Las Leminas
Diego Velazquez, 1656(mentioned in Essay "Reflection in Myself as a Writer")
Arnolfini's Portrait
Van Eyck, 1434(Mentioned in essay "My Growth as a Reader.")
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Gallery: Pictures Referenced in My Essays
(mentioned in Essay "Reflection in Myself as a Writer")
(Mentioned in essay "My Growth as a Reader.")
Semester 1 Reflection and Goals
Goals for Semester 1
Becoming a more persistent, constant, and more thoughtful reader.
Becoming a more persistent, constant, and more thoughtful reader.
This goal is especially important for me as I plan to become a writer, and to do so, reading books would be crucial to broaden my perspective. I will try to read beyond of what is asked of from this class, and will do everything I can to bring my own legitimate conclusions, opinions, and careful observations. I think this would be assessable by comparing the quality of essays I would come to write as the class continues, as deeper and accurate observations within the essays would be able to give me better scores.
Becoming a much clearer speaker and writer.
I’ve always had a problem about droning on and on without getting to the point, and for me, it would be self evident that it is a weakness I have to solve. When people read my essays/stories and hear me speak, they tend to lose focus and interest quickly as I run around the bush. I would like to fix this issue no matter what. I would be able to assess this goal by checking for how long I speak whenever I contribute to the discussion, and how many people managed to properly understand what I had said.
________________________________________________________________________________
Evaluation:
As the first semester of my Senior year comes close to completion, I am led to reflect upon my overall performance, and, more specifically, the achievement of the goals I had set up at the beginning of the semester. The goals themselves are due to their nature subjective, and difficult to evaluate in an objective manner. Therefore I have taken the liberty of combining my personal sentiments, peer reviews and the brief guidelines which I had set up at August.
The need to become a genuinely more thorough reader was a goal that, thanks to the nature of this course, was something that I was able to work on constantly. The pieces of reading that was given to me made me endlessly ponder upon every dialogue, symbolisms and their possible implications and impact to the work as a whole. Even better, there were plenty of opportunities to test my knowledge and understanding of the given pieces through essays, discussions and grades corresponding to every work I had read during the semester. Reflecting on the essays I had written during the past semesters, it became apparent that not only has the depth of my writing gotten significantly deeper, but also that the scope of my readings have widened as well. It can be seen in my poetry analysis (Major Artifact 3A &B) that I was able to build, expand, and elaborate a coherent story from a poem, something I was unable to do previously. In my two Independent Reading entries, I was able to weave a comprehensive common theme from groups of symbolisms and characterizations, which was exactly what I was aiming for from the beginning of the semester.
That being said, my second goal still has a lot of work to be done. The clarity of my essays and theories have definitely improved, and for the first time in my life, I was able to maintain an A in an English Course, which for me was a significant achievement, and perhaps a proof of my improvement in this category. However, a good majority of my peers still have slight difficulties understanding what I am saying during discussions. While I do not do this at the same, alarming frequency at the beginning of the semester, I still feel that I am dominating a lot of the class discussions. This will certainly be a category which I will work for during the next semester.
________________________________________________________________________________
Goal for Semester 2
Pay Attention to Directions:
While my grades would not tell that I have this problem, my inabilities to pay attention to direction has on several occasions landed me with a replaceable F in some of my assignments. As a result, I was forced to redo a good portion of my work, leading to a lot of wasted time I could have otherwise used elsewhere. In order to stop this vicious cycle, I will pay more attention to directions and will ask more questions on what needs to be done before the work is due. I will keep a count over the course of the semester to see how many times I failed to follow directions in order to measure my success in achieving this goal.
Be more Approachable
While my lack of clarity in opinion has often thrown people off, this semester has led me to believe that it isn’t only my long winded speeches that makes it hard for my classmates to understand what I am saying. I have developed a theory that my attitude towards others may have hindered debates and counter-arguments, so I would like to work on fixing this issue. In order to see whether I have improved on this aspect, I will have one of my peers flag me whenever it feels like I am dominating the conversations and discussions within the class.
