Which characters appear to be miserable int he play and why? When and how do the characters express their misery? What do the characters desire and what stops them from going after what each desires?
In Frederico Lorca's Blood Wedding, the most miserable character is Mother. There are a couple reasons as to why she is so unhappy. Firstly, past events in her life have made her gloomy. It was referenced that both her father, and at least one of her sons, but most likely more, were murdered by a member of the Felix family. Mother recalls this, holds grudges and seems to not let it go. The first scene is evident of this, as she rants on about the knife, and does not want her only son left alive to go out. Although the past events were tragic, the real reason for Mother's hopelessness is because of her inability to move on with her life. Something that is missing from all family feuds, including this one, is forgiveness. Moreover, Mother becomes increasingly depressed because of the loss of Bridegroom, her last relative. She expresses her misery at the beginning of the book in her outburst, again with Father when she sees Leonardo, but mostly at the end of the novel. Her misery is shown in the scene with Bride. The misery is expressed in almost a way of hatred, aimed toward Bride. This may be because Bride partially stopped Mother from obtaining what she truly wanted. Mother wanted Bridegroom to stay and home, and just sleep. She wanted to keep him safe so that he too would not die. One could say that the love between Bride and Bridegroom caused Bridegroom to venture out. This venturing out actually was harmful. The following events lead Bridegroom and Leonardo to kill each other.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Tragedy Journal #5
Journal #5 Examine how Lorca characterize the archetypes of the play. Does Lorca embrace or reject the archetype? What is the effect of the characterization?
The primary archetype that I found in Blood Wedding was one that deals with gender roles. Lorca establishes the set standards of how women are supposed to act: to be in the house primarily, not doing physical labor, among other things. Furthermore, it is established that the women is supposed to be faithful and be there for her husband. Honestly, this is not unheard of. It was very common in Lorca's time and many other eras for women to have those responsibilities. Answering the next question is difficult, because there is evidence that could support both embracing and rejecting the established archetype. Firstly, by analyzing the information present about why Lorca rejects the archetype. Through the interactive oral, it was learned that Lorca was homosexual, something that was against the normal archetypes of the time. This was something that struggled inside of him, and one would think it would be hard to write about something that goes against many fibers of a person's being. However, there are strong points that might lead someone to believe that he embraces the archetype. The main woman character in the story goes against the societal norms by running off with another man soon after she gets married. This major plot point indicates that the societal norms are broken and rejected. Alas, in the end, it does not seem to be worth it. The repercussions for these actions show pain and sorrow. But a character who embraces the societal norms, the mother, is also unhappy. Who is more unhappy in the end? And does that indicate something as to what Lorca is trying to say?
The primary archetype that I found in Blood Wedding was one that deals with gender roles. Lorca establishes the set standards of how women are supposed to act: to be in the house primarily, not doing physical labor, among other things. Furthermore, it is established that the women is supposed to be faithful and be there for her husband. Honestly, this is not unheard of. It was very common in Lorca's time and many other eras for women to have those responsibilities. Answering the next question is difficult, because there is evidence that could support both embracing and rejecting the established archetype. Firstly, by analyzing the information present about why Lorca rejects the archetype. Through the interactive oral, it was learned that Lorca was homosexual, something that was against the normal archetypes of the time. This was something that struggled inside of him, and one would think it would be hard to write about something that goes against many fibers of a person's being. However, there are strong points that might lead someone to believe that he embraces the archetype. The main woman character in the story goes against the societal norms by running off with another man soon after she gets married. This major plot point indicates that the societal norms are broken and rejected. Alas, in the end, it does not seem to be worth it. The repercussions for these actions show pain and sorrow. But a character who embraces the societal norms, the mother, is also unhappy. Who is more unhappy in the end? And does that indicate something as to what Lorca is trying to say?
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Tragedy Journal #4
Journal #4: Choose any two symbols that emerged in this scene and discuss their significance. While you are certainly welcome to connect that significance to the entire text, I want you to focus on the details of how they are used in these first 12 pages. Look at the stylistic choices surrounding their use and build up to a discussion on the role they play or will play in developing theme/character/setting/tension...
