Weekly Reflection #15
As with the current theme for me this semester, I also read Things Fall Apart in high school. However, I read it in freshman year so that was 7 years ago, so reading it again was a nice refresher.
One thing that really bothered me about the ending of TFA was that after the clansmen discover that Okonkwo has hanged himself, they immediately blame the missionaries and the district commissioner. The real reason Okonkwo killed himself was because he had lost faith in his tribe and had felt they had become weak, so actually they themselves were the problem and not the white men. They didn't even realize how much their own tribe had changed, and I think it just proves just how influential the white men were on Umuofia.
The commissioner's title for his book, "The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger," really bothers me, but I'm glad that Achebe added that. I suppose my problem with it is that did the missionaries really pacify the tribe? Okonkwo was enraged and ready to fight, but his tribe was not. But now that Okonkwo has killed himself because of the presence of the missionaries and their influence on the clan, this ending leaves us to wonder what will happen to the clan. Will they remain "pacified," or will Okonkwo's death bring them to their senses and they'll attack?
Final Project Proposal: I will be writing an essay that compares the role of changing societal norms/traditions in The Metamorphosis, A Doll's House, and Things Fall Apart.
Danielle, this is an interesting paper topic. I hadn't thought about how each of these texts tracks changes in society, but each could be considered a reaction to or an attempt to understand or respond to changes brought on by modern life. -MH
Weekly Reflection #14 (Week 13 missed due to Essay #2)
I'm really glad that Rebekah and Andy went over the various eras of painting styles, since I feel like this is a topic that isn't discussed much in regards to art. Sure, in English classes we talk about Colonialism and Romanticism and Transcendentalism, but it's all focused on literature, not painting and other art forms. If I had to pick my favorite movement in painting, I'd have to say it would be either Romanticism or Post-Impressionism/Cubism. Romanticism because it's very emotional and usually there are a lot of details that I can look at and analyze. With Post-Impressionism and Cubism, I am always blown away by how creative and original these works are, and usually the style of it is a way that I would never have done myself just because I don't consider myself that creative. Personally, I'd do better trying to paint a specific subject (like Romanticism), but to put into art a vision from your head that comes straight from imagination takes immense talent.
Because photography is so prevalent in our society today, and it is a really easy form of art for people to create, I feel like I appreciate painting more. In photography, all the "hard work" is done by the mechanisms inside the camera itself. To paint a landscape takes an enormous amount of time, precision, and dedication. To take a photo of a landscape takes less than a second. Sure, it's possible to be precise in photography and wait for the "perfect moment" to take a photograph, but the finished product comes faster in photography, especially in the digital age. I also think it's because of photography that the current trend in modern painting today is hyper-realism, where painters/drawers try to emulate what a photograph of a person would look like rather than just "cop out" and take a picture instead.
Weekly Reflection #12
The last time I studied Freud and his theories was sophomore year in high school, so after 5 years I've forgotten most about what he theorized. I did remember the id, ego, and superego, but before Wednesday I couldn't have told you what they all meant.
Reflecting on the idea of hysteria (or neurosis, as Freud would say) and how it was predominantly diagnosed in women reminded me of the narrator in "The Yellow Wallpaper." Whether the narrator was diagnosed with hysteria, depression, or some other mental ailment, either way I'm sure Freud would have loved to examine her and ask her questions. Although we don't get to see her dreams, Freud might have pointed out that she had an unconscious motivation for hating the yellow wallpaper and eventually tearing it all off. It's also a shame we don't know much about her past or childhood to connect her motivations with some sort of "repressed desire" that is now coming out from the superego (unconscious) to her ego.
Freud also would have been interested in Flora from Bazan's "The Revolver". She "dreamed that an awful report was ripping apart the bones of [her] skull and blowing [her] brains out, dashing them against the wall." Obviously Freud would say that this isn't wish fulfillment, but rather a disguised fulfillment of a repressed wish. One speculation could be that she wants to be free from her marriage, thus her being murdered would be symbolic of freedom even if she's afraid of death. Or, because she imagines feeling a gun barrel at her head, Freud could probably point out some sort of odd sexual desire related to that.
Weekly Reflection #11 (Week 10 missed due to Spring Break)
In our small groups, I really connected to Peter's idea that it was very significant of the outside narrator to say that London was the "biggest, greatest town on Earth." I think it's just an innate thing that we all think that whatever town where we grew up is the best, and that any other place is scary, different, and to be disliked. In my own life, for example, I'm really nervous about leaving my beloved Indianapolis to move to South Carolina over the summer. This fear comes from the insecurities I have that I won't know where I'm going, people will behave differently, and I'll be entering "undiscovered" territory, which is probably similar to Marlow's fears regarding the Congo. I feel that 99% of humans (if not everyone) has a sense of pride for where they came from, thus any other place is different and bad, and that kind of fear can lead to skewed perceptions of people in different cultures.
