Senior Project

The only part I, at least, liked was reading the material for the research paper. Everything else, I hated. Why? Because it felt useless and superfluous because I've already knew or done most of it. Also, the work didn't seem substantial or productive at all. It was honestly deterring me from what I preferred: AP Lit. The busy work reminded me of the countless useless work I had to do for the past four years. The only substantial thing about the senior project was the reading the material for the research paper. I also really didn't appreciate it that you made it more rigorous for us being your ap class. Again, because it already felt unnecessary.

So enough complaining... let's think about solutions. I think you should just dump and expand this whole thing throughout first semester. Having had the research topic and stuff in second semester, I could not stop thinking about how unprepared I am going to be for the ap exam.  Also, more time to contemplate on our research topic and it should be limited to an undergraduate degree! I didn't want to plan so far into the future since there's no concrete foundation to plant it on I suppose. Stress the significance of the work, I guess. I thought the process was so useless. I don't know. 

Jaggers

Dear Mr. Jaggers,

How does to feel to be a lawyer, knowing that you willingly protect guilty criminals? Does it make you greedy with power when you know you are a destructive force in the courtroom? Able to lace your words with a poison that swoons even the judge? The mouth surely is the golden gate to opportunities and you use it very well. But how do you feel at night, knowing that you don't protect the innocent? Don't people usually become a lawyer in order to protect the innocent, put criminals in jail, and provide integrity to the judicial system? It eats inside you doesn't it? That's why you obsessively wash your hands in a feeble attempt to psychologically wash away your guilt. Or it because you believe that criminals can be redeemed? Like Magwitch. Though still a criminal, his intentions are not. And you have shown an affectionate time to Pip by almost seeming like you protect him and genuinely surprised when you know that your secretary has a kinder side. You're an interesting person... Just what goes through your mind? Does it kill you slowly? Or do you have a personal agenda?

test scores

I didn't like my scores. But hey, I guess my essays are my forte! I only found this diagnostic exam to be difficult due to its excessive use of vocabulary that I didn't understand. That being said, I don't think there is anymore you can do to prepare us but for us to prepare ourselves. It's already April. I honestly forgot most of the vocabulary from last semester because we hardly used it. And I found it ineffective in making me remember it. I plan to use some sort of mnemonic device to help me remember.

MY MAMA SAID I GOT THE SHUGAS! No really, this blog is about Beloved and its film adaption.

     HOT BUTTA N AWL, YAW! PRAISE THE LAWD! I GOT THE SHUGAS! (Sorry, I watched SNL and they were satirizing Paula Deen, I couldn’t help from laughing; not to mention their Japanese rendition… Hilarious!)

     Aw, the poor dog in the beginning of the movie… he was thrown and beaten by the ghost of Beloved. Then Sethe had to push his eyeball back inside his socket and fix his dislocated leg. Just as Amy Denver said later in the movie, “Anything dead coming back to life hurts.” I thought setting the movie with the tombstone first then the violent, crazy scene was powerful. It would have left its audience bewildered and perplexed and even more, when Howard and Buglar ran away. Imagine being a mother and having your children run away from you, especially considering what Sethe already has endured. It must be heartbreaking even for the audience.

     The movie was certainly more traumatizing, for lack of better words. Reading the book, you can only imagine the scenes. But watching the movie… the scenes were not as pleasant as my imagination. Besides, who would imagine something so disturbing to themselves? I wondered greatly how Oprah felt playing the role of Sethe considering her childhood. If I recall correctly, (and I double checked on Wikipedia) she was molested by her cousin, uncle, and family friend when she was nine and the death of her baby son at 14. She even went to say that “she had chosen not to be mother because she had not been mothered well.” Her character resonates with her very well. Maybe that’s why Oprah got the role and played it well. It also resonates with the book in real life because rather than trying to forget the past, Oprah chose to play as Sethe knowingly; therefore Oprah was embracing her real past as painful as it was. If she chose to forget her past, she wouldn’t have chosen the role. I can only empathize so much every time I see Sethe get violated by the schoolteacher and his nephews and touched by Paul D knowing that Oprah is the vessel.  Ultimately, this is probably why she got the role in the first place. And in ‘The Color Purple.’ She would’ve fit right in in the ‘The Help.’ I should really google about Oprah’s view when she chose to play Sethe… but so lazy.

     There was very little sex in the movie as there was so much in the book. In retrospect, I didn’t think the act of sexual intercourse played a significant role for both medias. However, while the book was explicit about it, maybe the director felt that it was unnecessary for the movie. Maybe the rating was going to be even more restricted and therefore, less audience. In my opinion, it didn’t matter because it was implied just as many movies are: they go to bed naked, fondle around, and you know what’s going to happens next then sunshine! Besides, I felt the pseudo-sex scenes in the movie were very unnatural and disturbing. It felt painful to Oprah, I meant Sethe. It wasn’t graceful like in other movies. They certainly followed the scene with Paul D cupping her breasts with a horrific ghost showdown, I don’t remember that. Didn’t they have sex soon after they reunited? They slept without having sex? They still had clothes on on the bed.

