Part 1 of Cuckoo’s Nest was very interesting to me. It seemed like another one of those books where you are just thrown into the middle of the action but nothing really makes sense. It starts off with Chief narrating things that go on and occur within the ward. He tends to talk about the three black attendants for a while which leads us to believe that they might play a major role in the progression of the play. I don’t really understand why Chief is the way he is. He’s not deaf but in most cases he pretends to be at least somewhat deaf to find out things about the ward.
I was honestly kind of confused at the first mention of Nurse Ratched. From reading the text I couldn’t tell if she would be a character who actually tries to ensure the safety and security of those who were in the ward, or if she knew of the actions of the aides like the black men, but refused to pay much attention or stop things that they were doing from happening.
As the story progresses we see the corruption of the mentality of some people as Chief tells us the audience of how the public relations person showcases the ward as though it is top of the line and wonderful, but you and I know that this it not the case due to earlier descriptions of just some things that take place in the beginning of the story.
I could already tell that McMurphy is going to be a character to remember. He is large in stature, laughs a lot, and is pretty rambunctious and boisterous. He kind of reminds me of myself, but I’m skinny and not really that tall. (I just related myself to a character!!!)
One thing that grabs my attention about the first part is how the Nurse and the patient sort of formed a hierarchy within the ward with the “acutes” the “chronics” the walkers and the wheelers. This establishment of a hierarchy shows that these people in the ward really did lose a connection with that of the outside world. That’s pretty sad in my opinion, because they are now limited to one another and forced (in most case) to accept a harsh the harsh reality of how they are not mentally or physically prepared to face reality (WEIRD!!!)
Aside from all of this, I believe that my buddy McMurphy might dig himself a deep hole and get on bad terms with Nurse Ratched. It seems that for everything that she says he has something rebellious to say. I personally find this amusing. Although I feel like I relate to McMurphy (not saying that I’m rude rebellious and crazy) I still think its gonna be hard to figure this guy out and what his intentions are. It seems that from his dialogue he is waaaaaay more sane than he leads people to believe. He seems very sarcastic at times. It will be very interesting to see how the play progresses seeing that you have a new character as rambunctious as McMurphy introduced to a ward where “everyone in the ward is a rabbit in a world ruled by wolves”.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Hamlet at the Lantern
Although it was a while ago I remember the Lantern’s theaters performance of Hamlet like it was yesterday. When we first walked in my initial thought was “this place is really small, how are we all going to fit?” Then when we got to the actual there I though, “this is really small, how are we all going to fit…and where is the stage?” But I wasn’t prepared for what I was about to see. I thought it was really great and clever the way that the lights and staging were done. Aside from us practically being on stage with the actors, I felt compelled to pay attention to what was going on. A play such as Hamlet is not one that’s very short so I felt like time and pacing of the play was key. The Lantern did a great job at moving the play at a pace where it was interesting and understandable. I don’t want to sound like a typical student but Shakespeare can be difficult to read and understand, but the Lantern’s production of Hamlet made the book easier to understand. I’d have to say that my favorite character was the guy who played Hamlet. He did a great job of showing Hamlet’s transition from a man of mourning a man who just about lost all sanity. I also enjoy seeing how the characters made use of the stage and set because my initial reaction to seeing the stage was that there was no way anyone can do a decent production which a space such as the one they used, but I must say they did a phenomenal job. Overall II think I was a different and interesting production.
Hamlet Act II
I think a major part of Act II is the way that the characters begin to change and act towards one another. One character that a change has obviously taken place in is Hamlet. After being approached by the ghost of his father it seems he has lost his marbles. I think that Hamlet’s awkward behavior is somewhat intentional. It almost seems as though he wants to drive the people around him crazy, but Claudius in particular begin though he is the one accused of Hamlet’s father’s murder. But then again its very hard to tell the mindset that Hamlet has, especially with his conversation with Polonius.
