elizabeths english blog: 2011

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Blog Portfolio

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Robert Graves’ poem Escape is about a soldier pondering death. There is an AABB rhyme scheme. There is a mythological and surreal element in the poem, “Cerberus stands and grins above me now, wearing three heads—lion, and lynx, and sow.” Cerberus is from Greek mythology and is the creature that guards the under world. It’s a three-headed dog but Graves changes this to the head of a lynx a lion and a sow. I’m not sure why Graves alludes to Greek mythology rather than the bible when referring to death and afterlife. It could show losing faith in God and Christianity which many poets did at this time but I still don’t understand why he would refer to the Greeks. Graves also juxtaposes mythic figures with common ones “After me roared and clattered angry hosts, Of demons, heroes, and policeman-ghosts.” The policeman amongst the powerful creatures has interesting effects, it brings everyday authority into his punishment it makes the other things seem mundane and not as powerful. The heroes and villains stand along side each other, the policeman the source of authority is dead, and they are all after the narrator. The clear-cut notions of good and evil and trustworthy authority are degraded. The narrator portrays Cerberus as nothing more than a domestic dog “Good Cereberus!..Good Dog…Stay” this has a biting humorous quality, with all the death this man has seen the gatekeeper of hell seems like nothing more than a dog that he tries to train. And the man dupes the dog,” Then swiftly Cerberus’ wide mouths I cram with army biscuit smeared with ration jam.” The jam and biscuit are very significant, as they relate to wartime and soldiers and imply how dying in war morphs the notion of death and afterlife. He uses what gave him the army to escape hell. There is an old notion that if you die in battle you automatically goes to hell so maybe Graves could be showing how this shouldn’t be true.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Anthem for Doomed Youth and Them

Wilfred Owen anthem for doomed youth and Siegfried Sassoon’s They both discuss church or faith related subjects. However Owen's is more to do with mourning at a church community rather than religion is self, unlike Sassoon who specifically discusses loss of religious faith.
Sassoon’s poem commences with a bishop talking and we can immediately see the confusion created by the mix of truth and lie “they will not be the same, for they’ll have fought for a just cause.” It’s true that they will be changed, but the bishop implies that they have been improved by fighting for a cause. He paints a heroic image of the soldiers through phrases like “challenged Death and dared him face to face” which makes it seem like they bravely stood up for their own honor and their country. The capitalization and personification of “Death” makes it seem like a deity, as one would capitalize “God.” The Bishop also refers to the enemy as “Anti Christ” which has obvious religious implications but also demonizes the enemy they didn’t even see. Despite the religious implications provoked from the bishop and his speech there is no mention of God or even the goodness of a God. He mentions the evil “Anti Christ” and deifies Death, undermining his attempt at being inspirational. In the second stanza the boys who fought, list ways they’ve been changed and they are all discussing physical injury. For example “ Bills gone stone blind” the change isn’t enlightening it’s crippling. Also unlike the first stanza when the soldiers were portrayed as very active men who “lead” and “dared” now describe themselves as if they were just objects damaged in war. “George lost his legs” and “Jims shot through the lungs” just shows the men as victims of war. They don’t mention a cause, what they were fighting for when they got hurt, because it really didn’t matter. Unlike the capitalization of “Death” and “Anti-Christ” in the first stanza in the second stanza the names of the men are capitalized, showing the more personal level that they were on, but also that with lack of a cause and lack of faith the men depended on each other a lot and developed true comradely. The bishop chips in again saying, “The ways of God are strange” in response the men’s suffering, which is a really awful excuse for what happened. Also his name is no longer capitalized showing that he’s lost his credibility at least in the eyes of the veterans. Through out the poem the veterans are referred to as “boys” signifying the way they feel emasculated after the war. Overall this a Sassoons style in this poem is satiricle commentary on religous authority trying to comfort and justify the public and returning soldiers.

