Nora is a complex personality. She seems to care about her friend, Kristine, yet she says some very insensitive things. She obtains the money to take her husband to Italy so that he can get better and she seems to care for him greatly, yet it looks like she is not completely happy in her marriage. There are a lot of factors that are involved in the way that Nora acts.
I believe that Nora is a well-intentioned person. She obviously makes some insensitive comments about how happy she is, how good her life is with all her money, how Krisitine should go to a resort (when she obviously does not have the money), and things like that, but I do not believe that those come from a mean-spirited place, but rather from an ignorance. Nora comes off as quite an air-head sometimes. she says stupid things and made the stupid mistake of dating the fake signature on the will five days after her father's death. Nora is in conflict because she wants to be useful, to do something important, to be recognized as smart (to a certain extent), but she also wants to please her husband, who likes to keep her as an ignorant child. Many of these mistakes are a result of her being kept in the dark. As her husband's pet, she is not expected to know much, nor does she need to if she aimlessly follows her husband's decisions; however, when she decides to go off-the-books and get the money for the Italy trip, she makes mistakes because she has never dealt with money or business before. But it seems it would be common sense to date a signature at a time when the person (whose signature it is supposed to be) was alive, right? If Nora were sharp she would realize that even if she had never dealt in business or the sorts before in her life. Nora, however, does not exhibit a sharpness, and while part of this might just be the way Nora is, I believe that a lot of it can be attributed to her husband. Her husband does not allow her to be a smart woman. He does not want a sharp companion, an equal with an opinion. He is all about being "a man," having power, and being in complete control of his house. In consequence, Nora runs around like a silly little air-head to get what she wants. Nora acts in the way that she knows her husband wants her to, but that ignorant way of acting has also led her to say some stupid things to Kristine and deal very badly in business.
Nora talks about how much work she went to and how much she sacraficed to get the money for Italy, so she seems to really care about her husband, but I don't think that she is exactly happy in her marriage. She tells Kristine how she never spent more than half of her allowance and saved the rest towards the trip (and for someone as vain as Nora, that really seems to say something), yet when she is telling all of this to Kristine, she sounds kind of self-praising, as if she is just trying to get pity or glory from her friend for what she did. Nora also seems to rather like Dr. Rank. He and she have a very flirtacious and friendly relationship that she seems to enjoy much more than her current marriage. At home, Nora wants to be someone that she cannot and she enjoys floating around and doing her own thing, rather isolated from her husband. In contrast, with Dr. Rank she feels free to be herself. She can talk to him about things (which she cannot with her husband), she does not conceal her slightly rebellious attitude that comes with her sneaking macaroons, and she is not afraid to just act freely. Nora wants to be more than she is allowed to be at home, and that cannot possibly produce a happy person. Also, while Nora may care for her husband, I do not believe theat the two of them have a loving relationship. Nora is afraid to be herself, afraid of what her husband would do if he found out about what she did, and sure that one day her husband will no longer love her as she thinks he does now. Firstly, these things alone show that she is not in a trusting reslationship. Secondly, if Torvald would reject Nora for being herself, would not forgive her for what she did (since she was just trying to save his life), and will stop loving her once she gets older and is no longer young and beautiful, then she is definitely not in a loving relationship. Nora is not in a trusting or loving relationship with her husband, as a matter of fact, they are quite distant and isolated from eachother. Nora is not in a happy marriage.
All of these factors (Torvald, society, Dr. Rank, Nora's desires, etc.) influence her behavior. In the end, I believe that Nora does not exactly know who she is. She is in constant conflict with herself and that is what creates her complex behavior.
word count: 873
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Contradictory Religious Sentiments in Hamlet
Religion plays a major role in Hamlet; however, there are many contradictory religious sentiments in the play, especially when it comes to Hamlet. There is no doubt that Hamlet holds religious beliefs. He believes in Heaven and Hell and Pergatory. He is quite preoccupied with beliefs on where the soul goes once the body perishes and he is very concerned with doing the right and moral thing. All of this being said, Hamlet does not speak as someone who follows the beliefs that he clearly seems to have.
It is well known (or should be) that Christianity is very against taking revenge. It is ALL about forgiveness (and if someone does not know that by now, then I don't know where they've been). So, with that being common knowledge, everyone should be asking him/herself why the entire play is about a man with Christian beliefs trying to avenge his father. The question of contradictory sentiments would be different if Hamlet was attempting to kill Claudius for another purpose besides vengence. If, as king, it was impossible for Claudius to be taken down by a court (because how many kings get a fair trial? They run everything!), so Hamlet decided to take justice in his own hands and rid the world of a criminal, then our question of the contradiction would be very different. Hamlet does not view it like this, however, and he clearly shows this with his words. Hamlet not only seeks revenge, but he plots specifically to get Claudius's soul to Hell. It is another Christian belief that no matter how evil someone may be that they are not wished to go to Hell. Christians, obviously, would like everyone (even if you're Osama Bin Laden) to repent and find eternal life. While Christians believe that there is a Hell and that some people (like most likely Osama Bin Laden) will go there, it is not wished that anyone should go. Hamlet, however, goes to kill Claudius but then stops out of fear that his (Claudius's) soul might go to Heaven. So who is Hamlet? What does he believe? Is he as moral as he and other people think? He is not just trying to kill a man (murder by the way is not on a Christian's to-do list either), he is trying to send him to Hell!