This sort of fear is also evident in stories like Disney's Pocahontas, where the settlers who looking for gold see the Native Americans as "savages" and "uncivilized," thus they need to be conquered and, to use Kurtz's word, exterminated. The settlers also have this inflated view of England as their mother country and that everything they're doing is for their British brothers and the Queen. Anything/anybody that opposes that is automatically the enemy and needs to either be corrected or destroyed. I think that this is a really important thing to recognize because in extreme cases, this sense of hometown pride mixed with "new-town" fear is what causes horrible events like genocide to happen.
Weekly Reflection #9
Lately in four of five of my classes, there has been a LOT of talk about equality between the sexes. Especially in my Food & Culture class, we have been talking about gender roles and food, with the women staying home and being housekeepers and cooking the food for her husband. Obviously then men go to work, be providers, and enjoy the home-cooked meal made for them by their wives. In my other business-related classes we've been talking about nondiscriminatory practices and how to treat people equally, breaking down stereotypes and gender roles. This ties back to Peter and Mike's presentation, when they brought up the point that men don't oppress women, but gender roles oppress society. There are several men who cook and are stay-at-home dads, and there are several women who are the breadwinners for their families. None of this would be happening today if the feminist movement in literature of the 1800s had occurred.
Between The Story of an Hour and The Revolver, I'd have to say that I liked The Story of an Hour better, because I think it is slightly more powerful than The Revolver. Of course, The Revolver is more emotional and thrilling, but The Story of an Hour seems slightly more important to me. Mrs. Mallard actually gets a taste of freedom and what her life would be like without the oppression of man, while Flora constantly has this fear of men held over here even after her husband is gone. The fact that Mrs. Mallard dies from her oppression is more powerful to me than Flora living in fear. Mrs. Mallard's death shows the true consequences of living in a man's world - lack of freedom, lack of happiness, and lack of a joyful life. Her death can be symbolic of the death of all women's free spirits under the hand of male dominance. Plus I think that this story calls more women to action because more women can empathize with a marriage like Mrs. Mallard's than the marriage of Flora and Reinaldo (not that relationships like theirs didn't happen). Overall, I think that Chopin's story would have touched more women (and more men) than Bazan's because of the appeal to the average marriage.
Weekly Reflection #8
I thought Rachel and Alycia's presentation about Ibsen's views of feminism were really insightful and interesting. I also found it refreshing that an older, white man during this time period had such progressive views of women and feminism in general. I've noticed that especially in today's society, the feminist movement has had a revival and more and more women (and men!) are pushing for the equality of the sexes. As we mentioned, the fact that Nora left Torvald was obviously controversial for 19th century, but it's no secret that divorce and single parents are common today. For this reason, we might be able to say that Ibsen is one of the great revolutionaries of this movement for bringing this issue to the public eye. Although we are still struggling with this issue, I think that "A Doll's House" took a big leap in the right direction as far as allowing society to question its norms.
One other thing I thought about as I was leaving class was the similarities and differences between Torvald and Praskovya's characters. Torvald is affectionate but firm, but I would say that he cares more about his public opinion than Praskovya. Praskovya is cold and selfish, and asks Peter about strategies to get the most money from the government from her husband's death. Although both Torvald and Praskovya are self-involved, Torvald's concerns are affiliated with reputations and regard his public image, while Praskovya's concerns are affiliated with greed and regard how much money she can get from her husband and the government. In saying this, I think that Torvald's self-interest is a little more understandable or acceptable, while Praskovya's self-interest is distasteful and unreasonable. I think these both have to do with the fact that Torvald and Nora married for love, and Ivan and Praskovya married for societal norms. I definitely think Torvald is the better spouse in this case, because he at least makes an effort to change for his wife, while Praskovya expected Ivan to change his behaviors for her own benefit. In saying this, I think that Ivan and Praskovya definitely should have separated well before Ivan's death, but I'm not so sure that Nora should have given up so easily on Torvald. However, if she hadn't left, this story wouldn't have nearly the same impact that it currently does.
Weekly Reflection #7 (Week 6 skipped)
I am very happy that we've transitioned into this "realism" part of the course, and have gone from prose and poetry to an actual novel. Personally, I prefer works that have very obvious symbolism and commentary on society.