Wilfred Owen's poem anthem for doomed youth also discusses the suffering of the soldiers in the war and uses church imagery to convey how the soldiers cant receive a proper funeral. Like Sassoon’s poem it shows how the soldiers have been reduced by the war, however Owen creates the idea that they have been dehumanized and subordinate to war machinery where Sassoon implies more of emasculation. Owen compares the men to “cattle” which shows how they were treated like animals up for slaughter. Other poems discuss dehumanization but they refer more to loss of moral code amongst the soldiers who survived the war, Owen is referring to those who died pretty much immediately unlike Sassoon who refers to the veterans. Owen specifically refers to the war machinery where Sassoon does not “Only the monstrous anger of the guns.” Like Sassoon personifies death Owen personifies the guns by giving them emotions. The choice to use anger to create personification is interesting. Owen being an ex soldier during this time it wasn’t really acceptable to be angry or upset after the war, he felt like the soldiers had been deprived of this right to be angry. The guns overall seem more powerful and tyrannous over the soldiers. There is lots of church diction but more specifically funeral diction, “passing-bells,” “choirs,” “candles,” “mourning” this describes the families at home unable to mourn the soldiers and give them proper burials. Although it is church diction it is not really undermining God and the authority of religion as Sassoon does but that might be implied by “. No mockeries. No prayers” in the same line, but is mostly sympathetic to the loss of the families. They also show the families hope and eventual loss of hope for their soldiers to come home, we first see hope with the “patient minds” and then loss of hope “drawing down blinds.” The poem is straightforwardly tragic but has a few hints of bitterness and sarcasm seems in the title “anthem for doomed youth.” An anthem is supposed to inspire and galvanize and is usually associated with nationalism. The youth refers to the young people that get slaughtered in war but why not refer to all the men? The youth were specifically targeted by propaganda to join the war, they were the ones who were most suckered into the notion of being a war hero. Also a lot of nationalistic organizations have youth groups. The title overall could show bitterness for how nations took pumped their minds with dignity them let the young men go to die. Like Sassoon, Owen has a bitter tone angsty towards people trying to glorify what happened in the war, seen in the title, predominantly. But Owen paints tragedy in those that died in war not those who were crippled. So there is more of a greiving tone in this poem than Sassoon's, as "Them", whilst tragic, conveys bitterness and rightful anger of the war vets.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Trench Duty

Siegfried Sassoon’s poem trench duty portrays an account from a soldier taking his shift to watch the trenches during the night. The soldier was falling asleep on trench duty and then was awakened by a shot, and the scene erupts in destruction.

Sassoon uses alliteration to create a sense of desperation and spontaneous action occurring in the trenches. The “big bombardment” and “candle-chinked” builds tension in the scene, and creates action. The soldier is waking up to violence

The rhyme scheme in this poem follows an AABB structure but it breaks to rhyming every other line for when describing an attack on the enemies emplaning this part. He makes the enemy look quite pathetic “crawling on their bellies” during this part. The aabb rhyme scheme had previously added quite a lot of build up making the enemy look quite threatening, but the enemy doesn’t seem quite as dangerous and evil we expected. They seem just as frightened as the soldier who was “shaken” awake. This might relate to how soldiers suffered no matter what side they were on and there were no heroes.

After the rude awakening the soldier looks to the sky. He describes the stars as “blank," which is an unusual description. Usually the stars have spiritual or enlightening connotations. However here, there is no divine light that radiates from the stars. They are just there looking back at him; he receives no answers from the heavens. This could show the soldier losing his faith. This idea is enhanced, in the sentence “I'm wide-awake; and some chap's dead.” Death becomes mundane; he juxtaposes it with feeling wide-awake, as if the death was nothing more than an alarm clock. There isn’t any reason for this given to him by God; it just is the reality of war.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Greater Love and Before the Mirror

Both poems discuss love and mention roses. However greater love discusses warfare where before the mirror is just about love. I thought that since we are doing WW1 poetry that the “maiden rows” would be platoons or trenches, but the poet of before the mirror died before the war began. The general theme from this poem is love has died; they use the winter to signify loss of love. The girl looking in the “gleaming glass” is not really unhappy but it seems she has missed out on love and she knows not why. There is some confusion in the poem, “art thou the ghost my sister… am I the ghost who knows,” the poem is full of disconnect. Also ‘is there sorrow hidden? Is their delight” shows the bitter sweetness of love lost. But greater love has none of this bitter sweetness, greater love just bitter. In war people lost their humanity, they were surrounded by death and went in expecting to be heroes. They couldn’t go back to their normal lives and fall in love because no one understood them, they were really disconnected. Many critics say greater love is a response to before the mirror and that makes sense. I think Owen was sort of saying in response to before the mirror, that people had a greater opportunity to find love than WW1 veterans did. And unlike the woman in the poem who doesn’t really know why she couldn’t find love, the war vets know exactly why, because they were severely damaged from war.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Love just isn't enough

This poem is focused around romantic love destroyed by warfare and how love just isn’t enough. The first line “Red lips are not so red As the stained stones kissed by the English dead.” Memories of the girl he left behind are just simply not enough to forget the bloodshed of the war, or get a soldier through the war. At this point we aren’t sure where the soldier is if its during the war or after the war and the soldiers home, but we understand that he’s been changed by the bloodshed, and regardless of if he’s home recovering or still in the trenches, his love in his past life no longer matters very much. It won’t keep him safe in the trenches or if he is home the girl he loves wont understand what he’s been through. Looking at the title of the poem and the comparison of the lips to the blood of the soldier, it seems like the narrator is choosing the war over the girl. The way the blood is redder than the lips, it almost seems like the war is the “hotter” one. When talking about a woman in seductive manner red lips evoke seductive connotations not really profound romantic love connotations, this kind of undermines the love discussed. The mix of lust imagery with battle imagery relates to the thirst to be the heroic warrior that many young men had when they volunteered for war. The sarcastic and ironic juxtaposition of the lips and the blood suggests that this idea was completely stupid as the men were slaughtered. I think this poem intends to undermine both the “love” that’s supposed to get soldiers through war and war recovery, but also the desire to go to war.