     Speaking of that scene, this movie was… limited third-person?  Well, it certainly was third-person in regards to vantage point. Unlike the book, we never actually get to hear the characters’ thoughts. I was looking forward to Oprah speaking in her mind while Paul D was staring at her chokecherry tree. No emerald closet for Denver.

     Again, the movie, overall, was disturbing. Especially with the arrival of Beloved. She slept in the woods in the dark wearing all black and woke up with bugs crawling all over her! I’m already scared walking around the woods when I go camping with the thought that thousands of bugs are crawling on the floor right now, all over my tent! Wasn’t she dressed in white in the book? Oh, I loved the archetype of colors! She wore black with bugs crawling all over her and when the family saw her, bugs were buzzing around her. Disturbing scene again. Black is associated with death, negativity, impending doom – everything Beloved will soon become. The buzzing the bugs resembles flies attracted by a rotting carcass, what Beloved actually is.

     The carnival scene was probably one of my two favorite scenes, the other being when Sethe purchases cloth for sewing and sweets and bam! Happiest scene in the movie. And you know what both of them have in common? Colors. So many vibrant, beautiful colors. However, I felt the carnival scene was being satirical of human nature. And it’s certainly me projecting my view and blowing a simple scene up. Yes, I can finally identify satire and irony (to a degree). The carnival had the noticeably, weird people on display – the fat woman, rubber man, and more. The black, whose plight is obvious and still is, poke fun at them. So what does it mean to human? They were dehumanized and yet they dehumanize others. This circumvention of hypocrisy is appalling. We never cease to criticize other people do we?

     Beloved was not who I imagined her to be. I perceived her as this graceful vixen with the disposition of an innocent child. What came to mind watching the movie, however, was a mentally disabled child. She is not gracefully as I thought. She was more… disgusting with the constant snoring and child behavior. I don’t recall her snoring in the book nor wetting herself, and if so, very vaguely.

     I particularly liked the visage of the perfect happy family in the beginning, what Sethe and blacks overall deserved. What it should have been. But for the audience, and particular, the readers, the dark truth was veiled by the façade of a perfect family. Or thematically, that the seemingly perfect family hides or has a dark secret.

     So what does it mean to be human for Denver and Sethe? Denver has the duties of a daughter and Sether has the duties of a mother and having to live the ramifications of the rather impulsive decision she made. The impulsiveness to kill your own children under the pretense that dying was preferred to suffering. The schoolteacher cried and called Sethe an animal. Was it because his can no longer ‘experiment’ on her? Lost his test subjects? Or because of what it means to be human? That despite his dehumanizing demeanor, he could empathize with the innocent death of a child, one that he was indirectly responsible for? It was also interesting, from a scientific point of view, how blacks learned English from acclamation and inherited the values of Christianity, effectively losing most, if not all, of their native ancestry completely.

     The paradigm shift was weird. It wasn’t as extreme as the book depicted. Sethe was still effectively in the mother role and Beloved, the child albeit pregnant.

     The end was amusing. Denver had an attitude with Paul D! She rachet (it’s a tennis inside joke, I suppose). I liked the adaptation of the novel; it provided a starker contrast than the one I initially had. Yeah, it could have been better, but this would suffice. To each their own, right? There were obviously very many significant, pivotal scenes in the book that were not interpreted and already the film was two hours and fourty-four minutes. Anyways, its difficult criticizing the movie with knowledge of the book. The movie, in a way, complements the book visually. The movie alone, however, would have been lackluster because I would have thought “What did I just watch?” without knowledge of the book due to its superficiality. 

"Does prejudicde matter in society today?" Debate

The following blog is an opinion in relation to the debate in the
class and does not necessarily reflect my personal view on the the topic
discussed. Also, if I've offended everyone, don't take it personally.
I merely offended the role you played, not you as a person:

I thought Team 1 (my team) won! Primarily because I thought we had a
strong case despite having the burden of proof, I suppose. Team 2
seemed to have circumvented their logic/argument repeatedly despite us
having rebuttled their argument like the topic of "expections to the
rules" or "neo-nazis." Both teams could have easily invalidated both
their own and their opponent's argument just like we did when they
presented their statistics. They indirectly stereotyped everyone while
defending that sterotype still existed. Our argument was that despite
the stereotype, we are aware of its false nature. Yes, you might be
called a "fortune cookie" if you're Linsanity, an "Oreo" if you're
black and you act 'white', or whatever. But I feel as if they're not
as serious as they used to be because they're just people's opinions.
That will never cease to exist and that would also lead to prejudice
which makes Team 2's argument strong. We learn by association, just as
we have the desire to belong - to associate ourselves with something.
It is a human condition. Now, it is up to us, as individuals, to
disassociate ourselves from it. As strong as Team 2's argument may be,
their closing statement seemed weak. If I remember correctly, they
said that we're accustomed to stereotypes "Blacks are ghetto; Asians
eat dogs. Be honest, [you've thought of that before]...." Their point
was to make that prejudice does matter, yet they just asked a personal
question, implying that they have thought of that. It asserts that
though they're aware that prejudice does matter, they have done
nothing as individuals to disassociate themselves from it. It almost
seems that they do believe those stereotypes are true. And if they
didn't, it would only strengthen our argument in that stereotypes have
a false nature, therefore it doesn't matter.

