4/25
After finishing the movie, I can honestly say I was completely confused as to what was going on and why many things happened. Some of the questions I brought up in class were: What was the purpose of Luc/why did he act the way he did? What was the purpose of the frame story? Why did Protée get France to burn her hand? Even after discussing the issues in class, there are few answers, but being a movie with no plot, I don’t think answers are out there. The questions are left for the viewer to imagine. Someone in class brought up how Luc brought out unspoken thoughts and called out racism, which I had never noticed while watching, but it makes a lot of sense. It seemed like Luc was racist and mocking of African Americans, yet his sarcastic comments mock white people’s racist views. On top of that, he is fine with having an affair with an African American, as well as living with the servants.
Regarding the fact that Protée made France burn her hand while also burning his own, I best liked the explanation that it was symbolic in the sense that both France and him are people, no matter the race. I’m not so sure it was in retaliation to Aimee for being kicked out of the house because he still liked France and was sort of a father to her when Aimee’s husband left. I couldn’t imagine, with seeing his actions throughout the movie, Protée stooping to a low level and retaliating against someone he was so close to. I can only view the action as trying to make a point to France, I’m just not sure what.
Lastly, regarding the frame story, there were many connections drawn between the outside and inside story, such as the hand reading, black and white relations, and her dad’s journal. Even with these, I didn’t notice one particular reason for the frame story. Even with no answers, the in-class discussion helped to see possibilities for reasons of certain events, and helped me gain a better understanding about a lot of the events in the story.
4/18
One of my favorite books I’ve read in a class is Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. I think Achebe does a great job of portraying the Africans’ side of imperialism and colonization. I also really like how he didn’t come right out and attack European imperialism, but subtly incorporated the ideas into a novel with a well-developed plot. Doing so not only made the novel a better read, but also allowed the novel to have a broader audience. Achebe allows the reader to develop his/her own ideas and views about the European movement into Africa. If he was to attack the Europeans, European readers would be much more hostile to the book and it would be much less popular. The book not only showed differences in opinions (regarding imperialism), it also highlighted differences in culture. Readers are shown that the Africans, even if their culture is very different, are not savages or primitive beasts, as some of the European stories we read described them as. Overall it was a great story and an easy read!
For my final project, I will be working with Nick, Evan, Alex, and Brittni. We are thinking about doing a board game in which players will pick certain characters and undergo a journey based on their characters. The characters and journeys will match the journeys undergone by characters in the stories we’ve read. Whether or not we decide to do that type of board game, we are hoping to incorporate stories from honors 202 and possibly 201 as well. In addition to the board game, we plan to create a background page for the player to read which will have a story plot summary on it, as well as character notes and even possibly a short analysis of themes in the stories.
Jeremy, this sounds good. Please see my comments in response to Brittni's and Evan's proposals. -MH
4/11
First off, it was awesome getting to speak with Dafna Kaffeman at the art museum. My first reaction to the exhibit was “wow…typical modern art.” I’ll admit, I like finding meaning in art pieces, but I’ve always thought that modern art turned the tides too far in the favor of meaning, and art talent was completely left behind. Dafna’s art seemed at first to fit my thought exactly. It didn’t look like much time was put into the shaping of the wolves; you could barely tell the one indeed was a wolf. When it came to the stitching pieces, let’s face it, everyone can stitch. I will say that the glass flowers and the other glass pieces had a lot of time put into them, and were very realistic looking when standing back from the piece. Overall, I was pretty annoyed at the exhibit.
…And then we started talking to Ms. Kaffeman. Finding out the meaning in using invasive plants in the work to symbolize the invading of foreign people and how text in each piece had a story behind it sort of surprised me (although I guess it shouldn’t have). You could tell by talking to her that she had a deep emotional attachment to each of her pieces. I also felt guilty when she said that she hates it, but understands that most people only care about the image presented in artwork rather than the meaning and story. I looked on her website and was reading some more about the some of the stories behind her pieces, and was amazed at what I read. There’s somewhat of a political statement in each piece but it’s very subtle. I wouldn’t say that visiting the museum and talking to Ms. Kaffeman changed my mind about modern art, because I definitely think that my definition still applies, but I will say it opened my mind. I give her credit too, because even talking to curators at Chicago’s art museum, I’ve never been convinced in the slightest to appreciate modern art. Dafna Kaffeman changed that.