The stanzas of the poem all start by discussing the girls lips, attitude, voice and heart, and shows how they have been undermined by a soldiers injuries and war experience. I think as we progress through we enter increasing phases of attraction. The lips show beauty and seduction, which I mentioned, prior. I wasn’t exactly sure what was meant by attitude I think it referred to posture and maybe her body, it might show confidence and poise that would seem attractive, and its something you would notice about some one after you notice their beauty. After is the voice, after seeing the pretty girl who walks confidently, a man would talk to the girl and increase his attraction to her and gets to know her. After that the heart, which signifies love and passion, shows that the girl loves the boy back and there is mutual attraction. At each level the love grows but at each stanza it is undermined with a physical injury, showing how extensively the war caused damage and love lost. At the last line “Weep, you may weep, for you may touch them not” it is implied that the soldier are dead because cannot be touched, they cannot be with their lovers let alone be given a proper burial. I’ve also thought about looking at this poem through the perspective of the girl, who is losing a man to war, as if the war was the “other woman.” In the poem the guy would sort of be breaking up with her, and he would just be explaining that he just had a “greater love” for war and he showed that dedication through his death, that he prefers “limbs knife-skewed” to her “slender attitude”. This comparison of the war to another woman seems very childish and laughable, simply seems like nothing more than a bad break up, very mundane compared to war, it’s a sarcastic portrayal of what war was like and implies how loved ones really just didn’t get it.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Sassoon Poem Commentary

The poem Repression of war memories illustrates the society-pressured denial of the atrocities of war.

The diction describing the moth dying towards the candle is unpleasant “blundering and scorching” which are violent and not pleasant imagery but, it becomes relative to the war experience with ”glory.” In warfare there is always some attempt to romanticize losses as dying for a cause, the image becomes more than the suffering moth it becomes a suffering soldier. The narrator realizes this and tries to correct his thought. Repressing the war experience the narrator sees war in everyday actions like the moth.

We also see social perception of dealing with war. “And its been proved that soldier don’t go mad” the proof adds some scientific and social perspective on the issue, the proof also feels as confining as the repression of the thoughts of war. “Unless they lose control of ugly thoughts that drive them out to jabber among the trees.” The fear the soldier has developed of his own mind is additionally burden to the violence he is witnessing. The pressure on the mind increases with harsh diction “jabber” and “ugly” and the threat of lunacy. Additionally the tone of the “Unless” is quite judgmental and matter of fact, it creates a sensation that there’s a clear expected order to dealing with a war that no one has seen before, which is clearly ridiculous. We sense the narrators fear of judgment but we also sense he has bitterness and opposition to repressing war trauma.

The pressure is temporally relieved with the “Now light your pipe steady hand” the narrator seems to have everything under control and using a mundane activity to distract himself. This stanza sounds a bit like a list of instructions to follow in order to deal with the war, and the narrator seems to reassure himself with the “as right as rain” but the cleansing imagery of rain quickly turns destructive when the narrator starts asking for a thunderstorm that would “make the roses hang their dripping heads.” This imagery shows beauty being stifled and broken down by violent rain, which ironically was supposed to help it grow. This relates to how he feels about the war, showing again how war invades his thoughts. His abrupt change to books as a topic show that he is again trying to divert his attention anything that reminds him of war, which in this case is even something as natural and purifying as a rose and rain. He talks about books in a pseudo positive manner “I tell you all the wisdom of the world Is waiting for you on those shelves; and yet You sit and gnaw your nails” the humanities as well as nature cannot make the narrator forget the war showing that he cannot distract himself in anyway, he is forced to live with his own fear.