At this point of the play even though Hamlet is still developing into a “madman” we can kind of see resemblance of the situation of Hamlet and that of Fortinbras. Fortinbras is almost in the same predicament as Hamlet. His father has passed and his uncle is now the head of the throne, but Fortinbras is determined to seek revenge and take back the land that was conquered by Hamlet’s father. As stated in previous scenes he sent an angry message demanding that the land be forfeited immediately which is why some were led to believe that a war would soon be at hand. But we see that Fortinbras uncle forbad him to attack Denmark but allowed him to ride through on the way to attacking another land. I think this is another piece of information that strays away from the idea that the ghost of Hamlet came to warn about war (which we found out after his dialogue with young Hamlet). So it seems as though I was right J.
I think it’s strange that Claudius isn’t really concerned with the thought of a powerful army who isn’t really on good terms with Denmark is riding through Denmark. In my opinion this suggests that he is not really concerned with what goes on in Denmark, but more so what goes on in his house because he is more worried about Hamlet’s behavior.
I also think its crazy how Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are tricked and manipulated by Hamlet’s family and how men of their stature have to be careful about what gets said to home in fear of offending someone or saying something that they aren’t at the time supposed to know.
At this point of the play even though Hamlet is still developing into a “madman” we can kind of see resemblance of the situation of Hamlet and that of Fortinbras. Fortinbras is almost in the same predicament as Hamlet. His father has passed and his uncle is now the head of the throne, but Fortinbras is determined to seek revenge and take back the land that was conquered by Hamlet’s father. As stated in previous scenes he sent an angry message demanding that the land be forfeited immediately which is why some were led to believe that a war would soon be at hand. But we see that Fortinbras uncle forbad him to attack Denmark but allowed him to ride through on the way to attacking another land. I think this is another piece of information that strays away from the idea that the ghost of Hamlet came to warn about war (which we found out after his dialogue with young Hamlet). So it seems as though I was right J.
I think it’s strange that Claudius isn’t really concerned with the thought of a powerful army who isn’t really on good terms with Denmark is riding through Denmark. In my opinion this suggests that he is not really concerned with what goes on in Denmark, but more so what goes on in his house because he is more worried about Hamlet’s behavior.
I also think its crazy how Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are tricked and manipulated by Hamlet’s family and how men of their stature have to be careful about what gets said to home in fear of offending someone or saying something that they aren’t at the time supposed to know.
Vision, Perception, and Belief in Act I, scenes i and ii of Hamlet
Just from reading the first scene of the play we can already tell the ghost of Hamlet’s father is going to play a major role in the plot and progression of the play. I think that it is very strange and eerie that the ghost appeared twice in one night and did not speak to Horatio, Bernardo, or Marcellus when it was addressed. This goes to show that ghost may have been waiting but wanted to make it known that he was in fact still upon the Kingdom. The only thing that I can say would affect comprehension and understanding of this play is whether or not one believes in ghost and apparitions themselves. But honestly I don’t think that may alter a person’s opinion of the play when you have all three people who saw the same ghost at the same time in the same place. So it is evident that a person’s or peoples perception of the same thing whether they may be similar or contrast one another are very important in approaching an issue such as the one we see now in the beginning of Hamlet.
I think the timing and arrival of the ghost is also very ironic. The very next day Claudius, the brother of the late King Hamlet and uncle of Hamlet, addresses everyone about his marriage to the late Hamlet’s wife (if that makes sense). The book gives a different opinion as to why the ghost may have come at the time that it did, one being to warn or a war, but I believe that it leans towards a warning of corruption. Its just to weird when Hamlet come into the picture still in a state of mourning when Claudius suggests that hamlet look to him as a father, when In reality he has taken the throne of Hamlets father by force.
Now Hamlet is in a way out of whack at this time and when he is approached by Horatio and the others, but he does not turn a death ear to them when he learns about the possible sight of his father’s ghost. This goes to show that maybe Hamlet does actually believe in apparitions and ghosts, or maybe he is actually so emotionally stricken by the death of his father that he is willing to find out if this is really the ghost of his father and search for answers.
I think the timing and arrival of the ghost is also very ironic. The very next day Claudius, the brother of the late King Hamlet and uncle of Hamlet, addresses everyone about his marriage to the late Hamlet’s wife (if that makes sense). The book gives a different opinion as to why the ghost may have come at the time that it did, one being to warn or a war, but I believe that it leans towards a warning of corruption. Its just to weird when Hamlet come into the picture still in a state of mourning when Claudius suggests that hamlet look to him as a father, when In reality he has taken the throne of Hamlets father by force.
