war effort even if these men did make their journey to the States. How stupid would these men be to fight for democracy when they are living in a dictatorship that does not even support their cause?
The Hundred Martyrs to Democracy shows the reader very clearly and almost humorously the stupidity of war and the stupidity of mankind. The reader can extend this idea to the modern world, commenting on how war does not solve all problems and how many people die in vain because of it. To the public, it is not an individual being killed in a war but rather a collective group of soldiers. This makes it much less personal. No one in the United States has even heard about this "great sacrifice" and Minton lies to "Papa" when he said every school child grew up knowing the great story of the Hundred Martyrs to Democracy.
The Hundred Martyrs to Democracy is Vonnegut's social commentary of war. He finds it ridiculous that human beings must die all for an ideal "cause." These causes that men and women die and fight for are intangible such as "liberty" and "democracy." What do those things mean anyway? They mean so many things to so many people. By the author over exaggerating the ridiculousness of war by using the Hundred Martyrs to Democracy coming from a dictatorship and fighting for democracy, he helps break down the complexity of war into simple and bias terms for the reader.
Passage Analysis: pg 170 Chapter 114
" 'And I propose to you that if we are to pay our sincere respects to the hundred lost children of San Lorenzo, that we might spend the day despising what killed them; which is to say, the stupidity and viciousness of all mankind.' "
This is a great excerpt from the speech Minton made in chapter 114. His speech was given as part of the ceremony for the Hundred Martyrs of Democracy
The way Minton refers to these great Martyrs as "children" helps bring his anti-war idea off quite well. Calling the soldiers children reestablishes to the public that these great martyrs were still human. When the people of San Lorenzo call these soldiers Martyrs, the seem to establish an underlying idea that these men were great heroes and died so honorably for a great cause, and that no one could wish to be honored so extravagantly as these men. Minton's speech brings everyone back to the facts, that these were really people who had their lives stolen from them in war. Calling them "children" makes the reader really be able to feel the innocence that every person contains, whether they are about to go off to war or not. It also adds a sense of background to the people who have died. They are no longer a statistic of one hundred men, but now they are someones child, someones father, someones husband or brother. Minton shows the humanity behind every depressing statistic when he uses the reference of "children,"
Also, when he suggests that they should all spend the day despising what killed these men, he is defining what the true problem is. The problem was not that democracy was in danger or that other countries disagree, the real problem that may be the only problem "worth fighting for (so to speak)" is war itself. Minton is asking them not to hate the reason why the Martyrs died, but to hate the fact that they had to die. This is also a nice compliment to the other themes in the book, one of which is that science and technology has developed incredibly fast and most of it for warfare. If all these new inventions are being created for warfare, why must men even have to go out and fight and die? What technology will take place of the soldier?
In this excerpt of Minton's speech, the words used were chosen very carefully for the sole reason of leaving an impression and feeling upon the reader.
Opinion:
Personally, I really loved this book. Vonnegut made great commentary's on the dangers of being overly committed to science and the dangers of being overly committed to religion. He did this in a humorous and light-hearted way that made the reading fun, but also gave the reader something to think about long after they put the book down. The plot was so bizarre and kept me wondering what was going to happen next. I love how he basically invented his own ridiculous religion which pokes mild fun at many other religions and starts off with "Don't believe a word I tell you, it is all lies." I also like how he ridiculed war and his presentation of it in the book. I think Vonnegut accomplished great writing by first entertaining his reader, and secondly educating them. And who knows? We may not be that far away from inventing ice nine.
The Hundred Martyrs to Democracy in the novel Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut stands for the stupidity of war, and how fragile human life is. Science vs. Religion is a dominant theme in this novel, but the Hundred Martyrs to Democracy is just a reminder to the reader that no matter how much technology advances and aids in the war effort, war and the killing of people will not become anymore humane. An atomic bomb can be dropped and the pilot just has to turn the plane around and not see the lives he destroyed, but it won't be any different than battles fought with foot soldiers in reality.
Human stupidity also plays a big role in this novel. The Hundred Martyrs to Democracy strengthens this theme. Here are one hundred men, sent to fight in a war and before they even get there and make an impact on anything, they died by a German submarine. Another ironic thing about this is that San Lorenzo is a dictatorship and sent a hundred men to fight in the name of "democracy." Even if these men were to have made it to the United States, they were fighting for a cause not of their own and it would not have made an impact in their life at San Lorenzo. Also, San Lorenzo said they declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor. But San Lorenzo is a comparatively small island who declared war with a huge European power, Germany, and sending one hundred men to fight with the United States would probably have made little to no impact in the war effort even if these men did make their journey to the States. How stupid would these men be to fight for democracy when they are living in a dictatorship that does not even support their cause?
