Blood Wedding #3

Just want to say I really, really hated this play. Terribly boring. Also, I don't think it would constitute as a tragedy. Who here is falling from grace and power? The Bridegroom? I don't really see it. Nor do I understand what happened. All I know is the Bride got married to the Bridegroom, ran away with Leonardo, everyone went looking for them, then the Bridegroom and Leonardo are suddenly muertos. Whaaaat?

I noticed in the play two places where eyes are mentioned. The first occurs on pg 77 where the Mother says "Who has a horse? Right now - who was a horse? I'll give you everything I have: my eyes and even my tongue!" She says this because her senses are incredibly important to her. She talks a lot so obviously the "tongue" remark is dramatic. Anyway, it mentions eyes. She is willing to not see (figuratively) so her son can find out the truth and be happy. The second spot "eyes are mentioned is on page 98 and the Beggar Woman (aka Death) says "I could have asked you for your eyes!" and this brings the parallels of Oeidpus and Wild Duck. How are the eyes connected? I'll have to keep reading this terrible book to find out.

Blood Wedding #2

Man this play is weird. I really don't get it, or the appeal of it. I don't understand what the Mother is talking about all the time.

Blood Wedding #1

Notes from a brainstorm:


Grapes and knives are mentioned a lot throughout Act 1. This could represent a lot of things. I guess grapes represent wealth to the mother because that is how her son makes his income. Knives represent loss and violence of man. Both her husband and son are dead because of knives, apparently. I don't really get this play. It's really easy to read but I get bored and I forget what I read.

There's a lot of lying in here, too, so far. Leonardo lies to his wife about using the horse and taking the horse out and where he goes. He says he was at the wheat-buyers but he was really riding to see the Bride. Odd. The Bride later keeps telling the Maid to back off and on the final page of Act I, she keeps saying "lies, lies!" like she doesn't want anyone to know her relations with Leonardo. Which is obvious why, because she's about to be married. She can't be scared by past relationships! Nobody will marry her then.

The final thing I noticed was the family relationships. Children seem to respect parents in a way. The Bridegroom is very respectful and loving toward his mother. He always appears very helpful and aware of his mother's silliness, but loves her anyway. And the Bride accepts the Bridegroom's proposal to appease her father, I think. She's a quiet and well-mannered child and her father even says that to the Bridegroom and his Mother.

Wild Duck #5

The symbolism of the wild duck applies to the characters as well as the whole novel. On page 181, Ekdal says something like "there's some of the wild duck in you" to Hjalmar. Hjalmar is the wild duck because he was injured and down when Gina found him. She was the dog to his duck and pulled him out of his misery and brought him to be nursed back to health. At the same time, the symbol of the wild duck represents the whole book. Hjalmar is still the wild duck, but Hedvig, Gina and Gregers all try to be the dog. They obviously don't succeed because it is a tragedy. Basically, the entire motif and symbolism and metaphor is used to convey Ibsen's idea that something cannot always be fixed.

Another interesting thing I noticed in the text is how much more significant Gina's power as a woman really is than it appears to be on the surface. She not only runs the house, but she manages all the household accounts and basically runs the photography business. Her power is actually larger in the relationship than Hjalma'rs even though it seems like Hjalmar can control her more. It's up to Gina, though, really, to reveal her secret about Werle. Had it not been for Gregers, she could've potentially never told Hjalmar. She is his dog. Without Gina, Hjalmar's life would be in ruins and he relies on her so much that he doesn't even realize it.

Wild Duck #4

I've noticed a few comparisons Wild Duck has with Oedipus. Besides the obvious motifs of blindness,i noticed that both novels include the revealing of some deep, dark family secret. For example in Oedipus, Oeidpus' real birth parents and the situation with Jacosta as his wife come out in the open. Jacosta is not only his wife, but also his mother, and the man he murdered so many years ago was in all actuality his father. In addition, the people he always thought were his real parents were merely his adoptive parents. In Wild Duck, Hjalmar discovers the truth about his wife's relations prior to their marriage. He finds out Gina had a romantic relationship with Werle, the father of his best friend. Later, he discovers through his daughter's blindness that the thing most important to him may not be his. Hedvig might be the daughter of Gina and Werle through their affair. It's all really complicated and confusing.