While it seemed that we were listing "exceptions to the rule," I think
that was a misunderstanding. Though we cannot name "all the white men
in congress," we can certainly name most of the presidents. All but
one was white. In that, we can also list why they were notable despite
all being white men. Our focus on Obama and other prominent minorities
was to show that they're proofs that times have changed. If they
didn't, they wouldn't have gotten the position they were in. They
weren't "exceptions" at all or at least, to my opinion. In stating
that they were "exceptions," Team 2 asserted that they merely got
those position because they were minorities. No. America, or rather, the
electoral college, didn't vote Obama as president because he's black
or half black. That's blasphemy. To vote a person based on his skin
color is ridiculous. He became president because of his platform. If
prejudice did matter, Clinton would have won. It would be reasonable
to think that in a society that hasn't changed, they'd choose the
Clinton, despite being a women, because she' at least white. Or maybe
sexism was held in higher regard than racism? Whichever, Clinton had
experience as First Lady.

I liked the debate much more than the previous one. First, because Mr.
Beddingfield wasn't in it. Being college-educated, it could be assumed
that he formulate an eloquent argument and be very explicit in his
argument in the time it takes us to even form a cohesive one and at
most. with any finesse. The smaller group paradigm assisted in the
focus and formation of arguments along with with an group-elected
leader, which we all lacked in the previous statement. Secondly, Mr.
Beddingfield didn't decide which position we were on so we had to
build an argument for both sides, which caused us to focus on both
sides on hand instead of just one and formulating a very strong open
on it. Very wise if you had us debate on "Why do you support Rick
Santorum?" I will also dislike it if you I were on the wrong side
because I hate him. I would have to switch my mentality to a
  conservative one. Conservation is, in itself, a subjective term.
However, as much as I would like to 'bash' extreme conservatives, I
don't because that is prejudice. Ultimately, everyone is entitled to
their opinion. Also, the team with the burden of proof wouldn't be at
a disadvantage. Now the topic, "Does prejudice still matter in society
today or it doesn't?" seems very subjective depending on what scale
you elicit. I thought the large scale would be the most wise decision
for the obvious statements that have been made. Team 2 seemed to have
debated on the small scale - in relation to the individual as to a
society.


Thanks you've successfully brainwashed us into our roles like the Stanford prison experiment. Also, you should make us debate on a very obsolete topic like "Do you support Santorum?" Maybe we'll turn into asinine conservatives, too, since the opposing team wants to use "That's why we're having a debate today" as their defense. Ad nausem. Non sequitur. All in all, we're all entitled to our opinion and if that exists so will prejudice. A utopia is impossible unless it it were to become like 'The Giver.' The the existence of prejudice doesn't necessarily imply or connote that it still matters. Like the children dying in Africa, they're still existing, but it apparently doesn't matter to most people but all of a sudden Kony and the Invisible Children do. The overworked asians working for Apple. The poor treatment of animals in the food industry. It just seems that most people 'care' on a superficial level anyway.  

Just imagine.... if I inputted my personal opinion, it'd be twice as
long. This is what happens when I have time.

Blacks in America

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-slavery-still-affects-us-today-1590813.html

The article talked about how slavery still affects America and how it
affects black people socially and mentally. The article does hold in
truth in saying that the topic of slavery hasn't truly been confronted
yet. It was certainly probably the worst aspect of human civilization.
With so many injustices, it's rational to try not to think about it or
even take pride in it. Just as you would not take pride in a loss or a
mistake. However, we have pride as Americans that we're the greatest
country in the world. When someone keeps bringing back the mistake you
did, you don't like it and that's why many people try to ignore or
even belittle the topic of slavery to make it less "severe" like the
banning of Huckleberry Finn.

Beloved: Part 1

Continue reading Beloved. Wherever you are in the novel at this point,
read through the 8th chapter (count them...it should be the same in every
edition).

Post a response to the following question on your blogs: "Can the past
every truly die? Or, is the past always with us?" Discuss this question
with regard to Beloved, The Piano Lesson, and any other life experiences
you might find relevant.


The past cannot ever truly die and it will always be with us. I believe you can see that in every person in the choices they make because it influences the decisions they decide to make. We like to believe that we make rational decisions when we're truly irrational creatures; our experiences, that is our past, influences us. This is exemplified in both Beloved and The Piano Lesson: Sethe unwilling to move from the house and committing infanticide and Berneice unwilling to let go of the Piano. Moreover, the book's nonlinear format further exemplifies this because it goes to flashbacks without any sign beforehand, often leaving its readers confused. Morrison's intention may be to showcase how our past influences us. 


