To what extent have you found it possible in your consideration of literary works, to separate the individual from his or her public role? In your answer you should refer to any two or three works you have studied.
In Blood Wedding, the bride is seen to the public as the blushing bride. The woman who is seeing all of her dreams come true in meeting her soul mate, getting married to him and becoming his wife. Inside, the reader sees through her dialogue, she is not so sure. She seems to be pining after her lost lover, Leonardo, who married her cousin. This idea is later proved in the play when they run off together. She shows how she really feels rather than how society looks upon her. Also, Leonardo is perceived as a bad man from the start because of the information we were provided by the mother and his interaction with his wife. However, it is seen later that he may have been just a man in love, trying to figure things out. IN the end he was willing to die for the woman that he loved.
This is also seen in Wild Duck. Gina is seen as the submissive, obedient wife to Hjalmar. The woman who is completely faithful and loyal to her husband. Through her actions throughout the books, such as the way she acts when the elder Werle comes to visit her house it is seen that it may be different than it appears; that she may have something to hide. This idea is later proved when the reader discovers Gina had an intimate relationship with the elder Werle and that the child she claims belongs to Hjalmar and herself may actually belong to the elder Werle. Also, with little subtleties throughout the book it is shown that she has more power than she lets on. The reader sees that she is actually the one who does most of the labor for Hjlamar's photography business. Also, when Hjalmar asks her to let him take over the keeping of the family's finances the reader is shown that she has control over this aspect of family life as well. Through all of these things the reader is shown that Gina may not, in fact, be the submissive wife she is perceived to be at first, but actually a woman who makes decisions and keeps secrets.
This sort of difference between the inner and outer self is an important undercurrent in the books. It plays a large part of the deception that leads to the tragedy in each of the books. This deception is caused by secrets, such as the ones Gina and the Bride keep within themselves.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Blood Wedding Journal 2
To what extent would you agree that plot should be valued more highly than style in the work. In your answer you should refer to two or three works you have studied.
In Blood Wedding, the style is not as important to the work as the actual plot. Whether or not the work was written in a poetic style the story would remain the same. Lines such as the lines spoken by the Maid on page 58, "Turning-the wheel was turning, And the water was flowing. The wedding approaches! Let the branches spread open And the moon embellish Her white veranda!", while effective in conveying that the wedding is about to start, could have also been effectively expressed with a line like, "The wedding is starting." While this style conveys a sort of beauty in the beginning of the wedding, simple dialogue would have given this message and kept the story going. The way in which this message is conveyed is not nearly as important as its purpose in facilitating the story.
The tone and style in the writing could change, but the general integrity of the story is preserved. This is the important part in a work. While writing style can be the difference in whether or not someone wants to read a story, it can also be overlooked. Take the best-selling Twilight series, for example. Some would argue this series is very poorly written, that the style is unappealing; however, this book has become one of the widest read series of this generation. This is because the story is appealing. The same could be said for books like Oedipus, Wild Duck, and Blood Wedding. These stories are enthralling enough to carry the reader without it mattering whether they are written in one style or another. The plot is the important part, not the style.
In Oedipus, while the use of the chorus is useful in conveying the feelings of the masses throughout the story, a simple narrative would have served the same purpose. In the Wild Duck, the slow revealing of past events throughout the story is interesting in the development of the plot, the interest in the story's events would remain if they were displayed chronologically. This is why I think that it is the plot that matters, not the story. Differing writing styles may change the way the story is perceived, but the actually story itself is what matters and what people read for.
In Blood Wedding, the style is not as important to the work as the actual plot. Whether or not the work was written in a poetic style the story would remain the same. Lines such as the lines spoken by the Maid on page 58, "Turning-the wheel was turning, And the water was flowing. The wedding approaches! Let the branches spread open And the moon embellish Her white veranda!", while effective in conveying that the wedding is about to start, could have also been effectively expressed with a line like, "The wedding is starting." While this style conveys a sort of beauty in the beginning of the wedding, simple dialogue would have given this message and kept the story going. The way in which this message is conveyed is not nearly as important as its purpose in facilitating the story.
The tone and style in the writing could change, but the general integrity of the story is preserved. This is the important part in a work. While writing style can be the difference in whether or not someone wants to read a story, it can also be overlooked. Take the best-selling Twilight series, for example. Some would argue this series is very poorly written, that the style is unappealing; however, this book has become one of the widest read series of this generation. This is because the story is appealing. The same could be said for books like Oedipus, Wild Duck, and Blood Wedding. These stories are enthralling enough to carry the reader without it mattering whether they are written in one style or another. The plot is the important part, not the style.
In Oedipus, while the use of the chorus is useful in conveying the feelings of the masses throughout the story, a simple narrative would have served the same purpose. In the Wild Duck, the slow revealing of past events throughout the story is interesting in the development of the plot, the interest in the story's events would remain if they were displayed chronologically. This is why I think that it is the plot that matters, not the story. Differing writing styles may change the way the story is perceived, but the actually story itself is what matters and what people read for.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Blood Wedding Journal 1
Readers are attracted to moments of intensity in a writer's work. By that means and with what effect have writer's in your study offered heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention?
In Blood Wedding, the play is opened up with uncertainty. No names are used for the characters, only titles. This starts the play off with an odd tone. Mother begins a rant about the death of her husband and their eldest son within the first ten lines of the book. It becomes very clear that they have been murdered. This grabs the reader's attention immediately. The anger that Mother feels creates the desire to get the details on this situation. This is similar in Oedipus. The play opens up with the city of Thebes in turmoil. This attracts the reader immediately. The suspense in the beginning of both of these plays draws the reader in and causes them to be more invested in the story. This was the authors' purpose in writing these moments into the plays.
In Blood Wedding, the strained or mysterious relationships between the play's characters create moments of intensity that draw the reader in. Mother's hatred for the Felixes and the mysterious relationship between the Bride and Leonardo invoke curiosity about these relationships and what they could mean for the characters. It becomes clear that lies and deceit are present in these relationships and mankind's natural tendency to want to figure everything out. This desire to see the resolution of the play keeps the reader or viewer going through the work. This is also seen in Wild Duck. The beginning with Hjalmar and Gregers and the elder Werle makes the complicated nature of these relationships clear. This makes the reader want to keep reading.