Obviously I've already done a lot of analysis on The Death of Ivan Ilych since Maddie and I did our presentation today, but there were a few other things I wanted to address. When we were talking on Wednesday about what was the most important part of those first 4 chapters, I said that it was the moment right after Ivan hurts himself. He said that he had felt 15 years younger after hurting himself, and then right after that is when everything went downhill and his health deteriorated. I took this to sort of be symbolic of life itself. When we are children, we are full of energy, have the capacity to bounce back from injury quickly, and feel unstoppable. As we get older, we get tired, our muscles get weaker, and we become more susceptible to illness. Ivan's deterioration is very apparent, as he agonizes for weeks and never feeling as good as he did on the day he injured himself. I wonder if this is how Tolstoy felt about life - that we're only meant to feel great for the first part of our lives and then the rest of our lives is just pure suffering and longing to feel better again.
I also feel that we didn't talk about Praskovya enough. In today's terms, she'd definitely be labeled as a "gold-digger." She only marries Ivan for his status, and as soon as she becomes pregnant becomes this heartless woman who just wants Ivan to die so she can take his money. She and Lisa are also the only female characters in this entire novel, which makes me wonder why Tolstoy did that. Was it just because he is not a woman, thus he didn't know what their outlook on life was? Or was it because women were undervalued in the bourgeois society? These two women are aggravated at the inconvenience that Ivan's illness causes them, and are the most vocal about it. Although Ivan's funeral inconveniences Peter, he never complains. I think it is a very real possibility that when Lisa marries her fiancé, she will become just like her mother and will be just as annoyed with him as Praskovya was towards Ivan.
Weekly Reflection #5
We didn't get to talk much about Walt Whitman's "Hours Continuing Long," but out of the poems we've read by him, this one I've liked the most. This is also one of the most depressing and emotionally intense poems that we've read during our discussion of Romanticism. All of the adjectives that he uses are so extremely expressive: sore, heavy-hearted, lonesome, discouraged, sullen, suffering, ashamed, torment, distracted, dejected, anguish. You can really feel pain through his words, and can almost imagine him writing this with a completely agonized face, almost over-dramatic but still real. I also think this emphasizes his desire for sexual freedom that we got a glimpse of in "Song of Myself". He not only is focusing on his own desires, but constantly wonders if the man he loves also feels the same way. It would seem only fair that after hours and hours of being tormented by his emotions, that there would be some hope that whoever this man is returns his feelings. Unfortunately, due to the time period that this was written in, I don't think Whitman ever found his answers.
Reading "Hours Continuing Long" also ties in to the song Mr. Hartman played to us at the beginning of class; the one sung by Gretchen at her spinning wheel. I would imagine that if Whitman would've sung his poem, that it would've sound very similar to the melancholy expressiveness we heard in Gretchen's voice while she was longing for Faust. In the reading, Gretchen too uses sad, emotional language, using phrases like: "my heart is sore, I'll find it never and never more", "my bosom aches to feel him near", and "my poor head is quite distraught". It would appear that these feelings stem from some sort of feeling of love, as opposed to some other feeling like hate, anger, or confusion. Perhaps these works are commenting on the power of love over our emotions, as it is strong enough to make us feel both our happiest and our most desperate.
Weekly Reflection #4
I suppose my prediction from last week about the ending of Faust was neither wholly right nor wrong, since Mr. Hartman said there were two different endings to it. In response to the ending to Part 1 that was in our books, I must say I was really disappointed in it. To be honest, I really didn't like Gretchen's character at all, but that was more because of the way Goethe portrayed her. She's not very strong, and is too worried about that other people think of her. In class, when we were discussing the most important scene of that night's reading, I wanted to argue that Gretchen killing the baby was the most important scene. Everything was going (mostly) fine up until that point, and like someone said Valentine probably would have still died, but Gretchen wouldn't have ended up in jail if she hadn't committed the crime. If she hadn't ended up in jail, she would still be damned, and she wouldn't have surrendered her soul to God.
It could be argued that Goethe includes this event in his story as a criticism of Christianity. The fact that Gretchen finds the faults in her actions and surrenders to God is important because, as a Romantic piece, Gretchen accepts the conventional attitudes towards religion instead of rejects them. The conventional attitude of this time period was that if you sinned, but repented, that your soul would be saved. Conflicts between religion and personal beliefs can drive people insane (and Faust isn't exempt from this), but it is only in Gretchen's deluded mental state that she finally reaches out to God and her faith for help. While she was mentally sound, it doesn't appear that she gave much thought to having premarital sex or to the decision to kill her baby, especially when both things are against both religious expectations and society's expectations. I suppose this is probably why I don't like Gretchen's character most, just because she went about things carelessly.