His attempts to distract himself become more desperate, “You’re quiet and peaceful, summering safe at home; You’d never think there was a bloody war on!... O yes, you would ... why, you can hear the guns.” the repetition of "you" creates a faster rhythm which creates a greater sense of urgency and fear, which is Ironic as he is trying to calm himself down. In his last attempt he realizes that he cant hide from his thoughts any more the word “why” brings back this painful yet rational recognition of his dire situation.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Graves

I must admit I am a bit confused by this poem bough of nonsense, but there is a clear morbid and absurdist notion. The first image of the bird’s nest made of skulls and flowers provokes this. The choice of the nest is an interesting one, it creates this idea of nurturing, it could be referring to the pre war environment that made people believe in the war or it could be the post war environment that the next generation has to grow up in. there are also references to exotic and colorful things like monkeys Bright Pink birds and banana trees. The references to the exotic could refer to the colonies that Europeans possessed which is an extension of their nationalism, was a factor that started world war one but also national pride became useless once the men got into the trenches. But primarily this use of the exotic I think is sarcastic and absurdist, contrasting to the death in the poem. The people in the story have this sort of sarcastic false happiness about them that their aware of “before this quaint mood fails” that their trying to deal with the tragedy, since the death it self had little purpose or meaning the life after is just as ridiculous. There are references to the Galatians in this poem, which I wasn’t familiar with before but I found that they were people from the New Testament that Paul wrote letters to and were one of the first people to accept Christianity. The description of the temple they built crushing them creates the sensation that they chose to believe the Christians too quickly and the their faith had no foundation so it ended up destroying them in the end. Also their faith didn’t prevent the nations from starting world war one, and certainly didn’t give soldiers any dignity in their death. Another thing I find interesting about this poem is that it’s a homing journey, shared by an elder and a man who is presumably young to mid age. Traditionally I would think that the poem would be advice given by the elder to the younger man but they seem to be on about the same level here, which shows that in battle sometimes these social orders can be transcended into brotherhood, this might relate to how Jake and bill are close because of their mutual veteranship. The journey home by soldiers is usually considered to be a positive thing, I would have expected this poem to be filled with nostalgic memories of family to return too, but that’s the opposite of what was done. The poem described things in the present through an absurdist lens, because the war undermined the entire foundations of values and sense of home that they had previously known and home just wouldn’t be the same when they returned because of the atrocities they had seen.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

bulls and steers

Steers signify castrated bulls, which relate to the theme of emasculinity. The two more obvious steers are Jake and Cohn, Jake for his injury and Cohn for his weak character and naiveity.jake signifies the steer that rejoined the group and Cohn was the one that didn’t rejoin the group. But Jake seems to have an independent mind he seems to understand more than the other characters things about the realities of war and life and he paid for this knowledge heavily, he may follow his friends around but he thinks independently however he cant turn his wisdom into anything. Jake is also steer like the way he wants he leads people into the group and tries to keep polite relations between them. But as we also know that the Bulls only want to kill when there alone, and I think Jake has this quality in his narration we see this repressed anger, and Jake avoids solitude to keep himself at a distance from his anger, he’s calm as long as he’s with the herd. Brett is a bull as she is dominant sexually, which seems ironic seeing as she’s the girl, who has the masculinity of a bull. It shows the paradigm shift of the time, where women gained more rights and power and men lost masculinity during the trench warfare of the First World War. With Brett and Romero there is an interesting shift, Romero as the bullfighter almost seduces the bull when he fights it, but he becomes the bull when Brett seduces him and she the bullfighter. When the bullfighter becomes the bull, its seems so paradoxical and corrupt, this shows how the ideals (or lack of) of the lost generation corrupt the Romero. This also shows the difficult position that the lost generation puts themselves in; they admire Romero but simultaneously corrupt him. They travel and experience new culture but they still cant help but destroy what they seek, they are stuck in themselves.

You want to be Jake becuase...

1. You like to silently insult others to feel better about yourself.

2. You only relate to ex-soldiers.

3. You want to get what you pay for.

4. You like to keep your friendships on convenience.

5. You want to enter the friend zone.

6. You want to observe but not participate.

7. You need to feel like a man.

8. You love bull-fighting.

9. You like to passively socialize in order to remain detached from yourself and others.

10. You like to actively pursue not doing anything.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Dear Abby

Dear Embarrassed in Encino,

Friendships are tricky business. I for one think that rude behavior is very disgraceful and I am bothered by the lack of manners in the world today. But nonetheless its best to keep your mouth shut, in order to maintain friends. Its better for your reputation to have friends that are a bit obnoxious than no friends. But to make the situation better try to compensate for bad friends by making yourself look good, always dress nicely and try to be very polite to others when you’re group of friends is acting poorly. You’ll get the respect of others outside your group of friends and hopefully you’re friends will follow your example. But primarily you want to remain faithful to your friends no matter what, friendship is the most valuable thing these days, and it is best to preserve them and remain loyal to them because they are all you have. If you preserve the friendship but still maintain your manners, you never know your positive example might rub off on your friends. If you become very frustrated with your friends