Minor Artifact 4: Brave New World Notes (8th December)
“But I’m Linda, I’m Linda.” The laughter drowned her voice. “You made me have a baby,” she screamed above the uproar. There was a sudden and appalling hush; eyes floated uncomfortably, not ,knowing where to look. The Director went suddenly pale, stopped struggling and stood, his hands on her wrist, staring down at her, horrified.”
Chapter 9
This scene depicts the wretched Linda finally being able to meet the Director after her decades long stay in the Indian reserves. Not only this passage, but the scene as a whole gives an accurate reflection of what the concept of aging has turned in the world state. For those that live within the state, old age is an ancient concept that has been forcefully taken out of their minds for constant and perpetual happiness. Indeed, even in death, the typical world state citizen does not feel the burdens of old age, and in fact dies “young” at the age of 60. In front of the aging and dying Linda, the people can do nothing but at first stand aghast, and laugh at the pitiful scene. ________________________________________________________________________
“I want to feel something strongly.” “When the individual feels, the community reels,” Lenina pronounced. “Well, why shouldn’t it reel a bit?” “Bernard!” But Bernard remained unabashed. “Adults intellectually and during working working hours,” he went on. “Infants where feelings and desires are concerned... It suddenly struck me the other day, that it might be possible to be an adult all the time.”
Part 1
This scene is in its own way a crowning moment of Bernard, in which he declares his acts of rebellion to his “love” to Lenina, the supposedly perfect citizen of the world state. Bernard, rejected by his community for being short and generally unattractive, attempts to repel at the fundamental ideology of the world state by attempting to withhold his libido and desires and consequently tries to convince Lenina to not have sex too early. From this scene, the readers begin to receive a strong sense of sympathy for Bernard, only to be dramatically betrayed by his quick fall in the second part of the novel.
________________________________________________________________________
Concept: The hypocritical Rebel Bernard
Over the course of the novel goes through three main arcs, first as a defiant, if not somewhat vain rebel, to a hypocritical hedonist to a pathetic, sobbing wreck. Upon initial observations, the audience may be repelled by this genuinely unsympathetic character, but they must at first see the purpose of Bernard within the story. Bernard is a fitting portrayal of the typical rebel of the human society who is not lead to fight against the power for ideological reasons, but for the sense of unfairness he feels that comes from the society around him. In a manner similar to the happenings of historical revolutions, the triumphant Bernard tastes power after the first half of the book and becomes just like the people he used to hate, only to be brought down to nothingness. The typical reader is meant to feel no love for Bernard and is supposed to laugh at his moral depth, but his path is supposed to represent a warning to the aspiring rebel, questioning him on the true cause of his rebellion.
________________________________________________________________________
"The words galvanized Bernard into violent and unseemly activity. “Send me to an island?” He jumped up, ran across the room, and stood gesticulating in front of the controller. “You can’t send me. I haven’t done anything. It was the others. I swear it was the others.” He pointed accusingly to Hemholtz and the Savage."
Just like how the second passage portrayed the finest parts of Bernard’s rebellion, this scene portrays the most putrid and sorry state of Bernard in his fall from grace. At the knowledge that he was to be sent to an island, where things are ancient and unadulterated, Bernard breaks down into a sobbing wreck, confirming to the readers over again how Bernard was never a rebel, but just a jealous man.
Chapter 9
This scene depicts the wretched Linda finally being able to meet the Director after her decades long stay in the Indian reserves. Not only this passage, but the scene as a whole gives an accurate reflection of what the concept of aging has turned in the world state. For those that live within the state, old age is an ancient concept that has been forcefully taken out of their minds for constant and perpetual happiness. Indeed, even in death, the typical world state citizen does not feel the burdens of old age, and in fact dies “young” at the age of 60. In front of the aging and dying Linda, the people can do nothing but at first stand aghast, and laugh at the pitiful scene. ________________________________________________________________________
“I want to feel something strongly.” “When the individual feels, the community reels,” Lenina pronounced. “Well, why shouldn’t it reel a bit?” “Bernard!” But Bernard remained unabashed. “Adults intellectually and during working working hours,” he went on. “Infants where feelings and desires are concerned... It suddenly struck me the other day, that it might be possible to be an adult all the time.”