It is possible that part of Hamlet's struggle throughout the play involves his questioning of his very contradictory sentiments, but I'm not so sure.
Well, that's about all.
It is well known (or should be) that Christianity is very against taking revenge. It is ALL about forgiveness (and if someone does not know that by now, then I don't know where they've been). So, with that being common knowledge, everyone should be asking him/herself why the entire play is about a man with Christian beliefs trying to avenge his father. The question of contradictory sentiments would be different if Hamlet was attempting to kill Claudius for another purpose besides vengence. If, as king, it was impossible for Claudius to be taken down by a court (because how many kings get a fair trial? They run everything!), so Hamlet decided to take justice in his own hands and rid the world of a criminal, then our question of the contradiction would be very different. Hamlet does not view it like this, however, and he clearly shows this with his words. Hamlet not only seeks revenge, but he plots specifically to get Claudius's soul to Hell. It is another Christian belief that no matter how evil someone may be that they are not wished to go to Hell. Christians, obviously, would like everyone (even if you're Osama Bin Laden) to repent and find eternal life. While Christians believe that there is a Hell and that some people (like most likely Osama Bin Laden) will go there, it is not wished that anyone should go. Hamlet, however, goes to kill Claudius but then stops out of fear that his (Claudius's) soul might go to Heaven. So who is Hamlet? What does he believe? Is he as moral as he and other people think? He is not just trying to kill a man (murder by the way is not on a Christian's to-do list either), he is trying to send him to Hell!
It is possible that part of Hamlet's struggle throughout the play involves his questioning of his very contradictory sentiments, but I'm not so sure.
Well, that's about all.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Creon and Power
In Antigone, we see the dangers set forth by power through Creon. His power makes him prideful and dangerous as he uses it to threaten (not just criminals, or Antigone who he believes to be a criminal, but also Haimon who has done nothing).
Because he is king, he believes that he knows best. He shows his pride when he says things such as, "You consider it right for a man of my years and experience to go to school to a boy?" "And the City proposes to teach me how to rule?" "My voice is the one voice giving orders in this city!" (pg. 1339) As he gets increasingly angry, his words show how he resents the thought of anyone trying to tell him anything about ruling. He is clearly arrogant in his power, and this arrogance gives him a willingness to abuse this power. He wants everyone to know that he has power and control over them. Basically, he is arrogant and a control freak! :P
Creon becomes so angry with Haimon that he rashly threatens to use his power to kill Antigone right then and there in front of him. While Haimon keeps calm and rational, Creon is completely out of control, yelling how he is an adolescent fool and how he is weak to be "sold out to a woman." Creon threatens his son's marriage, saying, "You'll never marry her while she lives." Haimon comments that she must, then, die, but that her death will cause another. I find this an obvious statement that he plans to die with her, so that he can be with her; however, Creon, obsessed with power (and perhaps paranoyed about losing it) takes this as a threat on his own life. Shortly after he calls for Antigone to be brought out and killed before Haimon's eyes. He says this, wanting to punish his son for his words, and Antigone for her actions. He seems to speak this threat in the heat of the moment.
It is clear that Creon's power makes him prideful and dangerous.
I would also like to point out (though I referred to it above) the difference in Haimon's and Creon's attitudes. Their responses foil eachother in this interaction. Creon is out of control, angry, and rash, while Haimon is controlled, calm, and mature. Haimon's attitude highlights Creon's craziness.
Because he is king, he believes that he knows best. He shows his pride when he says things such as, "You consider it right for a man of my years and experience to go to school to a boy?" "And the City proposes to teach me how to rule?" "My voice is the one voice giving orders in this city!" (pg. 1339) As he gets increasingly angry, his words show how he resents the thought of anyone trying to tell him anything about ruling. He is clearly arrogant in his power, and this arrogance gives him a willingness to abuse this power. He wants everyone to know that he has power and control over them. Basically, he is arrogant and a control freak! :P
Creon becomes so angry with Haimon that he rashly threatens to use his power to kill Antigone right then and there in front of him. While Haimon keeps calm and rational, Creon is completely out of control, yelling how he is an adolescent fool and how he is weak to be "sold out to a woman." Creon threatens his son's marriage, saying, "You'll never marry her while she lives." Haimon comments that she must, then, die, but that her death will cause another. I find this an obvious statement that he plans to die with her, so that he can be with her; however, Creon, obsessed with power (and perhaps paranoyed about losing it) takes this as a threat on his own life. Shortly after he calls for Antigone to be brought out and killed before Haimon's eyes. He says this, wanting to punish his son for his words, and Antigone for her actions. He seems to speak this threat in the heat of the moment.