The purpose of these moments is to make the reader feel emotions or desires causing them to become more invested in the book and keep reading. Lorca does this by displaying some of the complication in the character's relationships, exposing some of the lies and deceit present in the book, and showing some of the previous tragedy and anger in the character's lives.
In Blood Wedding, the play is opened up with uncertainty. No names are used for the characters, only titles. This starts the play off with an odd tone. Mother begins a rant about the death of her husband and their eldest son within the first ten lines of the book. It becomes very clear that they have been murdered. This grabs the reader's attention immediately. The anger that Mother feels creates the desire to get the details on this situation. This is similar in Oedipus. The play opens up with the city of Thebes in turmoil. This attracts the reader immediately. The suspense in the beginning of both of these plays draws the reader in and causes them to be more invested in the story. This was the authors' purpose in writing these moments into the plays.
In Blood Wedding, the strained or mysterious relationships between the play's characters create moments of intensity that draw the reader in. Mother's hatred for the Felixes and the mysterious relationship between the Bride and Leonardo invoke curiosity about these relationships and what they could mean for the characters. It becomes clear that lies and deceit are present in these relationships and mankind's natural tendency to want to figure everything out. This desire to see the resolution of the play keeps the reader or viewer going through the work. This is also seen in Wild Duck. The beginning with Hjalmar and Gregers and the elder Werle makes the complicated nature of these relationships clear. This makes the reader want to keep reading.
The purpose of these moments is to make the reader feel emotions or desires causing them to become more invested in the book and keep reading. Lorca does this by displaying some of the complication in the character's relationships, exposing some of the lies and deceit present in the book, and showing some of the previous tragedy and anger in the character's lives.
Wild Duck Journal 4
Narrative structure: How has the plot (not the story) been constructed? Are their parts? Is the plot circular? Subplots? How important/effective is the ending? Has everything been revealed by the end or are there unanswered questions? Does this matter? What period of time has been covered? Is time important?
The plot of Wild Duck is constructed in a similar way as Oedipus. The beginning is in the moment of the story, without any background information. Throughout the story, the background information is delivered. This background information, in essence, will create the tragedy in the present. In Oedipus, the tragedy was his true identity and what that meant for him as a person. In Wild Duck, the tragedy was the death of Hedvig, caused by the meddling of Gregers and past philandering of Gina.
There are five acts in Wild Duck. The subplot is the back story behind the whole novel. This consists of the wrongdoings of Werle and poor judgement of Gina, and the history that connects all of the characters. The subplot that is constructed is vital to the story. A relationship between the elder Werle and Hjalmar's Gina is enough to create doubt amongst Gina and Hjalmar over whether or not their daughter, Hedvig is legitimate. The elder Werle's past crimes create a motive for him to help provide for the elder Ekdal and Hedvig. The personality of Gregers' mother and his "moralistic fever," causes him to make decisions and pursue justice that wreaks havoc on the lives of others. These details are all obtained from the subplot and are vital to the outcome of the story.The actual story of Wild Duck takes place over only a few days, but the details and events included in the subplots go back decades.
The ending of Wild Duck leaves some unanswered questions. While it is clear that Hedvig is dead, it is unclear what effect this will have on those around her. Will Gina and Hjalmar stay together? Will Gregers give up the moral crusade that has only caused problems? What will happen to the elder Ekdal? What is to come of the wild duck? This is effective because it conveys the tragedy in the death of Hedvig. The fact that her father was so willing to take everything back after he believed he had some proof if her love proves that her death was in vain. Similar to Romeo and Juliet's misunderstanding. This tragedy makes the terrible costs of lies and deception known. This is the point of many tragedies.
The plot of Wild Duck is constructed in a similar way as Oedipus. The beginning is in the moment of the story, without any background information. Throughout the story, the background information is delivered. This background information, in essence, will create the tragedy in the present. In Oedipus, the tragedy was his true identity and what that meant for him as a person. In Wild Duck, the tragedy was the death of Hedvig, caused by the meddling of Gregers and past philandering of Gina.
There are five acts in Wild Duck. The subplot is the back story behind the whole novel. This consists of the wrongdoings of Werle and poor judgement of Gina, and the history that connects all of the characters. The subplot that is constructed is vital to the story. A relationship between the elder Werle and Hjalmar's Gina is enough to create doubt amongst Gina and Hjalmar over whether or not their daughter, Hedvig is legitimate. The elder Werle's past crimes create a motive for him to help provide for the elder Ekdal and Hedvig. The personality of Gregers' mother and his "moralistic fever," causes him to make decisions and pursue justice that wreaks havoc on the lives of others. These details are all obtained from the subplot and are vital to the outcome of the story.The actual story of Wild Duck takes place over only a few days, but the details and events included in the subplots go back decades.
The ending of Wild Duck leaves some unanswered questions. While it is clear that Hedvig is dead, it is unclear what effect this will have on those around her. Will Gina and Hjalmar stay together? Will Gregers give up the moral crusade that has only caused problems? What will happen to the elder Ekdal? What is to come of the wild duck? This is effective because it conveys the tragedy in the death of Hedvig. The fact that her father was so willing to take everything back after he believed he had some proof if her love proves that her death was in vain. Similar to Romeo and Juliet's misunderstanding. This tragedy makes the terrible costs of lies and deception known. This is the point of many tragedies.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Wild Duck Journal 3
Readers are attracted to moments of intensity in a writer's work. By what means and with what effect have writers in your study offered heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention?
Both Ibsen and Sophocles use dramatic irony and richly crafted plots to arrest the readers attention.In both plays, the audience has been able to figure out what is going on long before the characters know, or are willing to realize. In Oedipus, this is seen when Oedipus is searching for information about his family of origin. In Wild Duck, this is seen when Gregers is uncovering Werle's corruption. This creates much suspense and causes the reader to be in rapt attention due to the fact that the reader is waiting for the characters to discover what they already know. The ignorance about when the characters will realize what is going on and how they will react keeps the reader strongly invested in the novel and it's outcome.