Part 1
This scene is in its own way a crowning moment of Bernard, in which he declares his acts of rebellion to his “love” to Lenina, the supposedly perfect citizen of the world state. Bernard, rejected by his community for being short and generally unattractive, attempts to repel at the fundamental ideology of the world state by attempting to withhold his libido and desires and consequently tries to convince Lenina to not have sex too early. From this scene, the readers begin to receive a strong sense of sympathy for Bernard, only to be dramatically betrayed by his quick fall in the second part of the novel.
________________________________________________________________________
Concept: The hypocritical Rebel Bernard
Over the course of the novel goes through three main arcs, first as a defiant, if not somewhat vain rebel, to a hypocritical hedonist to a pathetic, sobbing wreck. Upon initial observations, the audience may be repelled by this genuinely unsympathetic character, but they must at first see the purpose of Bernard within the story. Bernard is a fitting portrayal of the typical rebel of the human society who is not lead to fight against the power for ideological reasons, but for the sense of unfairness he feels that comes from the society around him. In a manner similar to the happenings of historical revolutions, the triumphant Bernard tastes power after the first half of the book and becomes just like the people he used to hate, only to be brought down to nothingness. The typical reader is meant to feel no love for Bernard and is supposed to laugh at his moral depth, but his path is supposed to represent a warning to the aspiring rebel, questioning him on the true cause of his rebellion.
________________________________________________________________________
"The words galvanized Bernard into violent and unseemly activity. “Send me to an island?” He jumped up, ran across the room, and stood gesticulating in front of the controller. “You can’t send me. I haven’t done anything. It was the others. I swear it was the others.” He pointed accusingly to Hemholtz and the Savage."
Just like how the second passage portrayed the finest parts of Bernard’s rebellion, this scene portrays the most putrid and sorry state of Bernard in his fall from grace. At the knowledge that he was to be sent to an island, where things are ancient and unadulterated, Bernard breaks down into a sobbing wreck, confirming to the readers over again how Bernard was never a rebel, but just a jealous man.
Minor Artifact 3: Island Notes Personal Reading (28th October)
Big Ideas:
Follies of Capitalism and Power
All of the characters in position of power tend to be corrupted or obnoxious in one form or another. Muragan is being willingly manipulated by the Colonel Dipa to open of Pala, believing that the only way for his nation to advance is to embrace the wester civilization the island has for so long rejected. Bahu is only interested in money and general self interest, living in a land where he lives like royalty, while everyone is poor. Rani, while a famous religious figure, fails to realize that her “small voice”, her call of divine intervention might as well by synonymous to her own opinions, thus enforcing ideas to her will.
All of the mentioned leaders do not consider the true situation of Pala, or the wellbeing of the people, rather believing in self-profiteering, “advancement” of the nation as a whole, and completely squandering what the people themselves believe, despite the Raja being supposed to follow the will of the people.
Rejection of Conventional Thought
It is noticeable that the philosophies of Palanese way of life serves to reject the traditional thoughts of the western world. “Living in the moment” (staying in full attention, promiscuity) is emphasized amongst the people, with a general belief of accepting reality, and trying to get the best possible. An example could be seen in the medical practices of Pala, where doctors are paid not only in mending diseases, but in keeping their patients healthy as well through natural means. While the western world focuses on gigantic machines, Pala believes in integrating bio-technology as well.
Eastern Philosophy
Many aspects of Eastern philosophy determine the beliefs in Pala. For instance, instead of believing in the power of gods, Pala’s philosophy emphasizes upon enlightenment through meditation.
Characterization: Will Farnaby
Will Farnaby is a journalist and the catalyst of the fall of Pala. He is cynical, emotionally broken due to the relationships he had prior to the novel. These traits begin to melt away as he absorbs more of the culture in Pala. By the end of the novel, Will Farnaby becomes an honorary member of the Palanese culture, ironically right before this culture is destroyed by his actions, potentially shot by the occupational forces of the colonel.
