Fear and Loathing

I had never heard of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and was really surprised by it. At first it seemed meaningless with the excessive drug use but after watching it for a little bit, I realized the movie really has a meaning to it and the characters Duke and Dr. Gonzo were searching for the American Dream. This immediately reminded me of one of my favorite novels The Great Gatsby. The movie was pretty hard to follow at some points because the characters behaved in ways that society as a whole isn’t used to seeing. But once the viewer can pick through it, the story becomes much clearer especially once put into the context of the final days of the counter culture of the 1960’s.
Man is separate from beasts because man has control of himself and his instincts. He can decide when and how to act in any given situation. A beast is solely driven on instincts. They control it to a point that humans cannot comprehend. The characters made beasts of themselves because they got so messed up on a variety of powerful drugs. When they were on these drugs, they had no control of themselves or their actions. They were solely driven by instincts. In the opening seen, Duke is swatting at bats that don’t exist. His body is telling him this even though they are not there because of the drug’s effects. His swatting is not driven by himself, but through an uncontrollable force, just as beasts act by uncontrollable instincts. The drugs do relieve their pain temporarily, but it is a false sense of relief and creates further pain. The drugs solve none of their problems, only make them disappear (relief) for a short period of time. In that sense the drugs do relieve their pain, but it is only temporary and creates more problems.

Is it Important to be Earnest or are Ernest People Important?

I loved reading this play and think it is my favorite piece of literature so far this semester. I thought the wit that Wilde used fit perfectly and gave the work added meaning and entertainment value. The multiple identities of characters really made me think that everybody is a bunburyist, only to a less extent. I’m unsure as to whether it is a good or bad thing, but believe it might be a necessary aspect of society when done appropriately. In my life I take on a variety of roles. I am Michael the student, Michael the son, Michael the older brother, Michael the heavy drinker, Michael the rationalist, Michael the irrationalist etc etc etc. There are all the same person, but I do act different in these situations. It makes me wonder if I changed my name at one of those roles, would I come off as a bunburyist? I also appreciated the ease of the text to read. It went very fast and I was able to visualize much of the play as it was happening. I am now an Oscar Wilde fan.
We should take his discussion of identity seriously. I think he is critiquing people who change who they are at the core for certain situations and saying that it is okay to be oneself. His humor does not conceal his critical ideas at all, but rather enhances them. They grab the readers attention and get the readers in an identity crisis. Lady Bracknell would not let Jack marry her daughter because he did not have a known origin. When she found out what his was, and that it was proper, she did let him. Jack never changed. The only thing that changed was human knowledge. Wilde is being very critical of people being judgmental and foolish, putting too much emphasis on what someone is rather than who someone is.

The Shrew

I am really intrigued by the story so far. I like the structure and idea of a play within a play. The drama maintains a high level of interest for me because of the wit Shakespeare uses and the romantic and sexual humor, much of which is unknown to some of the characters within the story. The play is easy to read because of the clever wit and short length of the drama. I like how I am intrigued by two endings. I want to see who marries Bianca and also what comes of Christopher Sly, the drunk turned Lord.
In the induction Sly is tricked into thinking that he is a Lord after a night of heavy drinking. He is skeptical to believe it, until he learns that he has a wife, who has been loyal to him for fifteen years since he lost his mind. Immediately after learning of his wife, he asks his “servants” to leave the two alone. The funny thing is that his wife is none other than the real Lord’s page, dressed as a female. He wants to take her, which is really a him, to bed. The page, for obvious reasons, cannot let this occur, and says they cannot sleep together for a day or two because it might drive Sly back into a state of madness. He accepts the excuse. It is humorous how the servants, Lord, and Page can get him to act anyway they wish, even though Sly is their “Lord” for the time being. He has no idea of the mockery they are making of him and I am intrigued about how this scenario will play out.

And today we'll start our drawing with the pick 3...

This was not the first time I read The Lottery, but I was able to appreciate it much more this time around. I like how Jackson is able to make the characters in the story so real and life like in the manner that they still follow this barbaric tradition of the lottery because they are so inept to change. Many people do have a hard time changing and this is an exaggeration of everyday life to make the point that change is okay and can be good. Had the villagers been open minded, they would not have continued to kill off one of their own every year. Overall, I really like the story and appreciated the manner in which the author sought to get her message across.
The ending of the Lottery is extremely bizarre and unexpected for the first time reader. The citizens live in what appears to be a well standing, modern society. They talk of the annual lottery almost as if it were a fair. It was something everyone looked forward to and the character’s descriptions did not seem out of place. The only question that the reader is left asking himself (throughout the entire story nonetheless) is what does the person who wins the lottery win? It is ironic because the reader soon understands that they don’t win at all, but are immediately stoned to death. Looking back, Jackson used several foreshadowing techniques to give subtle clues about the bizarre ending. In the second paragraph, Bobby Martin and other boys gathered stones. The reason is unknown and the reader can forget about this easily, but at the end, after the lottery is over, every goes and grabs stones the boys gathered earlier. Jackson also foreshadows Tessie’s death by making her the last person to arrive. She stands out in the reader’s mind and then by the end, it’s unexpected but not surprising when she is killed. There is also foreshadowing when the heads of the households nervously hold the papers which is immediately followed by talk of towns giving up the lottery. If towns are giving it up, then is it bad? If people are nervous and towns are giving it up, then it’s almost certainly bad. Then after the drawing, when Tessie is deeply upset that her husband drew the paper with the black spot, the reader knows trouble must be coming, which it does as Tessie and her family have to draw again, resulting in the death of Tessie. Jackson leaves several clues throughout the story that hint to the reader the darkness of the ending. The author wants the reader to understand that sometimes it is good to go against the crowd and question what is normal. When this type of action occurs, then progress is made. That is how slavery was ended and how women gained equal rights. People need to question tradition in order to see if there is a better way.