Robert Cohn

Monday, October 17, 2011

Brett, Jake and Bull fighting

During the bullfight passage in chapter 15 a lot is revealed about the relationship between Brett and Jake. Jake is the most passionate about Bull fighting and explains it to Brett, and that sort of contributes to her admiration for Romero. Why does Jake do this? Why would he encourage Brett to admire another man despite his love for her? Jake is very knowledgeable about Bullfighting and he could be showing of a bit for her showing her how he knows so much about this masculine activity, but still why focus so much on Romero. This situation is where Brett actually listens to Jake and his knowledge of bullfighting creates a sense of power and masculinity in their conversation, but ironically this knowledge only sends Brett into the arms of Romero. I think it is possible that Jake told Brett so much about Romero and why he later helps her find Romero because he wanted to mess up her relationship with mike regardless of whether he gets her or not. I don’t think that he schemes this but it is definitely possible, that he feels that if he cant tie her down himself than nobody should be able to that way he wouldn’t feel like less of a man. He could be helping her find Romero so for less selfish reasons, that he loves her so he helps her regardless of his own desire for her. This idea sounds of sacrificing ones own happiness for love sounds romantic, noble and self-less, but really its just pathetic, those old ideals of nobility are dead. There isn’t really love in that relationship, Brett has an emotional connection with Jake but she wont let him be more than a friend. She tries to separate her emotional relationship from her sexual relationships as most of the lost generation looks at sentimentality as a destructive thing, but ironically it’s her sexual relationships, which lead to destruction. Jake loves Brett but he knows that he cant have her; she emasculates him in her denial of a relationship. He doesn’t necessarily pursue her but he still wants her and destroys himself wanting her when he is stuck in the “friend zone” and whether he helps Brett out of love or out of subconscious selfishness I'm not entirely sure, perhaps both.

As for the bullfighting I don’t necessarily think it stands for one thing, but I think it mainly focuses around sexuality and masculine warfare. I read a jstor article on bullfighting,(http://www.jstor.org/pss/778863) and they discussed the notions of it to be a mostly aesthetic activity more of an art form, than a typical sport. Which I think is interesting, becuase sport provokes more typical notions of masculinity, that the hemingway hero posses. The Jstor article mentioned that while more than a spectator sport, it is not entirely like to a ballet or other performance art either. Bullfighting is unique becuase of its tradgedy and closeness to death. The near death is important, it seems to increase notions of masculinity and risk. But this isnt necesarily true. Jake probably had a near death expierience when he got wounded in war, certainly closer to death than Mike expierienced, but he wound up completely immasculated. this wasnt becuase he was unskilled as a fighter, he just had bad luck and got hit. I think while Romero is the code hero that Jake aspires to I dont think those heroic notions would be attainable for him in the modern world. The diction describing it is clearly relative to seduction words like “suave” and “smooth” create notions of seductively and sexually skilled. But unlike the detached sex life of Brett and the others the bullfight has connotations of passion mixed with its sensual connotations. Also there are lots of mentions of “purity” in this passage which might contradict the sexuality and provoke notions of sin vs. purity, which might relate to the religious allusions in the book, but I don’t think that’s what purity means hear. I think it implies simple and honest relationship, both sexually and emotionally. This reminds me of the line where Jake asks Brett “couldn’t we just live together?” But we know from that the relationships between the characters is just not that simple. There are also Romantic connotations of war provoked by the bullfighting. It’s a very romantic process and makes the Bullfighter look very skilled and masculine. A bullfight is essentially a battle but unlike the World War I atrocious trench warfare the soldier comes out looking and feeling honorable. The fact that Romero uses the dangerous old bullfighting technique which doesn’t create fake emotion provokes this notion of the old notion of Romanticized war fare. The mixing of sexual connotations with battle connotations foreshadows how, sex will create conflict later in the book. The Bullfight is something so contradictory to the lifestyles and values of the lost generation, its nostalgia and an escape from the painful reality that is. The groups of friends sort of try to attain this nostalgia by watching it and talking to Romero but in the process they only destroy it and corrupt it with their own insecurity. Jake talked in the beginning to Cohn about how one cant escape themselves and their reality, and he is considered one of the more aware characters of the book, but why is he such an aficionado of bullfighting which is only a dream?

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Commenting on Sitara's

i agree that The passage provides insight into the relationship between cohn and jake. Cohn is portrayed as even more pathetic and eager. It looks at how jake pities cohn but he really doesn’t because he enjoys it so much, which isn’t really in the spirit of pity, its seems like jake is bringing himdown to feel good about himself. It is clear that while cohn is clearly dependent on people liking him and tries way to hard jake is also dependent on him for his sense of satisfaction. In general this makes both characters look bad, but jakes awareness shows that despite being a judgemental he also is aware of his own hypocracy. sitara siad on her blog about jake " Due to his impotency, Cohn always emasculates him because he is physically bigger than him." While i agree that Jake belittles him out of insecurity, i dont think Jake is necesaryily lying about how pathetic Cohn is other peoples reactions to Cohn also correlate to Jake's view, but i think it is the satisfaction jake gets out of belittling him that shows his insecurity more. Its quite possible that Jake might find Cohns physical strength threatening but Cohns physical strength is a form of compensation for his steer like personality whilest Jake's harsh comments and slightly sadistic view of cohn's short comings' are compensation for his injury. In this sense they relate to one another more than they are threatened by one another, but i think in this story relating to some one is a seen as a threat in it self becuase it some times leads to sentimentallity. Overall good choice in Passage, it allows us to examine the relationship and the reliability of the narator.