Now in terms of physics: the past, present, and future is interesting in that they're all the same: having already occurred. Instead, because we're three-dimensional beings, we experience time in a linear fashion, sadly. 


If our past were to be erased or "die," we'd be lost. You can clearly see that dementia, Alzheimer's, and retrograde amnesia. People afflicted with these struggle to live because they can't remember their past. Furthermore, it seems to make a valid case in that we don't want to forget the past no matter how tortuous it may have been.That's when the past truly dies, for the person at least and the fear is almost unfathomable unless you experience it for yourself.  

I actually love taking benchmarks and tests; am I the only one?

Tonight:


Explain on your blog why almost all students missed questions 4, 7, 9, 13,
21, 24, & 54. What were these questions asking? What makes them difficult?


Also, looking at your benchmark and your essays from the last few weeks,
what are your SPECIFIC goals for the rest of this semester?


Please post before second block.


Begin reading Beloved.


Come ready to write!


I can only assume why so many students missed this, but I can only speak for myself somewhat (I eliminated most of these into two choices, but chose the wrong one sadly): 


4: asks for why he called the quotations by the author "vilely phrased"; difficult because... i was misunderstanding - simple. in retrospect, stupid mistake. The answer was obvious! It's pretentious/roundabout because the poet mentioned is comparing the beautiful furniture to nature. Nature! That is blasphemy right there. A shame to the immaculate quality of Oxford furniture because nature is not beautiful and so full of flaws. Anyways, what makes the question difficult is that it's comparing two things that associate with one another, but in two polar ways. 


7: "Primary rhetorical function." In retrospect, stupid mistake again. It was a digression from the central topic - so obvious! It was difficult because it relates to the topic of the sentence before it.


9: most of the choices were mentioned somewhere within the reading, but either in one speech or another. Projected my opinions again; didn't really get the vibe that "failures of nature inspire people to create."


13: "comedy" and "chiefly." All the choices could have been comedic, however only one is used primarily. Projected opinion again; thought it was superficial. 


21: Ah, Grammar. I probably have a lot of grammar mistakes right now. Personally thought this question was a trick question like the previous diagnostic, but it wasn't this time. Grammar gets people because the layman doesn't care beyond the basic. But this was basic. Oh, the horror! The horror! I thought "I" would be the direct object of "Lift." 


24: I think the term, idiosyncratic, got most people. I vaguely knew the term as something associated with uniqueness - still got the answer wrong. the three middle choices were obvious omissions. I didn't think tone would be something considered unique and I only checked the meter for the first two lines due to time. I should've check the whole thing! 


54: Finally, one that I actually got right. I suppose the part of the speech could have connote some of the choices like   colloquial, amorous, pedantic, or refined. However, the other descriptions were invalid and only the last answer seem to both reflect the speech. 


My specific goals for the rest of the semester is to: pass both the class and the AP exam and learn about and appreciate literature of course. Seriously, I think it's absurdly unfair how this school, in my time here, practically only has AP History classes to show. My strong subjects are the mathematics and sciences. AP Environmental Science is so elementary. I'm not going to waste my time taking a class I dislike purely because it's AP. 


In benchmarks: more active reading. I love marking the paper, but I need to be consistent and thoughtful about it. Be more conscious of what I'm doing, I suppose. However, I'm not happy with my grades until they're at least a B or an A without curving. Some general strategies I use: active reading and "one wrong is all wrong!" 


In essays: organization, literary devices, expanding my ideas, and thoughtfulness. You don't really leave a lot of feedback of my papers; I would like to talk about that someday. I assume there isn't much you can say, right? Besides restating what you've said plenty of times. In general, the school environment has conditioned me, if not most students, to think that fun/humor isn't important, that you must be serious in everything. It's one of the rare things I've experienced in class and it's quite fun to experience that learning is fun again. I love learning. And you've helped me found that appreciation in the school system and in literature again. There's still hope, haha. However, it's just as you said before about how it's different when students pick up a book on their own to read and when they're forced to by the teacher. I hate being forced to read mostly because I can't take my sweet time and it kind of ruins the enjoyable experience when you know you're being forced to; pretty sure I'll hate Harry Potter if you make me read it. And Amy Tan if I didn't think of wanting to read it first, which I haven't yet. Maybe soon, I hope. Also, I would love my essays to be worded as eloquently as Gingrich (did you know he went to Emory?) or Obama. So euphoric. And I'm still very proud of my two 9's, which I haven't been able to recreate yet. It's frustrating when it's so close!   


Maybe I'm not being specific enough. Overall, I think my current abilities will suffice. Also, it would be great if the sponges were more ironic/humorous since we suck at it so very much. 


"I like pressure. If I am not on the edge of failure, I'm not being sufficiently challenged." Your class have certainly given me that again and I finally feel up to par with my elitist friends at their elitist schools. And it's probably the only class that has given me that at Clarkston. 


Looking forward to Film Club! 