The Hundred Martyrs to Democracy shows the reader very clearly and almost humorously the stupidity of war and the stupidity of mankind. The reader can extend this idea to the modern world, commenting on how war does not solve all problems and how many people die in vain because of it. To the public, it is not an individual being killed in a war but rather a collective group of soldiers. This makes it much less personal. No one in the United States has even heard about this "great sacrifice" and Minton lies to "Papa" when he said every school child grew up knowing the great story of the Hundred Martyrs to Democracy.
The Hundred Martyrs to Democracy is Vonnegut's social commentary of war. He finds it ridiculous that human beings must die all for an ideal "cause." These causes that men and women die and fight for are intangible such as "liberty" and "democracy." What do those things mean anyway? They mean so many things to so many people. By the author over exaggerating the ridiculousness of war by using the Hundred Martyrs to Democracy coming from a dictatorship and fighting for democracy, he helps break down the complexity of war into simple and bias terms for the reader.
Passage Analysis: pg 170 Chapter 114
" 'And I propose to you that if we are to pay our sincere respects to the hundred lost children of San Lorenzo, that we might spend the day despising what killed them; which is to say, the stupidity and viciousness of all mankind.' "
This is a great excerpt from the speech Minton made in chapter 114. His speech was given as part of the ceremony for the Hundred Martyrs of Democracy
The way Minton refers to these great Martyrs as "children" helps bring his anti-war idea off quite well. Calling the soldiers children reestablishes to the public that these great martyrs were still human. When the people of San Lorenzo call these soldiers Martyrs, the seem to establish an underlying idea that these men were great heroes and died so honorably for a great cause, and that no one could wish to be honored so extravagantly as these men. Minton's speech brings everyone back to the facts, that these were really people who had their lives stolen from them in war. Calling them "children" makes the reader really be able to feel the innocence that every person contains, whether they are about to go off to war or not. It also adds a sense of background to the people who have died. They are no longer a statistic of one hundred men, but now they are someones child, someones father, someones husband or brother. Minton shows the humanity behind every depressing statistic when he uses the reference of "children,"
Also, when he suggests that they should all spend the day despising what killed these men, he is defining what the true problem is. The problem was not that democracy was in danger or that other countries disagree, the real problem that may be the only problem "worth fighting for (so to speak)" is war itself. Minton is asking them not to hate the reason why the Martyrs died, but to hate the fact that they had to die. This is also a nice compliment to the other themes in the book, one of which is that science and technology has developed incredibly fast and most of it for warfare. If all these new inventions are being created for warfare, why must men even have to go out and fight and die? What technology will take place of the soldier?
In this excerpt of Minton's speech, the words used were chosen very carefully for the sole reason of leaving an impression and feeling upon the reader.
Opinion:
Personally, I really loved this book. Vonnegut made great commentary's on the dangers of being overly committed to science and the dangers of being overly committed to religion. He did this in a humorous and light-hearted way that made the reading fun, but also gave the reader something to think about long after they put the book down. The plot was so bizarre and kept me wondering what was going to happen next. I love how he basically invented his own ridiculous religion which pokes mild fun at many other religions and starts off with "Don't believe a word I tell you, it is all lies." I also like how he ridiculed war and his presentation of it in the book. I think Vonnegut accomplished great writing by first entertaining his reader, and secondly educating them. And who knows? We may not be that far away from inventing ice nine.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A Handmaid's Tale
Analysis: The color red
The color red is very prevalent in Margaret Atwood's novel A Handmaid's Tale. Red is the color that all the Handmaid's must wear. Red is a color that means many things. First of all, it stand for fertility. By wearing the red gown that all Handmaids must wear, they are publicly advertising their job; they cannot get away from it. Their job is to produce children not for themselves, but for their society (more specifically for the Wife they are assigned too.) As well as advertising their job, it also advertises their sin. Gilead is ran with a huge religion factor. They believe it is religious to have the Handmaids, but the Handmaids are technically committing adultery with the Commanders. It is a constant reminder of the sanctioned sin that the government is saying it is okay. In Gilead, people no longer live by the Bible but instead the twisted version that the government feeds them.
Red also stands for sex and sexual pleasure. This is slightly ironic because although the Handmaid's are forced to have sex with the Commanders, there is absolutely no pleasure between anyone at the Ceremony, whether it is the Commander, Offred, or the Wife. Women are no longer free to choose who their sexual partners may be. By wearing a symbol of something that is supposed to bring pleasure and is often tied with love and affection, Offred is only reminded of the dreaded night of the Ceremony that occurs every month.
Offred notices red throughout the book. There are red tulips when she is in Serena Joy's garden. She picked out how the tulip to her looks like a womb. Serena Joy cannot have children so instead she raises and nurtures red tulips, a reminder of her infertility and how there is really no other way that she can contribute to this society, except by standing pretty on her husbands arm.
