Mary Bennet

 Her brain is Austen's brain.
She is Austen's way to have input in what happens without having to include narration.
The real prespective- outside perspective, no emotional attatchments which allow for an unbiast opinion.
Bitter?
Silence... irrelevant?

Discussing The Title and Definitions

Vanity:
-mostly seen at the balls and dances (social gatherings)
- not only what people think of you but what others do to affect this opinion
- Caroline Bingley

Pride:
- Elizabeth (upon meeting Darcy)
- Darcy (argument with Elizabeth/ Letter)
- Lady Catherine at dinner talking ABOUT the Bennets

Prejudice:
- Balls
- Elizabeth/ Darcy Relationship
- Collins (starting with letter)
- Caroline and Darcy with the Bennet's at Bingley's house

Dear Diary,

Ok, this has tossed and toppled all over my mind throughout the reading of this entire book. Pro the semi-arranged but not really marriage principally impulsive and scarcely rational? Or Con? This is bothering me, because I’m SO the type of person who makes lists, let’s try it out.

Pro:

- you keep a spark going because you keep on getting to know each other

- advantage of marrying into families

- economic security

- your mother doesn’t freak out because you may never get married

- abrupt change of lifestyle

Con:

-     --You encounter many conflicts because you in fact didn’t know each other

-     -- Could be tagged as a gold-digger

-     --Could be killed for being thought a gold-digger

-     --Your mother could want to come and visit because she wants to keep an eye on you

-   --- You realize that your life was in fact easier before

Yeah that didn’t work out too well… Maybe I’ll just wait and see what happens with my sisters. I’ll keep you noted!

Mary

Define Vanity

Interestingly enough we’ve ran into VAIN. Quick recap, vanity is what other think of you an pride is what you think of yourself. “In vain did Elizabeth endeavor to check the rapidity of her mother’s words” (P.75) looks like Elizabeth is more than proud my friends. She is vain, especially with her family and they with each other. Throughout this Bingley’s ball we are bombarded with evident examples as Mary’s horrendous playing which ended because Mr. Bennet “ took the hint” (p. 77) and his imprudent wife.

It appears as if the characters are very much aware of each other’s behavior’s and the possible inconvenient this could cause to their personal image; however, they are oblivious to their own behavior.  As is Mrs. Bennet with all of her daughter’s, embarrassed by Elizabeth and proud of Jane because they somehow improve her public image (despite being pretty much described as neurotic and stupid… but whatever). Also how Elizabeth fears that her family has set out to be embarrassing in the ball to which she feels ashamed of despite being described as “different”.

I guess that based on this we can conclude that another distinction made by the book between pride and vanity is that pride is what you think of yourself and it depends on yourself whereas vanity is other’s image of you and it depends on other’s behavior (as if somehow their actions were your own)

Prejudice

Finally I’m aware of some of the prejudice that’s been taking place. Sadly, it apparently had to be extremely evident for me to realize. Oh, Mr. Wickham. That handsome fellow. Nice, caring, a victim of Mr. Darcy’s jealousness, apparently.  Elizabeth’s response to Wickham’s claims was extremely prejudicial as we see in page 60 “This is quite shocking!—He deserves to be publicly disgraced.” Although we have previously clearly established that she doesn’t feel very fond of him, she is taking Wickham’s claims to heart and proposing that he be punished for his actions.

I hate that this actually happens. That however you meet a person, if you hear something negative about them you completely assume that it can be logical and plausible and and and….. agh everything bad in the history of bad things should happen to them.


I later realized that this character is one of the few blatantly characterized as "handsome". Which I guess through logic (and again Social Psychology) gives him the upper hand; cause you see, when people are prettier they give off a more trustworthy vibe, more deserving and be supported will all logic, more appealing.


Therefore, if a person is prettier then not only will they be more accepted but their life will be all around easier...  ;) (get it?)

I’m definitely sticking to my hypothesis that Austen is clearly trying to portray society as a whole… We’ll just have to see how that works out.

If You Keep On Picking At Your Food

Sometimes I feel that when they were handing out pride and vanity they decided that to most prides they would add leftover pompous attitude because they no-longer knew where to place all of hat cockiness. It seems like NOTHING IS EVER GOOD ENOUGH FOR THESE CHARACTERS!