Another comparison I noticed was the death and suicide tidbit. Both Jacosta and Hedvig, the dearest people to the heroes in both tragedies, end up committing suicide. Why is this significant? Because they are the dearest people to the heroes in the tragedies! The point of a tragedy is for the hero to fall from power and grace. By losing what is most important, the hero loses power of will and life. Jacosta's suicide is the final straw for Oedipus and he immediately gouges his eyes out. Hedvig's suicide (though potentially accidental, but probably purposeful) is obviously the last straw for Hjlamar's pride.

IOP Journal 5

This is my final journal entry, and I want to discuss two things: The use of the word "Maman" versus "mom" or "Mother", and the different translations of the title.

In Ward's version, "Maman" is used to refer to Meursault's mother. "Maman" actually means "mother" in French, and is not just a pet name or term of affection that Meursault uses. This seemingly contradicts Ward's previous desire to "Americanize" Camus's text. By using "Maman", Meursault seems to have not just a connection, but an attachment to his mother. Is this a way to make him seem more human? Why would Ward, through wanting to detach the character, immediately make him see emotional at the first word? It doesn't matter that a few sentences later, his detachment is evident, because the first word of the book contradicts everything. Gilbert sticks to "mother", a strict translation from the French to the English. Was Ward's use of "Maman" a way to associate the text with it's French origins?

According to both Wikipedia and a French-English online dictionary (http://www.french-linguistics.co.uk/dictionary/), the word "l'etranger" means foreigner, stranger, or even outsider. It can also mean unknown, unfamiliar, or alien. The older translation of this novel was known as The Outsider, but The Stranger has become a more common title and is used much more often than the other. One could argue that "The Foreigner" might be a more precise title because Meursault isn't from Algeria, he is from France, though he has no desire to move back because he is comfortable where he is. He is in another land where there are Arabs and he doesn't feel completely comfortable. It's interesting.

IOP Journal 4

So at the beginning of the Ward translation, we are offered a translator's note in which Ward says the following:

“Camus acknowledged employing an “American method” in writing The Stranger, in the first half of the book in particular: the short, precise sentences; the depiction of a character ostensibly without consciousness; and, in places, the “tough guy” tone. [...] There is some irony then in the fact that for forty years the only translation available to American audience should be Stuart Gilbert’s “Britannic” rendering. [...] As all translators do, Gilbert gave the novel a consistency and voice all his own. A certain paraphrastic earnestness might be a way of describing his effort to make the text intelligible, to help the English-speaking reader understand what Camus meant.” (v-vi)

Ward criticizes Gilbert's version because it does not coincide with the stated intent of the author. Gilbert's version was published in 1946, 42 years before Ward's. This creates not only different translations due to different authors, but completely different viewpoints. The book was originally published in 1942, smack-dab in the middle of WWII. It was Camus's first published novel and arguably his most famous and finest. Gilbert published his translation the year after WWII ended. Gilbert was British and his version is called "Brittanic" In Ward's note. He uses some words uncommon to American English. Still, Camus' absurdist and possibly existensialist beliefs drew him to be influenced by writers who created the "American" style of writing most commonly seen in novel like The Catcher In The Rye, by J.D. Salinger. Holden's detached and uncaring voice is incredibly similar to Meursault's. In fact, when I first started reading The Stranger, I immediately pointed out in a journal entry that the writing style reminded me of The Catcher In The Rye.

Wild Duck #3

My, how misguided Gregers is. His purely believes that his intentions will lead to the happy marriage of Hjalmar and Gina. He says,

GREGERS. Will you believe I've wanted everything for the best, Mrs. Ekdal? (196)

This is Ibsen's example of Gregers' continued self-assurance in that all he does is right. He convinces himself that the only marriage that is successful is that which lives without any secrets. So he comes into a family, getting on perfectly fine with the few white lies they've spoken, and he ends up ruining everything. Hjlamar and his irrational and stupid reactions cause Gina's actions to improve her family life to be terrible. How is getting some extra money a bad thing? Isn't Hedvig still his daughter since he raised her, no matter the blood? Hjalmar and Gregers piss me off. They're both so stupid! Gregers thinks he's like some angel sent down to turn the tide of destiny. And Hjalmar overreacts to everything and gets so freaking offended at the slightest thing. It's ridiculous. Get over yourselves. You're not that special, either of you.