Although we know that Offred is called Offred because she is "of Fred", I do believe there is a deeper meaning to that name. I believe Atwood choose that name because it can be read many different ways. Personally, I read it as "off-red." This meant that Offred was not fully bought into this cheap society. She had many many thoughts that she never spoke out loud. On the outside, she wore her red and did what she was supposed to do. She was a believer on the outside. But on the inside she hid her true thoughts and opinions on the society, too scared to express them because she knew what the government could do to her. She was not part of the organized resistance, but she definitely did not commit herself to this limiting society and their propaganda.
Passage Analysis: Pg96-97
"I rub the butter over my face, work it into the skin of my hands. There's no longer any hand lotion or face cream, not for us. Such things are considered vanities. We are containers, it's only the insides of our bodies that are important. The outside can become hard and wrinkled, for all they care, like the shell of a nut. This was a decree of the Wives, this absence of hand lotion. They don't want us to look attractive. For them, things are bad enough as it is.
....As long as we do this, butter our skin to keep it soft, we can believe that we will some day get out, that we will be touched again, in love or desire. We have ceremonies of our own, private ones.
The butter is greasy and it will go rancid and I will smell like an old cheese; but at least it's organic, as they used to say.
To such devices have we descended."
This quote tells a lot about the society norms in Gilead. Offred's role in her society is one of shame and disgust to many people around her. The Wives hate the Handmaid's so much that they deprive them of every simple pleasantry such as hand lotion. Being a Handmaid means that you are not supposed to look pleasing to other people, because then things could easily extend far past the unemotional relationship the Commanders are supposed to have with the Handmaids. The Handmaids are not meant for pleasure, and to be pleasing to the Commander during the Ceremony would then make it a sin. it is work only.
Not being allowed to use hand lotion also reinforces the fact that the Handmaids are in Gilead for one reason and one reason only: for their womb. It is another degrading gesture to the Handmaids. Their outsides can bee shrivled, so long as the Handmaid's internal organs (specifically her uterus) is intact. Taking care of your looks and being aesthetically pleasing to other people can fill someone up with joy and confidence. But because the Handmaid's really cannot keep up their outside look, it mentally takes them down another level, thinking that they are not as good as the Wives and other women.
Not taking care of their appearance also has another motive in Gilead. This way, the Handmaids cannot be alluring to other men. Women no longer can have any control or power over men, and making sure their appearances are not kept up makes it easier for men to "resist" and to stay in power. This can be seen in the beginning of the book when Offred walks pass the guard and moves her hips a little more dramatically. It pleases her knowing that maybe that made the guard attracted to her a little. Because everything pleasing about women has basically been stripped away and the Handmaids cannot exert their femininity in public (because they are required to wear such long gowns and bonnets) it makes it easier for the men to stay in power and control the women even more since the womens' self confidence and influence has decreased.
Offred wants to keep her skin soft and smooth so she can hope for a life outside of this one, so she can still keep a bit of her old self and pray that life can go back to normal. Such unimportant things like soft skin is the only bit of hope Offred can hang on to. Mentioning the use of something so domestic as "butter" shows the desperation this situation has come to. Using butter on her skin is a meaningless attempt to break the rules of Gilead and hopefully one day make society normal again.
Opinion:
I really liked this book. It was hard to get through the heavy and lengthy writing at some times, but I realize that it was that writing that made novel become so much more real and believable. The narrator described every single little event that happened to her and every thought that popped into her head. This makes Offred's character even more real, showing how much time she had on her hands and driving home the fact that she was only important and needed once a month, when the Ceremony occurred. I really did like the book. The author did a great job making this society believable. I usually have a hard time believing these made-up societies, but Gilead is now a solid place in my mind and I know the frightening and horrible tales of Offred will stay with me.
This book also brought up great and controversial issues. It made you stop and think how far you would let the government go and take over your personal rights before others around you would step up and fight back. The way people were taken over so quickly is a frightening thought, and the twisted nature of religion that the government used was down right disgusting. Although it may be more difficult for a government like that to take over the United States, it could still happen or is happening in many other parts of the world.
The color red is very prevalent in Margaret Atwood's novel A Handmaid's Tale. Red is the color that all the Handmaid's must wear. Red is a color that means many things. First of all, it stand for fertility. By wearing the red gown that all Handmaids must wear, they are publicly advertising their job; they cannot get away from it. Their job is to produce children not for themselves, but for their society (more specifically for the Wife they are assigned too.) As well as advertising their job, it also advertises their sin. Gilead is ran with a huge religion factor. They believe it is religious to have the Handmaids, but the Handmaids are technically committing adultery with the Commanders. It is a constant reminder of the sanctioned sin that the government is saying it is okay. In Gilead, people no longer live by the Bible but instead the twisted version that the government feeds them.