Darcy finds that the difference in social class is too great to declare his love to Elizabeth sooner and eventually to reconsider the proposal

For Elizabeth Mr. Wickham end up not being good enough for her

For Bingley, Jane isn’t affectionate enough

For Caroline the Bennet’s are too much  to handle along with too poor

For Lady Catherine The Bennet’s did not do a good job raising the girls

And for Elizabeth, Darcy is too stuck up, her family is too embarrassing, Her mom is too inconsiderate of her feelings or her daughters’ for that matter and the proposals she is given are people who she deeply dislikes.

 I used to be a very picky eater and would poke and tumble everything on my plate and I remember my grandma saying that if I kept on doing so, I would simply never like it. Because by poking and tumbling everything, I was precisely looking for  the bad stuff, what I didn't like, how it looked etc. which is what I this is the major issue with these characters. If they keep on looking and poking ad scrimmaging the cards they are delt, they will never be satisfied. 

...Love

And the plot thickens, as Elizabeth’s and Mr. Darcy’s rivalry and hatred flourishes into … love? At first I thought that this novel was going to be mainly about Mr. Bingley, as the first sentence talks of a wealthy man who is to be matched up.

Clearly, I was wrong and it’s to talk about Elizabeth and Darcy’s “true love” as it wasn’t planned in contrast of all marriages in the period. Truly this is something very common nowadays, having people that “hate each other and in an apparent change of events drastically pivot to adore each other.

I actually thought that the topic of Pride is very important but don’t feel qualified enough as to talk about Austen’s use of it in the noel as she has only mentioned it twice. But surely I will write a blog about it when I am done reading.

Austen's Point

Once again, I read and think to myself, WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR SOCIETY? What could possibly crawl into our mind and nest next to our amygdala and have offspring which attack our frontal lobe that could possibly cause us to be such superficial beings? (Yes, I wanted to show off what I recently learned about neuropsychology) Let’s sort of paraphrase chapters six, seven and eight:

Mrs. Bennet is so willing to match Jane and Mr. Bingley, that she’s willing to risk jeopardizing her health to do so. Reason why she sends Jane on horseback despite her knowledge of bad weather. Elizabeth, being the concerned sister that she is, takes it upon herself to walk (3 miles) to check up on her sister. Logically, she becomes a sweaty mess on her way there. She is not well perceived, this also intrigues Mr. Darcy.  His and Elizabeth’s relationship is somewhat confusing because he doesn’t find her attractive but she defies him almost every time they speak. Lastly, Miss Bingley is somewhat annoyed at having the Bennet’s at her house taking any chance she gets to speak ill of them.

The main characteristic throughout these occurrences is superficiality. At first glance they might seem hyperbolic but once well thought through, they are clear, everyday samples of everyday life. Austen portrays our actions and their apparent insignificance by doing so. As readers we are meant to realize that the world that incorporates these characters might as well be our social group. That the values (or lack thereof), both directly and indirectly alluded to, are ones that apply universally.

Or so I think…

Science and Marriage

Upon starting to read Pride And Prejudice, Austen establishes that the Bennet’s and all families nearby for that matter, view wealth as something completely necessary for the future well-being of their daughters. Connotations behind, “ Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them [daughters].” (p.2) and “ I don’t believe Mrs. Long will do any such thing. She has two nieces of the own. She is a selfish, hypocritical woman…” (p.3) are of competition and jealousy for the best counterpart for their heirs so-to-speak.

I couldn’t help but think scientifically. About how survival of the fittest applies to this situation. Briefly speaking, survival of the fittest states that the one who has the utensils, the best of them, gets to survive while the other’s die off. In this case, parents try to set up their children on a strictly wealth ridden basis which will in turn provide both social and economic stability.

I don’t think that we should go back to arranged marriages because we as humanity have reached a point in which diversity and free will mean so much, though they could ensure our survival. But then again, we probably don’t need to worry about that.