Other characters
It is to note that most of the characters, while characterized through the exceedingly cynical (and strangely entertaining) views of the protagonist, serves primarily to send a message across about the world of Pala and the world that seems to come closer and closer to the small island.
POV
The POV stays solely with Will Farnaby, the protagonist.
Symbolisms
“Attention”
Hundreds of Mnayh birds in Pala are said to have learnt to say this word constantly all around the island in order to emphasize the idea of living in the moment fully. This is used throughout the book not only to influence the characters, but to the readers as well, pointing the readers significant parts and strong emotions present within the novel.
“Farmer and the Viper”
More of a motif, this becomes apparent with Will Farnaby’s cycle throughout the story. He lands into a remote place wounded, is healed, only to become treacherous and betray the people who have treated him so well. This is in a way subverted, as Will Farnaby happens to join the people of Pala, but the fact that Will Farnaby has acted as an envoy of doom cannot be ignored.
Passages: “Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence - those are the three pillars of Western prosperity. If war, waste, and moneylenders were abolished, you'd collapse. And while you people are overconsuming the rest of the world sinks more and more deeply into chronic disaster.”
p177
“All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours.”
p247
"By 1930 any clear sighted observer could have seen that, for three quarters of the human race, freedom and happiness were almost out of the question. Today, thirty years later, they’re completely out of the question."
page 66
Follies of Capitalism and Power
All of the characters in position of power tend to be corrupted or obnoxious in one form or another. Muragan is being willingly manipulated by the Colonel Dipa to open of Pala, believing that the only way for his nation to advance is to embrace the wester civilization the island has for so long rejected. Bahu is only interested in money and general self interest, living in a land where he lives like royalty, while everyone is poor. Rani, while a famous religious figure, fails to realize that her “small voice”, her call of divine intervention might as well by synonymous to her own opinions, thus enforcing ideas to her will.
All of the mentioned leaders do not consider the true situation of Pala, or the wellbeing of the people, rather believing in self-profiteering, “advancement” of the nation as a whole, and completely squandering what the people themselves believe, despite the Raja being supposed to follow the will of the people.
Rejection of Conventional Thought
It is noticeable that the philosophies of Palanese way of life serves to reject the traditional thoughts of the western world. “Living in the moment” (staying in full attention, promiscuity) is emphasized amongst the people, with a general belief of accepting reality, and trying to get the best possible. An example could be seen in the medical practices of Pala, where doctors are paid not only in mending diseases, but in keeping their patients healthy as well through natural means. While the western world focuses on gigantic machines, Pala believes in integrating bio-technology as well.
Eastern Philosophy
Many aspects of Eastern philosophy determine the beliefs in Pala. For instance, instead of believing in the power of gods, Pala’s philosophy emphasizes upon enlightenment through meditation.
Characterization: Will Farnaby
Will Farnaby is a journalist and the catalyst of the fall of Pala. He is cynical, emotionally broken due to the relationships he had prior to the novel. These traits begin to melt away as he absorbs more of the culture in Pala. By the end of the novel, Will Farnaby becomes an honorary member of the Palanese culture, ironically right before this culture is destroyed by his actions, potentially shot by the occupational forces of the colonel.
Other characters
It is to note that most of the characters, while characterized through the exceedingly cynical (and strangely entertaining) views of the protagonist, serves primarily to send a message across about the world of Pala and the world that seems to come closer and closer to the small island.
POV
The POV stays solely with Will Farnaby, the protagonist.
Symbolisms
“Attention”
Hundreds of Mnayh birds in Pala are said to have learnt to say this word constantly all around the island in order to emphasize the idea of living in the moment fully. This is used throughout the book not only to influence the characters, but to the readers as well, pointing the readers significant parts and strong emotions present within the novel.
“Farmer and the Viper”
More of a motif, this becomes apparent with Will Farnaby’s cycle throughout the story. He lands into a remote place wounded, is healed, only to become treacherous and betray the people who have treated him so well. This is in a way subverted, as Will Farnaby happens to join the people of Pala, but the fact that Will Farnaby has acted as an envoy of doom cannot be ignored.