Red also stands for sex and sexual pleasure. This is slightly ironic because although the Handmaid's are forced to have sex with the Commanders, there is absolutely no pleasure between anyone at the Ceremony, whether it is the Commander, Offred, or the Wife. Women are no longer free to choose who their sexual partners may be. By wearing a symbol of something that is supposed to bring pleasure and is often tied with love and affection, Offred is only reminded of the dreaded night of the Ceremony that occurs every month.
Offred notices red throughout the book. There are red tulips when she is in Serena Joy's garden. She picked out how the tulip to her looks like a womb. Serena Joy cannot have children so instead she raises and nurtures red tulips, a reminder of her infertility and how there is really no other way that she can contribute to this society, except by standing pretty on her husbands arm.
Although we know that Offred is called Offred because she is "of Fred", I do believe there is a deeper meaning to that name. I believe Atwood choose that name because it can be read many different ways. Personally, I read it as "off-red." This meant that Offred was not fully bought into this cheap society. She had many many thoughts that she never spoke out loud. On the outside, she wore her red and did what she was supposed to do. She was a believer on the outside. But on the inside she hid her true thoughts and opinions on the society, too scared to express them because she knew what the government could do to her. She was not part of the organized resistance, but she definitely did not commit herself to this limiting society and their propaganda.
Passage Analysis: Pg96-97
"I rub the butter over my face, work it into the skin of my hands. There's no longer any hand lotion or face cream, not for us. Such things are considered vanities. We are containers, it's only the insides of our bodies that are important. The outside can become hard and wrinkled, for all they care, like the shell of a nut. This was a decree of the Wives, this absence of hand lotion. They don't want us to look attractive. For them, things are bad enough as it is.
....As long as we do this, butter our skin to keep it soft, we can believe that we will some day get out, that we will be touched again, in love or desire. We have ceremonies of our own, private ones.
The butter is greasy and it will go rancid and I will smell like an old cheese; but at least it's organic, as they used to say.
To such devices have we descended."
This quote tells a lot about the society norms in Gilead. Offred's role in her society is one of shame and disgust to many people around her. The Wives hate the Handmaid's so much that they deprive them of every simple pleasantry such as hand lotion. Being a Handmaid means that you are not supposed to look pleasing to other people, because then things could easily extend far past the unemotional relationship the Commanders are supposed to have with the Handmaids. The Handmaids are not meant for pleasure, and to be pleasing to the Commander during the Ceremony would then make it a sin. it is work only.
Not being allowed to use hand lotion also reinforces the fact that the Handmaids are in Gilead for one reason and one reason only: for their womb. It is another degrading gesture to the Handmaids. Their outsides can bee shrivled, so long as the Handmaid's internal organs (specifically her uterus) is intact. Taking care of your looks and being aesthetically pleasing to other people can fill someone up with joy and confidence. But because the Handmaid's really cannot keep up their outside look, it mentally takes them down another level, thinking that they are not as good as the Wives and other women.
Not taking care of their appearance also has another motive in Gilead. This way, the Handmaids cannot be alluring to other men. Women no longer can have any control or power over men, and making sure their appearances are not kept up makes it easier for men to "resist" and to stay in power. This can be seen in the beginning of the book when Offred walks pass the guard and moves her hips a little more dramatically. It pleases her knowing that maybe that made the guard attracted to her a little. Because everything pleasing about women has basically been stripped away and the Handmaids cannot exert their femininity in public (because they are required to wear such long gowns and bonnets) it makes it easier for the men to stay in power and control the women even more since the womens' self confidence and influence has decreased.
Offred wants to keep her skin soft and smooth so she can hope for a life outside of this one, so she can still keep a bit of her old self and pray that life can go back to normal. Such unimportant things like soft skin is the only bit of hope Offred can hang on to. Mentioning the use of something so domestic as "butter" shows the desperation this situation has come to. Using butter on her skin is a meaningless attempt to break the rules of Gilead and hopefully one day make society normal again.
Opinion:
I really liked this book. It was hard to get through the heavy and lengthy writing at some times, but I realize that it was that writing that made novel become so much more real and believable. The narrator described every single little event that happened to her and every thought that popped into her head. This makes Offred's character even more real, showing how much time she had on her hands and driving home the fact that she was only important and needed once a month, when the Ceremony occurred. I really did like the book. The author did a great job making this society believable. I usually have a hard time believing these made-up societies, but Gilead is now a solid place in my mind and I know the frightening and horrible tales of Offred will stay with me.
This book also brought up great and controversial issues. It made you stop and think how far you would let the government go and take over your personal rights before others around you would step up and fight back. The way people were taken over so quickly is a frightening thought, and the twisted nature of religion that the government used was down right disgusting. Although it may be more difficult for a government like that to take over the United States, it could still happen or is happening in many other parts of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
