The theme of imperialism appears throughout Heart of Darkness and plays out through the eyes of Marlow. As Marlow ventures deeper and deeper into the Congo and further away from what he knows as civilization he slowly realizes the gravity of the destruction of man and nature that is occurring due to British imperialism. As he goes deeper he is getting closer to the truth about imperialism. In the story the British Empire is at its peak and its incessant desire for goods such as ivory and rubber cause them to ignore the inalienable rights of every man. Conrad wanted to show the dark side of imperialism in the name of progress. He accomplished that by showing the brutalities the workers suffered to bring those goods to the civilized world. A wealthy Duke in England with an ivory staircase did not see the atrocities that occurred to extract the ivory, and as an arrogant imperialist he did not care.
Marlow doesn’t really believe in the idea of imperialism but he still profits from The Company, which symbolizes everything that is wrong with the idea of unbridled imperialism. The narrator defines imperialism when he states “the conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, it is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much.” (5).
Kurtz himself was considered a model imperialist but he succumbs to and dies as almost a savage, the very people that imperialist oppressed and considered less than a man. It has come full circle. Conrad accomplished his goal to shine the light on the darkness of man and what we are capable of and imperialism was darkness and brutality personified.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
NRJ #1-Nature Vs Man
Throughout Conrad’s Heart of Darkness he illustrates the theme of nature versus man by contrasting the white European man’s idea of civilization with that of the primitive natives in the Congo. I am utilizing the theme of nature versus man in the sense of how a civilized and cultured man can revert to the savagery of his natural primal roots when put in situations such as what Marlow and Kurtz experienced. The character of Marlow is used as a conduit to which these two worlds can be seen through his eyes. He witnesses the morbid treatment of the natives as a wrongful act by his own people, the whites, who see the natives as filthy and savage. He then sees Kurtz, a seemingly civilized man, in a state of near madness and acting as a savage. The story would make you think that Kurtz went mad, but in actuality he is merely reverting to what is natural for someone when they are taken away from the cultured world and put into a savage, intolerable and uncivilized society. Marlow comments that “you thought yourself bewitched and cut off for ever from everything you had known once….in another existence perhaps”(2.34). The jungle with its natural darkness and mysteries are a prime location for cultured men to lose their civilized self. It is indeed another existence.
When Marlow is traveling on the river toward the Inner Station he sees and hears the natives and he feels sort of a connection with the natives as he comments “but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity-like yours- the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar” (2.36). He sees the natives as a primordial adaptation of his own self, but he stops short of saying that they can be equal to the modern cultured man. The white man in Heart of Darkness feels he is doing the correct thing to civilize the natives, but in reality the white man is being de-civilized by the natives as well. The dilemma of Heart of Darkness is that we all have a form of a primal man inside of us that can be stressed out of us if we are put in an isolationist and savage situation.
When Marlow is traveling on the river toward the Inner Station he sees and hears the natives and he feels sort of a connection with the natives as he comments “but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity-like yours- the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar” (2.36). He sees the natives as a primordial adaptation of his own self, but he stops short of saying that they can be equal to the modern cultured man. The white man in Heart of Darkness feels he is doing the correct thing to civilize the natives, but in reality the white man is being de-civilized by the natives as well. The dilemma of Heart of Darkness is that we all have a form of a primal man inside of us that can be stressed out of us if we are put in an isolationist and savage situation.
Friday, March 19, 2010
DRJ #4- Acts 4 & 5
My first reaction with Act 4 is that Claudius feels he could have met the same fate as Polonius the 0099 Curtain Spy. Hamlet's blade was meant for Claudius. Polonius' death was just a prelude to more deaths to come, albeit none were as amusing as his. Earlier the Infamous Mr. C and 0099 Curtain Spy were behind the curtains when Hamlet was talking to Ophelia in Act 3 Scene 1 and it was a successful recon mission. But Polonius pushed his luck too far and paid a price. After Polonius’ death the whole play takes on a very different tone, it’s not all about Hamlet’s madness, but it is about putting plans into action. Both Hamlet and Claudius attempt to put an end to the other; Claudius by sending Hamlet to England and have him killed, and Hamlet trying to muster the will to thrust a sword through Claudius. Hamlet now knew he was capable of killing and became more brazen in his plans. The deaths of the characters were not all heroic but Hamlet seems to have come out as a more honorable person. Unfortunately Hamlet had to die also in order for the “rotten in Denmark” to be completely purged.
The Gravediggers give a common man’s view of the kingdom and of death. Though they only show up in Act 5 Scene 1, they play a vital part in the final scenes of the play by giving a perspective of death to Hamlet that he had not considered. When they talk about the idea of suicide when digging Ophelia’s grave, they discuss if suicide is a forgivable sin. Hamlet was contemplating suicide in earlier scenes. After Hamlet hears those words and then sees that it is Ophelia that is being placed in the grave he sees death in a different light after that point. When the gravediggers play with the skulls, it shows that no matter how royal your blood may be, when you die, the worms eat you and you become simply a bag of bones that can be tossed back and forth and used as a prop for a joke. Hamlet shows his disgust with what the gravediggers are doing when he says “That skull had a tongue in it and could sing once. How the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were Cain’s jawbone,that did the first murder! It might be the pate of a politician, which this ass now o'erreaches, one that would circumvent God, might it not?" He sees how his own bones will be lying there one day and he had no control if they were to be defiled.
Mortality is a theme that fits well with Acts 4 and 5. Each main character meets their demise by the end of the play whether they deserved death or not. Persons of royalty feel as if they will live forever, but Hamlet learned in the gravedigger scene that no one lives forever and all are mortal. Even though we feel that Gertrude should have been spared, she is still “rotten” as is the whole kingdom. No one is innocent in this kingdom. If any of the ruling royalty had lived, the lingering stench of a corrupt kingdom would have still permeated in the castle. Even Hamlet had to die to purge the kingdom of its putrid state. That sounds harsh I know, but the only way to purge corruption, deceit, madness and sin is to purge it completely and start over. Hamlet addressed mortality and began to understand what death meant, that we all return to dust when he said “No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither with modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it: as thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is earth; of earth we make loam; and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel? Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay, Might stop a hole to keep the wind away:O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe, Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw!”