3/28
One of the things that bothers me about Freud is the lack of hard science he puts into his work. This is for two reasons. First off, when I read his work I want to read statistics from studies to back up the work. Not only would that add credibility to his work, but also, it makes the work (in my opinion) more enjoyable to read. I’m not sure if that’s just because I’m a biology major and always read works with quantitative statistics, but I’m not used to reading a “thought process” as scientific work. The other reason I don’t like his lack of hard science in his work is because, with the way his field works, his work is fail proof as it is. What I mean by that is no matter what a patient says, he can adapt it to fit his theory by contorting the ideas presented. As with class today, we talked about how some people would go to him, and if he couldn’t really interpret the dream, he could always either adapt the dream to the smallest idea or say that their dream was meant to try to falsify his ideas (therefore conforming it to his idea).
Although I disagree with many of Freud’s ideas, I have to admit he came up with some that were/are very influential and important today, such as the id, ego, and superego with the conscious and unconscious. I was glad however that we brought up the Yale video in class to show some of the more absurd ideas he had, such as penis envy in girls.
Regarding the dream interpretations in class today, I thought his interpretation and thought process, although having connections and sort of making sense, was a far reach to fit exactly what he thought it meant. We analyzed the “uncle dream” in class, and some of the connections he made, such as his uncle being a simpleton, and then having his friend be his uncle in the dream because the friend was a simpleton, is a bit of a stretch. I just wonder if Freud thinks any dreams people have are just stories because of what was running through someone’s head before he/she fell asleep, rather than a deeper meaning related to events in the person’s life.
3/21
This week, reading about colonialism, we saw a very contrasting viewpoint regarding African American people. Accounts of Europeans about African Americans seemed extremely racist and crude. Some people in class thought of the Europeans as cynical and blamed the writers individually for their portrayal of the African American people. What they kept failing to recognize, was that it wasn’t just the writers portraying them that way; they were just putting the collective thoughts of Europe into print. Africa wasn’t uncharted territory, but it was primitive in comparison to Europe. They really thought of the people, as quoted from The Heart of Darkness as “senseless”, “brutes”, and “savages”. The Europeans essentially had blinders on, so it’s really easy judging them from our perspective and diversity today.
Regarding the story, we were asked in class today elements that stood out to us. One of the things my group brought up was the theme of isolation and desolation in the story. Two examples provided were the European camps in the jungle, that were isolated from not only each other, but all of civilization. Another form of isolationism came when the fog rolled in and the boat seemed all by itself. The characters couldn’t see the riverbanks because the fog was so dense. I’m not yet sure of how isolationism plays into the overall themes and ideas of the story, but it’s worth noting for now.
What stuck out to me was how Marlow was portrayed as the stereotypical European in the story. First off, he dresses nice and keeps clean, even in the jungle. Second of all, when the natives attack the boat and kill the African American helmsman, Marlow says it was the helmsman’s fault for trying to shoot back at the natives. He then proceeds to simply have the body thrown overboard, replaces his shoes since they were blood stained, and orders the captain’s room cleaned up. He completely dismisses the death, only worrying about cleansliness.
3/7
Reading “The Yellow Wallpaper” this week, it seemed very different in content and plot, yet similar in theme. The story was very graphic in portraying the women trapped in the wallpaper, just as the narrator was trapped in the wallpaper room. As the narrator became more and more out of touch with the outside world, she realized more and more about herself. As she becomes more isolated, and becomes more focused on her journal, she slowly realizes that she is indeed “trapped in the wallpaper”. I think the portrayal of the narrator’s insanity was spot on, and the graphic account of the story gave its purpose a much stronger backing. After reading the story and the page titled “Why I wrote the Yellow Wallpaper”, it was clear that treating insanity with isolation and preventing the mind from being active was not the right thing to do. The movie the presentation showed was an even more graphic portrayal of the story.
“The Story of an Hour” was also a good story. Like the in “The Death of Ivan Ilych”, only the main character and the reader know the truth behind the death. Ivan repented, although his family didn’t know, just like Louise dies of the return of her husband instead of her heart condition. The family believes the stress of the news and her heart condition resulted in her death. They also believe she boarded herself up in her room because of depression, while she was actually fantasizing about all the years and opportunities ahead. It was another story about getting out of the bonds of marriage. She felt trapped by her husband, and only felt freedom upon hearing of his death, much like how the main character in “A Doll’s House” felt trapped in her marriage situation. In a sense, she was still freed from the bonds of marriage in her death.