The Relevance Of Words

Reading the last pages of "Hamlet" I found myself extremely confused. Yup, I had to read the last (extra) pieces a couple of times to understand it further. Ok, so before, the play stated that life was irrelevant, that you are only here, the present you; therefore, the “King of Infinite space”. However, we have proven that this in fact is not the case.

As a matter of fact, the presence of Fortinbras commemorates this. This is hinted to us, on one hand by the way in which he buries Hamlet and on another the actual re-telling of this whole tale.

The soldier/honorary burial that was given to Hamlet represents the importance of his actions, that his death, like a soldiers, was valiant and worthwhile. This indirectly suggesting that his disapproval of his mother’s love the right thing to do. Whereas the re-telling keeps acknowledges Hamlet’s actions and life as a whole. Technically, the fact that this already is written word in the shape of the play “Hamlet” already makes it relevant. This ultimately makes all writing relevant but also eternally relevant, which I think is he metaphor behind the existence of “The Tragedy Of Hamlet”.

"INTERPRETING" Hamlet

 I feel that these three different approaches to “Hamlet” have to be analyzed together, mainly because they were assigned together. But also because I can safely state that all three of these propose a specific approach to Hamlet, the character. I’m not inclined to any one of these analyses to tell the truth and am kind of annoyed with them

First, Dr. Derwey’s take on Freud. A little of my history with Freud to give you the context in which I read him. I am very interested in psychology since about 3 or 4 years ago. I respect Freud very much and very much enjoy reading his takes on human kind, the human mind, and specific cases of which we find “Hamlet”. I found this approach kind of predictable and (for lack of a better word) bland. It’s kind of established that as a general rule, all humans “suffer” from Oedipus or Electra complex, so him repeating and further explaining this specific case and why it applies made his piece fairly mundane. On another hand, his diagnosis of neurasthenia and description of him being unscrupulous suggesting that he is unfit to rule… to put it simply, that he is a good-for-nothing socially slow rich kid unfit to rule. I, along with many other people in the existence of the world, have already established that in our minds. So to Dr. Dewey I say, “try not to write about something so redundant”.

Next, T.S. Eliot. As a summary of his work I can say that he is claiming that “The Tragedy Of Hamlet” is a fraud. In fact he implies that it’s a rip-off of Thomas Kyd’s Spanish tragedy. He sustains this idea with details of Kyd’s characters and plot and the possible chronological correlation between those of Shakespeare. I think this is very bold if his part. I mean, to challenge possibly the single most important writer in English literature takes guts. For this, I accept his affirmation but don’t agree with it. Because I think that you can’t not take familiar things into your own creations. The only way to I make things is basing them off something you know. Yes, maybe” Hamlet” is partly based on Spanish Tragedies but that’s simply how everything works. You see, I believe that for example words already exist; however, the order which you put them in and the circumstances in which it is used makes a sentence. That chronological sentence may have been already written, but not put in the same circumstance therefore it won’t receive the same connotation than another. According to multiverse, that same sentence and be rearranged over time with different people to mean different things not necessarily with the intention of fraud.

Lastly, Directing Hamlet.

To be honest, this piece got me thinking that we over history, as readers, have overanalyzed this piece. That we have been looking for answers about people in general in “Hamlet”. About family relationships, about jealousy, greed, envy, love, mourning and the rest of human qualities that this situation would entail in real life. The way in which the actors were so descriptive in explaining why their character was written the way it was and the way that  they played it, yet in the different renditions of this play, all characters are played slightly different. With more emphasis on this line and less on the other, and somehow, the actors find a way to justify it, which as a matter of fact is what I think they’re doing right. The problem is that we forget that this is a play, and like in all plays the characters are up for individual interpretation so there’s very few things that could be wrong about each individual interpretation.

Overall, I would like to say that if it wasn’t clear already, my interpretations of “Hamlet” have no more value than the next person’s. So basically these are my “corrections” to others’.