Weekly Reflection #3
To be honest, I was surprised when Mr. Hartman said that this was a very famous work and similar to Shakespeare, when I had never heard of it before. I even asked my roommate, who studies German as a language, to see if she had read it, and she didn't know about it either.
That aside, I too noticed the similarity between this story and the story of Job from Honors 201. It would appear that God has just as much faith in his followers as his followers have in him. In comparing Job and Faust, they appear to be at polar opposites in their lives when the Devil approaches them. Job has a great life: he has a large family, lots of money, good farmland and livestock, and is very happy. Faust, on the other hand, is in despair about the state of his life, and laments that he cannot live his life in harmony with Nature and have knowledge beyond what he already knows. At the end of Job's trials, he is still faithful to God and does not dare speak ill against him. Obviously, I haven't reached the end of Faust yet, so I cannot know what will happen when the Devil is done with Faust. However, I predict that it will be a similar outcome in that God's prediction about Faust's actions will be correct. If this is true, then I would consider this work as another example of the strength of Christianity and good winning over evil.
Today in class, I noticed a similarity between Faust and Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself." Both Faust and Whitman wonder out loud what it would be like not to be human and to be more in tune to nature. Unlike Faust, Whitman seems to have come up with his own answers about life, and his revelations bring him both happiness and peace. I wonder that if Faust and Whitman could have a conversation, if Whitman's views of life, nature, and the world could bring Faust the peace of mind that he desperately searches for in his own thoughts.
Weekly Reflection #2
Today in America, we don't always give too much of a thought about freedom, considering most of us have had it our entire lives. If there's one thing America's known for, it's being a "free country". We have freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the freedom to make our own choices. In a way, this made it sort of difficult to relate to the points that the Grand Inquisitor made in Dostoevksy's prose poem.
In class today, I brought up the idea that "...free thought...will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries that some of them...will destroy themselves" (978). The GI believes that if someone tells the public what to think and what to believe, that will make them happier than allowing them to make choices for themselves. When reading this, I thought back to Douglass's story about how his master didn't want him to become literate because "it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy" (528). Obviously free thought and being literate are two different things, but the results of these freedoms as declared by the "higher power" both include that this kind of permission would be detrimental to the recipients.
When does anyone have the right to make choices for others? When we are children, our parents and guardians make a great deal of decisions for us: what to eat, what to wear, and where we go. It is because we are too uneducated to make choices for ourselves, and still new to life, that we rely on trusted guardians to make the right ones for us. As we get older and start going to school, we gain more independence to make small choices for ourselves every day: whether we want green beans or carrots for lunch, how to tie our shoes, whether or not this shirt goes with those pants, etc. Even later in life we make larger decisions about what to learn, what career path we want, and how to handle personal relationships. We become capable to understand, implement, and enjoy the basic freedoms to choose how we live our lives each day. Because of this, I believe that Douglass, Jacobs, and the followers of Jesus were all knowledgeable and capable enough to make decisions for themselves, and that their masters/oppressors were wrong. Knowledge does not confine and restrict our freedom, but rather it sets us free.
Weekly Reflection #1
To be honest, I find the concept of slave narratives to be fascinating. I think it’s because it really shows how far America’s come in the past 150 years, because half of the stuff I read in Frederick Douglass’ autobiography I couldn’t fathom happening today. With movies like “12 Years A Slave” and “Django Unchained” being two of the most popular movies of the past year, it’s safe to assume that I’m not alone with this odd fascination of hearing stories told from a slave’s point of view.
Douglass’ story is truly admirable. I was completely enthralled reading his recollection of how he became literate and was so persistent with it even though he knew he shouldn’t be doing so. Reading about the plague that came with his literacy was almost heartbreaking; his literacy allowing him to realize how truly enslaved and helpless he was. One thing we didn’t really touch upon in class was the abolitionists and how at first Douglass didn’t understand who they were, but they became his inspiration to run away. Had he not known that there were white folk against the enslavement of black folk, and that there was some hope somewhere that he could be free, I think he would have lived a very unhappy life.
Thinking about the definition of “freedom,” I really liked Douglass’ letter to his former master that we read. What stuck out to me the most was the phrase, “I don’t belong to you, and you don’t belong to me.” That’s probably the simplest definition of freedom, but it’s true. No one has ever belonged to anybody, yet slavery existed for thousands of years and there was no real reason why. We are lucky enough to live in a country that has most freedom than other countries, and it’s because of people like Frederick Douglass who exposed to the public his life in slavery which helped make it possible.