Knives:
In the first scene, Lorca uses the symbol of the knife frequently. The knife is almost entirely used by the mother, who has a fear of them. The knife and the Mother are connected in my mind. The way she sees the knife is similar to how she sees other things. She only focuses on the bad aspects of the knife. When the Bridegroom has to use a knife in farming, his mother gets upset. This shows that she focuses on the painful memories associated with the knife instead of being rational. To clarify, The painful memories are because someone of the Felix family killed her husband and children. By having the knife appear so early in the story, Lorca establishes tension. This tension is between the two families, as well as emotions about the mother's son getting married. It also establishes a possible theme that violence and the knife itself cuts the community.
Textiles:
Linens and lace and other little lovely things are associated with women. In the first scene, Mother talks about how she wants a girl, so they could embroider linens together (Lorca 7). Lorca implements this symbol as a way to highlight gender roles. Right before Mother talks about that, her son talks about how he needs to go to the field and do his work. This juxtaposition reveals what obligations were prevalent during the time period. Lorca establishes these guidelines early, so that later they can be broken. Not only does the Bride not seem to make linens, but she breaks other societal norms and runs off with another man. In the text, Lorca surrounds embroidery with being at peace. By doing this, he connects when one follows the societal norms, then a person will be happy. Again, the inverse is shown again later in the novel when the Bride does not do such and makes herself and others significantly unhappy. A thematic element has formed, but for some reason I do not know yet, I feel that Lorca disagrees with societal norms.
Knives:
In the first scene, Lorca uses the symbol of the knife frequently. The knife is almost entirely used by the mother, who has a fear of them. The knife and the Mother are connected in my mind. The way she sees the knife is similar to how she sees other things. She only focuses on the bad aspects of the knife. When the Bridegroom has to use a knife in farming, his mother gets upset. This shows that she focuses on the painful memories associated with the knife instead of being rational. To clarify, The painful memories are because someone of the Felix family killed her husband and children. By having the knife appear so early in the story, Lorca establishes tension. This tension is between the two families, as well as emotions about the mother's son getting married. It also establishes a possible theme that violence and the knife itself cuts the community.
Textiles:
Linens and lace and other little lovely things are associated with women. In the first scene, Mother talks about how she wants a girl, so they could embroider linens together (Lorca 7). Lorca implements this symbol as a way to highlight gender roles. Right before Mother talks about that, her son talks about how he needs to go to the field and do his work. This juxtaposition reveals what obligations were prevalent during the time period. Lorca establishes these guidelines early, so that later they can be broken. Not only does the Bride not seem to make linens, but she breaks other societal norms and runs off with another man. In the text, Lorca surrounds embroidery with being at peace. By doing this, he connects when one follows the societal norms, then a person will be happy. Again, the inverse is shown again later in the novel when the Bride does not do such and makes herself and others significantly unhappy. A thematic element has formed, but for some reason I do not know yet, I feel that Lorca disagrees with societal norms.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Tragedy Journal #3
There are three primary characters who take blame for what happened to Hedvig: Gregers, Hjalmar and Gina. Each of their actions contributed in some way to the tragic loss of Hedvig. To start at the root of the problems would be to analyze Gina. One could argue that if she had not kept secrets than this never would have happend. People can go into what if's all day, but that doesn't really help with anything. I believe that she had very good reasons not to tell Hjalmar about the interactions that occurred between herself and old Werle. If she was up front with Hjalmar, they may never have gotten married, and he could have left her. However, by doing this, their relationship was established on falsehood. That is why although she had good reasons for her actions of holding things in, I personally would not have, and told the truth early on. It would have been the harder thing to do, but I believe the correct one. The second person at fault for Hedvig's act of suicide is her father, Hjalmar. Hjalmar's actions, specifically saying that he would leave his family, and treating Hedvig like a mangy dog, hurt