Passages: “Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence - those are the three pillars of Western prosperity. If war, waste, and moneylenders were abolished, you'd collapse. And while you people are overconsuming the rest of the world sinks more and more deeply into chronic disaster.”
p177
“All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours.”
p247
"By 1930 any clear sighted observer could have seen that, for three quarters of the human race, freedom and happiness were almost out of the question. Today, thirty years later, they’re completely out of the question."
page 66
Minor Artifact 2: My Writing Story 13th August
I guess I was writing in one form or another for all my life. I would always scribble a
scenario on the wall, pretend I was a samurai, and hit tables with frying pans, as the
tables turned into youkais and phantoms. Of course, such stories made as much as
sense as a typical game of call of Cthulu: sometimes too big, sometimes too narrow,
sometimes just plain bizarre. Always, something was wrong. As I grew up, I came to
realize that this was because I didn’t know how to write in a concrete manner. This is
how I began to write short stories and poems, instead of a full blown novel.
In other words, I have been in a permanent writer’s block for the last 17 years, and, to recover from it, I advanced towards different medium, such as comics, photography, and even commercial game writing. At the moment, I am working as a volunteer writer for the video game March of War. From these experiences, I discovered that it wasn’t exactly writing that I desired to do, but simply to tell a story, and it didn’t really matter what medium it was, as long as the said medium was able to properly portray what was in my mind.
In other words, I have been in a permanent writer’s block for the last 17 years, and, to recover from it, I advanced towards different medium, such as comics, photography, and even commercial game writing. At the moment, I am working as a volunteer writer for the video game March of War. From these experiences, I discovered that it wasn’t exactly writing that I desired to do, but simply to tell a story, and it didn’t really matter what medium it was, as long as the said medium was able to properly portray what was in my mind.
Minor Artifact 1A: My Reading Story (16th August)
I used to be an avid reader and I am not exactly proud to say this statement in this exact
wording. When I was a child, I was a voracious reader, reading anything that was even remotely readable. As I was naturally rather frail, and quite isolated from my peers due to the brain surgery, books had become my stout companions before I even knew it.
This changed with the appearance of the computer in my life. While it was true that books had given me such joy in my life, that joy seemed to pale in comparison to that provided by the immediate, intense entertainment which the computer was able to give. For at least a good four years, I had forsaken any enjoyments and enlightenment I gained for books as my book shelves piled with dust. I have only returned to reading as often as possible during the summer break for the sake of improving my writing skills, but it would seem that my senior year would drastically cut back on any time I could get to leisurely. This is partially the reason why I hope that this class could help me out in this regard, allowing me to read plenty of good literature.
wording. When I was a child, I was a voracious reader, reading anything that was even remotely readable. As I was naturally rather frail, and quite isolated from my peers due to the brain surgery, books had become my stout companions before I even knew it.
This changed with the appearance of the computer in my life. While it was true that books had given me such joy in my life, that joy seemed to pale in comparison to that provided by the immediate, intense entertainment which the computer was able to give. For at least a good four years, I had forsaken any enjoyments and enlightenment I gained for books as my book shelves piled with dust. I have only returned to reading as often as possible during the summer break for the sake of improving my writing skills, but it would seem that my senior year would drastically cut back on any time I could get to leisurely. This is partially the reason why I hope that this class could help me out in this regard, allowing me to read plenty of good literature.
Major Artifact 4A: Essay 6: Frankenstein, The Path of the Monster (5th December)
The perspective of the monster is rarely seen in fiction. In the novel Frankenstein however, the audience is able to glimpse into the torturous path the monster was forced to experience due to his hideous appearance and subsequent abandonment. Bearing witness to the life of the monster over the course of the second volume of the novel, the reader has to question the legitimacy of calling Frankenstein’s creation a monstrosity, as the monster’s intentions are humane and motivations are as flawed as that of his creator.