Vocab

Freud
Neurasthenia:  psycho-pathological term first used by George Miller Beard in 1869 to denote a condition with symptoms of fatigue, anxiety,headache, neuralgia and depressed mood

Unscrupulousness:  To use unfair means; to go against the rules.Devoid of scruples; oblivious to or contemptuous of what is right or honorable.
T.S Eliot
Aberrations:something that deviates from the normal way but has several specifically defined meanings
Spanish Tragedy: the revenge play or revenge tragedy.Many elements of The Spanish Tragedy, such as the play-within-a-play used to trap a murderer and a ghost intent on vengeance, appear in Shakespeare's Hamlet. (Thomas Kyd is frequently proposed as the author of the hypothetical Ur-Hamlet that may have been one of Shakespeare's primary sources for Hamlet.)
Intractability: The trait of being hard to influence or to control

Angles and Sympathy

I find it interesting that there are so many ways that you can interpret Hamlet, or any play for that matter. Not only are these two renditions of the same play but they are also different parts of said play. The way that Hamlet is played I will leave mostly to the interpretations of the actors (in which case I preferred Tenant). And the styles! Oh the styles! 


On one had Tenant approaches the play in a more cinematic view providing the audience with more angles and the imposition of "security cameras" which at this point we can conclude that is a big brother-ish approach to the situation. That Hamlet is being watched, who is at the other end we don't know yet. I found that this rendition also has scattered hints of points that are o be made. For example, the shirt that has a muscular body printed on it, I think, is to show that the strong, courageous image that Hamlet has with his people is merely an image, not what he actually is. Also, the fact that when he rips out the security cam he states that he is now alone; however, when is actually questioning himself he talks directly to the viewer, to the camera suggesting that we are, at that point in time, Hamlet.


On the other hand, Branagh maintained the scene in one level, whatever change in the movement in the camera was very slight. In this rendition, Hamlet was set in a hall of mirrors, whew people could look at themselves (in the non-literal sense). This was suggested to the viewer when hamlet was referring to himself he looked in the mirror.


I guess that Branagh's Mirror is Tenant's camera. In which case just further establishes my point that at that point in time we are Hamlet. That is what Shakespeare intended, or so I think based on these interpretations, sympathy for this character. 

The Cursor (and a sidenote)

I guess that is the everlasting technological ellipsis.
The hebrew Nu.
always suggesting to the person on the other side of the screen: Now what?

The blog of Krap mentality actually took me a lot longer to write than any other thusfar because I had to jot down not only my thoughts but my thinking process which made me think of other things that had nothing to do with anything. Krap must've really thought that scene through in his head and had very clear in his mind what he would write about... Kudos

Thinking Clearly: A Blog In Krap Mentality

Once again, back to Krap. Why would he… why would I, why should… (hesitates to delete) am I reading this? That's right, I have to. I guess I really don't have to, (pause – re-reads) "Celebrated the awful occasion, as in recent years…" (repeats) Celebrated, Celebrated, celebrated... joy. Awful… AWFUL. (thinks it over imagines, a light bulb over her head)

                                                                    FUNERALS!

 Oh, that felt "inappropriate" – funerals. Krap, someone died, for him, in his life, reminiscing, mourning. Poor Krap. I haven't experienced that apparently gut wrenching, soul tearing, spirit diminishing, smile-theif of an experience. I don't understand why he would write this piece in such a discouraging manner. Usually, what I mean by usually (thinks... "write better") the commonly accepted social norm that is used widely in american media ("too complicated")... almost anti-american dream-like writing. The giving up, quitting to try to acheive happyness. So gloomy, so dark... almost death-like. Like he's just so close to it, closer than he's ever been before ("sounds stupid and redundant" reluctantly types yet another ellipsis) ... clearly. Seems like he is no longer persistent with his life, simply devoting his time to what's left. What was. What will be nevermore.

(stares al cursor) On. Off. On. Off.

First Attempt At Krap

Up until now I have only seen the video once and haven't read it at all. Here we go.

I had no idea what I was getting myself into. Not that it wasn't interesting. Let me rephrase all of that: I felt like I walked into a conversation mid-sentence and it was too late to ask for explanations. At my desperate attempt to understand what was going on, I took it upon myself to apply the little I know about movie analyzing to this video. I quickly deduced that this character was key and admired because the angle of the camera was from below so you literally looked up at him. Next I realized his face, more specifically his mouth, what he was going to say was really important because the camera fluctuated between close up and extreme close up. Lastly the different fields, or lack of, and the minimalist scenery simply emphasized the importance of what he was doing on his table.