It is clear that Creon's power makes him prideful and dangerous.
I would also like to point out (though I referred to it above) the difference in Haimon's and Creon's attitudes. Their responses foil eachother in this interaction. Creon is out of control, angry, and rash, while Haimon is controlled, calm, and mature. Haimon's attitude highlights Creon's craziness.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Meaningful Connection!!!
A connection between Heart of Darkness and Waiting for the Barbarians can be seen through the women of both novels. Both Kurtz and the Magistrate have affairs with barbarian/native girls. Although both characters have these relationships, the significance of each is very different.
In Heart of Darkness, Kurtz has a relationship with the "magnificent black woman." This relationship, however, is less about the woman and more about nature. As Douglas Kerr says in his article, Kurtz's real relationship is with nature. It is therefore fitting to say that she represents nature -- a notion that is also discussed by Marianna Torgovnick in her article, "Primitivism and the African Woman in Heart of Darkness." In this novel, Kurtz does not really have a love for the African people or his "magnificent black woman," but instead just enjoys his power over them, his "fantasies" (Torgovnick).
In Waiting for the Barbarians, the Magistrate has a relationship with a captive barbarian girl. During his encounter with the torture of captives and the barbarian girl, he comes to find sympathy for the barbarians. His intitial attraction to the barbarian girl is his need to heal her. He washes her every night (in a very sensual fashion), therefore becoming rather close to her. Whether he comes to truly love her is a very debatable and gray area, however, it is safe to say that on the whole he stands up for the proper treatment of prisoners (barbarians). The Magistrate clearly has a struggle with his attraction to the barbarian girl -- admiring/praising her at times and then going on in disgust about her ugliness. This shows some initial prejudice towards her kind, but he eventually gets over that and invites her back with him. His actions are very different from Kurtz's, and although he may be a slightly annoying, kind of bipolar, bitter about aging (and way too obsessed with his sex life) man (and kind of a man whore), he is definitely a much more thoughtful and genuine man than Kurtz.
While the magistrate found a sympathy for the barbarians and stood up against their mistreatment, Kurtz manipulated the Africans -- took advantage of them. While both are "outlaws" to their people (as Kerr concluded), they have very different roles and emotions. The connection between the two novels is the encounters that men have with barbarians and native peoples (especially through women).
About 400 words
In Heart of Darkness, Kurtz has a relationship with the "magnificent black woman." This relationship, however, is less about the woman and more about nature. As Douglas Kerr says in his article, Kurtz's real relationship is with nature. It is therefore fitting to say that she represents nature -- a notion that is also discussed by Marianna Torgovnick in her article, "Primitivism and the African Woman in Heart of Darkness." In this novel, Kurtz does not really have a love for the African people or his "magnificent black woman," but instead just enjoys his power over them, his "fantasies" (Torgovnick).
In Waiting for the Barbarians, the Magistrate has a relationship with a captive barbarian girl. During his encounter with the torture of captives and the barbarian girl, he comes to find sympathy for the barbarians. His intitial attraction to the barbarian girl is his need to heal her. He washes her every night (in a very sensual fashion), therefore becoming rather close to her. Whether he comes to truly love her is a very debatable and gray area, however, it is safe to say that on the whole he stands up for the proper treatment of prisoners (barbarians). The Magistrate clearly has a struggle with his attraction to the barbarian girl -- admiring/praising her at times and then going on in disgust about her ugliness. This shows some initial prejudice towards her kind, but he eventually gets over that and invites her back with him. His actions are very different from Kurtz's, and although he may be a slightly annoying, kind of bipolar, bitter about aging (and way too obsessed with his sex life) man (and kind of a man whore), he is definitely a much more thoughtful and genuine man than Kurtz.
While the magistrate found a sympathy for the barbarians and stood up against their mistreatment, Kurtz manipulated the Africans -- took advantage of them. While both are "outlaws" to their people (as Kerr concluded), they have very different roles and emotions. The connection between the two novels is the encounters that men have with barbarians and native peoples (especially through women).
About 400 words
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Waiting for the Barbarians
Waiting for the Barbarians begins by introducing two very different characters -- Colonel Joll and the narrator, the magistrate. I found both to be portrayed very well and I especially loved the use of the sunglasses to reveal character and the different lifestyles. Not only do the sunglasses keep Colonel Joll hidden and in a veil of mystery, but they represent the technology differences between the capital and the outskirted village. The sunglasses are new to the village; they are an invention that the villagers have never seen before.