As with the current theme for me this semester, I also read Things Fall Apart in high school. However, I read it in freshman year so that was 7 years ago, so reading it again was a nice refresher.
One thing that really bothered me about the ending of TFA was that after the clansmen discover that Okonkwo has hanged himself, they immediately blame the missionaries and the district commissioner. The real reason Okonkwo killed himself was because he had lost faith in his tribe and had felt they had become weak, so actually they themselves were the problem and not the white men. They didn't even realize how much their own tribe had changed, and I think it just proves just how influential the white men were on Umuofia.
The commissioner's title for his book, "The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger," really bothers me, but I'm glad that Achebe added that. I suppose my problem with it is that did the missionaries really pacify the tribe? Okonkwo was enraged and ready to fight, but his tribe was not. But now that Okonkwo has killed himself because of the presence of the missionaries and their influence on the clan, this ending leaves us to wonder what will happen to the clan. Will they remain "pacified," or will Okonkwo's death bring them to their senses and they'll attack?
Final Project Proposal: I will be writing an essay that compares the role of changing societal norms/traditions in The Metamorphosis, A Doll's House, and Things Fall Apart.
Danielle, this is an interesting paper topic. I hadn't thought about how each of these texts tracks changes in society, but each could be considered a reaction to or an attempt to understand or respond to changes brought on by modern life. -MH
Weekly Reflection #14 (Week 13 missed due to Essay #2)
I'm really glad that Rebekah and Andy went over the various eras of painting styles, since I feel like this is a topic that isn't discussed much in regards to art. Sure, in English classes we talk about Colonialism and Romanticism and Transcendentalism, but it's all focused on literature, not painting and other art forms. If I had to pick my favorite movement in painting, I'd have to say it would be either Romanticism or Post-Impressionism/Cubism. Romanticism because it's very emotional and usually there are a lot of details that I can look at and analyze. With Post-Impressionism and Cubism, I am always blown away by how creative and original these works are, and usually the style of it is a way that I would never have done myself just because I don't consider myself that creative. Personally, I'd do better trying to paint a specific subject (like Romanticism), but to put into art a vision from your head that comes straight from imagination takes immense talent.
Because photography is so prevalent in our society today, and it is a really easy form of art for people to create, I feel like I appreciate painting more. In photography, all the "hard work" is done by the mechanisms inside the camera itself. To paint a landscape takes an enormous amount of time, precision, and dedication. To take a photo of a landscape takes less than a second. Sure, it's possible to be precise in photography and wait for the "perfect moment" to take a photograph, but the finished product comes faster in photography, especially in the digital age. I also think it's because of photography that the current trend in modern painting today is hyper-realism, where painters/drawers try to emulate what a photograph of a person would look like rather than just "cop out" and take a picture instead.
Weekly Reflection #12
The last time I studied Freud and his theories was sophomore year in high school, so after 5 years I've forgotten most about what he theorized. I did remember the id, ego, and superego, but before Wednesday I couldn't have told you what they all meant.
Reflecting on the idea of hysteria (or neurosis, as Freud would say) and how it was predominantly diagnosed in women reminded me of the narrator in "The Yellow Wallpaper." Whether the narrator was diagnosed with hysteria, depression, or some other mental ailment, either way I'm sure Freud would have loved to examine her and ask her questions. Although we don't get to see her dreams, Freud might have pointed out that she had an unconscious motivation for hating the yellow wallpaper and eventually tearing it all off. It's also a shame we don't know much about her past or childhood to connect her motivations with some sort of "repressed desire" that is now coming out from the superego (unconscious) to her ego.
Freud also would have been interested in Flora from Bazan's "The Revolver". She "dreamed that an awful report was ripping apart the bones of [her] skull and blowing [her] brains out, dashing them against the wall." Obviously Freud would say that this isn't wish fulfillment, but rather a disguised fulfillment of a repressed wish. One speculation could be that she wants to be free from her marriage, thus her being murdered would be symbolic of freedom even if she's afraid of death. Or, because she imagines feeling a gun barrel at her head, Freud could probably point out some sort of odd sexual desire related to that.
Weekly Reflection #11 (Week 10 missed due to Spring Break)
In our small groups, I really connected to Peter's idea that it was very significant of the outside narrator to say that London was the "biggest, greatest town on Earth." I think it's just an innate thing that we all think that whatever town where we grew up is the best, and that any other place is scary, different, and to be disliked. In my own life, for example, I'm really nervous about leaving my beloved Indianapolis to move to South Carolina over the summer. This fear comes from the insecurities I have that I won't know where I'm going, people will behave differently, and I'll be entering "undiscovered" territory, which is probably similar to Marlow's fears regarding the Congo. I feel that 99% of humans (if not everyone) has a sense of pride for where they came from, thus any other place is different and bad, and that kind of fear can lead to skewed perceptions of people in different cultures.