The richly woven plots in both books are used to keep the reader both on its toes and also in awe. The situations depicted in Oedipus and the Wild Duck are ones that the average reader would be disgusted by. In Oedipus, the main character marries his wife and murders his father. Two very revolting things for the reader to read about. This is similar in Wild Duck. Werle's web of deception is spread so wide, the deeds he has done are so many, that the reader becomes entrenched in this. This invokes strong emotions regarding the characters, the story, and the reader's personal beliefs on the subjects that are being addressed in the particular work.
These writing styles are meant to keep the reader on its toes, wanting for more. This keeps the reader invested in the story. This is what the authors were going for.
Both Ibsen and Sophocles use dramatic irony and richly crafted plots to arrest the readers attention.In both plays, the audience has been able to figure out what is going on long before the characters know, or are willing to realize. In Oedipus, this is seen when Oedipus is searching for information about his family of origin. In Wild Duck, this is seen when Gregers is uncovering Werle's corruption. This creates much suspense and causes the reader to be in rapt attention due to the fact that the reader is waiting for the characters to discover what they already know. The ignorance about when the characters will realize what is going on and how they will react keeps the reader strongly invested in the novel and it's outcome.
The richly woven plots in both books are used to keep the reader both on its toes and also in awe. The situations depicted in Oedipus and the Wild Duck are ones that the average reader would be disgusted by. In Oedipus, the main character marries his wife and murders his father. Two very revolting things for the reader to read about. This is similar in Wild Duck. Werle's web of deception is spread so wide, the deeds he has done are so many, that the reader becomes entrenched in this. This invokes strong emotions regarding the characters, the story, and the reader's personal beliefs on the subjects that are being addressed in the particular work.
These writing styles are meant to keep the reader on its toes, wanting for more. This keeps the reader invested in the story. This is what the authors were going for.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wild Duck Journal 2
Dear Diary,
I just know my father has done something horrible! That poor Mr. Ekdal walking around in that house in shambles. His life has been ruined, and I refuse to believe that this was his fault! I know my father set a trap for him, in order to avoid his corruption being detected. To think that Ekdal went to jail for this! This situation is truly awful.
Another concerning matter is this whole business with Gina. Hedvig is going blind, is she? And this sort of condition is entirely hereditary. My father has had weak vision his entire life...and I know for a fact that his relationship with Gina has been much less than respectable! What if Hedvig is really his? That would explain the special attention and aid he has given Hjalmar in establishing himself. That poor child.
Hjalmar is completely in the dark about this as well. He has no inkling that anything at all is fishy between his wife and my father. He is so entrenched in my father's wrongdoings, and he has no idea! The poor Ekdal men. The things my father has done to that family are inexcusable! I just wish there were some way I could help them...perhaps something I could do to set this whole situation right and make amends.
I have much to think about diary.
Signed,
Gregers
*Mrs. Wecker, we discussed the reasons behind the lateness of this post. I was unable to access a computer but the assignment was done on time.
I just know my father has done something horrible! That poor Mr. Ekdal walking around in that house in shambles. His life has been ruined, and I refuse to believe that this was his fault! I know my father set a trap for him, in order to avoid his corruption being detected. To think that Ekdal went to jail for this! This situation is truly awful.
Another concerning matter is this whole business with Gina. Hedvig is going blind, is she? And this sort of condition is entirely hereditary. My father has had weak vision his entire life...and I know for a fact that his relationship with Gina has been much less than respectable! What if Hedvig is really his? That would explain the special attention and aid he has given Hjalmar in establishing himself. That poor child.
Hjalmar is completely in the dark about this as well. He has no inkling that anything at all is fishy between his wife and my father. He is so entrenched in my father's wrongdoings, and he has no idea! The poor Ekdal men. The things my father has done to that family are inexcusable! I just wish there were some way I could help them...perhaps something I could do to set this whole situation right and make amends.
I have much to think about diary.
Signed,
Gregers
*Mrs. Wecker, we discussed the reasons behind the lateness of this post. I was unable to access a computer but the assignment was done on time.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Wild Duck Journal 1
What are the questions that underlie at least two of the works that you have read?
One of the interesting comparisons from Oedipus and Wild Duck is the importance of sight in both novels. The question here is, what is the meaning of sight for these characters and why is it such a central theme?
In Oedipus, the book ends with Oedipus blinding himself so he does not have to look upon his mother (and wife!), children, or father in hell when he dies. He does not want to see them because of all of the bad things he feels he has done to them. One could also argue that he was "blind" to the truth throughout his whole life. When his wife was warning him not to pursue anymore about his family of origin, he did not want to see what was staring him in the face. The clues that tell where he actually came from were right in front of him from the point when Tiresias tells him that it was him. But Oedipus was blind to the truth, and this led to the tragic outcome of this play.
In Wild Duck, the use of the motif of sight is used frequently. The elder Werle, is facing near blindness. Hedvig, Hjalmar's daughter is facing the loss of her sight. Gregers, on the other hand, "sees a purpose to live for," while Werle believes him to see through his mother's "clouded vision."
This repetition of the motif of blindness, appearing so frequently in both books must carry some significance. The motif of sight in both books seems to represent purity and goodness. Oedipus blinds himself because he feels that he is no longer worthy to look upon those he loves. The elder Werle has done some bad things in his life, his loss of sight represents his loss of goodness. Hedvig's loss of sight may be more of foreshadowing for what is to come in the play. This coming blindness may represent Hedvig's coming loss of goodness in the play. Greger's clear vision may represent his good intentions for those around him throughout the book.
One of the interesting comparisons from Oedipus and Wild Duck is the importance of sight in both novels. The question here is, what is the meaning of sight for these characters and why is it such a central theme?
In Oedipus, the book ends with Oedipus blinding himself so he does not have to look upon his mother (and wife!), children, or father in hell when he dies. He does not want to see them because of all of the bad things he feels he has done to them. One could also argue that he was "blind" to the truth throughout his whole life. When his wife was warning him not to pursue anymore about his family of origin, he did not want to see what was staring him in the face. The clues that tell where he actually came from were right in front of him from the point when Tiresias tells him that it was him. But Oedipus was blind to the truth, and this led to the tragic outcome of this play.
In Wild Duck, the use of the motif of sight is used frequently. The elder Werle, is facing near blindness. Hedvig, Hjalmar's daughter is facing the loss of her sight. Gregers, on the other hand, "sees a purpose to live for," while Werle believes him to see through his mother's "clouded vision."