2/28
Reading A Doll’s House this week was really interesting. I never really thought to compare it with The Death of Ivan Ilych until we talked about it in class today. I thought of them as separate entities. I’m not sure if that’s because I found them to be so different, or if I had just moved on and had put The Death of Ivan Ilych in the back of my mind. Although I do think they’re really different in many respects, I do see a few big overarching similarities. First off, someone in class mentioned that the men in both stories have strict moral codes. I’m not sure if I would call it “moral codes” but I do think both men had a perception of how life and marriage were supposed to go within their respective classes. The same point leads to the next similarity which is that, since they do have a particular standing in society, they feel obligated to uphold that social image. Both of these points cause the men in both stories to do things I don’t believe they normally would. Had Ivan rejected his social standing, and lived comfortably, maybe he’d be able to focus on his relationship with his wife and not let the small problems culminate into a sort of disgust of her. With Torvald, had he not tried to keep up his standing, he would have been able to talk things through with Nora, and possibly resolved their issues. Both men are too focused on their careers, social standing, and appearance to society. Another overarching similarity between the two stories is that Ivan and Nora both discover their unhappiness late into their marriage (or life in Ivan’s case). They either hold onto the hope that things will be resolved eventually, or hand-in-hand with the other point, they refuse to break their marriages off for fear of tarnishing their reputation in society. It’s interesting how all of the points closely relate to each other. If you dive into the stories, they definitely have many similarities in plot and theme.
2/21
Reading Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych this week gave a very different perspective to death. Traditionally death is portrayed as a time for morose and sorrow, but Tolstoy portrayed what I would call a more realistic view of it in many cases. Showing them feeling obligated to attend the funeral and talk with Ivan’s wife showed what many people probably actually think about when someone they knew, but not very well, dies. Aside from the funeral being portrayed differently, his death was different as well. When we read the first part of the story, it seemed like his death was a result of a psychological illness, and I became focused on the cause of his death. He seemed to be using his illness as an excuse to get his way, and the narrator even states that Ivan wished he received more pity than he was getting. But after reading the rest of the story, you realize that it really doesn’t matter how he dies; the death isn’t supposed to be the focus of the story. The focus of the story is actually on his redemption right before death as well as conformation to society. Religion didn’t seem to play a large role in the story until near the end when Gerasim was introduced, and when Ivan consulted the priest. His redemption was also portrayed differently in that instead of the world knowing about his redemption, only Ivan and the reader know of his salvation. Regarding conformation to society, it was evident in his purchasing of antiques that looked like those the rich owned, but were not “the real deal”. He was so focused on decorating the house to match societal norms for the aristocracy that he bought a house that was 1 bedroom short; conformation trumped comfort (at least that’s how I perceived it).
The only remaining questions I had after reading the story were why Ivan was at peace for one minute, thinking he cured his illness, and then in intense agony the next. I didn’t understand the cyclic up and downs he experienced.
2/7 We didn't have as many readings this week, and like classical music, I'm not a huge fan of poetry. I don't usually find the meaning in it that others find, but I guess that's sort of what poetry is all about. Although I understood the meanings of the poems we talked about in class, I didn't pay attention to the three parts of them until I read the webpage we were supposed to read. After reading that, and discussing the poems in class, it was pretty cool to see how you could definitely tell all of the poems were related in style. The poems are definitely more emotional in content than poems of other periods, and there also seems to be a closer connection with nature. As shown with the lake poem, subjects in the poems can speak to anything, including time or the lake. They even seem to ask for things from the objects they speak too such as the lake or time. In general the poems also are more geared toward exploring thought and feelings than with action or adventure. I'm not sure if all romantic poems are characterized that way, but that definitely seemed evident with all of them that we read in class.My favorite poem was about the lake. I never understood how we knew that the man's wife was dying or that he wanted to preserve her memory in the lake, but regardless, it definitely makes sense. Even if the man was the only one who knew her memory was preserved in the lake, that's all that's important. He was trying to comfort himself, and preserving her memory would not only console him, but it would forever provide him with a way to connect with his wife.
1/31
Well finishing Faust this week brought a few surprises. It was interesting to see that in the beginning of the play, Mephistopheles seemed to pull whatever strings he needed to in order to get to Faust and make the deal with him. At the end of the play, Mephistopheles seemed to let the downward spiral of events play out on their own. When Faust made him go to get Gretchen, they had to leave before they could convince Gretchen to come with them. Mephistopheles could have pulled strings to buy them more time. He also could have prevented Valentine’s murder, and most of the other bad events. It’s like he set all of the dominoes into place, then sat and watched as they tumbled down. It was also interesting to see how none of the Faust’s decisions seemed to have a negative impact on his self, only others. He was the one that aspired to be so much more, and made the pact with Mephistopheles, yet it’s Gretchen and her family that receive all of the implications.
I noticed that our readings today applied to all anti-heroes throughout history. Like Napolean, Faust desired something that wasn’t attainable, and unfortunately, he was only able to learn that by falling from the peak he put himself on. Faust went so far as to denounce God and make the pact with Mephistopheles, ending in ruin. Faust as the writer in our reading wrote, rejected “human limitations and ‘aspire[d]/ Beyond the fitting medium of desire.’” Nothing earthly satisfied him, but he wasn’t prepared and wasn’t able to handle life with the abilities that Mephistopheles gave him. It would be interesting to read the rest of the story and see how Faust was redeemed. Although I guess that wasn’t part of the original play.