I enjoy the writing and content. I find the writing to really connect the readers with the narrator and I find the story interesting.
I found that I don't care for Colonel Joll at all. I find him intimidating and cruel, not to mention superior-feeling. The narrator I like better. I find him to be an easy-going, simple man who finds himself wrapped up in more than he expected because he has a heart. I found his sympathy for the prisoners to be appropriate and appreciated his efforts of kindness and good treatment towards the boy captive. I also found his thoughts on torture and reflections on "clean" and "unclean" men to be very interesting. They were a great representation of the different cultures and the "old school" versus "new school." He seems to be a fair and decent man, and it was very kind of him to bring the blind woman back to the village with him. However, I find the dynamic between them to be very odd and I came to view him as kind of a manipulator some of the time. In conclusion, my views and opinions on the narrator are not fully formed, but he seems decent.
About 270 words
I enjoy the writing and content. I find the writing to really connect the readers with the narrator and I find the story interesting.
I found that I don't care for Colonel Joll at all. I find him intimidating and cruel, not to mention superior-feeling. The narrator I like better. I find him to be an easy-going, simple man who finds himself wrapped up in more than he expected because he has a heart. I found his sympathy for the prisoners to be appropriate and appreciated his efforts of kindness and good treatment towards the boy captive. I also found his thoughts on torture and reflections on "clean" and "unclean" men to be very interesting. They were a great representation of the different cultures and the "old school" versus "new school." He seems to be a fair and decent man, and it was very kind of him to bring the blind woman back to the village with him. However, I find the dynamic between them to be very odd and I came to view him as kind of a manipulator some of the time. In conclusion, my views and opinions on the narrator are not fully formed, but he seems decent.
About 270 words
Monday, November 17, 2008
Heart of Darkness
"Primitivism and The African Woman in Heart of Darkness" pg. 396
- Kurtz has mated with the magnificent black woman, violating British social standards
- Marlow conceives her as a substitute for Kurtz's white "Intended"
- the heads that adorn Kurtz's abode connect the primitivity of Africa with the primitive societies of Scotland (Macbeth time) and England
- Head-hunting practices in primitive societies had specific purposes and goals: "absorption of a slain enemy's courage and power"
- Expressions of virility and masculinity
- Kurtz collected heads to act out a Western fantasy of savagery
- Acephale (European writings) explores the metaphor of headlessness: emblem shows a naked man, headless, with a death's-head in place of where the penis should be, de-emphasizing the European preoccupation with the mind and rationality, and symbolizing a more primitive-driven masculinity, one that is not driven by the mind
- men's need to maintain masculinity through saparation, difference, and control -- seen in Kurtz: isolated from other Europeans, complete control over the Africans
- The Africans and Africa have become a "stage" for Kurtz to play out his fantasies, representing masculinity in his culture's view, borrowing rituals practiced by certain African groups, but "perverting" them to "Western ends"
- primitive Africa contrasts with civilized Europe: "emptiness of modern European life"
The Woman
- prejudiced language: sorrow = "wild"; pain = "dumb"; her resolve = "half-shaped"; her purpose = "inscrutible," she is "fecund and mysterious" "tenebrous and passionate," (like the landscape); "fool nigger" "insolent black head"
- woman = embodiment of Africa, African landscape; African landscape = death, the "white man's grave"
- Kurtz has mated with the magnificent black woman, violating British social standards
- Marlow conceives her as a substitute for Kurtz's white "Intended"
- the heads that adorn Kurtz's abode connect the primitivity of Africa with the primitive societies of Scotland (Macbeth time) and England
- Head-hunting practices in primitive societies had specific purposes and goals: "absorption of a slain enemy's courage and power"
- Expressions of virility and masculinity
- Kurtz collected heads to act out a Western fantasy of savagery
- Acephale (European writings) explores the metaphor of headlessness: emblem shows a naked man, headless, with a death's-head in place of where the penis should be, de-emphasizing the European preoccupation with the mind and rationality, and symbolizing a more primitive-driven masculinity, one that is not driven by the mind
- men's need to maintain masculinity through saparation, difference, and control -- seen in Kurtz: isolated from other Europeans, complete control over the Africans
- The Africans and Africa have become a "stage" for Kurtz to play out his fantasies, representing masculinity in his culture's view, borrowing rituals practiced by certain African groups, but "perverting" them to "Western ends"
- primitive Africa contrasts with civilized Europe: "emptiness of modern European life"
The Woman
- prejudiced language: sorrow = "wild"; pain = "dumb"; her resolve = "half-shaped"; her purpose = "inscrutible," she is "fecund and mysterious" "tenebrous and passionate," (like the landscape); "fool nigger" "insolent black head"
- woman = embodiment of Africa, African landscape; African landscape = death, the "white man's grave"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