Chapter 11

On page 110-111

Bill raised the wine-skin and let the stream of wine spurt out and into his mouth, his head tipped back. When he stopped drinking and tipped the leather bottle down a few drops ran down his chin.
“No! No!” several Basques said. “Not like that.” One snatched the bottle away from the owner, who was himself about to give a demonstration. He was a young fellow and held the win-bottle at full arms’ length and raised it high up, squeezing the leather bag with his hand so the stream of wine hissed into his mouth. He held the bag out there, the wine making a flat, hard trajectory into his mouth, and he kept on swallowing smoothly and regularly (111)

I chose this passage because it conveys some hope for the lost generation through the Basque’s skillful drinking from the wine skin. This passage shows how the Basques are able to drink properly from their own wine skins. Unlike the bottles that bill offer the men on the bus the Basques have their own unique and skillful way of drinking. There is heroic, passionate, and triumphant diction of the young man lifting the wine bottle high above his head to drink and he doesn’t spill it all over himself like Jake did previously. There are some masculine connotations associated with the ability to skillfully control the wineskin. The Basques are also people that are part of two countries but don’t have a particular connection or nationalism to either France or Spain, their disconnected but still remain similar to the lost generation. But the skillful way they drink from their wineskins show that they have redefined their masculinity and identity. This passage is an example that even disconnected lost people can redefine them it provides a little hope for the characters in the book.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Bill

Bill I find to be quite a strange character and one that is important to Jake. What I find strange is bills obsession with taxidermy but I don’t quite know why and I don’t quite know what that says about him. The diction he uses is quite positive a bit excessive he describes things as “wonderful” a lot contrasts to the uncertain qualifier laden diction of Jake. I noticed that when bill was in the scene Jake’s thoughts filled with judgment it was mostly dialogue based Jake doesn’t describe or react to bill in his head like he does with other characters. Whilst bill is definitely dominant in the conversation it seems like Jake is actually listening which doesn’t happen when Cohn is talking. I found it interesting when he said that he isn’t daunted by anything. Which clearly most of the characters are daunted by everything in life they just mask their insecurity. I think bill acknowledges this too when he says Vienna seemed better than it was because he was drunk. He is aware that things can be masked with nightlife. In this it seems Jake and bill are the same page, they both understand that they deny their own unhappiness and have nothing to do. But still bill calls things wonderful and seems to be a bit ahead of Jake in appreciating the world in a sense. There are many ways we could look at bills obsession with taxidermy. Taxidermy has masculine connotations, essentially taking an animal you’ve killed and turning it into a decoration, showing domination over it in a sense. Stuffed animals also show preservation, taking an animal from a living environment and after its dead posing it in the same position it was when it was alive. I think both are relevant to the sun also rises and the lost generation. Masculinity is something that’s been destroyed at this point by the war, shown through jakes injury and the desire for men to compensate for the lack of masculinity and recreate it through masculine things like stuffed animals. The stuffed animals as zombie like creatures that were living and moving and are now in frozen faux living poses, relate to the lives of the lost generation. They go through the motions and they might look as though they are living just as they were before the war but they’re simply going through the motions and not developing real human connections. I think bills obsession hints to the audience to acknowledge these things. There’s usually a character in every book that we’re supposed to really tune in and listen to, (for example Mrs. Maude in to kill a mocking bird) and were often cued to do so by the narrators extensive or positive description of them. But jakes internal judgments actually cease when talking to Bill, so when he is barely described we are actually cued to pay attention.

Outline

In the poem Route March by Charles Sorley diction, imagerary, and tone are employed to evoke sensations of tradgedy from the slaughtered soldiers in WW1

The sarcastic tone shows the authors bitter attitude towards the heroic mirage of war that fill the soldiers mind.