1/24
Although Faust was an easy read considering the poetry of it, that’s also what made it harder to follow for me. I think when I was reading the story, I got too caught up in reading it with the meter and focusing on the rhymes. In doing so, I wasn’t able to grasp what was going on in the plot. The class discussions helped me to understand it a lot better.
One of the main points of the story we discussed in class was Faust’s constant unrest. It seemed to me that everything we brought up in class pointed to his unrest as part of the problem. For example, we compared his dialogue about the sun with a similar one about the moon, and discussed how Faust wanted to be able to see everything and know everything. He wanted to be in Heaven. Even though he would be considered one of the most intelligent people in comparison others in his town, he is never satisfied. He constantly thirsts for more knowledge, but no matter how much he learns, his thirst for more is never quenched. His unease and dissatisfaction with worldly matters are probably what sparked him into making the deal with Mephistopheles. Faust just wants that one moment of ease and transcendence, and for that he is wiling to be Mephistopheles’ slave for eternity in Hell. The deal really shows just how bad Faust desires that higher power.
It’ll definitely be an interesting read from here on out, with such a large wager on the table. I’m not exactly sure how Mephistopheles plans to give Faust his moment of transcendence, but I guess we’ll find out next week. Hopefully with the class discussions this week, I’ll have a better grasp for what’s going on in the story for next week’s readings.
1/17
I had read Harriet Jacob’s story before for English class, but had never compared it to Frederick Douglass’s narrative. I was very surprised to see that although the accounts were so similar, they were so different at the same time. While they both desire freedom, the freedoms they desire are very different. They both want physical freedom, but Douglass strives for more of a freedom of knowledge. Because he was “given an inch” his mind was opened to so many new opportunities. He worked tirelessly to give himself the freedom of knowledge, and also worked to give all types of freedom to others. Harriet Jacobs didn’t desire physical freedom as much as she did emotional freedom, and I would even venture to say freedom from her past. Even after she escapes, the abuse she received in the past continually haunts her, as well as her decision to get pregnant in order to prevent further abuse.
Even Whitman’s “Song of Myself” and Dostoyevsky’s "The Grand Inquisitor" deal with freedom, although in very different perspectives. I was really confused while reading both of these works, but through our class discussions, I think I have an idea of the general relevancies of these works. In Whitman’s work, the narrator (do we have reason to say the narrator is Whitman?) feels that freedom is obtained through connecting with nature. Everything in nature seems to provide him happiness and freedom. Through his freedom, he feels that he can be anything. Dostoyevsky’s "The Grand Inquisitor” is perhaps the most different of all of the works. Dostoyevsky portrays the idea that freedom is obtained through giving up choice. With less choice, people feel freer because they are relieved of worrying about the choices they were to make. For that reason, they choose to have leaders. It was really interesting to read and think about.
1/10
I guess I’ll start by telling a little about myself. I am a sophomore majoring in biology. I live in Celina, Ohio, and my family runs a 2000-acre crop farm. I hope to start my own farm raising steers, and to work in the animal science or agriculture field upon graduating. My favorite hobbies include woodworking, hunting, trap shooting, and four-wheeling. Here at school I’m secretary for the Pre-Vet and Animal Welfare Society (PAWS).
Regarding Frederick Douglass, one passage I don’t think anyone specifically mentioned in class today while discussing the emotionally moving passages or important passages in the work was the passage about how Douglass learned to write. In the work he could have simply said that through working his shipyard job and talking with the local kids, he learned to write. Instead he went into detail about the initials on the boards, and how he related them to the terms they stood for. In doing so he was able to form a few basic four-letter words. His prowess also allowed him to sort of trick kids into teaching him to write and read. If I remember right, he wasn’t very old while doing all of this either. It just seems stunning to me. I think his will to learn to read and write also proved his determination to not be content with the life he had, even if it was more privileged than many slaves. He was determined to become a free man.
So what can we learn about freedom from Frederick Douglass? For one, we learn that freedom can come in many forms, such as, freedom of knowledge, physical freedom, and emotional freedom. At first he is bound in every sense, or being kept in the dark. Eventually by being “given an inch”, he learns to read and right, gaining freedom of knowledge (for lack of a better term), but is still physically and emotionally bound to his master. Once he escapes, he gains physical freedom, yet still doesn’t have emotional freedom because he lives with the fear of being recaptured, and can trust nobody. After moving to England and moving back, he gains emotional freedom. Douglass also teaches us that if freedom isn’t complete in all aspects, for example you have knowledge freedom but not physical freedom, the pain can be worse than before you had that partial freedom.