This repetition of the motif of blindness, appearing so frequently in both books must carry some significance. The motif of sight in both books seems to represent purity and goodness. Oedipus blinds himself because he feels that he is no longer worthy to look upon those he loves. The elder Werle has done some bad things in his life, his loss of sight represents his loss of goodness. Hedvig's loss of sight may be more of foreshadowing for what is to come in the play. This coming blindness may represent Hedvig's coming loss of goodness in the play. Greger's clear vision may represent his good intentions for those around him throughout the book.
Numero Cinco
The day of the IOP! Nerves are starting to crash down. All parts of the IOP are finished. The power point is created, the analysis is written, the speech is prepared, the outline is finished.
I have run through my speech several times and I hope that it is effective in conveying the ideas I want to convey. I include both similarities between the works themselves and similarities between the works and cultural context. In addition to similarities, I also include differences in key elements within the dystopian socities. The reasoning for both authors in writing the books is included within the presentation and analyzed with the final product. The final conclusion of my presentation is that the novels served as a depiction of both of the authors' fears of what would come for this world and also as a warning to stay away from any sort of totalitarian government.
The run down or my presentation is:
I have run through my speech several times and I hope that it is effective in conveying the ideas I want to convey. I include both similarities between the works themselves and similarities between the works and cultural context. In addition to similarities, I also include differences in key elements within the dystopian socities. The reasoning for both authors in writing the books is included within the presentation and analyzed with the final product. The final conclusion of my presentation is that the novels served as a depiction of both of the authors' fears of what would come for this world and also as a warning to stay away from any sort of totalitarian government.
The run down or my presentation is:
- Ask the class what they know about totalitarian societies and write it down on the board.
- Present speech about the similarities between Brave New World and 1984 and the cultural context they were written in.
- Use powerpoint as a tool to both grab the class' attention and convey ideasof the presentation.
Hopefully my topic and presentation style will be seen as original and illuminating. I find this subject very interesting, my only hope is that I made it interesting for the class as well. And of course that I get a good grade! :)
IB ready!
Monday, May 10, 2010
Oedipus Journal Four
Point of View/Characters: From whose point of view is the story told? Does this change? How reliable is that narritive voice? How well does the reader get to lnow the characters? How crebile are the? How are they presented? How does the author persuade us to like/sympathize with some of the characters and dislike others?
Sophocles writes his work, Oedipus the King in an omnicient point of view. The actions of all characters can be seen, as if from an outside party, but no characters thoughts and emotions are displayed. This point of view is kept up throughout the whole play. The narrative voice, the chorus, keeps a steady flow of information coming through the whole poem, inserting information where information is needed. The chorus fills in where the dialogue leaves want for more knowledge.
The reader gets to know the characters by watching them act and go on with their daily lives, especially in times of struggle. Watching the characters in times of struggle brings out their true personality, and makes this method of meeting the characters very reliable.
Different characters are introduced in different ways in order to indear or estrange them from the reader. Creon, in my opinion, was presented in a way that made him endearing. He seemed honest and just at our first meeting with him in the play. This sense about him is reaffirmed during the second time we see Creon in the play, when Oedipus is accusing him of attempting to overthrow him. Despite the false, crazy accusations, Creon keeps a level head and tries to work the dispute out with words and reason.
The character of Oedipus is not as clear as to whether he is endearing or repulsive. At the beginning of the story, Oedipus comes across as a fair leader, trying to protect his city from a horrible plague. However, shortly thereafter, this perception is proved wrong when he accuses Creon of attempting to overthrow him without any evidence but his own paranoia. He takes this so far, in fact, the he banishes Creon from the castle. It appears to the reader as though Oedipus' large ego clouds his judgement from time to time, like when the man who sees with the eyes of Apollo came to tell him what he needed to know. Oedipus did not listen to the man because he was not telling him what he wanted to hear. The depiction of the struggles Oedipus has faced throughout his life in the book are meant to endear the reader to him further and to help them have some sympathy for the way he is. The hardships he has suffered have had a large impact on him and this might be why he is the way he is.
This method of introducing the characters and who they are to the readers is very effective because it lets the reader know just what he or she is getting from this story and it's characters.
Sophocles writes his work, Oedipus the King in an omnicient point of view. The actions of all characters can be seen, as if from an outside party, but no characters thoughts and emotions are displayed. This point of view is kept up throughout the whole play. The narrative voice, the chorus, keeps a steady flow of information coming through the whole poem, inserting information where information is needed. The chorus fills in where the dialogue leaves want for more knowledge.
The reader gets to know the characters by watching them act and go on with their daily lives, especially in times of struggle. Watching the characters in times of struggle brings out their true personality, and makes this method of meeting the characters very reliable.
Different characters are introduced in different ways in order to indear or estrange them from the reader. Creon, in my opinion, was presented in a way that made him endearing. He seemed honest and just at our first meeting with him in the play. This sense about him is reaffirmed during the second time we see Creon in the play, when Oedipus is accusing him of attempting to overthrow him. Despite the false, crazy accusations, Creon keeps a level head and tries to work the dispute out with words and reason.
The character of Oedipus is not as clear as to whether he is endearing or repulsive. At the beginning of the story, Oedipus comes across as a fair leader, trying to protect his city from a horrible plague. However, shortly thereafter, this perception is proved wrong when he accuses Creon of attempting to overthrow him without any evidence but his own paranoia. He takes this so far, in fact, the he banishes Creon from the castle. It appears to the reader as though Oedipus' large ego clouds his judgement from time to time, like when the man who sees with the eyes of Apollo came to tell him what he needed to know. Oedipus did not listen to the man because he was not telling him what he wanted to hear. The depiction of the struggles Oedipus has faced throughout his life in the book are meant to endear the reader to him further and to help them have some sympathy for the way he is. The hardships he has suffered have had a large impact on him and this might be why he is the way he is.
This method of introducing the characters and who they are to the readers is very effective because it lets the reader know just what he or she is getting from this story and it's characters.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Oedipus Journal Three (ABSENT)
I chose to track the motif of the control of the actions of humans by supernatural beings or forces. This control is shown throughout the tragedy with all of the actions the characters take.