This sort of fear is also evident in stories like Disney's Pocahontas, where the settlers who looking for gold see the Native Americans as "savages" and "uncivilized," thus they need to be conquered and, to use Kurtz's word, exterminated. The settlers also have this inflated view of England as their mother country and that everything they're doing is for their British brothers and the Queen. Anything/anybody that opposes that is automatically the enemy and needs to either be corrected or destroyed. I think that this is a really important thing to recognize because in extreme cases, this sense of hometown pride mixed with "new-town" fear is what causes horrible events like genocide to happen.
Weekly Reflection #9
Lately in four of five of my classes, there has been a LOT of talk about equality between the sexes. Especially in my Food & Culture class, we have been talking about gender roles and food, with the women staying home and being housekeepers and cooking the food for her husband. Obviously then men go to work, be providers, and enjoy the home-cooked meal made for them by their wives. In my other business-related classes we've been talking about nondiscriminatory practices and how to treat people equally, breaking down stereotypes and gender roles. This ties back to Peter and Mike's presentation, when they brought up the point that men don't oppress women, but gender roles oppress society. There are several men who cook and are stay-at-home dads, and there are several women who are the breadwinners for their families. None of this would be happening today if the feminist movement in literature of the 1800s had occurred.
Between The Story of an Hour and The Revolver, I'd have to say that I liked The Story of an Hour better, because I think it is slightly more powerful than The Revolver. Of course, The Revolver is more emotional and thrilling, but The Story of an Hour seems slightly more important to me. Mrs. Mallard actually gets a taste of freedom and what her life would be like without the oppression of man, while Flora constantly has this fear of men held over here even after her husband is gone. The fact that Mrs. Mallard dies from her oppression is more powerful to me than Flora living in fear. Mrs. Mallard's death shows the true consequences of living in a man's world - lack of freedom, lack of happiness, and lack of a joyful life. Her death can be symbolic of the death of all women's free spirits under the hand of male dominance. Plus I think that this story calls more women to action because more women can empathize with a marriage like Mrs. Mallard's than the marriage of Flora and Reinaldo (not that relationships like theirs didn't happen). Overall, I think that Chopin's story would have touched more women (and more men) than Bazan's because of the appeal to the average marriage.
Weekly Reflection #8
I thought Rachel and Alycia's presentation about Ibsen's views of feminism were really insightful and interesting. I also found it refreshing that an older, white man during this time period had such progressive views of women and feminism in general. I've noticed that especially in today's society, the feminist movement has had a revival and more and more women (and men!) are pushing for the equality of the sexes. As we mentioned, the fact that Nora left Torvald was obviously controversial for 19th century, but it's no secret that divorce and single parents are common today. For this reason, we might be able to say that Ibsen is one of the great revolutionaries of this movement for bringing this issue to the public eye. Although we are still struggling with this issue, I think that "A Doll's House" took a big leap in the right direction as far as allowing society to question its norms.
One other thing I thought about as I was leaving class was the similarities and differences between Torvald and Praskovya's characters. Torvald is affectionate but firm, but I would say that he cares more about his public opinion than Praskovya. Praskovya is cold and selfish, and asks Peter about strategies to get the most money from the government from her husband's death. Although both Torvald and Praskovya are self-involved, Torvald's concerns are affiliated with reputations and regard his public image, while Praskovya's concerns are affiliated with greed and regard how much money she can get from her husband and the government. In saying this, I think that Torvald's self-interest is a little more understandable or acceptable, while Praskovya's self-interest is distasteful and unreasonable. I think these both have to do with the fact that Torvald and Nora married for love, and Ivan and Praskovya married for societal norms. I definitely think Torvald is the better spouse in this case, because he at least makes an effort to change for his wife, while Praskovya expected Ivan to change his behaviors for her own benefit. In saying this, I think that Ivan and Praskovya definitely should have separated well before Ivan's death, but I'm not so sure that Nora should have given up so easily on Torvald. However, if she hadn't left, this story wouldn't have nearly the same impact that it currently does.
Weekly Reflection #7 (Week 6 skipped)
I am very happy that we've transitioned into this "realism" part of the course, and have gone from prose and poetry to an actual novel. Personally, I prefer works that have very obvious symbolism and commentary on society.