number four

I really enjoyed this story as it developed and culminated at the end. It shows that an individual can change who they are, for better or worse, or improve one’s self. The ideal way to bring about change is not to change but to improve upon one’s being. I am going through a phase right now where I am sincerely trying to improve who I am as a person. Many people, especially in high school, go through phases where they completely revamp who they are to fit in and be “popular” but this kind of change is bad and can lead to one acting out of character, as Fitzgerald tries to illustrate.
Fitzgerald represents the nature of identity as something that is unchangeable. An individual has the power to improve, but with that also the ability to regress and ultimately change who an individual is from the core, as Bernice does. Identity itself is something an individual can change, but it can come with a price. A person always has the ability to change their identity, but when someone does this, they do it for the worst, because a person steps out of their own character and morals. A better form of change is self improvement. Bernice took steps to improve herself but she could have done so without changing her identity. By bobbing her hair, a risqué act at the time, she lowered herself to the status of an object and lost a piece of her humanity. Her sole reason for the action was to gain attention. She should want to gain attention for who she is, not for a shallow and attention seeking ploy. She absolutely changed her identity in the way that others see her and the way she sees herself at the end. She knew what she was doing was “wrong” (for the time, its not as if she sinned), because she let others dictate how she would act rather than acting out of her own free will. I think she realized this at the end, which is why she ran away into the night. She was afraid of what she had become and sought comfort in avoiding the very immediate consequences, even though she knew her action might haunt her for some time.

numéro trois

I really enjoyed John Updike’s A & P. This wasn’t the first time I had read it, but it was still entertaining, and I was able to pick up on tiny details that I was unaware of in high school. The narrator acted foolishly and in a manner that most would have a hard time with. I don’t think I would have the guts to quit a job in the middle of a shift without thinking about it for weeks. This could have been the case with the narrator, and he was just looking for an opportunity, but he picked a weird one. If I planned on quitting and making a scene, I would simply have done a poor job for a few days, and then when the manager yelled at me, that’s when I would have quit. The narrator really does have an odd way of thinking. He is very impulsive and spontaneous.
The narrator reveals a high level of independence that he takes pride in. Not many his age (high school) would be able to not only stick it to their boss about something they believe in, but stick it too his parents as well, given the relationship the narrator’s family has with Lengal. He knew the consequences of his actions before or immediately afterwards, but he made no attempt to rectify the situation. He didn’t need help from anyone. This narrator thought he could take on the world by himself. The transformation that he goes through is that he becomes a little afraid of himself and his sense of independence. The narrator was expecting something for quitting his job. Whether it be that the girls were there to thank him and ask him to hang out, or Lengal coming out to ask him if he wanted his job back. But all he found was emptiness. He was acting tough, but deep down inside, he was scarred of himself. He knew he made a terrible decision and that it probably would not be the last time something of this nature occurred.

numero due (domanda due)

The first thing I noticed about William Yeats poem was the amount of imagery he uses. Almost every line paints a picture in the reader’s mind of what is taking place. I feel that he used so much imagery because rape is a brutally violent act, but Yeats would not have been able to illustrate that without using description. The poem made me feel indifferent. Rape is a touchy subject and not something most people want to read about. I would like to known if Yeats had some sort of personal experience that drove him to write this poem. The poem was easy to understand the general concept that a rape was occurring, but he used a wide variety of vocabulary and he made an allusion to mythology that the average reader may not have picked up on. I knew who Agamemnon was, but I didn’t know that he was murdered by his wife upon his return from the Trojan War, which may have been the very reason why Yeats included him in the poem.
I think Yeats used mythology in this poem because it symbolizes the rape that is taking place. The City of Troy was invulnerable in its citizen’s mind until the Greeks conquered them. The broken walls, burning towers and burning roofs symbolize the raping of the women just as Troy was raped. When Agamemnon returned home after defeating the Trojans, he was murdered by his wife. This parallels the anger and hatred that the woman has for her rapists. Yeats tries to have the reader understand the scale of the dead taking place. A rape is a horrible thing, but he wants to put it on the same scale as an entire city burning to allow the reader to understand how heinous an act it is. The poem has some archetypal themes. Despair and loss has always been a theme through the history of literature. The desperation the Trojans felt is the same desperation that the woman felt, and is the same desperation that people in the future will experience when put in similar situations. Another theme in the poem that is illustrated through the past is loss of innocence. The Greeks lost their innocence in destroying the city. Agamemnon’s wife lost her innocence when she murdered her husband. The rape victim lost her innocence when the event occurred. She will never know what it feels like to not have been raped, just as the Greeks and wife will no longer exist without the knowledge of murder.