In the beginning, when the priests and Oedipus are working to find a solution to plague that has attacked Thebes, the gods are the first place they turn. The priests and the chorus pray to Zeus, pleading with him to bring Thebes out of this terrible ordeal. It is then brought to light that Oedipus has sent his brother in law, Creon, to Delphi, Apollo the prophets oracle to ask what it is that they should do. Whatever reply Creon brings back they intend to follow, due to the fact that the gods words are law. When Creon comes back and with the reply that they should punish the man who killed Laius, even though this task is nearly impossible, Oedipus agrees to attempt it. This is because, in Oedipus, and in ancient Greece for that matter, when the gods say to do something, it is done. Otherwise, the gods will bring the punishment they are capable of bringing. This can mean great pain and suffering for the punished, thus creating the need to avoid this wrath at all costs.
The priests and Oedipus automatically assume that the cause of the plague in Thebes is some sort of punishment. This creates the need to find what the gods are looking for in order to alleviate the problem. Even when the problem turns out to be Oedipus himself, the god's orders are obeyed at all costs. Oedipus sacrifices himself to the gods because he knows they can punish him deeply for disobedience.
Oedipus' father, Laius, throws his first born son into the wilderness to avoid a prophecy by the gods coming true. That is serious commitment. Likewise, Oedipus leaves his "home" in Corinth because of a prophecy by a supernatural being telling him he was destined to kill his father and make love with his mother. This shows the intense belief the people in this play and of that time period hold in the powers of their gods, and the control these gods have over them because of this belief.
The constant references to the Gods throughout the books are a reminder of the power and authority they hold. It is made clear throughout the books that the gods hold the power to give and take away whenever they please. This is why such reverence is offered to them and why their authority is taken so seriously.
In the beginning, when the priests and Oedipus are working to find a solution to plague that has attacked Thebes, the gods are the first place they turn. The priests and the chorus pray to Zeus, pleading with him to bring Thebes out of this terrible ordeal. It is then brought to light that Oedipus has sent his brother in law, Creon, to Delphi, Apollo the prophets oracle to ask what it is that they should do. Whatever reply Creon brings back they intend to follow, due to the fact that the gods words are law. When Creon comes back and with the reply that they should punish the man who killed Laius, even though this task is nearly impossible, Oedipus agrees to attempt it. This is because, in Oedipus, and in ancient Greece for that matter, when the gods say to do something, it is done. Otherwise, the gods will bring the punishment they are capable of bringing. This can mean great pain and suffering for the punished, thus creating the need to avoid this wrath at all costs.
The priests and Oedipus automatically assume that the cause of the plague in Thebes is some sort of punishment. This creates the need to find what the gods are looking for in order to alleviate the problem. Even when the problem turns out to be Oedipus himself, the god's orders are obeyed at all costs. Oedipus sacrifices himself to the gods because he knows they can punish him deeply for disobedience.
Oedipus' father, Laius, throws his first born son into the wilderness to avoid a prophecy by the gods coming true. That is serious commitment. Likewise, Oedipus leaves his "home" in Corinth because of a prophecy by a supernatural being telling him he was destined to kill his father and make love with his mother. This shows the intense belief the people in this play and of that time period hold in the powers of their gods, and the control these gods have over them because of this belief.
The constant references to the Gods throughout the books are a reminder of the power and authority they hold. It is made clear throughout the books that the gods hold the power to give and take away whenever they please. This is why such reverence is offered to them and why their authority is taken so seriously.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Numero Cuatro
Since I have now ironed out most of the informational details and written the outline of my IOP, I now face the task of figuring out how I will present it effectively. I think the only real way to convey my information without making and obscenely long power point that bores everyone to tears is to do a lecture. I also think I will start off the presentation asking the class what they know about totalitarian regimes. I will write these thoughts down on the board and I will try and relate my presentation back to each point given by the students. I will also make a power point with pictures comparing different aspects of the book with real culture.
I think the combination of these three things will allow me to convey the information while also giving the class an opportunity for some involvement to keep them interested.
I have almost all of the information I need about the totalitarian societies in my head already from previous history classes and outside reading. So I am not very concerned about being able to relate the books to the real world. I am not sure how I should cite the information I use. I'm debating whether or not to make footnotes. The only problem with that is that literally all of them will say "from my brain."
I have made significant progress from the first post. The only things I am really worried about are being able to be serious and comfortable up in front of the class and remembering all the information I want to convey under the pressure of being up front.
I think the combination of these three things will allow me to convey the information while also giving the class an opportunity for some involvement to keep them interested.
I have almost all of the information I need about the totalitarian societies in my head already from previous history classes and outside reading. So I am not very concerned about being able to relate the books to the real world. I am not sure how I should cite the information I use. I'm debating whether or not to make footnotes. The only problem with that is that literally all of them will say "from my brain."
I have made significant progress from the first post. The only things I am really worried about are being able to be serious and comfortable up in front of the class and remembering all the information I want to convey under the pressure of being up front.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Numero Tres
I've decided that instead of focusing intensely only on the connections between Brave New World and 1984 and the real life cultural climate of this time period, I would like to give some real consideration to comparison between the two books specifically and the writer's motivations for writing them.
Huxley wrote Brave New World as a warning against the over-modernization of the world. This view stemmed from fear around the world that the drastic increase in scientific innovation would lead to the destruction of society as it was known. This fear never quite went away. Suspicions of the evil nature of technology even escalated to the point where people believed technology was going to take over the planet on January 1st, 2000. This, of course, never happened. Huxley uses soma, the test tube babies, and the destruction of the traditional family model to grab the reader's gut reaction and make them feel disgusted by this sort of technology take-over.
While this sort of warning was his main point in writing the novel, there are also some undertones of warning against totalitarian regime in Brave New World. The presence of an all-powerful leader, the removal of individuality among citizens, and the total control of the government are all direct characteristics of totalitarian-type government. This leads me to believe that this was also something he was warning against. Given the time period in which he wrote the book, the 1920s and early 1930s, Huxley would have been aware of what was going on with Stalin and the Soviet Union in Russia at that time. Given his pacifist beliefs, he would not have liked what was going on in the Soviet Union, Germany, or Spain.