Huck Finn Debate

I thought Mr. Beddingfield won the debate. You were very explicit in
your opening statement and rebuttals. However, I thought you had
curved what you said previously. If I recall, I thought you had said
the debate was for or against the ban of the book, not the mere debate
of whether or not it should be taught. Your opening statement was rather... skewed(?). I felt that it was hard to argue your point because it seemed to pertain to your own class (however I found it very funny when you basically implied that we're your guinea pigs, because we are to the school system.) But that isn't the point I'm
interested in making as I think it's irrelevent. In debates, I don't
think you're allowed to know the stance of your opponent until their
opening statement anyway. Overall, the debate felt as if both sides
were arguing on different stances: your's on it shouldn't be taught
and our's on why it should be banned - two different stances.


The debate was... amusing, I suppose. I liked the camareaderie amongst
my classmates and our attempt at in being coherent under a five minute
limit. It was difficult also. With more people, sharing each thought
was more difficult. In the end, the loudest and most imposing often
gets the their point through. Our rebuttals were very incoherent
compared to your's and ultimately, it was easier to form a coherent
rebuttal if you were by yourself. We're not a hive mind and we don't
have telepathy. Again, I liked the subject matter but not how it was
implemented.  And now to my shortened, tangential rant...


We fear being wrong that we're unwilling to ever take chances. we're socially conditioned to be biased in reltaion to history. We're conditioned to think socialism and communism are bad. yet, both have their merits and are considered good, overall. 


You taught us HoD and TFA. Are you endorsing your students to uphold the stereotypes depicted within those books? Generalize a whole entire race? to dehumanize people? That white people are merely missionaries bent on destroying cultures? As a rebuttal to your scenario, on an all-white class being taught Huck Finn, this class itself could be seen as it's antithesis. You're the only white (besides Diana, I suppose) person amongst us (and by that, I meant it objectively and not of racist implication) Are you endorsing us to think that white people are evil? Conversely, you don't uphold those vices we've seen within the books. 


I think every novel (well everything really) is subjective.  Maybe it's my fondness for Solipsism, haha. Huck Finn is only giving a starker contrast. Why should students be "protected" all the time? Innocence of mind? We didn't ask for it. We want to be better people and determine for ourselves, our own opinion. A teacher shouldn't just be a sage of the stage, but also a guide of the side. But only I can speak for myself. Huck Finn also, on a more introspective level, is less about racism and more about what it meant to be a human and to treat one another with human qualities. 

Huck Finn: Mark Twain drops the N-bomb

I find it quite amusing that some of the criticisms were centered around his use of the n bomb and made it into a huge controversy. I don't think that it's serious because the book isn't a racist book; it's simply depicting what life was like back in the south when slavery still existed: raw and unedited. Afterall, we should experience history just as it is and not sugar-coated. Even history books can be bias. We're socially conditioned to think certain things and I think that was most of what Twain was depicting in Huck Finn. Huck, as a child, is questioning the social dogma around him because he's been condition to think that blacks are second-class citizens and the aspects of religion, specifically Christianity. However in the end, he's unwilling to accept that and I think that's what makes the book great. Accept things that you like and not what you're forced to. 

My favorite criticism would be T.S. Eliot's. He explicitly states certain aspects of the book I didn't clearly understand or knew during the book. Most of all, he talked a lot about how the book was influenced by Twain himself. Also, when many of the criticisms judged Twain or rather, Huck Finn, Eliot simply states that Twain was just writing from the vantage point of an observer. He allows us to judge for ourselves whether the book was good or bad; he was objective in his book's depiction of the antebellum south. Eliot also talks about the river as an archetypal device and Huck and Jim in relation to another. While many other critics talk about each other as separate entities, Eliot believes that they were ultimately one entity in the sense that the two of them formed the book and they would be incomplete without each other. Eliot forms a rather sympathetic view on Jim because he's been through so much "bear, and bear along, the responsibility of a man."   

Braindead Teen only capable of rolling eyes and texting

http://www.theonion.com/video/braindead-teen-only-capable-of-rolling-eyes-and-te,27225/

Well, you can't euthanize a kid for just being like that. they're mocking teenagers of today. well, making it humorous draws attention while also making it more serious that it has to be, paradoxically, i suppose. If they said it directly, it'll just be like what every parent say and it's boring.

Dear Mr. Twain...

Dear Mr. Twain,

Huck Finn is surely an amusing book to read and the funniest I've read in a literature class. It's satirical nature attracts readers and it also brings up many social issues like racism, morality, ethics, and my favorite, human nature. Moreover, you seem to make almost every character morally ambiguous. As a reader, I have conflicted feelings on almost every character! The conflicted feeling is invited however. In life, no one is truly good or bad and I think it's best to say that it's either the good or the bad deeds that outweighs the others. You certainly have the talent to make serious topics rather funny. However, have you ever thought that by making serious topics less serious would undermine what you were trying to convey to your readers? Your use of the word, "N," does provide a rather profound effect on society. It's amazing how one word used in your book could have a profound affect on people and education. ]


Overall, I would love to hear your inspiration on your work of Huck Finn. The book seems to almost mirror someone's life, perhaps your's? he dialect within this book is so genuine and distinct from the two characters, Jim and Huck. The book is very rich in themes and symbols and my favorite must by Huck's introspective nature. He questions almost every social dogma and he witnesses so much "bad" as a child, I wonder how it'll change him. Some people eventually turn into bad people themselves and use that as an excuse while others become better people.