The Gravediggers give a common man’s view of the kingdom and of death. Though they only show up in Act 5 Scene 1, they play a vital part in the final scenes of the play by giving a perspective of death to Hamlet that he had not considered. When they talk about the idea of suicide when digging Ophelia’s grave, they discuss if suicide is a forgivable sin. Hamlet was contemplating suicide in earlier scenes. After Hamlet hears those words and then sees that it is Ophelia that is being placed in the grave he sees death in a different light after that point. When the gravediggers play with the skulls, it shows that no matter how royal your blood may be, when you die, the worms eat you and you become simply a bag of bones that can be tossed back and forth and used as a prop for a joke. Hamlet shows his disgust with what the gravediggers are doing when he says “That skull had a tongue in it and could sing once. How the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were Cain’s jawbone,that did the first murder! It might be the pate of a politician, which this ass now o'erreaches, one that would circumvent God, might it not?" He sees how his own bones will be lying there one day and he had no control if they were to be defiled.
Mortality is a theme that fits well with Acts 4 and 5. Each main character meets their demise by the end of the play whether they deserved death or not. Persons of royalty feel as if they will live forever, but Hamlet learned in the gravedigger scene that no one lives forever and all are mortal. Even though we feel that Gertrude should have been spared, she is still “rotten” as is the whole kingdom. No one is innocent in this kingdom. If any of the ruling royalty had lived, the lingering stench of a corrupt kingdom would have still permeated in the castle. Even Hamlet had to die to purge the kingdom of its putrid state. That sounds harsh I know, but the only way to purge corruption, deceit, madness and sin is to purge it completely and start over. Hamlet addressed mortality and began to understand what death meant, that we all return to dust when he said “No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither with modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it: as thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is earth; of earth we make loam; and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel? Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay, Might stop a hole to keep the wind away:O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe, Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw!”
Saturday, March 13, 2010
DRJ#3-Hamlet-Act 3
My first reaction was what the heck is up with all the curtain spying going on, was that some sort of standard spying protocol in those days? We find in Scene 3 that even though Hamlet is spiraling out of control with his plots and plans, it is revealed that Claudius did in fact kill The King, and Hamlet's revenge is justified. Polonius' death was humilating for a person of his esteem, and his death begins a string of deaths that leads to the climax of the play. I cant help but think of, that in some way, it reminds me of Gladiator, the movie. Some scenes seem to continually make me think of that movie, but in that one a son kills his father the King and Gladiator is bound for avenging his death. Similar but different I guess.
Horatio is seen little in Scene 3 but he is, by Hamlet's own description, a complete opposite of Hamlet. Hamlet tells him "for thou hast been—
As one in suffering all that suffers nothing—A man that Fortune’s buffets and rewards Hast ta'en with equal thanks" which means that you are a calm person who takes things as they come and dont get too upset about what happens in life. Horatio seems to be somewhat balenced, but goes along with Hamlet's crazy plans anyway showing loyalty to Hamlet. Hamlet seems to demean Horatio but Horatio takes it in stride.
Loyalty is a theme I see in Act 3 due to the various players' allegiances being revealed and tested. Horatio is loyal to Hamlet and never thinks twice about helping him follow through with his revenge for his father. We see that Polonius is loyal to Claudius and pays the price for his blind loyalty. I have to admit his death scene actually was somewhat amusing, with his cry of "Oh, I am slain", and Hamlet's response to his death. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (sounds like a law firm, sorry, I couldn't resist) show their loyalty to Gertrude and Claudius when they go to try to persuade Hamlet after the play. They know that Hamlet is on to them when he says "Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me!You would play upon me. You would seem to know my stops. You would pluck out the heart of my mystery." Also even though Hamlet reveals to Gertrude why he is so mad and angry, she seems to still not waiver from being loyal to Claudius. And what does all this loyalty get them? It gets them dead, thats all. Dead man walking....
Horatio is seen little in Scene 3 but he is, by Hamlet's own description, a complete opposite of Hamlet. Hamlet tells him "for thou hast been—
As one in suffering all that suffers nothing—A man that Fortune’s buffets and rewards Hast ta'en with equal thanks" which means that you are a calm person who takes things as they come and dont get too upset about what happens in life. Horatio seems to be somewhat balenced, but goes along with Hamlet's crazy plans anyway showing loyalty to Hamlet. Hamlet seems to demean Horatio but Horatio takes it in stride.
Loyalty is a theme I see in Act 3 due to the various players' allegiances being revealed and tested. Horatio is loyal to Hamlet and never thinks twice about helping him follow through with his revenge for his father. We see that Polonius is loyal to Claudius and pays the price for his blind loyalty. I have to admit his death scene actually was somewhat amusing, with his cry of "Oh, I am slain", and Hamlet's response to his death. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (sounds like a law firm, sorry, I couldn't resist) show their loyalty to Gertrude and Claudius when they go to try to persuade Hamlet after the play. They know that Hamlet is on to them when he says "Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me!You would play upon me. You would seem to know my stops. You would pluck out the heart of my mystery." Also even though Hamlet reveals to Gertrude why he is so mad and angry, she seems to still not waiver from being loyal to Claudius. And what does all this loyalty get them? It gets them dead, thats all. Dead man walking....
Friday, March 5, 2010
DRJ #2- Hamlet Scene II
Initial Reaction: Forgive me if I say that Hamlet is beginning to read more and more like a modern day soap opera or a Lifetime movie with a tragically dysfunctional family only being played out using a kingdom. In the first scene Polonius is one of the main character as he is dealing with situations with his children. He sends Reynaldo to Paris to find dirt on Laertes and also has to listen to Ophelia’s account of how Hamlet came to her room seeming crazy. I think any college student can relate to Laertes situation, how parents who are not fully trusting of their children find a way to spy on them. I have heard how some parents sign up on Twitter or Facebook under a pseudo name and become friends with their children just to keep tabs on them. It is my opinion that Polonius is sending Reynaldo in order to protect his own status within the kingdom, not as much as trying to protect his son.
Character Analysis: Polonius is a featured character in Act II and we find out much about his motives and character. He seems to be a protective father to Laertes and Ophelia but it soon escalates to a damaging character flaw for him as his actions meant to protect his children are more detrimental to them. He doesn’t trust his son and he feels that Laertes’ possible misdeeds in Paris will reflect badly on him and thereby harming his status in the eyes of the new King. He feels his daughter is a gullible ignorant girl who cannot make decisions in life regarding men thus his warnings about Hamlet. He told her to be careful in a cold unemotional way, not with compassion and feeling as a caring father would. Polonius was loyal to King Hamlet before his death and he seems to be trying to make his mark with Claudius by using deceit and a corrupt nature much like Claudius. He shows his loyalty to Claudius by saying “I assure my good liege, I hold my duty as I hold my soul, both to God and to my gracious king…”. He launches into a speech on the importance of duty and honor and then follows up with declaring to the King that Hamlet is crazy. Polonius can’t keep up with all the pots he has in the fire and seems almost absent minded and confused when he loses his train of thought and says “What was I about to say? By the mass, I was about to say something. Where did I leave?”