Now Hamlet is in a way out of whack at this time and when he is approached by Horatio and the others, but he does not turn a death ear to them when he learns about the possible sight of his father’s ghost. This goes to show that maybe Hamlet does actually believe in apparitions and ghosts, or maybe he is actually so emotionally stricken by the death of his father that he is willing to find out if this is really the ghost of his father and search for answers.
Coleridge and Shelley
1. In my opinion “Kubla Khan” celebrates imagination rather than caution against its indulgence. The poem is written so vividly when describing the landmarks mentioned in the beginning of the poem. These descriptions do not necessarily go to say that imagination is something that should be celebrated, in fact they may even lean toward a caution against its indulgence when thinking about “A savage place! as holy and enchanted As e’er beneath a waning moon was haunted By woman wailing for her demon-lover!” and “A mighty fountain momently° was forced: Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail, Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher’s flail” and the dangers and terrors that might come of these descriptions. But what ultimately makes me believe that “Kubla Khan” celebrates the imagination is the vision that is recollected. The vision shows more of a caution of the indulgence of control and absolute power rather than a caution of the indulgence of imagination. I believe that Coleridge might be writing this to those who hold a position of power to show that power show not be abused because “with great power comes great responsibility” (sorry, that’s so cliché). After all, there is also power in imagination.
2. In "Ozymandias" I hear three different speakers. The first voice is the voice of the writer who is basically recollecting the story and in my opinion the speaker doesn’t really evoke many emotions or any opinions towards what was said by the travel, but rather serves to marvel the landscape. The Second speaker is the travel who is simply one who tells of what they saw and gives a vivid description of the sculpture. The third speaker is Ozymandias who is trying to communicate through the sculpture how great and ultimate he is. The only thing that confuses me is why chose to do it in a place such as a desert, its not like there is any high traffic out there.
2. In "Ozymandias" I hear three different speakers. The first voice is the voice of the writer who is basically recollecting the story and in my opinion the speaker doesn’t really evoke many emotions or any opinions towards what was said by the travel, but rather serves to marvel the landscape. The Second speaker is the travel who is simply one who tells of what they saw and gives a vivid description of the sculpture. The third speaker is Ozymandias who is trying to communicate through the sculpture how great and ultimate he is. The only thing that confuses me is why chose to do it in a place such as a desert, its not like there is any high traffic out there.
Friday, March 20, 2009
William Blake's Approach
1. I do agree that the authors that Blake’s poetry had the power enact social change by appealing to imagination. I think it is much to appeal to a larger audience by using an approach that would strike the imagination rather than logic, because a younger audience might not have the maturity to realistically apply the message of the poem to today’s would and changes that need to happen, but no one is too young or too old to imagine. The words and phrases that Blake uses such as “’weep! ’weep! ’weep! ’weep!” in the song of Innocence and “And because I am happy, and dance and sing, They think they have done me no injury, And are gone to praise God and his Priest and King,
Who make up a heaven of our misery.” from the songs of Experience appeal to the emotions of those who might be reading the poems which might cause the readers to realize that a change must be made, especially if the readers imagine and think of themselves as being in the same position as the child. When appealing to emotion and imagination in a way that Blake did, it would be hard not to consider social change.
2. The Parliament transcript was included as a primary source document because it backed up the points and themes that William Blake was trying to portray. This helps emphasize the severity of child labor and evoke in the mind of citizens that this is a serious issue and that something must be done. When I read Blake’s work, i realized that it is a very serious matter and that we as people have to look at these situations through different perspectives.. This helped me understand why Romantic poets took different approaches to writing in order to get their point across because it not only stuck out to my sense of logic, but also to my emotions.
Who make up a heaven of our misery.” from the songs of Experience appeal to the emotions of those who might be reading the poems which might cause the readers to realize that a change must be made, especially if the readers imagine and think of themselves as being in the same position as the child. When appealing to emotion and imagination in a way that Blake did, it would be hard not to consider social change.