Huck Finn Part 1

Haha, I used Shakespeare's famous line (in a way) as the title of my research: "To fear or not to fear: the role of NMDA receptors in appetitive and aversive learning."

Overall, I feel as if the river serves as an allusion to the biblical snake that persuades Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. As Huck goes further down (or up?) the river, it seems as if the events he witnesses just get worse and worse; it seems as if he's losing hope for humanity and developing a digust towards it. First, when he witnesses the shooting of a drunk man in front of his daughter, then the lynching mob followed be an ironic turn of events, when Sherburn confronts the mob with a rifle. It seems as if Huck is also witnessing social revolution in away. Then primarily, tagging along with the fake Duke and daulphin. Huck feels utterly repulsed by them because they just lie and con again and again.

Theme-wise, Twain seems to question social conformity. Therefore, I suppose, one of it's theme would be "always be observant and never conform to a society without thinking 'Why?'" Huck witnesses very extreme social conventions and he does question them unlike the others. For example, the cause of feud between the Grangerfords and Sheperdsons are unknown yet they still fight. Why does racism exist? Why are women/children considered second-class citizens? Is it okay to lie? What is friendship? Twain generally seems to satirize western society.

Othello Part 2

Answer questions 1-3 and 5-6 of act IV and questions 1 and 4-6 of act V on
pgs. 1601-1602. Post the answers on your blog.

Come prepared to write tomorrow!


Act IV
1. Othello overhears the conversation between Iago (who plotted it) and Cassio talking about the sexual advances Bianca made towards whose name was never explicitly stated and boom - she comes in and adds fuel to the fire by showing the handkerchief given to him by his "lover." 


2. It's an outlier, I suppose. the probability of that occurring is very rare; it seems too artificial to be coincidental. The handkerchief is very important for Othello and it is what drives him crazy since it's the most tangible evidence. Sadly, it's being manipulated by Iago. It represents Othello's marriage, Desdemona's importance to him, and in her losing it (or him rejecting it earlier); it's as if she's figuratively 'throwing away' the marriage -- it is of not importance to her. 


3. He sees her as a whore of Venice since so many men want her yet she rejected them. He's confident he misjudged her due to her 'cleverness.'


5. Desdemona takes marriage seriously and she's the pinnacle of the virtues of a wife and a woman in society. She's faithful. Emilia, on the other hand, is quite "eh" implying that's she isn't all a role model nor the other side of the spectrum either. She finds infidelity okay. She rationalizes that women have the same urges as men do and doesn't find why they should be allowed yet women aren't. They're as much to blame. 


6. Desdemona requests that her wedding sheets be laid on the night of her murder(?)! Oh, and when Emilia and Desdemona try to find who the suspect is; that the person responsible for Othello's fit is the same that suspects Emilia of sleeping with Othello. Seriously, why would Othello sleep with Emilia when he's faithful? or who else besides your husband would care so much about the suspicion that you may be sleeping with Othello? Your husband, duh. 


Act V
1. Iago plots Rodrigeo and Cassio to kill each other. They fail, Iago finishes the job. Miscommunication happens. Othello kills Desdemona. Emilia explains everything. Iago tries to kill her, but he fails. Everything unravels. Othello regrets; grows angry at Iago; stabs him. 


4.What impels Othello to kill Desdemona is out of betrayal, to say the least. He was faithful to her and expected the same. In hearing accusations that she was unfaithful, it violated what he expected from her and it gave him a sense that he was betrayed. I suppose he decided to kill her because he emotionally invested too much in her and it seemed like she just outright violated it all, which infuriates him. It would infuriate anyone really. The greatest weapon anyone can use is your mind and Iago's good at that. 


5. He loves a person very much, but it isn't always the 'right' person. He is very much capable of love, but he can't choose the right person to love (but you did, stupid). 


6.  Yes, well, he always had his dignity and nobility, the issue was his trust in people. Yes, I agree because he dedicated his life to serving the military and his love. He was great of heart in more than one way. Including his trust. 

Othello Part 1

Well, I don't know what to talk about with the lack of a topic! I need a topic to be deeep! Anyways, our doubts are clarified in the two acts because Othello, unsurprisingly, is very trustworthy. You know what they say, "Be polite. Be Professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Lago, however, begins to think that he is evil (no, he's just really selfish), but he rationalizes his actions as helping his men. And Desdemona is coming full throttle with her feminism (because there's a lack of it in the material we've read)!

Oedipus Part 3

Some light reading...