At first I thought that he was some kind of hoarder because of all of the apparent obsessive importance this man gave to his boxes; however, this was not the case.

Life is the main topic played around with in the video. More specifically, time and details. THIS man. HIS life. HIS time. HIS details. The choice of words, so important to him that he looks it up in the dictionary and makes sure what he meant precisely in his past tape. The way it's being told, what's being told ... Completely sure that he no longer feels the need to get that time back he simply wants to revisit. By forwarding and rewinding, pausing and repeating he is almost editing his past. Questioning it, critiquing it…much like the rest of us do with our memories. This is his way of looking back on his.

Lastly, the repeating of the part in which he is with a woman and how everything under them moved which moved them "up and down — and from side to side". This suggests that this was a key part of his life. That SHE was important to him. I see this as him looking over this last perfect moment with her over and over to find out what went wrong with their relationship. (I find people do this a lot.) He states that he is now older and at this point has no chance at happiness, suggesting that she was what made him happy, and that he has no longing to be younger - to be happy - again. He doesn't want another companion. Establishing a life of solitude and silence with which comes the fadeout.

Looking In For 5 Minutes

As she walked, she pondered about her life.

The meaning of it all, the peace the strife.

She, stopped for a second, looked east and west

In case any driver was not the best.

Knocking on the door, fixing her hair

Smelling smoke of cigarette in the air.

Making sure her skirt was not too high,

Just around the middle of her thigh.

Checking off her makeup, her clothes, clean smile

Crosses her fingers in hope it’s in style.

“How pathetic” she thinks and questions herself

“I should’ve just worn what I’d put on the shelf.”

The door is answered, two people walk out

She walks in – pause- expected fadeout.

“Did you see that?” ecstatic she texted her friend,

So grateful that someone invented BBM.

“Saw what?” was replied and with further explanation

“I’ll watch it, later, on Youtube” (added tension)

“While you’re at it watch this cover,

Rate it, knowing you, you’ll love her.

Anyway, brb my mom needs help”

“Actually, I’m doing hmwk… ttyl ”

So she lied to her friend, if you hadn’t noticed

For she has in mind survival of the fittest.

Nothing about loyalty, friendship or trust

Simply a boy for her is a must.

But this boy is special, what’d you expect?

He is someone else’s, whom he neglects.

They send to each other kisses and winks

It's like with this technology nobody thinks

About any consequences or repercussions

No “true love” or possible discussions.

Looking over this conversation,

The technology used in most nations,

The language created, plethora of emoticons

Yes, people have turned into robotic human-trons.

Re-consider Re-reading

To tell the truth, most every time that the importance of re-reading has been mentioned to me time and time again, I almost always without hesitation think "yeah, sure that's gonna happen... psh". And here we go again, some teacher’s blog about her experience and her undergoing an epiphany about how importance it really is. It feels like every time people want to give you advice based on their experiences, it’s about the actual importance of something; like until it happened to them it was less important or something.

Anyways, I got to reading about other authors re-reading to keep in mental shape so-to-speak. And well apparently, I contradicted myself. I got to thinking and evidently realized that I do re read – a lot. Sure the length of what I re-read influences how much of it I re-read but for example today while doing the read now,  I re-read the piece about 4 or 5 times before I actually got any abstract meaning from it. So I guess I relate to this woman, being that I’m in high school and all, and well I probably didn’t fully understand this book (given she probably hasn’t understood it to the full extent herself) but I give her credit for the amount of analysis she achieved.

Something specific that caught my eye was the section focused on the characters and their personalities. In my understanding of it, I too noticed importance in the characters and their characteristics. Somehow, they seemed very organic to me. They just possessed real qualities. Uncertainty, contradiction that appears coherent … I don’t really know how to express it. It’s kind of like when you look at a person and really see the human. Something particular, an essence… an image.

End

Explain the end of the human kind. Simple. Being that I'm in the tone of SAT practicing and taking tests, I'll put it this way. Happy : Ecstatic as The Road : Apocalypse.