2. The Parliament transcript was included as a primary source document because it backed up the points and themes that William Blake was trying to portray. This helps emphasize the severity of child labor and evoke in the mind of citizens that this is a serious issue and that something must be done. When I read Blake’s work, i realized that it is a very serious matter and that we as people have to look at these situations through different perspectives.. This helped me understand why Romantic poets took different approaches to writing in order to get their point across because it not only stuck out to my sense of logic, but also to my emotions.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Gulliver Jawnskie
A) 1. What is your initial reaction to the actions and behavior of the Lilliputians amongst themselves and towards Gulliver?
“When this shower of arrows was over, I fell a-groaning with grief and pain, and then striving again to get loose, they discharged another volley larger than the first, and some of them attempted with spears to stick me in the sides; but, by good luck, I had on me a buff jerkin,4 which they could not pierce. I thought it the most prudent method to lie still, and my design was to continue so till night, when, my left hand being already loose, I could easily free myself: And as for the inhabitants, I had reason to believe I might be a match for the greatest armies they could bring against me, if they were all of the same size with him that I saw.”
This question will get students to simply voice their opinions about the story and show any likes or dislikes that students have about the excerpt.
2. Is there a connection between this story and any modern political systems or social structures?
“From whence one of them, who seemed to be a person of quality, made me a long speech, whereof I understood not one syllable. But I should have mentioned, that before the principal person began his oration, he cried out three times, Langro dehul san (these words and the former were afterward repeated and explained to me). Whereupon immediately about fifty of the inhabitants came and cut the strings that fastened the left side of my head, which gave me the liberty of turning it to the right, and of observing the person and gesture of him who was to speak.”
This question will challenge students to compare of contrast the general theme and situations in Gulliver’s travels to modern life therefore causing students to analyze the text more closely.
3. How has Gulliver been able to overcome the language barrier between himself and the Lilliputians?
“He acted every part of an orator, and I could observe many periods of threatening, and others of promises, pity, and kindness.”
“I found the demands of nature so strong upon me, that I could not forbear showing my impatience (perhaps against the strict rules of decency) by putting my finger frequently on my mouth, to signify that I wanted food. The Hurgo5 (for so they call a great lord, as I afterward learnt) understood me very well.”
B) I honestly like the small teacher group work that we did for this text. It is very much a different approach to teaching and learning concepts, and understanding the literature. The only thing about group work is that there may be conflicting ideas about the way a theme or motive was portrayed throughout the text, and it isn’t easy teaching something when everyone disagrees. If anything, I learned that one must be familiar with the text and be open to many different opinions and ideas about the text in order to teach a text without establishing a bias.
“When this shower of arrows was over, I fell a-groaning with grief and pain, and then striving again to get loose, they discharged another volley larger than the first, and some of them attempted with spears to stick me in the sides; but, by good luck, I had on me a buff jerkin,4 which they could not pierce. I thought it the most prudent method to lie still, and my design was to continue so till night, when, my left hand being already loose, I could easily free myself: And as for the inhabitants, I had reason to believe I might be a match for the greatest armies they could bring against me, if they were all of the same size with him that I saw.”
This question will get students to simply voice their opinions about the story and show any likes or dislikes that students have about the excerpt.
2. Is there a connection between this story and any modern political systems or social structures?
“From whence one of them, who seemed to be a person of quality, made me a long speech, whereof I understood not one syllable. But I should have mentioned, that before the principal person began his oration, he cried out three times, Langro dehul san (these words and the former were afterward repeated and explained to me). Whereupon immediately about fifty of the inhabitants came and cut the strings that fastened the left side of my head, which gave me the liberty of turning it to the right, and of observing the person and gesture of him who was to speak.”
This question will challenge students to compare of contrast the general theme and situations in Gulliver’s travels to modern life therefore causing students to analyze the text more closely.
3. How has Gulliver been able to overcome the language barrier between himself and the Lilliputians?
“He acted every part of an orator, and I could observe many periods of threatening, and others of promises, pity, and kindness.”
“I found the demands of nature so strong upon me, that I could not forbear showing my impatience (perhaps against the strict rules of decency) by putting my finger frequently on my mouth, to signify that I wanted food. The Hurgo5 (for so they call a great lord, as I afterward learnt) understood me very well.”