After finishing the movie, I can honestly say I was completely confused as to what was going on and why many things happened. Some of the questions I brought up in class were: What was the purpose of Luc/why did he act the way he did? What was the purpose of the frame story? Why did Protée get France to burn her hand? Even after discussing the issues in class, there are few answers, but being a movie with no plot, I don’t think answers are out there. The questions are left for the viewer to imagine. Someone in class brought up how Luc brought out unspoken thoughts and called out racism, which I had never noticed while watching, but it makes a lot of sense. It seemed like Luc was racist and mocking of African Americans, yet his sarcastic comments mock white people’s racist views. On top of that, he is fine with having an affair with an African American, as well as living with the servants.
Regarding the fact that Protée made France burn her hand while also burning his own, I best liked the explanation that it was symbolic in the sense that both France and him are people, no matter the race. I’m not so sure it was in retaliation to Aimee for being kicked out of the house because he still liked France and was sort of a father to her when Aimee’s husband left. I couldn’t imagine, with seeing his actions throughout the movie, Protée stooping to a low level and retaliating against someone he was so close to. I can only view the action as trying to make a point to France, I’m just not sure what.
Lastly, regarding the frame story, there were many connections drawn between the outside and inside story, such as the hand reading, black and white relations, and her dad’s journal. Even with these, I didn’t notice one particular reason for the frame story. Even with no answers, the in-class discussion helped to see possibilities for reasons of certain events, and helped me gain a better understanding about a lot of the events in the story.
4/18
One of my favorite books I’ve read in a class is Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. I think Achebe does a great job of portraying the Africans’ side of imperialism and colonization. I also really like how he didn’t come right out and attack European imperialism, but subtly incorporated the ideas into a novel with a well-developed plot. Doing so not only made the novel a better read, but also allowed the novel to have a broader audience. Achebe allows the reader to develop his/her own ideas and views about the European movement into Africa. If he was to attack the Europeans, European readers would be much more hostile to the book and it would be much less popular. The book not only showed differences in opinions (regarding imperialism), it also highlighted differences in culture. Readers are shown that the Africans, even if their culture is very different, are not savages or primitive beasts, as some of the European stories we read described them as. Overall it was a great story and an easy read!
For my final project, I will be working with Nick, Evan, Alex, and Brittni. We are thinking about doing a board game in which players will pick certain characters and undergo a journey based on their characters. The characters and journeys will match the journeys undergone by characters in the stories we’ve read. Whether or not we decide to do that type of board game, we are hoping to incorporate stories from honors 202 and possibly 201 as well. In addition to the board game, we plan to create a background page for the player to read which will have a story plot summary on it, as well as character notes and even possibly a short analysis of themes in the stories.
Jeremy, this sounds good. Please see my comments in response to Brittni's and Evan's proposals. -MH
4/11
First off, it was awesome getting to speak with Dafna Kaffeman at the art museum. My first reaction to the exhibit was “wow…typical modern art.” I’ll admit, I like finding meaning in art pieces, but I’ve always thought that modern art turned the tides too far in the favor of meaning, and art talent was completely left behind. Dafna’s art seemed at first to fit my thought exactly. It didn’t look like much time was put into the shaping of the wolves; you could barely tell the one indeed was a wolf. When it came to the stitching pieces, let’s face it, everyone can stitch. I will say that the glass flowers and the other glass pieces had a lot of time put into them, and were very realistic looking when standing back from the piece. Overall, I was pretty annoyed at the exhibit.
…And then we started talking to Ms. Kaffeman. Finding out the meaning in using invasive plants in the work to symbolize the invading of foreign people and how text in each piece had a story behind it sort of surprised me (although I guess it shouldn’t have). You could tell by talking to her that she had a deep emotional attachment to each of her pieces. I also felt guilty when she said that she hates it, but understands that most people only care about the image presented in artwork rather than the meaning and story. I looked on her website and was reading some more about the some of the stories behind her pieces, and was amazed at what I read. There’s somewhat of a political statement in each piece but it’s very subtle. I wouldn’t say that visiting the museum and talking to Ms. Kaffeman changed my mind about modern art, because I definitely think that my definition still applies, but I will say it opened my mind. I give her credit too, because even talking to curators at Chicago’s art museum, I’ve never been convinced in the slightest to appreciate modern art. Dafna Kaffeman changed that.
3/28
One of the things that bothers me about Freud is the lack of hard science he puts into his work. This is for two reasons. First off, when I read his work I want to read statistics from studies to back up the work. Not only would that add credibility to his work, but also, it makes the work (in my opinion) more enjoyable to read. I’m not sure if that’s just because I’m a biology major and always read works with quantitative statistics, but I’m not used to reading a “thought process” as scientific work. The other reason I don’t like his lack of hard science in his work is because, with the way his field works, his work is fail proof as it is. What I mean by that is no matter what a patient says, he can adapt it to fit his theory by contorting the ideas presented. As with class today, we talked about how some people would go to him, and if he couldn’t really interpret the dream, he could always either adapt the dream to the smallest idea or say that their dream was meant to try to falsify his ideas (therefore conforming it to his idea).