Theme Analysis- Deceit and deception would be the theme for Scene II as it plays out throughout the scene. Polonius showed deception by having Reynaldo to Paris to spy on Laertes and also by his actions with his daughter’s news to him of Hamlet’s visit to her room. Both show that he is using deception to gain his own rewards, not utilizing it to help his children. Claudius uses deceit in having Hamlet’s friends keep tabs on him, his whereabouts and his mental state. Hamlet begins his plotting on how he will uncover the truth about his father’s death. He asks one of the actors in a troupe that enters to perform a speech from Virgil’s Aeneid which tells of the story of Achilles death whose son was Phyrrus. He then tells them he wants them to perform “The Murder of Gonzago” the next night for Claudius with added language by Hamlet so that he can watch the reaction of Claudius and see if he flinches or seems guilty about King Hamlet’s death. He says that he has heard that some people who are guilty sometimes confess their crime when they are led to feel guilt through a certain scene in a play. Hamlet is seeking ways to confirm what he already knows, that Claudius killed his father. Hamlet is not brave enough to take the action of killing Claudius and is seeking other ways to inflict revenge. He even admits his own weakness when he says “Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,That I, the son of a dear father murdered,Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with wordsAnd fall a-cursing like a very drab,A scullion! Fie upon ’t, foh!”. He is also deceiving his own self in thinking that he could act on what his heart and mind is telling him to do.
Character Analysis: Polonius is a featured character in Act II and we find out much about his motives and character. He seems to be a protective father to Laertes and Ophelia but it soon escalates to a damaging character flaw for him as his actions meant to protect his children are more detrimental to them. He doesn’t trust his son and he feels that Laertes’ possible misdeeds in Paris will reflect badly on him and thereby harming his status in the eyes of the new King. He feels his daughter is a gullible ignorant girl who cannot make decisions in life regarding men thus his warnings about Hamlet. He told her to be careful in a cold unemotional way, not with compassion and feeling as a caring father would. Polonius was loyal to King Hamlet before his death and he seems to be trying to make his mark with Claudius by using deceit and a corrupt nature much like Claudius. He shows his loyalty to Claudius by saying “I assure my good liege, I hold my duty as I hold my soul, both to God and to my gracious king…”. He launches into a speech on the importance of duty and honor and then follows up with declaring to the King that Hamlet is crazy. Polonius can’t keep up with all the pots he has in the fire and seems almost absent minded and confused when he loses his train of thought and says “What was I about to say? By the mass, I was about to say something. Where did I leave?”
Theme Analysis- Deceit and deception would be the theme for Scene II as it plays out throughout the scene. Polonius showed deception by having Reynaldo to Paris to spy on Laertes and also by his actions with his daughter’s news to him of Hamlet’s visit to her room. Both show that he is using deception to gain his own rewards, not utilizing it to help his children. Claudius uses deceit in having Hamlet’s friends keep tabs on him, his whereabouts and his mental state. Hamlet begins his plotting on how he will uncover the truth about his father’s death. He asks one of the actors in a troupe that enters to perform a speech from Virgil’s Aeneid which tells of the story of Achilles death whose son was Phyrrus. He then tells them he wants them to perform “The Murder of Gonzago” the next night for Claudius with added language by Hamlet so that he can watch the reaction of Claudius and see if he flinches or seems guilty about King Hamlet’s death. He says that he has heard that some people who are guilty sometimes confess their crime when they are led to feel guilt through a certain scene in a play. Hamlet is seeking ways to confirm what he already knows, that Claudius killed his father. Hamlet is not brave enough to take the action of killing Claudius and is seeking other ways to inflict revenge. He even admits his own weakness when he says “Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,That I, the son of a dear father murdered,Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with wordsAnd fall a-cursing like a very drab,A scullion! Fie upon ’t, foh!”. He is also deceiving his own self in thinking that he could act on what his heart and mind is telling him to do.
Friday, February 26, 2010
DRJ #1- Hamlet, Act 1
Initial reaction: Claudius’ character certainly reminds me of an actual true story of a man I knew some years ago who married his brother’s wife. In my story, the other brother was not dead, but I would think he almost felt dead with what happened. The one brother I compare to Claudius virtually stole away his brother’s wife and ironically and almost tragically went from being uncle to two boys to being their step-father. The Claudius-like brother knew he was tearing apart a family and still went forward with his misdeeds. The two boys soon learned to hate the step-father for what he did to their family. To this day, some 15 years later, it still reverberates in their family and they are a broken and distant family. I could see this Claudius-like brother telling the two boys to stop mourning their father being out of the house and start thinking of him as their new father. These real life dramas play out every day I would imagine, not in a play.
Character Analysis: Hamlet is the protagonist in this story and his fatal flaw is his rage of anger toward Claudius. He was already furious about Claudius marrying his mother only a month after the King’s death and then adds to that wrath after his encounter with the Ghost who claims to be his father and tells of how Claudius killed him. Even though he tells his friends that he is in control and for them to not worry, inside his rage is burning and no man can think straight when he hears of such an act which Claudius did. At this point of the play Hamlet meets Aristotle’s depiction of a tragic hero wherein Hamlet is of noble birth and we feel a pity for him in his situation.
Theme Analysis: There is a clear theme in the first act of Evil versus Goodness. It is clear that the King was admired and a good man signifying Goodness and his brother Claudius is the complete opposite, a murderer, a manipulator, a liar, someone with a cold and unfeeling heart representing Evil. These two elements in the theme are not hidden within the scenes; we immediately realize that Claudius is trying to manipulate Hamlet when he tells Hamlet that it is useless for him to mourn his father any longer. His father was dead for only two months. When we read how the Ghost tells his side of his own murder by his brother, it sets the scene for what is to come which will be a battle between what is good and what is evil. Hamlet lets it be known that “Foul deeds will rise, Though all the earth o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes”, or translated to men’s deeds will be revealed even if they try to hide them. Marcellus’s famous statement of “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” sets the tone of what is to come.
Character Analysis: Hamlet is the protagonist in this story and his fatal flaw is his rage of anger toward Claudius. He was already furious about Claudius marrying his mother only a month after the King’s death and then adds to that wrath after his encounter with the Ghost who claims to be his father and tells of how Claudius killed him. Even though he tells his friends that he is in control and for them to not worry, inside his rage is burning and no man can think straight when he hears of such an act which Claudius did. At this point of the play Hamlet meets Aristotle’s depiction of a tragic hero wherein Hamlet is of noble birth and we feel a pity for him in his situation.