Wild Duck #2

Dear journal,
My father is a liar, a cheat. It shames me to be associated with him and I find that the correct choice of actions now would be to forever leave this house. Mother died here, and my connection with this family dies here, too. Now all I shall keep of this will be my name, my terrible, ugly name: Gregers Werle. What sort of man names his child such a horrid name? No matter, he has sinned and it is time for me to rectify what I can.
The only thing he seems to have gotten correct is his new relationship with Mrs. Sorby. She's a kind woman, but she thrives on attention, it seems, and her affinity with father's fortune is quite convenient. Anyway, at least they're honest with each other. They know everything, every bit of gossip, every rumor. I suppose that, for once, he is an honest man with pure intentions. His marriage will be real, unlike that of many I know.
It is time for me to help my old friend Hjalmar. His need is great, for his wife has been deceitful all these years and it is up to me to make their marriage real and pure. I must prove that not only my wretched father can accomplish such a feat.
Sincerely,
Gregers Werle

IOP Journal 3

I've started my outline for the IOP. It's going well so far, I guess. It takes a while. Haha. Anyway, I've realized that Ward's translation is a very "Americanized" style of writing. Everything is blunt and to the point. Meursault is perceived as no-nonsense and very detached. This is seen especially when Meursault says, "When she laughed I wanted her again. A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so. She looked sad" (35). Meursault is so simple in his words. He portrays no emotion and the reader feels removed. In Gilbert's version, the translation is similar, but the reader recognizes emotion in his voice. It's easier to feel sympathy, or at least empathy toward Meursault. Gilbert romanticizes his words and Meursault comes off as a poet, detached from the world only enough to still retain the skill of speaking pretty.
When I read through the Gilbert translation, all I can think about is how much nicer the words sound and how Meursault doesn't seem half bad. I think the whole point of Ward's translation was to make the reader feel as detached as Meursault feels in the novel. Gilbert's translation doesn't accomplish that, but maybe it's going for something else. It seems more like he's just trying to tell a well-worded story. In Ward's version, the story is only half of the equation. The actual language adds to the tone and the mood.

Wild Duck #1

In contrast to Oedipus, Hjalmar Ekdal is very trusting of old acquaintances. This is odd, and perhaps he will be found to be misguided in his trust the way Oedipus' rash decisions led him no where fast. For example, Ibsen writes:

GREGERS. You're not very anxious to have me in the house, Mrs. Ekdal.
GINA. Goodness, what makes you think that?
HJALMAR. Yes, Gina, this is really recpuliar of you. (To GREGERS.) But tell me, do you expect to stay here in town for a while?
GREGERS (putting on his overcoat). Yes, now I expect to stay on.
(154)

Hjamlar is eager to rent out the room in their studio to someone with a good reputation and reasonable wealth. He has known Gregers for a long time, and though he hasn't seen him in nearly 16 years, he is ready to believe nothing has changed and that Gregers is simply trying to be helpful by renting from a poor friend. Gina seems wary of Gregers, probably because she suspects Gregers of knowing of her relationship with Mr. Werle, his father. Later on, Hedvig says:

HEDVIG. I'll tell you something, Mother - it seemed to me he meant something else by that.
GINA. What else could he mean?
HEDVIG. I don't know - but it was just as if he meant something else from what he said, all the time.
(155)

Here, Hedvig is astute and recognizes that Gregers speaks with hidden meanings. Gina, in an attempt to cover it up makes Hedvig think it's all nonsense. He's up to something and Hjalmar's trust in him, I believe, will lead to the Ekdals' downfall.