Although I disagree with many of Freud’s ideas, I have to admit he came up with some that were/are very influential and important today, such as the id, ego, and superego with the conscious and unconscious. I was glad however that we brought up the Yale video in class to show some of the more absurd ideas he had, such as penis envy in girls.
Regarding the dream interpretations in class today, I thought his interpretation and thought process, although having connections and sort of making sense, was a far reach to fit exactly what he thought it meant. We analyzed the “uncle dream” in class, and some of the connections he made, such as his uncle being a simpleton, and then having his friend be his uncle in the dream because the friend was a simpleton, is a bit of a stretch. I just wonder if Freud thinks any dreams people have are just stories because of what was running through someone’s head before he/she fell asleep, rather than a deeper meaning related to events in the person’s life.
3/21
This week, reading about colonialism, we saw a very contrasting viewpoint regarding African American people. Accounts of Europeans about African Americans seemed extremely racist and crude. Some people in class thought of the Europeans as cynical and blamed the writers individually for their portrayal of the African American people. What they kept failing to recognize, was that it wasn’t just the writers portraying them that way; they were just putting the collective thoughts of Europe into print. Africa wasn’t uncharted territory, but it was primitive in comparison to Europe. They really thought of the people, as quoted from The Heart of Darkness as “senseless”, “brutes”, and “savages”. The Europeans essentially had blinders on, so it’s really easy judging them from our perspective and diversity today.
Regarding the story, we were asked in class today elements that stood out to us. One of the things my group brought up was the theme of isolation and desolation in the story. Two examples provided were the European camps in the jungle, that were isolated from not only each other, but all of civilization. Another form of isolationism came when the fog rolled in and the boat seemed all by itself. The characters couldn’t see the riverbanks because the fog was so dense. I’m not yet sure of how isolationism plays into the overall themes and ideas of the story, but it’s worth noting for now.
What stuck out to me was how Marlow was portrayed as the stereotypical European in the story. First off, he dresses nice and keeps clean, even in the jungle. Second of all, when the natives attack the boat and kill the African American helmsman, Marlow says it was the helmsman’s fault for trying to shoot back at the natives. He then proceeds to simply have the body thrown overboard, replaces his shoes since they were blood stained, and orders the captain’s room cleaned up. He completely dismisses the death, only worrying about cleansliness.
3/7
Reading “The Yellow Wallpaper” this week, it seemed very different in content and plot, yet similar in theme. The story was very graphic in portraying the women trapped in the wallpaper, just as the narrator was trapped in the wallpaper room. As the narrator became more and more out of touch with the outside world, she realized more and more about herself. As she becomes more isolated, and becomes more focused on her journal, she slowly realizes that she is indeed “trapped in the wallpaper”. I think the portrayal of the narrator’s insanity was spot on, and the graphic account of the story gave its purpose a much stronger backing. After reading the story and the page titled “Why I wrote the Yellow Wallpaper”, it was clear that treating insanity with isolation and preventing the mind from being active was not the right thing to do. The movie the presentation showed was an even more graphic portrayal of the story.
“The Story of an Hour” was also a good story. Like the in “The Death of Ivan Ilych”, only the main character and the reader know the truth behind the death. Ivan repented, although his family didn’t know, just like Louise dies of the return of her husband instead of her heart condition. The family believes the stress of the news and her heart condition resulted in her death. They also believe she boarded herself up in her room because of depression, while she was actually fantasizing about all the years and opportunities ahead. It was another story about getting out of the bonds of marriage. She felt trapped by her husband, and only felt freedom upon hearing of his death, much like how the main character in “A Doll’s House” felt trapped in her marriage situation. In a sense, she was still freed from the bonds of marriage in her death.