Theme Analysis: There is a clear theme in the first act of Evil versus Goodness. It is clear that the King was admired and a good man signifying Goodness and his brother Claudius is the complete opposite, a murderer, a manipulator, a liar, someone with a cold and unfeeling heart representing Evil. These two elements in the theme are not hidden within the scenes; we immediately realize that Claudius is trying to manipulate Hamlet when he tells Hamlet that it is useless for him to mourn his father any longer. His father was dead for only two months. When we read how the Ghost tells his side of his own murder by his brother, it sets the scene for what is to come which will be a battle between what is good and what is evil. Hamlet lets it be known that “Foul deeds will rise, Though all the earth o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes”, or translated to men’s deeds will be revealed even if they try to hide them. Marcellus’s famous statement of “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” sets the tone of what is to come.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Chopin Support for Thesis Activity
Thesis #1
Chopin utilized a rather conflicting emotion from Mrs. Mallard when she stated “Free! Body and soul free!”. With the use of exclamation points you would have thought that she was screaming this from the top of her lungs, but ironically she was whispering. Chopin uses this sentence to show that women at that time were taught to hold their emotions inside, but they screamed for equality and eventually they progressed to be able to shout their emotions without feeling subjected by the male dominated society.
Thesis #2
Chopin takes us through three stages in her story; the death of a believed oppressor, a feeling of a new life afterward by Mrs. Mallard, the oppressed, and then death once again to the very one who was so looking forward to this newfound freedom. How ironic that at right at the very moment she felt “she would live for herself”, that her struggle was finally over, when she felt fully alive, her life was taken from her. It is a lesson in accepting the freedom that is given and not celebrating the death of your oppressor.
Feedback From Blunk:
Nice job!!!! Excellent selection of evidence from the text and explanation of that evidence. Please, definitely post this to your blog so that everyone may see this example.
Chopin utilized a rather conflicting emotion from Mrs. Mallard when she stated “Free! Body and soul free!”. With the use of exclamation points you would have thought that she was screaming this from the top of her lungs, but ironically she was whispering. Chopin uses this sentence to show that women at that time were taught to hold their emotions inside, but they screamed for equality and eventually they progressed to be able to shout their emotions without feeling subjected by the male dominated society.
Thesis #2
Chopin takes us through three stages in her story; the death of a believed oppressor, a feeling of a new life afterward by Mrs. Mallard, the oppressed, and then death once again to the very one who was so looking forward to this newfound freedom. How ironic that at right at the very moment she felt “she would live for herself”, that her struggle was finally over, when she felt fully alive, her life was taken from her. It is a lesson in accepting the freedom that is given and not celebrating the death of your oppressor.
Feedback From Blunk:
Nice job!!!! Excellent selection of evidence from the text and explanation of that evidence. Please, definitely post this to your blog so that everyone may see this example.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
SSRJ #4-Minot
It seems that I was so carried away with how awful Updike's Summer was, I posted it as my SSRJ instead of Minot's "Lust". I digressed from a stalking teenage boy to a promiscious young teenage girl. If only my mother knew I was reading such stories........
The narrator is a rich girl who is also loose with the guys. She gets to go to private school and nice vacation places but she uses every location to be with another boy. “Lust” is a good title because she is definitely not in love with any of the guys she was with. As a guy, I can see the picture of how it is with a guy especially a young guy who is focused on conquering the ladies. When you are young and stupid you are young and stupid so you do not pay attention to the emotions of the girl afterward. I cannot speak to how a woman feels but I would think she is accurate in her depiction of the girl’s reactions. Teenage sex was similar to what she is describing. The story takes place in the 70s and 80s when teen sex was rampant, before the AIDS scare. I grew up in the era also and I see that as true. Teens know what they are doing, their morals seem to go to the wayside when it comes to the attractions and raging hormones during the teen years, but they don’t see the consequences until it is too late. The tone is choppy and jumpy, going quickly from one sexual encounter to another. You almost get dizzy with the jumping from one to another, but with little detail on each. You only get a glimpse of each encounter. The title suggested to me a slower pace for the story, sort of like a romance novel or something. She isn’t happy and it emanates out from her by her sexual actions. Sometimes we see happiness as almost a boring emotion. There is more ways to be unhappy, disappointed and frustrated than ways to be happy. There is more conflict and ways to show bad situations than good ones.
The narrator is a rich girl who is also loose with the guys. She gets to go to private school and nice vacation places but she uses every location to be with another boy. “Lust” is a good title because she is definitely not in love with any of the guys she was with. As a guy, I can see the picture of how it is with a guy especially a young guy who is focused on conquering the ladies. When you are young and stupid you are young and stupid so you do not pay attention to the emotions of the girl afterward. I cannot speak to how a woman feels but I would think she is accurate in her depiction of the girl’s reactions. Teenage sex was similar to what she is describing. The story takes place in the 70s and 80s when teen sex was rampant, before the AIDS scare. I grew up in the era also and I see that as true. Teens know what they are doing, their morals seem to go to the wayside when it comes to the attractions and raging hormones during the teen years, but they don’t see the consequences until it is too late. The tone is choppy and jumpy, going quickly from one sexual encounter to another. You almost get dizzy with the jumping from one to another, but with little detail on each. You only get a glimpse of each encounter. The title suggested to me a slower pace for the story, sort of like a romance novel or something. She isn’t happy and it emanates out from her by her sexual actions. Sometimes we see happiness as almost a boring emotion. There is more ways to be unhappy, disappointed and frustrated than ways to be happy. There is more conflict and ways to show bad situations than good ones.
Hemingway Extra Credit
I moved to California from my hometown in Alabama in 1988 and then moved back in 2002. My experience was not as dramatic as Krebs, but I did feel like an outsider and a stranger in my old hometown. Many childhood friends had moved away but many had stayed and it was difficult for me to relate to their attitudes and their way of life. I was not accepted back in by many who believed I had come back a different person, not one of them any longer. They even remarked how I now had a California accent. My old friends and I had very different views on life. I felt I had experienced many different people and cultures in California and back home nothing had changed. They liked it that way. So I could see how Krebs came home and desired to be back in France or Germany. I only lived back home for four years until I returned to California in 2006. I have had conflict with myself ever since I moved back out here to California. The time I spent in my hometown made me appreciate a simpler lifestyle but I enjoy all that living in California offers. I am not sure if I feel more at home in California or Alabama.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Walker Extra Credit
He sees her nervously standing, he notices her trembling hands, he watches as she repeats her vows, not really understanding her.