Hedvig more than any other character. The harm that Hjalmar caused Hedvig was emotional. She loved her father more than anything, and only wanted to see him happy. The falsehood that Gina established the relationship in association with Gregers' need to let the truth be told caused Hjalmar to do those actions. Gregers is the catalyst that caused this inevitable reaction to take place at that time. Gregers intention of revealing the truth was to help the family, not hurt it. This obviously did not happen, as the family was broken. Just because someone has good intentions, does not justify their action. Gregers deserves more blame than the other two because his actions were unnecessary and it was not his place to have the truth be revealed. Hedvig is the victim obviously, but it would be incorrect to say that she does not carry any blame. Ultimately, she did not have to kill herself. Therefore, she is the one responsible for her own death. In the end, Gregers, who is the one responsible for Hedvig's death, does not take responsibility.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Tragedy Journal #2
Death/Decay/Illness Motif & effect
Although not one of the words stated above, Ibsen implements an injury to the Wild Duck in the play with the same name. Injuries are still akin, because all of those words show an impairment of some sort, just like an injury is. In the discussion that happened in class today, it was made clear the connection that Hedvig has with the Duck. Old Werle "shot for her [the wild duck], but ... he only winged her... so she couldn't fly" (Ibsen 153). At first, It was not apparent at first that this connection was seen in Hedvig too. But with a close reading there was more evidence that both entities were being held back and incapable of doing normal activities. One could say that Hedvig has a sickness, although this is not completely accurate. In reality, Hedvig has a disability due to her poor eyesight. This disability is never proven, but her parents seem to take it very seriously. When asked if she goes to school, Hedvig responds with, "No, not anymore. Daddy's afraid I'll hurt my eyes" ( Ibsen 162). Ibsen uses the motif of impairment to further the connection between the Wild Duck and Hedvig, as well as show the downsides of being over-protective. It seems that Hjalmar Ekdal will not let his daughter do many things that she wants to do. The main reason he has for doing this, is apparently the concern for her eyesight. Hedvig wants to help her father do some retouching work, but Hjalmar is concerned. "But don't ruin your eyes! Hear me? I won't take the blame; you can take the blame yourself—you hear me?"(Ibsen 161). The play goes on to show that Hedvig does a fairly good job of retouching. If only Hjalmar would be less controlling, maybe she could develop her art into a talent or sorts. The over-protection that Hjalmar shows seems to be unnecessary and without warrant. In general, one could say over-protection is a bad thing and limits growth.
Although not one of the words stated above, Ibsen implements an injury to the Wild Duck in the play with the same name. Injuries are still akin, because all of those words show an impairment of some sort, just like an injury is. In the discussion that happened in class today, it was made clear the connection that Hedvig has with the Duck. Old Werle "shot for her [the wild duck], but ... he only winged her... so she couldn't fly" (Ibsen 153). At first, It was not apparent at first that this connection was seen in Hedvig too. But with a close reading there was more evidence that both entities were being held back and incapable of doing normal activities. One could say that Hedvig has a sickness, although this is not completely accurate. In reality, Hedvig has a disability due to her poor eyesight. This disability is never proven, but her parents seem to take it very seriously. When asked if she goes to school, Hedvig responds with, "No, not anymore. Daddy's afraid I'll hurt my eyes" ( Ibsen 162). Ibsen uses the motif of impairment to further the connection between the Wild Duck and Hedvig, as well as show the downsides of being over-protective. It seems that Hjalmar Ekdal will not let his daughter do many things that she wants to do. The main reason he has for doing this, is apparently the concern for her eyesight. Hedvig wants to help her father do some retouching work, but Hjalmar is concerned. "But don't ruin your eyes! Hear me? I won't take the blame; you can take the blame yourself—you hear me?"(Ibsen 161). The play goes on to show that Hedvig does a fairly good job of retouching. If only Hjalmar would be less controlling, maybe she could develop her art into a talent or sorts. The over-protection that Hjalmar shows seems to be unnecessary and without warrant. In general, one could say over-protection is a bad thing and limits growth.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Tragedy Journal #1
Option 2: Character Perceptions
Who has false conceptions about themselves?