2/28
Reading A Doll’s House this week was really interesting. I never really thought to compare it with The Death of Ivan Ilych until we talked about it in class today. I thought of them as separate entities. I’m not sure if that’s because I found them to be so different, or if I had just moved on and had put The Death of Ivan Ilych in the back of my mind. Although I do think they’re really different in many respects, I do see a few big overarching similarities. First off, someone in class mentioned that the men in both stories have strict moral codes. I’m not sure if I would call it “moral codes” but I do think both men had a perception of how life and marriage were supposed to go within their respective classes. The same point leads to the next similarity which is that, since they do have a particular standing in society, they feel obligated to uphold that social image. Both of these points cause the men in both stories to do things I don’t believe they normally would. Had Ivan rejected his social standing, and lived comfortably, maybe he’d be able to focus on his relationship with his wife and not let the small problems culminate into a sort of disgust of her. With Torvald, had he not tried to keep up his standing, he would have been able to talk things through with Nora, and possibly resolved their issues. Both men are too focused on their careers, social standing, and appearance to society. Another overarching similarity between the two stories is that Ivan and Nora both discover their unhappiness late into their marriage (or life in Ivan’s case). They either hold onto the hope that things will be resolved eventually, or hand-in-hand with the other point, they refuse to break their marriages off for fear of tarnishing their reputation in society. It’s interesting how all of the points closely relate to each other. If you dive into the stories, they definitely have many similarities in plot and theme.
2/21
Reading Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych this week gave a very different perspective to death. Traditionally death is portrayed as a time for morose and sorrow, but Tolstoy portrayed what I would call a more realistic view of it in many cases. Showing them feeling obligated to attend the funeral and talk with Ivan’s wife showed what many people probably actually think about when someone they knew, but not very well, dies. Aside from the funeral being portrayed differently, his death was different as well. When we read the first part of the story, it seemed like his death was a result of a psychological illness, and I became focused on the cause of his death. He seemed to be using his illness as an excuse to get his way, and the narrator even states that Ivan wished he received more pity than he was getting. But after reading the rest of the story, you realize that it really doesn’t matter how he dies; the death isn’t supposed to be the focus of the story. The focus of the story is actually on his redemption right before death as well as conformation to society. Religion didn’t seem to play a large role in the story until near the end when Gerasim was introduced, and when Ivan consulted the priest. His redemption was also portrayed differently in that instead of the world knowing about his redemption, only Ivan and the reader know of his salvation. Regarding conformation to society, it was evident in his purchasing of antiques that looked like those the rich owned, but were not “the real deal”. He was so focused on decorating the house to match societal norms for the aristocracy that he bought a house that was 1 bedroom short; conformation trumped comfort (at least that’s how I perceived it).
The only remaining questions I had after reading the story were why Ivan was at peace for one minute, thinking he cured his illness, and then in intense agony the next. I didn’t understand the cyclic up and downs he experienced.
2/7
We didn't have as many readings this week, and like classical music, I'm not a huge fan of poetry. I don't usually find the meaning in it that others find, but I guess that's sort of what poetry is all about. Although I understood the meanings of the poems we talked about in class, I didn't pay attention to the three parts of them until I read the webpage we were supposed to read. After reading that, and discussing the poems in class, it was pretty cool to see how you could definitely tell all of the poems were related in style. The poems are definitely more emotional in content than poems of other periods, and there also seems to be a closer connection with nature. As shown with the lake poem, subjects in the poems can speak to anything, including time or the lake. They even seem to ask for things from the objects they speak too such as the lake or time. In general the poems also are more geared toward exploring thought and feelings than with action or adventure. I'm not sure if all romantic poems are characterized that way, but that definitely seemed evident with all of them that we read in class.My favorite poem was about the lake. I never understood how we knew that the man's wife was dying or that he wanted to preserve her memory in the lake, but regardless, it definitely makes sense. Even if the man was the only one who knew her memory was preserved in the lake, that's all that's important. He was trying to comfort himself, and preserving her memory would not only console him, but it would forever provide him with a way to connect with his wife.
1/31
Well finishing Faust this week brought a few surprises. It was interesting to see that in the beginning of the play, Mephistopheles seemed to pull whatever strings he needed to in order to get to Faust and make the deal with him. At the end of the play, Mephistopheles seemed to let the downward spiral of events play out on their own. When Faust made him go to get Gretchen, they had to leave before they could convince Gretchen to come with them. Mephistopheles could have pulled strings to buy them more time. He also could have prevented Valentine’s murder, and most of the other bad events. It’s like he set all of the dominoes into place, then sat and watched as they tumbled down. It was also interesting to see how none of the Faust’s decisions seemed to have a negative impact on his self, only others. He was the one that aspired to be so much more, and made the pact with Mephistopheles, yet it’s Gretchen and her family that receive all of the implications.
I noticed that our readings today applied to all anti-heroes throughout history. Like Napolean, Faust desired something that wasn’t attainable, and unfortunately, he was only able to learn that by falling from the peak he put himself on. Faust went so far as to denounce God and make the pact with Mephistopheles, ending in ruin. Faust as the writer in our reading wrote, rejected “human limitations and ‘aspire[d]/ Beyond the fitting medium of desire.’” Nothing earthly satisfied him, but he wasn’t prepared and wasn’t able to handle life with the abilities that Mephistopheles gave him. It would be interesting to read the rest of the story and see how Faust was redeemed. Although I guess that wasn’t part of the original play.