· “On the road to death sing”

o The ironic juxtaposition of song and death creates a dark sarcastic tone

o Sorely is conveying the tragic falseness of romanticized warfare through this bitter sarcastic tone.

o Song is associated with romanticized warfare and was used to keep the troops spirits lifted and get them ready for a battle which they all felt they would probably win and become heroes from, but the soldiers hoping to attain heroic status are unaware that their destination is death

o Sarcasm typically displays a passive aggressive bitter attitude especially when written in a tragic manner, showing how the author is feeling betrayed and powerless after the war

· The mythic imagery of the earth creates the soldiers false vision of romantic warfare.

o “All the hills and vales along
Earth is bursting into song”

o This notion of vast hills appearing to sing creates a sense of unity with nature and beauty.

o The music of the hills has climatic triumphant imagery a sensation of greatness

o This heavily romantic imagery builds up the sensation of a soldiers eagerness to fight, their heroic preconception of war

· The diction used is often simple and straightforward

o “Live little, great pass”

o There is little emotion or tragedy created by this diction it is straight forward and matter of fact

o The lack of remorse from this blunt diction is a stark contrast to the romantic description of the hills; the great drop from dreaming to glory to dying with no dignity creates more tragedy, interestingly despite the lack of tragedy in the diction describing their death.

Monday, October 10, 2011

portfolio

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

BOOk 1 Jake and Cohn

Jakes relationship is one based on mutual insecurity. Jake has insecurity created by his injury and Cohn has insecurity based on his being a Jew. Jake while he portrays Cohn in a weak manner he regardless remains friends with him but insults him. Jake is aware of the false friendship shown through his “god help you” reaction when Cohn confides in him. Jake is aware of the false friendship but he is not necessarily aware of why he stays friends with Cohn. Jakes friendships are mainly to pass time. And while there is a notion of mutual insecurity and codependence with the relationship it is Jake that listens to Cohn and narrates about Cohn. Jakes doesn’t share his emotions with people in order to make them dependent on him for emotional support. Whilst he prevents himself from caring and becoming emotional attached to Cohn, his role as the listener gives him self a sense of usefulness which compensates for his injury. But his emotional stifled emotional connection is shown through Cohn’s description. I found an article by Arthur Scott called "In defense of Robert Cohn"(http://www.jstor.org/pss/372053) and he says that part of the reason why people tend to dislike cohn is becuase he is an "out of step outsider" who no one likes, and readers are embarrassed to like him. i think that is understandable Cohn is certianly more sentimental than jake their clearly not on the same page. But all of the characters are sort of "outsiders" they dont really connect with one another, sentimentality is what they are missing and it is what cohn has plenty of, regardless if it is foolish or not. Cohn tries really hard to get into Jake's inner circle but really there isnt much friendship in this exclusive ring. In our class discussion we tried to look at which characters are stronger than others. I’m not sure which character has a stronger character Jake or Cohn, but I'm not sure if that’s really a necessary judgment or an accurate one. They both mirror each other they both have masculinity issues and poor relations with others. I don’t think this book is a bout whose the stronger character, all of them are the lost generation and all of them are miserable in some way or another. There doesn’t seem to be one totally dominant successful character in the book, there isn’t a “Rosalind or Orlando” no heroes in this novel, no character is really better than or victorious over another, the characters are just in stalemate. Think whilst portraying Cohn as a manipulated insecure man he reveals his own cynical nature that masks his own sense of masculinity. His emotional angst and sense of uselessness come out in his relations with other people he cant separate his social relations from his emotions. He like all the other characters is part of the lost generation, they are all swamped with notions of insecurity and inadequacy and this causes them to be aimless and afraid to connect with one another. Part of belonging to the lost generation means not being connected to those around you because you despite being in the same situation. Because of the fear and insecurity you constantly compare yourselves to others and see your own issues thus you cast your self out of every one else but still are afraid to confront yourselves. It’s almost a platonic relationship with your self and others. You float in between your self and real relationships with others but, never really arrive in either, no clarity.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Comic

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Jacques the Antagonist?

Jacques has some elements of antagonist. He is very contrasting to the protagonists and the other people so his difference makes him antagonistic. But is seldom evil and not your typical “villainous” perception of antagonist. He dislikes Orlando (one of the protagonists) he is melancholy and cynical when Orlando is romantic and passionate. His misery is contradictory to the mythic idealized forest and even the hard life of the shepherds. He doesn’t really like anyone but touchstone. And touchstone like him is anti romantic and is critical of the country, but touchstone participates in life and love which is the spirit of the forest, which Jacques doesn’t do. In terms of Jacques being an antagonist in a villainous sense, I think he is the exact opposite. Initially the villains appear to be Oliver and duke Frederick they seem to be the more predictable antagonists but after Orlando, Rosalind, and Celia leave they become mundane, except for when Oliver returns, but then he is no longer villainous. Touchstone I think is even crueler and more villainous than Jacques. We see what he does to poor William and plans to marry Audrey and then divorce her. Jacques is rude to Amiens but that’s not as bad as completely destroying William. And Jacques mourned the loss of a dear for which no one really cared about and this showed that he is quite caring, not the typical villainous antagonist. Jacques I think is more of a tragic hero in a comedy, which makes him out of place and contradictory to the nature of the story, as an antagonist would be. But he is never really against any one and doesn’t really want the others to suffer, which isn’t like an antagonist. He also makes insightful commentary, more insightful than Orlando which I don’t think is typical of an antagonist. He leaves at the end of play which often antagonists do, and the protagonists have their happily ever after. But he wasn’t cast out in like most antagonists at the end he left the play willing. He also remained in the forest which is perceived to be a good place and where people have learned their lessons of love and challenged their city values; it is not the place where an antagonist would dwell. I think part of the reason he decided to stay in the forest was because he still had to learn and experience. Most of the other characters have gotten married and interacted with life in the forest. Jacques made social commentary but didn’t really interact as much as the other characters.