Obviously I've already done a lot of analysis on The Death of Ivan Ilych since Maddie and I did our presentation today, but there were a few other things I wanted to address. When we were talking on Wednesday about what was the most important part of those first 4 chapters, I said that it was the moment right after Ivan hurts himself. He said that he had felt 15 years younger after hurting himself, and then right after that is when everything went downhill and his health deteriorated. I took this to sort of be symbolic of life itself. When we are children, we are full of energy, have the capacity to bounce back from injury quickly, and feel unstoppable. As we get older, we get tired, our muscles get weaker, and we become more susceptible to illness. Ivan's deterioration is very apparent, as he agonizes for weeks and never feeling as good as he did on the day he injured himself. I wonder if this is how Tolstoy felt about life - that we're only meant to feel great for the first part of our lives and then the rest of our lives is just pure suffering and longing to feel better again.
I also feel that we didn't talk about Praskovya enough. In today's terms, she'd definitely be labeled as a "gold-digger." She only marries Ivan for his status, and as soon as she becomes pregnant becomes this heartless woman who just wants Ivan to die so she can take his money. She and Lisa are also the only female characters in this entire novel, which makes me wonder why Tolstoy did that. Was it just because he is not a woman, thus he didn't know what their outlook on life was? Or was it because women were undervalued in the bourgeois society? These two women are aggravated at the inconvenience that Ivan's illness causes them, and are the most vocal about it. Although Ivan's funeral inconveniences Peter, he never complains. I think it is a very real possibility that when Lisa marries her fiancé, she will become just like her mother and will be just as annoyed with him as Praskovya was towards Ivan.
Weekly Reflection #5
We didn't get to talk much about Walt Whitman's "Hours Continuing Long," but out of the poems we've read by him, this one I've liked the most. This is also one of the most depressing and emotionally intense poems that we've read during our discussion of Romanticism. All of the adjectives that he uses are so extremely expressive: sore, heavy-hearted, lonesome, discouraged, sullen, suffering, ashamed, torment, distracted, dejected, anguish. You can really feel pain through his words, and can almost imagine him writing this with a completely agonized face, almost over-dramatic but still real. I also think this emphasizes his desire for sexual freedom that we got a glimpse of in "Song of Myself". He not only is focusing on his own desires, but constantly wonders if the man he loves also feels the same way. It would seem only fair that after hours and hours of being tormented by his emotions, that there would be some hope that whoever this man is returns his feelings. Unfortunately, due to the time period that this was written in, I don't think Whitman ever found his answers.
Reading "Hours Continuing Long" also ties in to the song Mr. Hartman played to us at the beginning of class; the one sung by Gretchen at her spinning wheel. I would imagine that if Whitman would've sung his poem, that it would've sound very similar to the melancholy expressiveness we heard in Gretchen's voice while she was longing for Faust. In the reading, Gretchen too uses sad, emotional language, using phrases like: "my heart is sore, I'll find it never and never more", "my bosom aches to feel him near", and "my poor head is quite distraught". It would appear that these feelings stem from some sort of feeling of love, as opposed to some other feeling like hate, anger, or confusion. Perhaps these works are commenting on the power of love over our emotions, as it is strong enough to make us feel both our happiest and our most desperate.
Weekly Reflection #4
I suppose my prediction from last week about the ending of Faust was neither wholly right nor wrong, since Mr. Hartman said there were two different endings to it. In response to the ending to Part 1 that was in our books, I must say I was really disappointed in it. To be honest, I really didn't like Gretchen's character at all, but that was more because of the way Goethe portrayed her. She's not very strong, and is too worried about that other people think of her. In class, when we were discussing the most important scene of that night's reading, I wanted to argue that Gretchen killing the baby was the most important scene. Everything was going (mostly) fine up until that point, and like someone said Valentine probably would have still died, but Gretchen wouldn't have ended up in jail if she hadn't committed the crime. If she hadn't ended up in jail, she would still be damned, and she wouldn't have surrendered her soul to God.
It could be argued that Goethe includes this event in his story as a criticism of Christianity. The fact that Gretchen finds the faults in her actions and surrenders to God is important because, as a Romantic piece, Gretchen accepts the conventional attitudes towards religion instead of rejects them. The conventional attitude of this time period was that if you sinned, but repented, that your soul would be saved. Conflicts between religion and personal beliefs can drive people insane (and Faust isn't exempt from this), but it is only in Gretchen's deluded mental state that she finally reaches out to God and her faith for help. While she was mentally sound, it doesn't appear that she gave much thought to having premarital sex or to the decision to kill her baby, especially when both things are against both religious expectations and society's expectations. I suppose this is probably why I don't like Gretchen's character most, just because she went about things carelessly.