Funny, this topic is played around with a lot especially with the Mayan calendar thing, global warming, and 2012 coming up. We have rendered so many versions of what “the end of the world” might come to be -- most seem plausible. Many, like the movie 2012, express an image of panic and chaos and uncertainty. Another clear example of this is R.E.M’s hit “The end of the world as we know it”, the way it’s worded, like an incoherent rant sets the mental panorama of chaos. Scientists disagree on what will happen, some say el Niño effect some say la Niña… some say both.

What all of these have failed to express are the survivors, the after, the post-apocalyptic life. The Road, its narration, conveys a sense of loneliness a grey life, fear, true life struggle. Upon reading, I found myself hooked on the very brief yet profound hints of description provided: however extensive they seem .

“In those first years the roads were peopled with refugees shrouded up in their

clothing. Wearing masks and goggles, sitting in their rags by the side of the road like

ruined aviators. Their barrows heaped with shoddy. Towing wagons or carts. Their

eyes bright in their skulls. Creedless shells of men tottering down the causeways like

migrants in a feverland. The frailty of everything revealed at last. Old and troubling

issues resolved into nothingness and night. The last instance of a thing takes the

class with it. Turns out the light and is gone. Look around you. Ever is a long time.

But the boy knew what he knew. That ever is no time at all.” (pg. 14 Pdf file)

To tell the truth, I had to read it over a couple of times to truly understand it. He describes empty, hopeless/faithless, rotting people hollowed out leaving only a crust of their former selves desperately looking for the land of solution. The frailty of the situation is what got me first. He’s talking about how fragile life really is and how old problems simply fade into the darkness because they no longer matter. The last instance, of life I imagine, takes class with it, the essence? That death simply takes it all away. When he asks you (indirectly the reader) to look around, the grey detail of what used to be, he tries to pick up the mood suggesting that they have a long time left, they have for ever. However, the reality of the situation is that ever is in fact “no time at all”. That in the end, or should I say the end, darkness -- death, is very near.

Manipulation : Love as Society : ...

Yes, for sure, The Canterbury tales are definitely a satire mocking society. The further I read into the tales, the more I associate them with real life. First, I’d like to point out that Chaucer was very clever to name the tale The Wife Of Baths, for what is this woman? Simply a wife, wife to one and all. I was surprised that Chaucer leads you further and further away from the original, the first, Knights tale. The one I would suppose would set the tone for the novel, but I was evidently wrong. I think the reason for Chaucer to set it as the first tale makes the reader juxtapose all latter tales to the noble, fairytale-like one.

To complement my previous blog, I further emphasize the satirical position of the collection. The real, basic woman empowerment before voting rights and revolutions: seduction, is Chaucer’s most recent way (or at least most recent for me) of portraying love in society. How women manipulate and place false expectations to their emotional partners. This was their way of having a voice, apparently a tip passed from generations as explained by the wife. “I bar hym on honde he hadde enchanted me -- My dame taughte me that soutiltee –“ (575-576) And thus we understand more Alisoun, from the Miller’s tale (friend of the wife).

So what is chaucher trying to say of society as a whole?

The Serious Joke

Unexpected; would be the word that defines the Millers Tale. This Miller, boy does he have a mouth on him very crude that man. He is the anti-Disney morale so-to-speak. The sole details, that at one point I could simply describe as gruesome, of farts and hairy rear ends, made a complete contradictory path when juxtaposed to the Knight’s tale. However disappointing this might sound or this actually was, it was closer to reality, or so I think.

We, these newer generations, have Disney movies or any of its competitions’ which give us a sense of right from wrong. Back in the day, they were the same tales of Cinderella, Rapunzel, Little Red riding Hood etc. that were collected by the Grimm brothers. Nonetheless, these were a little different that they are now, bloodier and somehow more realistic. Aware of how blunt and ordinary the tale is Chauser apologizes beforehand because he " moot reherce, hir tale alle, be thay bettre or werse" (lines 3173-3174) Why does he have to tell us the tales? A question that evidently can’t be answered thus far and I plan on trying to answer throughout the reading of the book.