Monday, September 5, 2011

On the Directors Cut

The adaptation provided a lot of insight into the analysis of the play. I had previously thought there was a clear preference of the country over the city but the adaptation reminded me that there was more duality in the play. I wasn’t aware how much analysis is required of adaptations, before but now it makes sense that there would be because you have to give justice to Shakespeare’s play whilst putting your own interpretation into it. Hearing performers and directors discuss the play made me consider the audiences role more. Plays I think require more attention to pleasing the audience than literature, because you have to cater to a wider audience and they’re geared more for entertainment than books. The audience also has to sit through a play where as a book can be picked up or put down when ever.

I thought Naomi Frederick made some interesting comments about how her role as Rosalind influenced the perception of Orlando. She said that if she wasn’t a believable boy then Orlando would come off as stupid for believing it. This just shows a lot about the interconnectedness of actors, if one can’t deliver and make the audience believe that character then everyone they interact with wont look believable. This goes to show how difficult it is to cast a play well. I thought Naomi Frederick helped expand on some the theme of the relationship between gender and identity. Naomi Frederick described her change in gender as “seductive” but it was also the hardest part of the role. I think this related to Rosalind a lot. Because Rosalind was free to explore other aspects of her own identity as well as teach Orlando about love, but she often struggled to maintain a masculine identity. Her comments about the globe it self shows the significance of the audience and its interaction with the play. The audience changes the entire feeling of the play and makes it become more alive. The globe theater reflects how Shakespeare likes to acknowledge the audience in the play.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Sarcasm

Shakespeare uses sarcasm in as you like it to comment about the absurdity of city life and for comedic purposes. Touchstone delivers a lot of sarcasm when talking to the shepherd: “Such a one is a natural philosopher. Wast ever in court, shepherd?” the question is sarcastic because of course the shepherd wouldn’t be in court. It’s ironic in his situation of course because he is accompanying Celia and Rosalind who are of the court but disguised as shepherds. But this sarcasm acts as a sort of reminder of the foolish social structure of the city, because in the shepherd’s and touchstones conversation there was a lot of teasing but a lot of intelligence exchanged. Clearly you don’t need come from the court to have wit; the court itself is mostly just full of pretentions. Touchstone also parodies Orlando’s poetry by turning it into a dirty poem. This is partly for comedic relief but also criticizes the heavily romanticized love that really doesn’t make anyone happy. It’s never perfect it’s always made more dramatic than it really is its foolish but it’s relatable and touchstone himself gets married but he takes the marriage light heartedly. Rosalind also points out the foolishness of suffering in love when she says to Orlando: “men have died from time to time and worms have eaten them but not for love.” sarcasm allows Shakespeare to comment on society in a lightheaded but no less intelligent manner.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Globe theatre

The globe theater production was minimal. There was not a real elaborate backdrop or changes in scenery so I think that forced the actors to really push there ability to create the setting. I really liked the drum as an auditory cue for the court scene; the drums were very solemn and commanding setting the tone for the court. They used costume to primarily show social class but Rosalind’s transformation into Ganymede she was wearing attire identical to Orlando, which foreshadowed their future encounters. Touchstone notably did not change his costume which signifies that because he is thought of as nothing more than a fool he doesn’t have to pretend to be anyone else. The wrestling scene was interesting I thought, because when they ran all over the place and went through the audience it looked a little silly and not so violent. The acting definitely made the play come alive, their expressions and voices made the dialogue much richer and much funnier. Jacques was one of my favorite characters because they exaggerated his misery so much. Orlando who exaggerated his frustration was confusing, he is a very likeable character in the written play but it the live play he yelled so much he just seemed annoying and hot headed. I didn’t think that was well done. They brought the audience into it and that seemed to raise the comedy. More laughter occurred when they pointed at specific people in the audience like the women or the school boy. It’s difficult to say exactly why this is funny, because it’s ironic that were just watching and then suddenly were put on a pedestal. It’s kind of like an improbable twist, except most people can expect to have some audience involved stuff at a play. Its just that no one knows when its coming and it always seems to happen when were paying the most attention. Stand up comedians often point at people in the audience to create laughter. It could be that were laughing at the startling of others who are being pointed at.