Do you take this woman?
He doesn’t know if she will concede to the obligations and constraints of his faith. He is thinking of how his parents and fellow Muslims may not accept her.
to live together after God’s ordinance – in the holy estate of matrimony?
Why is he following through with this even when he knows she does not love him?
forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?
Her hand is soft, her eyes watery, her kiss lukewarm, they turn and begin their untold life together as two people who may never be one.
Do you take this woman?
He doesn’t know if she will concede to the obligations and constraints of his faith. He is thinking of how his parents and fellow Muslims may not accept her.
to live together after God’s ordinance – in the holy estate of matrimony?
Why is he following through with this even when he knows she does not love him?
forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?
Her hand is soft, her eyes watery, her kiss lukewarm, they turn and begin their untold life together as two people who may never be one.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
SSRJ #4- Updike-Summer
If you feel this story was a nice love story with a heartfelt message about young love and innocence, you may not like what I am about to say. Updike’s attempt at writing what he considers a love story falls short of developing what I consider to be a real love story. When I think of romance and a love story, I see two people falling in love, facing some difficulties and dealing with the circumstances of their relationship. As I read “Summer” I saw Homer as holding an infatuation with Sandra, almost to a point of stalking. In the early part of the story it tells how he was watching her tan on the dock and it became almost disturbing to read how he would notice every line, every shade, and every movement she made. Growing up there were times where I was infatuated with a friend’s sister, but it was merely childish crushes and some fun, harmless flirtations, not a love story. This so called love story was a unilateral affection that was 99.5% about how he felt about her. At the very end they were lying on opposite ends of the couch and she rested her foot on his back by accident and it stayed there. That was the only indication throughout the whole story that she was vaguely noticing him at all. That doesn’t classify as a true love story to me. If she would have acknowledged she also had feelings for him, it would have made a better story. It would have shown that his silent love was returned with an open expression of her love for him.
Additionally Updike’s writing in this story is full of hyperbole with his constant over exaggeration of the settings and the actions of the characters. I found myself attempting to wade through his long winded explanations of such simple scenes of the porch and the dock. In the third paragraph he starts out with “From the cool darkness of the porch, smelling faintly of moldy books and kerosene and the tobacco of burning pipes, he sat looking through the screen to the lake, shimmering beneath the heat of a summer afternoon; a dog lay sleeping in the sun………”. I translated “A kid was sitting on a smelly old porch with a dog”. It didn’t make me stop and try to imagine what that scene was like, it made me want to “speed read” to the next paragraph.
I understood that Updike was trying to use the seasons to describe the situation with Homer, but I would have enjoyed a story with scenes and descriptions simply stated, not one in which I had to use a thesaurus just to get through it. I consider myself a romantic and enjoy a good romance novel or story such as Nicholas Sparks’ books, but “Summer” did not bring out any emotion in me other than an irritation and a need to classify Homer as just a creepy lonely dude with a crush on his friend’s sister.
Additionally Updike’s writing in this story is full of hyperbole with his constant over exaggeration of the settings and the actions of the characters. I found myself attempting to wade through his long winded explanations of such simple scenes of the porch and the dock. In the third paragraph he starts out with “From the cool darkness of the porch, smelling faintly of moldy books and kerosene and the tobacco of burning pipes, he sat looking through the screen to the lake, shimmering beneath the heat of a summer afternoon; a dog lay sleeping in the sun………”. I translated “A kid was sitting on a smelly old porch with a dog”. It didn’t make me stop and try to imagine what that scene was like, it made me want to “speed read” to the next paragraph.
I understood that Updike was trying to use the seasons to describe the situation with Homer, but I would have enjoyed a story with scenes and descriptions simply stated, not one in which I had to use a thesaurus just to get through it. I consider myself a romantic and enjoy a good romance novel or story such as Nicholas Sparks’ books, but “Summer” did not bring out any emotion in me other than an irritation and a need to classify Homer as just a creepy lonely dude with a crush on his friend’s sister.
Friday, February 5, 2010
SSRJ #3-D. Walker
Walker’s story is not unlike many soldiers who came back from Vietnam, witnessing the horrors and atrocities of a war that had no resolution, no real victory. War is about victory, it is about winning at all costs, and it is about sacrificing the few for the greater good of all. Vietnam was different than any war that the United States had fought in up to that time. The history books differ if there was victory there or if there was anything good that came from the war. Many of the Vietnam veterans felt that their country forgot them, that they fought, were bloodied and scarred, and their fellow soldiers and buddies died for no reason. The story takes place in the late 80s, before the Gulf War, before 9/11, before the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. In the past 15 years or so there has been a resurgence of patriotism and a new found appreciation and respect for our military, past and present. Prior to this period, the military did not have as much respect and much of that had to do with the Vietnam War. Many vets from Vietnam carried what they felt was a shame for what they did in Vietnam. For that reason I believe this story is more about war than peace. Just as the Vietnam War had no real peace resolution, Walker also had no real inner peace in his life.
The beginning of the story sets the tone for the rest of the story; Walker admits that he did want to talk to his wife or daughter about the war because he wanted them to think he was a good man, not the man he was in Vietnam. He did not want his family to know that he killed without feeling or remorse. By all accounts he had become a well adjusted contributing member of society. He recounts how he came back from the war and did nothing, just sitting around in Chicago smoking dope and in his mind, still at war. He eventually enrolled in college and was accepted to medical school but even at medical school he could not escape the war. When the Research Center was blown up by some war protesters he was called on to help resuscitate a physicist who was dead already. He related that incident in war terms so it was more of a flashback to him. From that point to the present was an interesting twist. He eventually became a plastic surgeon doing cosmetic surgery for the most part. He became bored with his patients and started doing charity work around the world. But all the while he was still dead inside.
Why he chose to go back to Vietnam and especially North Vietnam is rather perplexing to me. I believe he was trying to go back to the scene of the crime, so to speak, in hopes of getting answers and closure. The Vietnam he went back to was the same dirty filthy place that hardened him in the first place. His description of the sights smells and sounds in Ho Chi Minh City almost jumped off the page and at points I felt like I could smell what he smelled. He did a great job of pulling me into the scene. Everything reminded him of what he saw in the war, even his hotel room.