As long as I’m on the topic of the prologue, the end of it caught my eye, which for simplicity’s sake I’ll put in modern English. “ Think about this, and don't blame me; And also people should not take a joke too seriously” (3185-3186) We have established the first part, that Chauser is not to be held responsible for the tale; however, I found the second part terribly confusing at first. Now, after reading the entire piece, I think that Chauser is mocking the drama of life, love, and society. By stating that you shouldn't take a joke too seriously, followed by an almost bizzare story which could be plausible suggests to the reader a certain level of mockery. In fact I think that the whole Canterbury Tales is in fact a satire. A satire by which Chauser  uses hyperbolic real life situations to mock us, society, and our way of living in it.

Ellipsis... In The Tales

I don't know why, but I think I get caught in "insignificant" details whilst reading. I read the last two parts and yes, I thought about the mythology and how it fit in the text. I pondered about why Arcite died and what or if it mattered. The role of women, the narrators point of view, the addition of both kings from Africa and Emeleye’s ture role. Despite all these uncertainties, I always ended up thinking in why Theseus laid down the rule of no mortal wounds for the battle for love. This simply stood out to me like a sore thumb. Why not? SERIOUSLY… in most tragic romance stories there’s a character that overcomes the other in a battle, slays the other, if you will. Besides, the introduction of Gods almost requires bloodshed. I always associate gods with mortal suffering (with good reason making reference to Greek mythology and the Old Testament and all), so why should it be any different here?

Maybe Theseus didn’t want a legit battle, maybe something somewhat entertaining for him. Perhaps he wanted to see them get hurt and suffer the recovery for his own sick pleasure. I don’t know, maybe because Chaucer wanted to establish an honor code, make a point, set a tone for the next tale.

No, I’m not actually answering anything here and just kind of ranting on and on about some questions that I have. For now I conclude, wait... scratch that, assume that Chaucer has a reason for this, but for now we, or I’ll have to wait. This'll be my ellipsis.

BeDazzling Reality

Another year, another aged typical tragic and unreasonable love story which appears to be misspelled; or so I thought. As I read The Millers Tale I couldn’t help but think about all the stories and myths that I’ve read or heard of or seen in movies that are exactly the same. However, I later realized that this was not the case. It had a third perspective, I realized I was literally being told this story from someone’s point of view and was told what they considered to be important, or at least what they considered they wanted the story to be for me as the reader which has proved to be key in my understanding of it.

As I approached the plot I read all about Arcite’s reaction as “He cast his eye upon Emelye” ( line 1077) and how Palamon also fell for her right then and there, I couldn’t help but think how pathetic it was to “love” someone who you don’t even know… literally. As it progressed and explained how they couldn’t stop thinking about her, which ultimately became their purpose of life, I couldn’t help but compare it to real life. It’s fairly easy to realize when someone is making stuff up in their mind and believing it, when it’s not you who is doing it at least, and I could think of so many people over my lifetime that I have seen do this over a simple hug, conversation or a glance and build up in their mind a whole complex love story.

Arcite is later released from prison and the narrator asks, “Who has the worse, Arcite or Palamon? That one may see his lady every day, But in prison he must always dwell; That other where he pleases may ride or walk, But he shall see his lady nevermore.” (lines 1348-1352) Basically the one who is provided with real visual stimuli but has nothing to do with it other than love through imagination or the one who is overusing his imagination leaving him with actual possibility? This is a parallel to reality, how people act around the ones they like or love. My first connection point.

Arcite decides to disguise himself for love. I took this as becoming someone who you’re not, changing for the sole purpose of holding on to the possiblity of maybe solidifying a fantasy that might at some point sort of become “love” or a relationship, something that is quite common in real life.My second connection point.

Now, why are there two guys? My understanding of this came from reading later on when they were about to start fighting. As they helped eachother to armour up to later go at eachother like animals juxtaposes the comradery they had possessed and later lost to rivalry. This emphasises the point that is made explicitly over and over again that love knows no boundaries. However cliché that might sound it overcomes the most important of bonds, blood. This specific part I'm not sure if is adopted by society to make into reality or vice versa by which it became cliché. In any case the section appeared to allude to reality.