B) I honestly like the small teacher group work that we did for this text. It is very much a different approach to teaching and learning concepts, and understanding the literature. The only thing about group work is that there may be conflicting ideas about the way a theme or motive was portrayed throughout the text, and it isn’t easy teaching something when everyone disagrees. If anything, I learned that one must be familiar with the text and be open to many different opinions and ideas about the text in order to teach a text without establishing a bias.
Monday, March 2, 2009
1984 Final Writing Assignment
The doctrine that O’Brien proclaims to Winston in 1984 plays a major role in maintaining the system of oligarchic collectivism and in Winston’s ultimate fate
We understand that Winston was a confused fatalistic character who basically struggled with optimism and hope, and desperately tried to relate what was happening during the present time to vague memories and events of the past. Throughout the book us readers did not have a clear image of O’Brien until he actually became apart of the larger plot in which we gained more knowledge and understanding about the role that he played in manipulating Winston and spelling out the system of oligarchical collectivism for the reader. I believe that in the speech posted where O’Brien lets Winston know where he went wrong is clever, yet maniacal.
We have come to realize that if anything, Winston at least tries to think on his own as an individual without rendering himself subject to though police. O’Brien realized this about Winston when he manipulated him, setting himself in a position where he appeared to be just about everything that Winston idealized. It’s sad and ironic that O’Brien opened up by expressing how Winston was flawed in trying to think as an individual and not conforming to the ideals and principle set forth by the Party. Its hard not to feel bad for Winston, especially when he’s in a situation where its seems as though during a time as such where the population was bound and crippled by mental oppression and where people were forced to believe anything other than truth with no opposition, the only way out would be to realize, that there is no way out but to conform.
Throughout the speech that O’Brien gives he uses that same tactics that the Party uses to manipulate the minds of its residents, especially when O’Brien begins to talk about reality. Honestly I believe that most of the people living under the rule of the Party are confused which is when its so easy for them to believe what the Party tells them. In regards to Winston’s confusing and his ultimate fate, I believe the case is different. When O’Brien goes on to say “When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same things as you…It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.” He not only makes Winston feel as though he was alone in his “rebellion” but he also in a way shows how Winston inversely chose to ignore reality. You see, through Winston’s dreams and visions, he knew that he would eventually be perused and captured. Whether or not he knew if it would be O’Brien who would be his captor was unknown, but this just goes to show that Winston’s inability to accept or distinguish between a false reality, and the hard truth resulted in his torture and his overall conformity and complete trust in the Big Brother and the Party.
We understand that Winston was a confused fatalistic character who basically struggled with optimism and hope, and desperately tried to relate what was happening during the present time to vague memories and events of the past. Throughout the book us readers did not have a clear image of O’Brien until he actually became apart of the larger plot in which we gained more knowledge and understanding about the role that he played in manipulating Winston and spelling out the system of oligarchical collectivism for the reader. I believe that in the speech posted where O’Brien lets Winston know where he went wrong is clever, yet maniacal.
We have come to realize that if anything, Winston at least tries to think on his own as an individual without rendering himself subject to though police. O’Brien realized this about Winston when he manipulated him, setting himself in a position where he appeared to be just about everything that Winston idealized. It’s sad and ironic that O’Brien opened up by expressing how Winston was flawed in trying to think as an individual and not conforming to the ideals and principle set forth by the Party. Its hard not to feel bad for Winston, especially when he’s in a situation where its seems as though during a time as such where the population was bound and crippled by mental oppression and where people were forced to believe anything other than truth with no opposition, the only way out would be to realize, that there is no way out but to conform.