In his first meeting with Dihn it was shocking to hear how Walker thought how easily it would be to kill Dihn. It was due to the way Dihn greeted him, not wanting to shake his hand, the way Dihn reminded him of the Viet Cong he fought in the war. It wasn’t until later that he discovered Dihn had no thumbs; they were removed during a time he was being tortured. But Dihn doesn’t do anything to make Walker cozy up to him. Dihn would mention how the Vietnamese way is why they win victory and how they fought the Americans and the Vietnamese puppets. This only causes Walker to further loath where he was at and who he was with. Walker does the job he came there to do nonetheless and now Dihn wants him to do surgery on him to transplant his toes to make thumbs. Just as the war had no resolution, just as Walker had no resolution in his life, this too had not real resolution. The new thumbs had gangrene and had to be amputated. Walker could not fix Dihn, he could not fix himself, he could not change the past and he could not fix the war inside him.
I believe the theme is implicit within the story, all the characters are like the grass, they wither away and die, they are only here for a short time. But the grass also grows over and covers the bare ground, so maybe The Grass he is speaking of is Walker’s attempt to cover up his past.
The beginning of the story sets the tone for the rest of the story; Walker admits that he did want to talk to his wife or daughter about the war because he wanted them to think he was a good man, not the man he was in Vietnam. He did not want his family to know that he killed without feeling or remorse. By all accounts he had become a well adjusted contributing member of society. He recounts how he came back from the war and did nothing, just sitting around in Chicago smoking dope and in his mind, still at war. He eventually enrolled in college and was accepted to medical school but even at medical school he could not escape the war. When the Research Center was blown up by some war protesters he was called on to help resuscitate a physicist who was dead already. He related that incident in war terms so it was more of a flashback to him. From that point to the present was an interesting twist. He eventually became a plastic surgeon doing cosmetic surgery for the most part. He became bored with his patients and started doing charity work around the world. But all the while he was still dead inside.
Why he chose to go back to Vietnam and especially North Vietnam is rather perplexing to me. I believe he was trying to go back to the scene of the crime, so to speak, in hopes of getting answers and closure. The Vietnam he went back to was the same dirty filthy place that hardened him in the first place. His description of the sights smells and sounds in Ho Chi Minh City almost jumped off the page and at points I felt like I could smell what he smelled. He did a great job of pulling me into the scene. Everything reminded him of what he saw in the war, even his hotel room.
In his first meeting with Dihn it was shocking to hear how Walker thought how easily it would be to kill Dihn. It was due to the way Dihn greeted him, not wanting to shake his hand, the way Dihn reminded him of the Viet Cong he fought in the war. It wasn’t until later that he discovered Dihn had no thumbs; they were removed during a time he was being tortured. But Dihn doesn’t do anything to make Walker cozy up to him. Dihn would mention how the Vietnamese way is why they win victory and how they fought the Americans and the Vietnamese puppets. This only causes Walker to further loath where he was at and who he was with. Walker does the job he came there to do nonetheless and now Dihn wants him to do surgery on him to transplant his toes to make thumbs. Just as the war had no resolution, just as Walker had no resolution in his life, this too had not real resolution. The new thumbs had gangrene and had to be amputated. Walker could not fix Dihn, he could not fix himself, he could not change the past and he could not fix the war inside him.
I believe the theme is implicit within the story, all the characters are like the grass, they wither away and die, they are only here for a short time. But the grass also grows over and covers the bare ground, so maybe The Grass he is speaking of is Walker’s attempt to cover up his past.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
SSRJ #2- Hemingway
One of Hemingway’s famous quotes was “A man can be destroyed but not defeated” and one of my favorite personal quotes is "A man's greatness is determined by how much it takes to discourage him". As we know Hemingway was one of the 20th century’s most famous writers but he lived what some could call a tragic life. Hemingway was in World War I, was wounded, and had trouble adjusting to life when he returned (184). He was also at the D-Day landing in World War II so he had seen his fair share of bloody battles and other atrocities. The one battle he could not win was the battle within himself and eventually let life defeat him. I have read of how not only he committed suicide but his father, brother, sister and granddaughter also took their own life.
Knowing Hemingway’s life story, I read “Soldier’s Home” constantly thinking of Krebs being a part of Hemingway himself, struggling with life. What first struck me about the story was its title, Soldier’s Home. The title wasn’t “A Soldier’s Home” or “A Soldier is Home”, which led me to think that Hemingway was trying to convey a sense of what it was like for Krebs isolated life after the war. After all words mean things, or do they? Krebs seems to have come from an average middle class family in Oklahoma. There is no indication prior to him going off to war that he had a troubled past or that his family struggled. His family had good values which included religion in their lives whereas we read that Krebs went to a Methodist college and his mother was a spiritual woman. One revealing absence in the story is Krebs’ father. He is prevalent in the story as we read how his mother is relaying information to Krebs from his father but there were no direct quotes from his father. When you read about Hemingway’s youth it tells how his mother was known as abusive to his father, so I wonder if he was reflecting his mother’s dominant presence in this story. When Krebs went off to war in Europe he did not return the same, he returned hardened and introverted, not unlike many who go off to war. There is a quote that is said to have been attributed to General Sherman during the Civil War that said “"Some of you young men think that war is all glamour and glory, but let me tell you, boys, it is all hell!". I have a sense that Krebs and many other young men going off to war at that time thought it would be a great experience and they would come home as conquering heroes and tell stories of adventure and the women they loved. The war officially ended on Armistice Day in November of 1918 so Krebs’ extended deployment in Germany (he came home in the summer of 1919) following the ending of the war delayed his chance to come home and be vetted as a hero like many in his hometown. This seemed to afflict Krebs to the point that he did not want to become a part of society again, he only wanted to sleep late, play pool, read books on the front porch and practice his clarinet. His hometown had not changed, but he had changed. He did not want to relate with any of the girls in town even when his mother would encourage him to take the car out on the town. Krebs was worn out with consequences and complications in the war so he did not want any complications or consequences in his life. So therefore the conflict was Krebs battling himself, warring against what he should do with what he wasn’t willing to do.
I don’t think Krebs’ family really understood what happened to him in the war; they lived a simplistic small town life and were never exposed to the trauma and distress of war or conflict. They assume that he should just return home and be the same person he was when he left. That meant getting a job and being a normal person. Maybe the way they treated him, like he was a young boy, was their way of closing their eyes to the darker man he had become. If he was in college and was at war for two years he had to have been in his mid 20s by then.
There was the exchange between him and his sister Helen that I didn’t quite understand. I took their banter as innocent jabbing between siblings when she called him “her beau”, but when she asked questions like “Am I really your girl?” and “Will you love me always”, seems more like the way a girlfriend would act toward her boyfriend. I was not sure of that exchange other than maybe his sister was trying to convey her love for him and to make him realize that his family loves him.