I soon started to feel as if a person, any person, was telling me a story about their friends. A fairly common situation, yeah with some exaggerations and surprises here and there but all and all pretty familiar. It’s almost as if I could be the narrator, telling this story simply describing my friends’ love lifes'. This leaves me to ask:
Is this what all of these stories, myths, and tales about impossible love and over exaggerated tragedy are all about? Beautified reality?

The Details of Listening

Migrations. A self explanatory title. The poem is clearly about the Hispanic conquest in South America, a pretty burnt out topic if you ask me. They arrived, there was blood shed, slaughtering of Indians, “stealing” of their properties, it was like an infectious over-abusing unwanted guest.


The slight twist that I found interesting in the video was the tone of voice and the audio support of the music to convey a -what is it?- feeling? The comparison between the end very dark-like with min 2:15 of the various words creates a wave-like quality which simply makes everything flow.

I realize I didn’t write much about migrations, but I really didn’t have much to say.

What Growing Up Is All About

I finished, and as I was wrapping up, I kept in mind the formerly listened to interview. Particularly, her description of Pecola, the sixteen year old. I think this book is about society… clearly; however, I think Toni Morrison focused on the dangers of growing up. Morrison's description of being sixteen as "vulnerable-and imaginative" because to a young woman the world is "open and threatening" is exactly the sense that she is trying to convey in The Bluest Eye. Particularly, I think she uses the various characters' profiles to allude to the different dangers that society encompasses, specifically those very accessible in the journey of identity search that is being a teenager.

Geraldine and Junior- Geraldine, a self-hating black woman who obsessed over cleanliness and despised blacks. Her obsession for cleanliness is metaphorical for her adoration of whites, which therefore, suggests that blacks are dirty. Her poised behavior has stemmed from her lever of restriction on herself and her emotions which make her cold and distant from her family. She can only open up to her black blue-eyed cat which is again a metaphor for what she (and Pecola) long to be: a beautiful, semi-white-because-of-her-blue-eyes black person. Because of his mother's indifference, Junior not only hates himself for being black but holds a grudge towards his mother for forcing it on him by not letting him play with other "niggers" and things of the sort. He is then reduced to scapegoating which is clearly not a healthy behavior. Geraldine and Junior's behavior warns against self-hatred, or low self esteem, and misdirected emotions and the importance of affection.

Cholly Breedlove- This man suffered abuse throughout his whole life. From his mother's abuse to his fathers abandonment, the lack of love and sense of belonging starts what will later create a problematic man. His aunt, being the only person to express affection towards him, was indirectly the rock keeping him grounded. After her death, he suffered the embarrassment of having the very private experience of losing his virginity becoming forced and public. After this loss of dignity and the pressure by his wife to get money, Cholly recurred to drinking, which I think is because he mis-associated it with a cure because a type of liquor was his aunt's medicine before her death. His antisocial behavior signals his dangerous freedom because of his indifference and resentment towards society. Cholly warns us of the importance of love, strong character and coping with tragedy in growing up.
Pauline Breedlove –Pauline's from small town to big city story is he metaphor for the situation teenagers are in. We're all of a sudden thrown from our child-like lifestyles to adulthood. Paulie's need to fit in caused by her susceptibility to media warns of such behaviors in growing up as the need for economic independence and lifestyle surge.

Soaphead Church- A light skinned pedophile of mixed man obsessed with dirt and decay. The fact that he is a minister who didn't really want to be a minister in the first place and deliberately lied to Pecola for his own gain fake to Pecola, is Morrison's  critique towards religion. The falsehood and sense of insecurity created by this character suggest that religious figures, and ultimately all authority figures are to be questioned because truly, who has the authority to be completely right? Who can we really trust?

Lastly, Pecola- symbolizes us as readers because we have to be taught/warned about the dangers and quirks of growing up properly according to Morrison. Pecola, by being a child with an adult mentality is the very basic description of an adolescent. This makes vulnerable to society's abuse, and Morrison by having her be assaulted, tricked, and abused by the formerly mentioned characters, illustrates the blows society takes on a young adult.

*The lessons taught by each character are in italics*