IOP Journal 2

Today, I sorted out which quotes to use and which ones I should use for my IOP. I found five main ones in the text that most stood out to me. One thing I noticed is that Gilbert takes a lot more words to say the same things. All his passages are significantly longer than Ward's. The five passages I've narrowed it down to are the following:

1. when Meursault and Marie are swimming on the beach and Meursault talks about wanting her.
2. when Meursault shoots the Arab and talks about his impending doom
3. the part where Meursault is walking down to the place where his mother is to be burried and the nurse tells him that line that becomes a symbol for the whole book.
4. when Marie asks Meursault if he loves her and he simply says no.
5. At the very end, the part where Meursault talks about his death and what he understands about life.

I'm leaning toward using numbers 1, 2 and 5. I can't decide on whether or not to use number 2.

Bloom's Question 2

For The Lorax:

What solutions would you suggest for the Boy to do with the seed given to him by the Once-ler? How does the Once-ler's story influence the Boy?

Bloom's Question 1

How is the size of Mama Bear's porridge bowl, chair, and bed an example of sexism?




(I wrote my example essay in Carlisle's class about this back in September.)

IOP Journal 1

I am currently rereading The Stranger. I looked back at my essay, as well. I'm getting the second translation from the library tomorrow. My plan so far is to read both versions of the novel, one translated by Matthew Ward and the other by Stuart Gilbert. I want to pick the two most thought-provoking passages I find, or the two that stand out to me as the most differently interpreted and analyze them. So four passages in all. I want to make a PowerPoint and present how the different translations produce different analysis and how this changes the way the reader interprets the text. If there is still time in my presentation, I'll describe how the different translations reflect the translator's style and technique, as evidenced in the introductions of both versions and on various websites online.

I have noticed that in the Ward translation, the author uses "Maman" instead of "Mother" to imply a more personal take. Also, Mersault comes off exceptionally detached and the language Ward uses portrays that. For example, Mersault says about killing the Arab, "I thought about it for a minute and said that more than sorry I felt kind of annoyed" (70) . This is just one of the numerous examples in the novel where Mersault is describe as emotionless and detached. I wonder if in Gilbert's translation, Mersault has more humanity to him. Does he portray more emotion? Is he sensitive? Does he react more to Maman's death? Does Gilbert's style of writing make Mersault seem remorseful of killing the Arab? I read somewhere that Camus admired the Americanized style of writing that is evident in books like The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger. I think it was in an intro to the book or something, but Ward talked about how he translated it the way it was because he wanted the reader to understand Camus' admiration of the "couldn't care less" style of writing that many American authors of the time used. He made Mersault very careless and dehumanized to portray that. I'll have to see how Gilbert does it.

Oedipus #4

In my final journal entry, I want to discuss Sophocles' style, and I suppose the structure of the play. He references circles. Not directly. But events happen in a circle. Like Jacosta kills herself in the place where all the horribleness started: on her marriage bed. And Oedipus asks to be exiled to the Cithaeron mountains to die where he was to die when he was a baby.

The play says, "let me live on the mountains, on Cithaeron, my favorite haunt, I have made it famous. Mother and father marked out that rock to be my everlasting tomb - buried alive. Let me die there, where they tried to kill me" (246). This is Oedipus' wish to return to where his horror all started. Sophocles uses this to portray that human life, too, works as a circle. This uses the metaphor of the egg and how life keeps going and going and going and going.

Jacosta's return full circle is shown when the Messenger says "And there we saw the woman hanging by the neck, cradled high in a woven noose" (237), where she kills herself in the bedchamber. In that room, she slept with her husband, Laius, and then later her child who became her husband. That's gross, sorry. Anyway, the point is that she ended her life where Oedipus' started.

What I'm following in these books is the motif of the misguided man, but maybe also the fallen man. Oedipus has fallen when he gouges his eyes out with the pins of Jacosta's brooches. That just sounds painful.