1/24
Although Faust was an easy read considering the poetry of it, that’s also what made it harder to follow for me. I think when I was reading the story, I got too caught up in reading it with the meter and focusing on the rhymes. In doing so, I wasn’t able to grasp what was going on in the plot. The class discussions helped me to understand it a lot better.
One of the main points of the story we discussed in class was Faust’s constant unrest. It seemed to me that everything we brought up in class pointed to his unrest as part of the problem. For example, we compared his dialogue about the sun with a similar one about the moon, and discussed how Faust wanted to be able to see everything and know everything. He wanted to be in Heaven. Even though he would be considered one of the most intelligent people in comparison others in his town, he is never satisfied. He constantly thirsts for more knowledge, but no matter how much he learns, his thirst for more is never quenched. His unease and dissatisfaction with worldly matters are probably what sparked him into making the deal with Mephistopheles. Faust just wants that one moment of ease and transcendence, and for that he is wiling to be Mephistopheles’ slave for eternity in Hell. The deal really shows just how bad Faust desires that higher power.
It’ll definitely be an interesting read from here on out, with such a large wager on the table. I’m not exactly sure how Mephistopheles plans to give Faust his moment of transcendence, but I guess we’ll find out next week. Hopefully with the class discussions this week, I’ll have a better grasp for what’s going on in the story for next week’s readings.
1/17
I had read Harriet Jacob’s story before for English class, but had never compared it to Frederick Douglass’s narrative. I was very surprised to see that although the accounts were so similar, they were so different at the same time. While they both desire freedom, the freedoms they desire are very different. They both want physical freedom, but Douglass strives for more of a freedom of knowledge. Because he was “given an inch” his mind was opened to so many new opportunities. He worked tirelessly to give himself the freedom of knowledge, and also worked to give all types of freedom to others. Harriet Jacobs didn’t desire physical freedom as much as she did emotional freedom, and I would even venture to say freedom from her past. Even after she escapes, the abuse she received in the past continually haunts her, as well as her decision to get pregnant in order to prevent further abuse.
Even Whitman’s “Song of Myself” and Dostoyevsky’s "The Grand Inquisitor" deal with freedom, although in very different perspectives. I was really confused while reading both of these works, but through our class discussions, I think I have an idea of the general relevancies of these works. In Whitman’s work, the narrator (do we have reason to say the narrator is Whitman?) feels that freedom is obtained through connecting with nature. Everything in nature seems to provide him happiness and freedom. Through his freedom, he feels that he can be anything. Dostoyevsky’s "The Grand Inquisitor” is perhaps the most different of all of the works. Dostoyevsky portrays the idea that freedom is obtained through giving up choice. With less choice, people feel freer because they are relieved of worrying about the choices they were to make. For that reason, they choose to have leaders. It was really interesting to read and think about.
1/10
I guess I’ll start by telling a little about myself. I am a sophomore majoring in biology. I live in Celina, Ohio, and my family runs a 2000-acre crop farm. I hope to start my own farm raising steers, and to work in the animal science or agriculture field upon graduating. My favorite hobbies include woodworking, hunting, trap shooting, and four-wheeling. Here at school I’m secretary for the Pre-Vet and Animal Welfare Society (PAWS).
Regarding Frederick Douglass, one passage I don’t think anyone specifically mentioned in class today while discussing the emotionally moving passages or important passages in the work was the passage about how Douglass learned to write. In the work he could have simply said that through working his shipyard job and talking with the local kids, he learned to write. Instead he went into detail about the initials on the boards, and how he related them to the terms they stood for. In doing so he was able to form a few basic four-letter words. His prowess also allowed him to sort of trick kids into teaching him to write and read. If I remember right, he wasn’t very old while doing all of this either. It just seems stunning to me. I think his will to learn to read and write also proved his determination to not be content with the life he had, even if it was more privileged than many slaves. He was determined to become a free man.
So what can we learn about freedom from Frederick Douglass? For one, we learn that freedom can come in many forms, such as, freedom of knowledge, physical freedom, and emotional freedom. At first he is bound in every sense, or being kept in the dark. Eventually by being “given an inch”, he learns to read and right, gaining freedom of knowledge (for lack of a better term), but is still physically and emotionally bound to his master. Once he escapes, he gains physical freedom, yet still doesn’t have emotional freedom because he lives with the fear of being recaptured, and can trust nobody. After moving to England and moving back, he gains emotional freedom. Douglass also teaches us that if freedom isn’t complete in all aspects, for example you have knowledge freedom but not physical freedom, the pain can be worse than before you had that partial freedom.
202 Responses (Fall 2013)