Orwell's reasoning behind writing 1984 is less difficult to interpret. Given his involvement in the Spanish Civil War and experiences with fighting totalitarian regime in that setting, his disdain for this type of government is not easy to understand. Orwell's 1984 was a direct depiction of his fear for the future of the world if taken over by fascism.
Huxley wrote Brave New World as a warning against the over-modernization of the world. This view stemmed from fear around the world that the drastic increase in scientific innovation would lead to the destruction of society as it was known. This fear never quite went away. Suspicions of the evil nature of technology even escalated to the point where people believed technology was going to take over the planet on January 1st, 2000. This, of course, never happened. Huxley uses soma, the test tube babies, and the destruction of the traditional family model to grab the reader's gut reaction and make them feel disgusted by this sort of technology take-over.
While this sort of warning was his main point in writing the novel, there are also some undertones of warning against totalitarian regime in Brave New World. The presence of an all-powerful leader, the removal of individuality among citizens, and the total control of the government are all direct characteristics of totalitarian-type government. This leads me to believe that this was also something he was warning against. Given the time period in which he wrote the book, the 1920s and early 1930s, Huxley would have been aware of what was going on with Stalin and the Soviet Union in Russia at that time. Given his pacifist beliefs, he would not have liked what was going on in the Soviet Union, Germany, or Spain.
Orwell's reasoning behind writing 1984 is less difficult to interpret. Given his involvement in the Spanish Civil War and experiences with fighting totalitarian regime in that setting, his disdain for this type of government is not easy to understand. Orwell's 1984 was a direct depiction of his fear for the future of the world if taken over by fascism.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Oedipus Journal Two
How does the background on Greek Theater and History inform your reading of Oedipus? Use specific examples to explore the connection between context and content.
There are a great many connections between Oedipus and the cultural context it was written and performed in. Sophocles, the writer of Oedipus, was the most innovative of the early Greek poets. Tragedies began with only a chorus of 50 men and boys singing the story. Gradually, they progressed to an actor and then to two actors. Sophocles was the first to use 3 actors. Those three actors are the only ones seen throughout the whole play. This is why in Oedipus there are only ever 3 actors depicted in a scene at a time. If a new character is to enter the scene, one of the actors either has to die and come back as a new character or the actor must leave the scene and re-enter as a new character. This is a very distinct style.
Ancient Greek tragedies were based off of epics and narrative lyrical poetry. This is why the lines of the tragedy are written with such flow. Also, the plot of the story is written in the same kind of dramatic tone as an epic, filled with heroes then villains and triumphs then tragedies. Such as in Oedipus. Within two readings there has already been a man banished (Creon), a murder uncovered, and past drama unfolded. This makes for a thrilling story.
The tragedies were written for a religious festival for the Greek god, Dionysus. This preoccupation with religion presents itself within the story. The characters in the story focus much of their lives on pleasing and consulting the gods and their prophets. Gods such as Zeus and Apollo are regularly referred to as leaders in Thebes. Prophets such as the Delphi are used to speak the wills of the gods. The gods are used as a reasoning point for almost everything. Oedipus says, "I command you, for my sake, for Apollo's, for this country," (Line 289, page 173). All problems are caused and can be solved by the gods. Also, priests are present throughout the tragedy to further emphasize the importance of the gods and religion.
Also, there is a significant amount of love for one's city in Oedipus. This is very similar to the way ancient Athenians felt about their city. There was a pride, a desire to protect the city. For the Greeks, the city did not only represent a place, but also the people who lived there and the principles by which they live their lives. This attitude translated to a desire to do almost anything for the city. This is seen in both the real world and fictional Thebes.
There are a great many connections between Oedipus and the cultural context it was written and performed in. Sophocles, the writer of Oedipus, was the most innovative of the early Greek poets. Tragedies began with only a chorus of 50 men and boys singing the story. Gradually, they progressed to an actor and then to two actors. Sophocles was the first to use 3 actors. Those three actors are the only ones seen throughout the whole play. This is why in Oedipus there are only ever 3 actors depicted in a scene at a time. If a new character is to enter the scene, one of the actors either has to die and come back as a new character or the actor must leave the scene and re-enter as a new character. This is a very distinct style.
Ancient Greek tragedies were based off of epics and narrative lyrical poetry. This is why the lines of the tragedy are written with such flow. Also, the plot of the story is written in the same kind of dramatic tone as an epic, filled with heroes then villains and triumphs then tragedies. Such as in Oedipus. Within two readings there has already been a man banished (Creon), a murder uncovered, and past drama unfolded. This makes for a thrilling story.
The tragedies were written for a religious festival for the Greek god, Dionysus. This preoccupation with religion presents itself within the story. The characters in the story focus much of their lives on pleasing and consulting the gods and their prophets. Gods such as Zeus and Apollo are regularly referred to as leaders in Thebes. Prophets such as the Delphi are used to speak the wills of the gods. The gods are used as a reasoning point for almost everything. Oedipus says, "I command you, for my sake, for Apollo's, for this country," (Line 289, page 173). All problems are caused and can be solved by the gods. Also, priests are present throughout the tragedy to further emphasize the importance of the gods and religion.
Also, there is a significant amount of love for one's city in Oedipus. This is very similar to the way ancient Athenians felt about their city. There was a pride, a desire to protect the city. For the Greeks, the city did not only represent a place, but also the people who lived there and the principles by which they live their lives. This attitude translated to a desire to do almost anything for the city. This is seen in both the real world and fictional Thebes.
Numero Dos
So. I got some background information on the wonderful authors of Brave New World and 1984. It was illuminating, to say they least. I was mistaken when I assumed that both Huxley and Orwell wrote their books with the same goal: to warn against the dangers of totalitarian societies. For Orwell, that was it. Huxley, on the other hand wrote his with more of an anti-scientific control point of view than I had originally assumed. A warning against a totalitarian society was part of his message. However, not the focal point of this novel.
Huxley was a communist, a pacifist, and an occasional psychoactive drug user. He wrote many books mocking the early 20th century society of England. He was born in England in 1894, and was left mostly blind by a virus he contracted in childhood. He was a conscientious objector to WWI and crusaded enthusiastically for his pacifist views. Huxley was very wary of the abundance of scientific innovations coming onto the scene during the early 20th century, as were many other people throughout the world. His main purpose in writing Brave New World was to warn against this. Huxley moved to Los Angeles, California in the 1920s, and was later attacked by English critics for "hiding out" in the United States while England fought the war.