In the end his encounter with his mother where she asked him to pray, he refused, and she offered to pray for him, was the turning point. He eventually said “yes” to her prayer request and got up from that prayer a different person. Krebs doesn’t want to confront and deal with his troubles and prayer is a way to ask for help when you feel helpless. He did not want to feel weak but at the same time, he was at his weakest and gave in. He finally realizes that he must leave his hometown in order to move forward in his soul. If he stays he will only become more bitter and heartless. He musters the will to leave behind not only his town but his conflicts within his soul. He then could start living his life, but not there in his hometown but in Kansas City. He could start anew and hopefully deal with the consequences and complications that all of us face in life.
I have never been to war but in some respects I can relate to Krebs’ returning home after being away for some time. I was raised in a small town in south Alabama, a town that does not change. I moved to California for 14 years and then moved back to my hometown in 2002 and lived there for four years before moving back to California in 2006. My experience was not as dramatic as Krebs, but I did feel like an outsider and a stranger in my old hometown. Many childhood friends had moved away but many had stayed and it was difficult for me to relate to their attitudes and their way of life. I was not accepted back into that isolated world by many who believed I had come back a different person, no longer one of “them”. They even remarked how I now had a California accent. My old friends and I had very different views on life. I felt I had experienced a diverse people and different cultures in California and back home little or nothing had changed. They liked it that way. So I could see how Krebs came home and desired to be back in France or Germany. I have had conflict with myself ever since I moved back out here to California though. The time I spent in my hometown made me appreciate a simpler lifestyle but at the same time I enjoy all that living in California offers. At times, I am not sure if I feel more at home in California or Alabama. Each of them holds a part of me, each one different. It is those sorts of conflicts, consequences, and complications that all of us face in life and we can’t let those elements overtake us, but we must overcome them and keep moving forward. I would wonder if others have had a similar experience.
Knowing Hemingway’s life story, I read “Soldier’s Home” constantly thinking of Krebs being a part of Hemingway himself, struggling with life. What first struck me about the story was its title, Soldier’s Home. The title wasn’t “A Soldier’s Home” or “A Soldier is Home”, which led me to think that Hemingway was trying to convey a sense of what it was like for Krebs isolated life after the war. After all words mean things, or do they? Krebs seems to have come from an average middle class family in Oklahoma. There is no indication prior to him going off to war that he had a troubled past or that his family struggled. His family had good values which included religion in their lives whereas we read that Krebs went to a Methodist college and his mother was a spiritual woman. One revealing absence in the story is Krebs’ father. He is prevalent in the story as we read how his mother is relaying information to Krebs from his father but there were no direct quotes from his father. When you read about Hemingway’s youth it tells how his mother was known as abusive to his father, so I wonder if he was reflecting his mother’s dominant presence in this story. When Krebs went off to war in Europe he did not return the same, he returned hardened and introverted, not unlike many who go off to war. There is a quote that is said to have been attributed to General Sherman during the Civil War that said “"Some of you young men think that war is all glamour and glory, but let me tell you, boys, it is all hell!". I have a sense that Krebs and many other young men going off to war at that time thought it would be a great experience and they would come home as conquering heroes and tell stories of adventure and the women they loved. The war officially ended on Armistice Day in November of 1918 so Krebs’ extended deployment in Germany (he came home in the summer of 1919) following the ending of the war delayed his chance to come home and be vetted as a hero like many in his hometown. This seemed to afflict Krebs to the point that he did not want to become a part of society again, he only wanted to sleep late, play pool, read books on the front porch and practice his clarinet. His hometown had not changed, but he had changed. He did not want to relate with any of the girls in town even when his mother would encourage him to take the car out on the town. Krebs was worn out with consequences and complications in the war so he did not want any complications or consequences in his life. So therefore the conflict was Krebs battling himself, warring against what he should do with what he wasn’t willing to do.
I don’t think Krebs’ family really understood what happened to him in the war; they lived a simplistic small town life and were never exposed to the trauma and distress of war or conflict. They assume that he should just return home and be the same person he was when he left. That meant getting a job and being a normal person. Maybe the way they treated him, like he was a young boy, was their way of closing their eyes to the darker man he had become. If he was in college and was at war for two years he had to have been in his mid 20s by then.
There was the exchange between him and his sister Helen that I didn’t quite understand. I took their banter as innocent jabbing between siblings when she called him “her beau”, but when she asked questions like “Am I really your girl?” and “Will you love me always”, seems more like the way a girlfriend would act toward her boyfriend. I was not sure of that exchange other than maybe his sister was trying to convey her love for him and to make him realize that his family loves him.
In the end his encounter with his mother where she asked him to pray, he refused, and she offered to pray for him, was the turning point. He eventually said “yes” to her prayer request and got up from that prayer a different person. Krebs doesn’t want to confront and deal with his troubles and prayer is a way to ask for help when you feel helpless. He did not want to feel weak but at the same time, he was at his weakest and gave in. He finally realizes that he must leave his hometown in order to move forward in his soul. If he stays he will only become more bitter and heartless. He musters the will to leave behind not only his town but his conflicts within his soul. He then could start living his life, but not there in his hometown but in Kansas City. He could start anew and hopefully deal with the consequences and complications that all of us face in life.
I have never been to war but in some respects I can relate to Krebs’ returning home after being away for some time. I was raised in a small town in south Alabama, a town that does not change. I moved to California for 14 years and then moved back to my hometown in 2002 and lived there for four years before moving back to California in 2006. My experience was not as dramatic as Krebs, but I did feel like an outsider and a stranger in my old hometown. Many childhood friends had moved away but many had stayed and it was difficult for me to relate to their attitudes and their way of life. I was not accepted back into that isolated world by many who believed I had come back a different person, no longer one of “them”. They even remarked how I now had a California accent. My old friends and I had very different views on life. I felt I had experienced a diverse people and different cultures in California and back home little or nothing had changed. They liked it that way. So I could see how Krebs came home and desired to be back in France or Germany. I have had conflict with myself ever since I moved back out here to California though. The time I spent in my hometown made me appreciate a simpler lifestyle but at the same time I enjoy all that living in California offers. At times, I am not sure if I feel more at home in California or Alabama. Each of them holds a part of me, each one different. It is those sorts of conflicts, consequences, and complications that all of us face in life and we can’t let those elements overtake us, but we must overcome them and keep moving forward. I would wonder if others have had a similar experience.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
ENG 1B Intro
Hi, fellow online students. My name is Jeff Cooley but most of my friends just call me Cooley. Easier to say I guess. I'm a Utilities Manager who is taken this class to satisfy the requirements for English so that I can get into the Environmental Resource Management online degree program at CSU Bakersfield. I was somewhat apprehensive about attempting an online English class seeing as I am far removed from my first encounters with literature and composition. I have taken several online courses before and if you are not self-motivated and self-disciplined you may as well forget it and pack it in. I like to read, mostly spy novels and historical novels, along with magazines such as ESPNtheMag, Sporting News, etc(gotta have a balance). My writing now is mostly developing policies or creating business letters and memos. I do think this class will enhance my writing skills and open up my psyche to a more enriched thinking and maybe reopen my aspiration and thirst to read more literature. And oh yea, I will have to work my butt off to pass, I know that now after the first few assignments. My other online class right now is Environmental Politics so maybe between the two, the two sides of my brain will cooperate with each other, and not battle it out for supremacy.