First off, Gregers has a misconception about himself. One thing he prides himself on is his ideals. Throughout the story, it comes to be known that he has held on to these ideals for many years. Relling exhumed this old information and is the character that opposes these ideals the most. Although Gregers refers to them as truthful, Relling sees ideals and lies as one and the same (Ibsen 203). Gregers feels like the truth will be a good thing to reveal to the Ekdal family. However it is the reverse; the family explodes into conflict, and one of the family members commits suicide.
Who has misconceptions about others?
Nearly all of the characters besides herself have misconceptions about Gina. Even the readers do not give her as much credit as she deserves. Gina is introduced as a stereotypical housewife, and when Hjalmar returns home at the beginning of scene two, the first glimpse of her greater importance is seen. She inquires if the photography business has improved, and that the newspaper advertisements seem to not be effective. Furthermore, she convinces her husband to stay in the living room for a couple days after he had firm intentions of leaving his family. In act three of the play, Hjalmar claims that Hedvig does not and has never loved him.
Who recognizes the facades created by other characters? Embrace, ignore or confront facade?
Hedvig recognizes the facade that Hjalmar sees and embraces and defies it. In fact, there is great irony because Hedvig craves her father's attention and wants nothing more than to see him be happy. Gregers convinces her to sacrifice herself in order to achieve her father's love again. Therefore, one could presume that this facade is the reason that she commits suicide. All of the characters basically embrace the facade about Gina.
Who has false conceptions about themselves?
First off, Gregers has a misconception about himself. One thing he prides himself on is his ideals. Throughout the story, it comes to be known that he has held on to these ideals for many years. Relling exhumed this old information and is the character that opposes these ideals the most. Although Gregers refers to them as truthful, Relling sees ideals and lies as one and the same (Ibsen 203). Gregers feels like the truth will be a good thing to reveal to the Ekdal family. However it is the reverse; the family explodes into conflict, and one of the family members commits suicide.
Who has misconceptions about others?
Nearly all of the characters besides herself have misconceptions about Gina. Even the readers do not give her as much credit as she deserves. Gina is introduced as a stereotypical housewife, and when Hjalmar returns home at the beginning of scene two, the first glimpse of her greater importance is seen. She inquires if the photography business has improved, and that the newspaper advertisements seem to not be effective. Furthermore, she convinces her husband to stay in the living room for a couple days after he had firm intentions of leaving his family. In act three of the play, Hjalmar claims that Hedvig does not and has never loved him.
Who recognizes the facades created by other characters? Embrace, ignore or confront facade?
Hedvig recognizes the facade that Hjalmar sees and embraces and defies it. In fact, there is great irony because Hedvig craves her father's attention and wants nothing more than to see him be happy. Gregers convinces her to sacrifice herself in order to achieve her father's love again. Therefore, one could presume that this facade is the reason that she commits suicide. All of the characters basically embrace the facade about Gina.
Monday, April 9, 2012
We #2
Note: I had originally posted the journal when it was due, but after typing the third one, I saw there was an error and people could not see it. So, I had to resubmit it. Sorry for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Motifs:
The Green Wall: At first, D-503 is nervous and anxious about what lays behind the Green Wall. As he is on a walk, he notices "a wild wave of roots, flowers, branches, [and] leaves. It reared, and in a moment it would roll and break... but fortunately between" D-503 "and the wild green ocean was the glass of the Wall" (Zamyatin 93). At that point, "the irrational, hideous world of trees, birds, animals" is subsidiary to the ordered life he knows (Zamyatin 93). This shows that D-503 has a hold on his life, and is content. He is grateful for the wall. However, near the end of the second third of We, it is apparent that he has changed internally. Outside of the Green Wall, he comes to a clearing where there are people who were "covered with short, glossy fur, like the fur that can be seen by anyone on the stuffed horse in the Prehistoric Museum" (Zamyatin 156). By finding all of this "so incredible, so unexpected," D-503 changes his views on nature. By showing this change of heart in the main character, Zamyatin wants the reader to enjoy nature. Also, he could be showing that the unordered and simple things should be savored.