George Orwell was born in 1903 in England. He served in the Indian Imperial Police in Burma from 1922-1927 and later helped combat WWI propaganda from Japan and Germany in India. He was critical of communism but he was considered a socialist. After fighting and being wounded in the Spanish Civil War, Orwell gained a distaste for totalitarian governments. After this he wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. Orwell also began a crusade questioning the "accepted" versions of history and expressed concerns over WWI versions of events told by the Allies.
Huxley was a communist, a pacifist, and an occasional psychoactive drug user. He wrote many books mocking the early 20th century society of England. He was born in England in 1894, and was left mostly blind by a virus he contracted in childhood. He was a conscientious objector to WWI and crusaded enthusiastically for his pacifist views. Huxley was very wary of the abundance of scientific innovations coming onto the scene during the early 20th century, as were many other people throughout the world. His main purpose in writing Brave New World was to warn against this. Huxley moved to Los Angeles, California in the 1920s, and was later attacked by English critics for "hiding out" in the United States while England fought the war.
George Orwell was born in 1903 in England. He served in the Indian Imperial Police in Burma from 1922-1927 and later helped combat WWI propaganda from Japan and Germany in India. He was critical of communism but he was considered a socialist. After fighting and being wounded in the Spanish Civil War, Orwell gained a distaste for totalitarian governments. After this he wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. Orwell also began a crusade questioning the "accepted" versions of history and expressed concerns over WWI versions of events told by the Allies.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Oedipus Journal One
Dear Diary,
Today was quite a troubling day for me, my friend. I feel as though writing it all down is the only way to really sort it all out.
I had all of my priest friends over for a little chat. They informed me that Thebes is literally dying right now. (Thanks for the heads up, guys.). My city, the city I solved the sphinx's riddle for, the city I am now king of, is going downhill. And fast! These guys were literally freaking out. They begged me to save them and the city. When I say begged, I mean REALLY begged. There was praying involved. While I could get used to that, it got me pretty riled up. So I promised them a solution. I am their mighty kind after all. Plus if everyone is dead, who will I rule?
Thankfully, I sent my faithful brother-in-law Creon to Delphi (Apollo the Prophet's Oracle), in hopes that he would bring us back something we could do to rid the beautiful city of Thebes of this hardship it is bearing. He brought back the news that we had to find and punish the murderer of Thebes' previous king, Laius. This came as quite a shock. But of course I am willing to do whatever it takes to save my city. The only issue is that we had no idea how to find this murderer. I asked the chorus of citizens that came out to sing about the problems in the story thus far to come forward with any information they had about the murder. They had none. Ignorant common folk. Then we thought we'd bring good old Tiresias about to tell us who the murderer was. It is said, although he is blind, that he sees with the sight of Apollo. Logically, if he did not know, no one else would.
Tiresias got there and we told him what we wanted. He was not too happy. He made it very clear that he knew the information that we wanted but that he was not going to reveal it. Sweet guy, really. Quite the charmer. This angered me greatly; so of course, I threatened him. I also thought that him and Creon were working together in a plot to overthrow me. That really peeved me. In response, he completely flew off the handle! He started hurling accusations all over the place. At first I did not understand him. Then it became clear that he was calling ME the murderer! What did he think he was playing at?
His speech became even more and more confusing. He was sort of insulting me. I did not like that much. Then I lost track of where he was going with the conversation. He started talking about my father. I have no idea who that is, so how did he? That guy. I tell you. He started talking about a man who was married to his mother and killed his father. What kind of person would do that? I think he must be losing his mind. Either that or just trying to confusing me. Either way, I kicked him out. I mean, I am a king. Was I supposed to just sit around and take the disrespect he was dishing out? I don't think so.
It did get me wondering though...who was this horrible man he was talking about? First he was talking about me...then he went to this guy. Could he have been saying these things about me? He couldn't have. I don't even know my parents. I love my wife Jocasta, there is no way she could be my mother. I don't know what to make of this. If Tiresias was making this all up just to confuse me, I shall have to punish him. If he was talking about someone else, why did he bring it up? There is no way everything he said was true though. That would be crazy.
By the beard of Zeus! Look at the time! I really must be going! Until next time, my beloved confidant.
Oedipus
Today was quite a troubling day for me, my friend. I feel as though writing it all down is the only way to really sort it all out.
I had all of my priest friends over for a little chat. They informed me that Thebes is literally dying right now. (Thanks for the heads up, guys.). My city, the city I solved the sphinx's riddle for, the city I am now king of, is going downhill. And fast! These guys were literally freaking out. They begged me to save them and the city. When I say begged, I mean REALLY begged. There was praying involved. While I could get used to that, it got me pretty riled up. So I promised them a solution. I am their mighty kind after all. Plus if everyone is dead, who will I rule?
Thankfully, I sent my faithful brother-in-law Creon to Delphi (Apollo the Prophet's Oracle), in hopes that he would bring us back something we could do to rid the beautiful city of Thebes of this hardship it is bearing. He brought back the news that we had to find and punish the murderer of Thebes' previous king, Laius. This came as quite a shock. But of course I am willing to do whatever it takes to save my city. The only issue is that we had no idea how to find this murderer. I asked the chorus of citizens that came out to sing about the problems in the story thus far to come forward with any information they had about the murder. They had none. Ignorant common folk. Then we thought we'd bring good old Tiresias about to tell us who the murderer was. It is said, although he is blind, that he sees with the sight of Apollo. Logically, if he did not know, no one else would.
Tiresias got there and we told him what we wanted. He was not too happy. He made it very clear that he knew the information that we wanted but that he was not going to reveal it. Sweet guy, really. Quite the charmer. This angered me greatly; so of course, I threatened him. I also thought that him and Creon were working together in a plot to overthrow me. That really peeved me. In response, he completely flew off the handle! He started hurling accusations all over the place. At first I did not understand him. Then it became clear that he was calling ME the murderer! What did he think he was playing at?