Oedipus #3

I know that this prompt is intended for us to compare whichever world lit book we're reading to one of the other two, but while reading Oedipus, the comparison to Othello was so great and so obvious that I couldn't NOT write about it. Oedipus rushes all his accusations. He says, "Tell me, in god's name, what did you take me for, coward or fool, when you spun out your plot?" (189). He immediately thinks that Creon is simply trying to ruin him. Creon responds calmly with "are you quite finished? It's your turn to listen for just as long as you've....instructed me" (189). Though in Othello, he jumps to conclusions about Desdemona (who is really innocent) and trusts Iago (who is really plotting against him), the situation here seemed similar. Here, Oedipus jumps to conclusions about Creon (who has done nothing wrong), and trusts Jacosta fully (who isn't necessarily guilty of anything, though we do find out she is really his mother, which is gross). Another connection, which is totally without meaning is that both Othello and Oedipus have names that start with an "O".

I guess a comparison I could make about Oedipus and another of the books is that so far from what I've learned, all three books have men as main characters. Oedipus, for example, is misguided in the sense that he easily jumps to conclusions. His power is important to him, and he plans on holding on to his position. A prophecy read to him at Delphi, I believe, that says he will kill his father and marry his mother makes him wary, as well. He seems jumpy about anything that might stop this happy life he's established for himself. Apparently in Blood Wedding, the main female character runs away with her first love and leaves her fiance behind. The first man can be called misguided because he basically helps a woman cheat on her fiance. This also reminded me of A Midsummer Night's Dream, because the two main characters in that run away at the beginning to be together despite the wishes of their parents, as well.


So all in all, I think Shakespeare stole all his ideas from Spaniards and Greeks.

Oedipus #2

It's interesting that theater back then was preformed with only three characters speaking at a time. And a chorus. For example, on pages 223-224, Jocasta needs to run off the stage in order for another third character to run on stage, the character of the shepherd. Oh...that's farther than we were supposed to read tonight. Oh well.
Anyway, another interesting part was that in ancient Greece, everyone knew the story of Oedipus. Who wrote it? Where did it come from originally? Sophocles just created a new version of it. Watching Sophocles' Oedipus must have been like teenage girls today seeing a Twilight movie. They know what is going to happen, so they notice all the little details and the foreshadowing involved in the movie. For example, Sophocles repeatedly refers to blindness throughout the beginning of the play. At the end, Oedipus ends up blinding himself. The story of Oedipus and his prophecy also pieces together faster for the reader than for Oedipus or Jocasta. Even Jocasta understands what is going on before Oedipus, who is so caught up in his excitement to figure out who his parents are that he ignores the facts just spoken by Jocasta. It is evident that Jocasta is his mother, and Laius his father. Therefor Jocasta is also his wife while his children are also his sisters. Now that's screwed up.

Oedipus #1

Oedipus is told in third person. It's written as a play in the early stages of drama during the height of Athens, so there is a maximum of three characters on the stage besides the chorus. The two most interesting characters to me were Oedipus himself and Tiresias.

Oedipus: He is presented as a very noble, well-liked and respected leader. At the very end of the reading, the chorus says "Never will I convict my king, never in my heart" (187). He is also very proud and doesn't like to be contradicted. He becomes very angry with Tiresias when he answers Oedipus' questions truthfully, but Oedipus thinks he is mocking him and conspiring against him. He says, "If I though you would blurt out such absurdities, you'd have died waiting before I'd had you summoned" (184). Oedipus knows he is respected, but he doesn't want to appear weak, as he would if he let Tiresias just talk about him in what seemed to be a mean, mocking way. Oedipus' pride in his leadership, citizens and land are also evidenced in the very beginning of the play when he says "But my spirit grieves for the city, for myself and all of you" (162). This is his way of showing the people that though they are grieving, he is such a great leader that he grieves for ALL of them, AND he wants to do something about it.

Tiresias: He is a prophet, and I think Creon's own magician type dude. He speaks in riddles and recognizes the enormity of the situation. It would've been a lot simpler and it would've saved a lot of people a lot of pain if Oedipus never found out the truth, and Tiresias realizes that and doesn't want to tell Oedipus. Still, even when he does, Oedipus doesn't believe him, which makes Tiresias' efforts worthless. Tiersias' wisdom is seen when he says "Just send me home. You bear your burdens, I'll bear mine. It's better that way, please believe me" (177).