Read pgs. 1490- the top of pg. 1495 (don't read "Antigone's Flaw"). The
reading should comprise four different critical perspectives on tragedy
and Oedipus. Post a BRIEF entry on whichever article you find most
compelling and why you find it compelling.

Have a great weekend!

I found two articles that were the most compelling because they provide a more introspective level of thought on humanity, in general, and ourselves, personally. I found Sigmund Freud's The Destiny of Oedipus very enjoyable because he gives a rational assumption as to why there are stories that 'move' us; that they reflect our primal instincts. That stories move us because they may have been ours. I wonder... is that why Harry Potter and Twilight so famous? Because the former reflects our childhood ignorance/imagination and the latter, forbidden/eternal love? The Oedipus and Electra complexes are referred to in his criticism; it brings a whole new meaning to "Daddy's girl" or "Momma's boy." I believe there is a correlation there or else why would the phrases be popular? Oedipus serves to reflect the other side of who we are. We, according to Freud, have learn to detach ourselves from our sexual impulses which can be compared the philosopher I cannot recall about having two sides to a person: a rational and an emotional side. And it is our choice which to live by. Oedipus, like us, have chosen to repressed (rather unconsciously or not) these wishes due to Nature and in doing so, we should just forget about our childhood. 

In E.R. Dodds' On Misunderstanding Oedipus, Dodds sees Oedipus' greatness not from his position, but in his inner strength to take responsibility in his acts no matter the costs and in pursuing the truth despite the cost. He represents the human need to know. Because we're curious creatures. Heck, it takes a lot of self-control not to be curious. Oedipus would have been a great journalist exposing the horrors human trafficking and government corruption. It's too bad he had to go blind himself. It also brings to mind why happiness is often correlated with ignorance and anger/sadness/cynicism with truth and this article supports it in saying that happiness is an illusion. “Nothing Will Come of Nothing” Isa kai to meden zosas enarithmo. 

In a more broader scale, I believe both criticisms allude that personal conflicts of a person. It seems that there's an internal struggle in who we really are and how we would like to be perceived as. If you want to see who a person truly is, let him wear a mask. Are we true to ourselves or do we live to the expectations of others? And if we are open and honest, can we ever truly be loved? Can we find the courage to release our deepest secrets? Or in the end are we all unknowable even to ourselves

Oedipus Rex Part 2

Finish reading the last 12 pages of Oedipus. Answer questions 1, 3, 5-9,
and 11-12 on pgs. 1434 of your textbook. Post the answers AND a theme
statement on your blog.

We will discuss the play and the questions tomorrow in class. Be prepared
to write first thing, though...


1. How explicitly does the prophet Tiresias reveal the guilt of Oedipus? Does it seem to you stupidity on the part of Oedipus or a defect in Sophocles' play that the kin takes so long to recognize his guilt and to admit to it?
Tiresias explicitly stated the guild of Oedipus; that he is, indeed, the murderer. It is stupidity on the part of Oedipus because he behaves just as any arrogant fool might have. The accusation seems so outlandish and it causes a cognitive dissonance within himself. He takes so long to recognize his guilt and to admit it because he needs tangible evidence and time to process it.

3. "Oedipus is punished not for any fault in himself, but for his ignorance. Not knowing his family history, unable to recognize his parents on sight, he is blameless; and in slaying his father and marring his mother, he behaves as any sensible person might behave in the same circumstances." Do you agree with this interpretation?
A sensible person, in my opinion, is very subjective. Then again, it clearly stated "might behave." Otherwise, I do agree with the quote. His hubris could have easily lead him to victory if it weren't for the tragic irony and he could have lived life without knowing the consequences of having an inflated ego. 

5. Consider the character of Jocasta. Is she a "flat" character - a generalized queen figure - or an individual with distinctive traits of personality? Point to speeches or details in the play to back up your opinion.
She is generally a flat character. not necessarily a generalized queen figure, but more of a wife/mother figure obviously. She nurtures Oedipus, ironically. That is her personality traits and afterwards, that's probably all that's worth mentioning.  

6. What is dramatic irony? Besides the example given on page 732, what other instances of dramatic irony do you find in Oedipus the King? What do they contribute to the effectiveness of the play?
Dramatic irony is, for lack of better words, an irony that is apparent  in the story and to the audience but not to the characters. Other instance of dramatic irony is when, I suppose, Oedipus accuses Creon of treason or when we learn about Oedipus' prophecy. Oh! And his name itself, definitely. We know ahead of time and observe how the character makes choices that just makes their circumstances worse.

7. In the drama of Sophocles, violence and bloodshed take place offstage; thus, the suicide of Jocasta is only reported to us. Nor do we witness Oedipus' removal of his eyes; this horror is only given in the report by the second messenger. Of what advantage or disadvantage to the play is this limitation?
It allows us to focus more on the social ramifications which would be undermined if violence was in the forefront. Conversely, violence would give us a greater sense of engrossment.