His speech became even more and more confusing. He was sort of insulting me. I did not like that much. Then I lost track of where he was going with the conversation. He started talking about my father. I have no idea who that is, so how did he? That guy. I tell you. He started talking about a man who was married to his mother and killed his father. What kind of person would do that? I think he must be losing his mind. Either that or just trying to confusing me. Either way, I kicked him out. I mean, I am a king. Was I supposed to just sit around and take the disrespect he was dishing out? I don't think so.
It did get me wondering though...who was this horrible man he was talking about? First he was talking about me...then he went to this guy. Could he have been saying these things about me? He couldn't have. I don't even know my parents. I love my wife Jocasta, there is no way she could be my mother. I don't know what to make of this. If Tiresias was making this all up just to confuse me, I shall have to punish him. If he was talking about someone else, why did he bring it up? There is no way everything he said was true though. That would be crazy.
By the beard of Zeus! Look at the time! I really must be going! Until next time, my beloved confidant.
Oedipus
Numero Uno
So...I have no idea how I completely forgot about having to start up these blog things until just about 7 days before I have to present. I actually have a rough draft of my first journal entry written out. Which begs the question: if I was so weirdly preoccupied with it when we first got this assignment, how could I have forgotten so thoroughly? Ah, the complexities of the human mind. Thank god I only need 5 separate dates!
My topic is comparing Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, and the cultural context these two were written in. I find this subject incredibly interesting because I really love the WWII-ish era. Also, not to sound like a Hitler lover (because I'm not), but I find the guy really very interesting. Was he a crazy power-hungry mass-murderer and also probably a very very bad man? You betcha. Was he also an incredibly complex man with some crazy ideals, a less-than-ideal life, and some leadership talent? I think so. I'm not going to focus too much on Hitler, but I thought, this being my blog and all, I would share the odd fascination I have with him. It's relevant, right?
But now, to the subject matter. My focus in my IOP presentation is on the similarities between the fictional societies in the two dystopian novels, 1984 and Brave New World, both with each other and with the societies they were meant to warn against. Go Spain, Germany and Russia! Germany is always trying to one-up everyone on the evil scale. No really, Germany, just take the victory. After what you did with the holocaust, not even Russia is trying to compete with you anymore.
So far, to be completely and purely honest, I have not done much in the way of substantial work on this assignment. Call it the IB test fever. I have begun reading Brave New World, (I read 1984 as my dystopian novel) and I have started to compile a mental list of the similarities between 1984 and Brave New World and the real-life societies they were based off of.
This is what I have so far:
1. BNW and 1984 both have almost super-human leaders that the public worships. (Hello, Germany.)
2. Both books emphasize the importance of stamping out any individuality in the society. (Spain and Russia both, I believe. Mostly Russia.)
3. Both books start the training of society members in their youth. (The Hitler Youth Movement)
4. PROPAGANDA. (G-town, you've done it again.)
5. The people in both societies are under constant scrutiny from their peers. If their peers see something awry, it does not become forgotten. (More research on this particular characteristic.)
6. Both societies have the members feel as though they are always being watched. This ensures law abiding citizens. Or else. (Everybody did this one!)
7. Both societies have clearly defined upper-classes, or leading classes. (Everybody, again. Nice job, team.)
Those are the similarities I have mapped out so far. The key piece I'm missing is thorough research on all of the real-life countries. I have Germany done pretty well, but the others need some work. I am debating about contrasting the works. While it would provide some more analysis it might also take away from the general message I'm going for: Huxley and Orwell thought this type of society was BAD. The similarities between the two books show that they were writing for the same purpose.
I'm not sure what else I will do to make the presentation more exciting. All I have so far is lecturing. What good is that? I, as a history geek, would find this sort of presentation fascinating. I have a sneaking suspicion, however, that not everyone thinks the exact same way as I do. Go figure.
For now, I will keep reading and fine tuning my IOP. Progress, here I come!
My topic is comparing Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, and the cultural context these two were written in. I find this subject incredibly interesting because I really love the WWII-ish era. Also, not to sound like a Hitler lover (because I'm not), but I find the guy really very interesting. Was he a crazy power-hungry mass-murderer and also probably a very very bad man? You betcha. Was he also an incredibly complex man with some crazy ideals, a less-than-ideal life, and some leadership talent? I think so. I'm not going to focus too much on Hitler, but I thought, this being my blog and all, I would share the odd fascination I have with him. It's relevant, right?
But now, to the subject matter. My focus in my IOP presentation is on the similarities between the fictional societies in the two dystopian novels, 1984 and Brave New World, both with each other and with the societies they were meant to warn against. Go Spain, Germany and Russia! Germany is always trying to one-up everyone on the evil scale. No really, Germany, just take the victory. After what you did with the holocaust, not even Russia is trying to compete with you anymore.
So far, to be completely and purely honest, I have not done much in the way of substantial work on this assignment. Call it the IB test fever. I have begun reading Brave New World, (I read 1984 as my dystopian novel) and I have started to compile a mental list of the similarities between 1984 and Brave New World and the real-life societies they were based off of.
This is what I have so far:
1. BNW and 1984 both have almost super-human leaders that the public worships. (Hello, Germany.)
2. Both books emphasize the importance of stamping out any individuality in the society. (Spain and Russia both, I believe. Mostly Russia.)
3. Both books start the training of society members in their youth. (The Hitler Youth Movement)
4. PROPAGANDA. (G-town, you've done it again.)
5. The people in both societies are under constant scrutiny from their peers. If their peers see something awry, it does not become forgotten. (More research on this particular characteristic.)
6. Both societies have the members feel as though they are always being watched. This ensures law abiding citizens. Or else. (Everybody did this one!)
7. Both societies have clearly defined upper-classes, or leading classes. (Everybody, again. Nice job, team.)
Those are the similarities I have mapped out so far. The key piece I'm missing is thorough research on all of the real-life countries. I have Germany done pretty well, but the others need some work. I am debating about contrasting the works. While it would provide some more analysis it might also take away from the general message I'm going for: Huxley and Orwell thought this type of society was BAD. The similarities between the two books show that they were writing for the same purpose.
I'm not sure what else I will do to make the presentation more exciting. All I have so far is lecturing. What good is that? I, as a history geek, would find this sort of presentation fascinating. I have a sneaking suspicion, however, that not everyone thinks the exact same way as I do. Go figure.
For now, I will keep reading and fine tuning my IOP. Progress, here I come!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)