Setting:
The Greatest Catastrophe in History: At the event for "voting" for the Benefactor, havoc arrises. The normal circumstance for that ceremony is for all of the citizens of the One State to vote unanimously in favor of the Benefactor, however, "thousands of hands swung up—'against'" him (Zamyatin 143). What ensued that occurrence was chaos. Even the Guardians who keep order were "rushing about helplessly" (Zamyatin 144). I think Zamyatin uses this event to show in theory, socialism is a fairly decent idea. However, it can be broken easily and eventually will crumble. If one event can have a large impact on the stability of the society, then its flaws are big.
Language:
During the second third of the novel, Zamyatin uses figurative language to illustrate D-503's conflicts. D-503 is supposed to meet 1-330 at the apartment when she is not there. D-503 has an out of body experience. "But all I heard was the beating of my heart—not within, but somewhere near me" (Zamyatin 94). The utilization of a metaphor highlights the conflict that D-503 is having with I-330. He wants to spend time with her, but she obviously has other priorities. There is also the conflict within himself, seeing that he feels his being is separate from his body. Zamyatin also shows conflicts when he implements alliteration. As he is climbing up a ladder at the dock where the Integral is being built, D-503 notices that "the glittering glass stairs flashed under my feet, and every step increased my hopelessness: I had no place here—I, the criminal, the poisoned one" (Zamyatin 83). This quote provides insight into the relationship that he has with the society. Even in an area that is usually comfortable for him, his place of work, D-503 feels out of place. He doesn't feel like he is contributing, and feels that he should not be there.
Motifs:
The Green Wall: At first, D-503 is nervous and anxious about what lays behind the Green Wall. As he is on a walk, he notices "a wild wave of roots, flowers, branches, [and] leaves. It reared, and in a moment it would roll and break... but fortunately between" D-503 "and the wild green ocean was the glass of the Wall" (Zamyatin 93). At that point, "the irrational, hideous world of trees, birds, animals" is subsidiary to the ordered life he knows (Zamyatin 93). This shows that D-503 has a hold on his life, and is content. He is grateful for the wall. However, near the end of the second third of We, it is apparent that he has changed internally. Outside of the Green Wall, he comes to a clearing where there are people who were "covered with short, glossy fur, like the fur that can be seen by anyone on the stuffed horse in the Prehistoric Museum" (Zamyatin 156). By finding all of this "so incredible, so unexpected," D-503 changes his views on nature. By showing this change of heart in the main character, Zamyatin wants the reader to enjoy nature. Also, he could be showing that the unordered and simple things should be savored.
Setting:
The Greatest Catastrophe in History: At the event for "voting" for the Benefactor, havoc arrises. The normal circumstance for that ceremony is for all of the citizens of the One State to vote unanimously in favor of the Benefactor, however, "thousands of hands swung up—'against'" him (Zamyatin 143). What ensued that occurrence was chaos. Even the Guardians who keep order were "rushing about helplessly" (Zamyatin 144). I think Zamyatin uses this event to show in theory, socialism is a fairly decent idea. However, it can be broken easily and eventually will crumble. If one event can have a large impact on the stability of the society, then its flaws are big.
Language:
During the second third of the novel, Zamyatin uses figurative language to illustrate D-503's conflicts. D-503 is supposed to meet 1-330 at the apartment when she is not there. D-503 has an out of body experience. "But all I heard was the beating of my heart—not within, but somewhere near me" (Zamyatin 94). The utilization of a metaphor highlights the conflict that D-503 is having with I-330. He wants to spend time with her, but she obviously has other priorities. There is also the conflict within himself, seeing that he feels his being is separate from his body. Zamyatin also shows conflicts when he implements alliteration. As he is climbing up a ladder at the dock where the Integral is being built, D-503 notices that "the glittering glass stairs flashed under my feet, and every step increased my hopelessness: I had no place here—I, the criminal, the poisoned one" (Zamyatin 83). This quote provides insight into the relationship that he has with the society. Even in an area that is usually comfortable for him, his place of work, D-503 feels out of place. He doesn't feel like he is contributing, and feels that he should not be there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)