8. For what reason does Oedipus blind himself? What meaning, if any, do you find in his choice of a surgical instrument?
Oedipus blinds himself because he cannot live to see the physical anymore. It brings him too much pain. His wife/mother is dead and he's afraid his daughters will be shunned due to his incestuous marriage and them being the by-products of it. He can't live with himself to see what gloom the future brings because he doesn't think it'll be all rainbows and butterflies. I can't find any meaning in his choice of using his wife's/mother's golden pins from her dress to stab his eyes for I am ignorant. Gold is valuable. It's belongs to his wife's/mother's. Yep.

9. What are your feelings toward him as the play ends?
I pity him because of his genetic ties which couldn't be helped. His hubris didn't help either, but it's as though he could not escape this fate. His doom wasn't purely caused by his choices. Besides, what type of person would accept ignorance or no for an answer? Curiosity certainly killed the cat.

11. With what attitude toward the gods does the play leave you? Be inflicting a plague on Thebes, by causing barrenness, by cursing both the people and their king, do the gods seem cruel, unjust, or tyrannical? Does the play show any reverence toward them?
Initially, the gods do seem cruel, unjust, and tyrannical. Its as if they're implementing those misfortunes for their personal enjoyment. Y'know, they need to pass the time since they're immortal and what's better that some drama amidst? If humans go jolly through their lives that would be boring and in time, they take that for granted. It is sublime to suffer and be stronger. It's time to test humans' nature and let them know their place in existence. I think there is a reverence towards them. They didn't forcefully enforce their ideals; they manipulated the people, or specifically, Oedipus. All the rest was up to the person's choice. Oedipus chose to learn about his face. If he had just listened to Tiresias and remained ignorant, he would be going through his life in his merry way.

12. Does the play end in total gloom?
I would say yes. Your leader just gouged out his eyes; you find out he has an incestuous relationship with his mother... all these revelations that just leads to worse circumstances. You have a new leader: Creon. Will be he better or worse? Your family and your friends are dependent on a leader and right now, you need their help to save you from your current problems, but they have their own personal problems. Thebes just seem doomed now. It's time to rack up your things and live a frugal life in the woods and be one with nature.

Oedipus Rex

Good to see you guys again!


Read pgs. 1375-1404 of Oedipus Rex.


Post an entry on your blog about tonight's reading. Address the ways in
which this text compares to other texts we've read and the degree to which
hamartia, catharsis, and pathos have been elements in the play so far.


If everybody blogs, there will be NO reading quiz.


Brandon - Send me the link to your blog BEFORE class.


This text compares to other texts we've read in that the main character(s) all seem to have a tragic flaw; a seemingly harmless "little" flaw that ultimately leads the character to their utter demise. Raskolnikov? His pride, pomposity, whatever. The man? His optimism, whatever. Suttree? His need to find meaning in his existence, whatever. Yet this one characteristic is what ultimately drives their whole being and decide for them. It seems that in almost every character they seem to think they transcend others and then become condescending individuals filled with arrogance.  


Oedipus' hamartia is his his hubris. This is obvious when we confronts Tiresias about the truth only to be declined because Tiresias believes that the truth will only pain. After all, igorance is bliss, right? Well, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. We can see why Oedipus wants to know the truth, but we also see the dramatic irony that he himself that he's searching for. Which also brings to mind that he is searching for himself - his true identity, which in this case, comes at a great cost. Initially, it is his pride that figuratively blinds him from the objective truth and accusing Tiresias and Creon of treason. Speaking of Creon, that whole plight plays well for his hand because though he initially showed indications of no interest in power, he almost accepts the position with no doubt following Oedipus' downfall. In Antigone, he becomes just like Oedipus in that he succumbs to his power. It almost seems that Creon did commit treason probably flawlessly but became a victim of destiny itself. It was as if he thought he could play the Gods in their own game. 


Oedipus' catharsis occurs when he meets the two Shepherds, more specifically, when he meets the latter Shepherd, who he learns the truth from and has a revelation: that he killed his father and married his mother. I suppose the true catharsis occurs when he gouges his eyes after witnessing the suicide of his wife/mother where he literally loses his sight yet figuratively gains a new ability: insight. Just like Tiresias. In the end, he ascends into a higher form of being, in a sense. He doesn't even occupy himself with the pain associated with the gouging of the eyes. 


In terms of pathos, I suppose we can give Oedipus pity for the initial portrayal of his character: a true leader. He genuinely cared for his people unlike most of the senators today and especially most of the republican presidential candidates. C'mon, we all new Bachmann wasn't going to win anyway. She and Perry have been transformed into internet memes. Afterwards, however, Oedipus loses our sympathies when he commits accusations of treason against Tiresias. All in all, I think drama is just what it is: drama. A common problem blown up out of proportion due to some flaw. Besides, if there were no drama; it wouldn't be all that exciting, right? There are some people who would love to witness a fight in school due to the drama associated with it yet they don't want to participate in it albeit they criticize drama.  So hypocritical, but aren't we all? We're human. 


"It is well, when judging a friend, to remember that he is judging you with the same godlike and superior impartiality."