Weekly Reflection #3
To be honest, I was surprised when Mr. Hartman said that this was a very famous work and similar to Shakespeare, when I had never heard of it before. I even asked my roommate, who studies German as a language, to see if she had read it, and she didn't know about it either.
That aside, I too noticed the similarity between this story and the story of Job from Honors 201. It would appear that God has just as much faith in his followers as his followers have in him. In comparing Job and Faust, they appear to be at polar opposites in their lives when the Devil approaches them. Job has a great life: he has a large family, lots of money, good farmland and livestock, and is very happy. Faust, on the other hand, is in despair about the state of his life, and laments that he cannot live his life in harmony with Nature and have knowledge beyond what he already knows. At the end of Job's trials, he is still faithful to God and does not dare speak ill against him. Obviously, I haven't reached the end of Faust yet, so I cannot know what will happen when the Devil is done with Faust. However, I predict that it will be a similar outcome in that God's prediction about Faust's actions will be correct. If this is true, then I would consider this work as another example of the strength of Christianity and good winning over evil.
Today in class, I noticed a similarity between Faust and Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself." Both Faust and Whitman wonder out loud what it would be like not to be human and to be more in tune to nature. Unlike Faust, Whitman seems to have come up with his own answers about life, and his revelations bring him both happiness and peace. I wonder that if Faust and Whitman could have a conversation, if Whitman's views of life, nature, and the world could bring Faust the peace of mind that he desperately searches for in his own thoughts.
Weekly Reflection #2
Today in America, we don't always give too much of a thought about freedom, considering most of us have had it our entire lives. If there's one thing America's known for, it's being a "free country". We have freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the freedom to make our own choices. In a way, this made it sort of difficult to relate to the points that the Grand Inquisitor made in Dostoevksy's prose poem.
In class today, I brought up the idea that "...free thought...will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries that some of them...will destroy themselves" (978). The GI believes that if someone tells the public what to think and what to believe, that will make them happier than allowing them to make choices for themselves. When reading this, I thought back to Douglass's story about how his master didn't want him to become literate because "it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy" (528). Obviously free thought and being literate are two different things, but the results of these freedoms as declared by the "higher power" both include that this kind of permission would be detrimental to the recipients.
When does anyone have the right to make choices for others? When we are children, our parents and guardians make a great deal of decisions for us: what to eat, what to wear, and where we go. It is because we are too uneducated to make choices for ourselves, and still new to life, that we rely on trusted guardians to make the right ones for us. As we get older and start going to school, we gain more independence to make small choices for ourselves every day: whether we want green beans or carrots for lunch, how to tie our shoes, whether or not this shirt goes with those pants, etc. Even later in life we make larger decisions about what to learn, what career path we want, and how to handle personal relationships. We become capable to understand, implement, and enjoy the basic freedoms to choose how we live our lives each day. Because of this, I believe that Douglass, Jacobs, and the followers of Jesus were all knowledgeable and capable enough to make decisions for themselves, and that their masters/oppressors were wrong. Knowledge does not confine and restrict our freedom, but rather it sets us free.
Weekly Reflection #1
To be honest, I find the concept of slave narratives to be fascinating. I think it’s because it really shows how far America’s come in the past 150 years, because half of the stuff I read in Frederick Douglass’ autobiography I couldn’t fathom happening today. With movies like “12 Years A Slave” and “Django Unchained” being two of the most popular movies of the past year, it’s safe to assume that I’m not alone with this odd fascination of hearing stories told from a slave’s point of view.
Douglass’ story is truly admirable. I was completely enthralled reading his recollection of how he became literate and was so persistent with it even though he knew he shouldn’t be doing so. Reading about the plague that came with his literacy was almost heartbreaking; his literacy allowing him to realize how truly enslaved and helpless he was. One thing we didn’t really touch upon in class was the abolitionists and how at first Douglass didn’t understand who they were, but they became his inspiration to run away. Had he not known that there were white folk against the enslavement of black folk, and that there was some hope somewhere that he could be free, I think he would have lived a very unhappy life.
Thinking about the definition of “freedom,” I really liked Douglass’ letter to his former master that we read. What stuck out to me the most was the phrase, “I don’t belong to you, and you don’t belong to me.” That’s probably the simplest definition of freedom, but it’s true. No one has ever belonged to anybody, yet slavery existed for thousands of years and there was no real reason why. We are lucky enough to live in a country that has most freedom than other countries, and it’s because of people like Frederick Douglass who exposed to the public his life in slavery which helped make it possible.