Throughout the speech that O’Brien gives he uses that same tactics that the Party uses to manipulate the minds of its residents, especially when O’Brien begins to talk about reality. Honestly I believe that most of the people living under the rule of the Party are confused which is when its so easy for them to believe what the Party tells them. In regards to Winston’s confusing and his ultimate fate, I believe the case is different. When O’Brien goes on to say “When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same things as you…It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.” He not only makes Winston feel as though he was alone in his “rebellion” but he also in a way shows how Winston inversely chose to ignore reality. You see, through Winston’s dreams and visions, he knew that he would eventually be perused and captured. Whether or not he knew if it would be O’Brien who would be his captor was unknown, but this just goes to show that Winston’s inability to accept or distinguish between a false reality, and the hard truth resulted in his torture and his overall conformity and complete trust in the Big Brother and the Party.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Orwell response 2/23
The effects that Orwell’s society has on citizens are monstrous and somewhat unimaginable. Thought crimes alone places great limitation on personal behavior opinions and beliefs, almost forcefully making people into conformists. I’m sure the people living in these conditions where streets and buildings are run down and ravished realize but must ignore the fact that they are neglected and not taken seriously. Having a (probably plasma screen) television a building with a run down building to live in with a broken “lift” and circuits that are cut off just goes to show that the Party is much more concerned with strict enforcement of the rules rather than the less than creditable living conditions of its citizens.
The social structure of the book is twisted with many abnormalities such as children in the book playing the role of Junior Spies in which they monitor adults for unlawful “thought crimes”. It is indeed baffling how the children in a society as this have the power to accuse and apprehend adults for hate crimes, yet they must still ask permission to view someone being hanged, something in which they are mostly responsible for occurring. This greatly contrasts but also reflects on today’s modern society in which you have appointed officers and people of higher power (usually of older age) who reprimand and correct younger citizens for crimes and inappropriate behavior. My guess is that “The Party” warped the structure of this society to keep the adults in the society in a mental state where they feel under minded.
The people who abide in the Ministry of Truth must often feel contradicted by the concept of double thinking. This is another example of the psychological effects of the Party on society. Controlling the past is an interesting concept on its own, but altering the past (documents, events and recordings) and actually believing in these alterations shows that the minds of those who work in the Records are basically crippled and limited due to the depletion of mental stamina that comes with such as task of changing the past, since Big Brother is “never wrong”. It seems to me that if anyone at all poses a threat to “Big Brother” it’s the workers of the Records. Covering up the truth requires knowing what the truth is in the first place, and they know about all the lies and deception before they cover them up and alter the past. But I guess after performing a task as such, one actually begins to believe in and accept lies and deception created by them.
We all know that a major part in keeping together a society is language and communication. Modification of language throughout this book must have a devastating effect on citizens. Without a broad vocabulary people become ignorant and it becomes much harder to express ideas to one another. This is a clever yet sinister means of limiting communication between people in the Party. The development of newspeak defiantly lowers the intelligence of the society, keeping them ignorant, and also making it much harder to create thought crimes.
The social structure of the book is twisted with many abnormalities such as children in the book playing the role of Junior Spies in which they monitor adults for unlawful “thought crimes”. It is indeed baffling how the children in a society as this have the power to accuse and apprehend adults for hate crimes, yet they must still ask permission to view someone being hanged, something in which they are mostly responsible for occurring. This greatly contrasts but also reflects on today’s modern society in which you have appointed officers and people of higher power (usually of older age) who reprimand and correct younger citizens for crimes and inappropriate behavior. My guess is that “The Party” warped the structure of this society to keep the adults in the society in a mental state where they feel under minded.
The people who abide in the Ministry of Truth must often feel contradicted by the concept of double thinking. This is another example of the psychological effects of the Party on society. Controlling the past is an interesting concept on its own, but altering the past (documents, events and recordings) and actually believing in these alterations shows that the minds of those who work in the Records are basically crippled and limited due to the depletion of mental stamina that comes with such as task of changing the past, since Big Brother is “never wrong”. It seems to me that if anyone at all poses a threat to “Big Brother” it’s the workers of the Records. Covering up the truth requires knowing what the truth is in the first place, and they know about all the lies and deception before they cover them up and alter the past. But I guess after performing a task as such, one actually begins to believe in and accept lies and deception created by them.
We all know that a major part in keeping together a society is language and communication. Modification of language throughout this book must have a devastating effect on citizens. Without a broad vocabulary people become ignorant and it becomes much harder to express ideas to one another. This is a clever yet sinister means of limiting communication between people in the Party. The development of newspeak defiantly lowers the intelligence of the society, keeping them ignorant, and also making it much harder to create thought crimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)