I started doing Triathlons three years ago so in between training for Tris, work, family, watching football, and my classes, my days and nights are filled up.
Looking forward to learning from everyone in the class.
I started doing Triathlons three years ago so in between training for Tris, work, family, watching football, and my classes, my days and nights are filled up.
Looking forward to learning from everyone in the class.
Friday, January 22, 2010
SSRJ #1: Chopin
Chopin’s short story “The Story of an Hour”, the telling of a young woman’s reactions to the sudden news of her husband’s death, brought out several emotions in me. As I read in the beginning when the terrible news was being revealed to her I briefly recalled a time in my life when the news of a loved one was revealed to me and my reaction at that moment. My mother and brother both died suddenly within two months of each other in 2001. The pain and anguish associated with that experience was a devastating blow to my heart, soul and spirit. The dazed and numb feeling of hearing such news was like life was suspended for a short while so that my mind could catch up with what just happened. It took months for the grief to ease, and the sting is still there as it is with all that lose a loved one. As I read of Mrs. Mallards reaction to the death of her husband she did not have that same feeling of loss and pain, she contrarily had a response that was a short lived period of weeping before she realized that her husband’s death may have opened up a world of opportunity for her, not a life of grieving.
In the very first sentence of the story the author straight away informs us that Mrs. Mallard “was afflicted with a heart trouble”. This was an interesting insight to reveal so quickly about Mrs. Mallard. As you read the ending of the story, you realize that irony and foreshadowing was in play there. When she died in the ending of the story they stated that she died from “heart disease”, not “heart trouble”. That is why I believe her “heart trouble” was not one of a physical nature; it was one of an emotional nature, one who had a hardened heart. She feels as if she has spent years in emotional chains and now she is free from her repressor. The death of Mr. Mallard became a celebratory experience for her, one in which she maybe envisioned life free from this so called repression. I could comprehend her feeling of this sudden freedom but you would envision that emotion coming on a newly widowed wife at a later time, not minutes after hearing this terrible information. The mention of “spring” and “blue skies” gives me an indication of her thinking of a fresh and lovelier beginning. The story gives little insight to the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Mallard other than her remark about her describing him as “the face that had never looked save with love upon her” and the authors description of the physical appearance of Mrs. Mallard as having a “calm face, whose lines bespoke repression”. During that time in our nation’s history, women had not been given the right to vote and many did not have careers, so they were caretakers of the house and children for the most part. I believe the author could have been attempting to speak for many of the women in that day. I do not associate her telling of this story with the struggles of women in those days though, as many women struggled for equality but still maintained a caring and reverent relationship with their husband. I see it as a single relationship gone wrong, not a symbol of women’s strife for equality. Interestingly the author did not give much description of Mr. Mallard. Leaving out the details of the marriage prior to this happening leaves it to our imagination to determine what sort of marriage it was.
Remember the title “The Story of an Hour”; all this took place within an hour, not a day, not a week, not a month, but one hour. It reminds me that life can change for you in a short period of time. One minute you could be eagerly anticipating a new beginning and then suddenly you could be departed from this life. Even though Mrs. Mallard felt she was being repressed, and by all accounts maybe she was, but her reaction to her husband’s death sealed her fate. After all the story stated that “she did not stop to ask if it were or were not a monstrous joy that held her.”
Can we think of our reactions to bad things happening to people we despise or who has repressed people such as when Saddam Hussein was executed, were you glad that it happened? Did you feel a sense of relief when it happened? Can we actually control our reaction to those situations? Could Mrs. Mallard control her emotions when she heard of her husband’s death?
Jeff Cooley
In the very first sentence of the story the author straight away informs us that Mrs. Mallard “was afflicted with a heart trouble”. This was an interesting insight to reveal so quickly about Mrs. Mallard. As you read the ending of the story, you realize that irony and foreshadowing was in play there. When she died in the ending of the story they stated that she died from “heart disease”, not “heart trouble”. That is why I believe her “heart trouble” was not one of a physical nature; it was one of an emotional nature, one who had a hardened heart. She feels as if she has spent years in emotional chains and now she is free from her repressor. The death of Mr. Mallard became a celebratory experience for her, one in which she maybe envisioned life free from this so called repression. I could comprehend her feeling of this sudden freedom but you would envision that emotion coming on a newly widowed wife at a later time, not minutes after hearing this terrible information. The mention of “spring” and “blue skies” gives me an indication of her thinking of a fresh and lovelier beginning. The story gives little insight to the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Mallard other than her remark about her describing him as “the face that had never looked save with love upon her” and the authors description of the physical appearance of Mrs. Mallard as having a “calm face, whose lines bespoke repression”. During that time in our nation’s history, women had not been given the right to vote and many did not have careers, so they were caretakers of the house and children for the most part. I believe the author could have been attempting to speak for many of the women in that day. I do not associate her telling of this story with the struggles of women in those days though, as many women struggled for equality but still maintained a caring and reverent relationship with their husband. I see it as a single relationship gone wrong, not a symbol of women’s strife for equality. Interestingly the author did not give much description of Mr. Mallard. Leaving out the details of the marriage prior to this happening leaves it to our imagination to determine what sort of marriage it was.
Remember the title “The Story of an Hour”; all this took place within an hour, not a day, not a week, not a month, but one hour. It reminds me that life can change for you in a short period of time. One minute you could be eagerly anticipating a new beginning and then suddenly you could be departed from this life. Even though Mrs. Mallard felt she was being repressed, and by all accounts maybe she was, but her reaction to her husband’s death sealed her fate. After all the story stated that “she did not stop to ask if it were or were not a monstrous joy that held her.”
Can we think of our reactions to bad things happening to people we despise or who has repressed people such as when Saddam Hussein was executed, were you glad that it happened? Did you feel a sense of relief when it happened? Can we actually control our reaction to those situations? Could Mrs. Mallard control her emotions when she heard of her husband’s death?
Jeff Cooley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