Under the initial impressions of Victor Frankenstein, the audience is forced to believe during the first volume that the monster is an uncivilized barbarian that aspires to brutalizes everything Victor has come to love. The first true appearance of the monster, in contrast, portrays him in a completely different light. The monster clearly states that, due to the way his creator had made him, he is “more powerful than thyself (Frankenstein)”, and “joints more supple” (chapter 10), therefore in a clear advantage to use brute strength. However, the creature instead resolves to use calm sentiments, and uses alternations between long and short sentences and formal way of speech to pacify his aggressive and vengeful creator, urging him to “hear my (the creature’s) tale” where he lives within the mountains. Even in a situation that clearly favors him, the creature does not take advantage Victor and takes him to a place where he could more comfortably hear the creature’s journey. The monster’s humane qualities are further emphasized by the fire that burns in his residence, an object that has since the beginning of time separated the hordes of animals from the humans and the ingenuity they had come to possess. These actions represent just how misfortunate the monster truly is, and at the same time how virtuous he is to even those that wrong him. His eloquent way of speech makes him more akin to a gentleman than a barbarian for the readers who do not have to gaze upon his countenance, in a circumstance ironically similar to the blind De Lacey.
The tale which the creature tells to his master is shown to be that of endless toil, patience, and misfortune. Even as he speaks of the various instances in which regular men had come to shun him or at times repay him with the blackest ingratitude, the monster’s diction reveals no grudge, but only regret and lament over his physical disabilities. His spiritual and intellectual understanding of the world is revealed to have been derived from the novel Paradise Lost, which he “continually studied and exercised... as history” (chapter 15). The novel Paradise Lost, and what the creature comes to learn from it signify a fundamental part of his ideology. Paradise Lost signifies the ideal that god has given significant freedom of will towards Adam and Eve, therefore the freedom to fail in instruction, and were accordingly banished from paradise. This initial concept is followed by the monster within his tale, where he describes his multiple attempts to integrate into society by being a boon to nearby men. Perhaps more significantly, the monster, without proper guidance, comes to feel sympathy towards the seductive Satan, the spirit that rebels against god, whom, in the monster’s eyes, seems to resemble his irresponsible master. This particular description gives a striking parallel between Satan and the creature who have both been discarded by by the gods who felt that their creations were unfit for their seemingly perfect world. By giving the creature a hideous body, Shelley paints the creature with the image of Satan, but makes it clear with the monster’s pained yet restrained expression that he would have preferred to have been born as Adam. Perhaps unconsciously with the “bitter gall of envy” (chapter 15) towards the more fortunate creation, the monster demands his creator to make him a mate equally hideous as the monster.
The smooth and cordial diction of the monster sees a shift in tone in chapter 17 when he begins to demand from Victor a female counterpart to ease his woes against the world. Although his tone continues to be sophisticated, the malignant nature of the creature begins to slowly reveal themselves as he calls Frankenstein his “archenemy”, and proceeds to even threaten vengeance against his creator if his request is not completed, declaring ”inextinguishable hatred” and promising to “desolate his (Frankenstein’s) heart.” The volatile and destructive tone of the creature’s diction creates a new revelation upon the characteristics of the monster to both Victor and the readers. As humane and sympathetic as the monster may be, it simply cannot be ignored that his very existence is a threat to humanity’s authority in a manner that is identical to the manner in which Victor Frankenstein defied god’s authority by breathing life into the lifeless. The monster may have been satisfied with the new mate that Victor could have bestowed upon him, but the creation of another monster would have further violated the law of nature and therefore challenged the authority of mankind, just like how the seemingly affable monster had harmed Victor by murdering William and framing Justine.
Shelley, through the usage of eloquent dialogue, severe shifts of tone and brilliant analogy of description, paints a complicated picture of the monster, one who, despite its sins, is affable, virtuous, intelligent, but ultimately dangerous to humanity. Its characteristics allow the readers to empathize with a seemingly horrendous monster, cementing the hardships it has gone through, but affirming how its very existence defiles nature and help understand why Victor Frankenstein would attempt to destroy it despite knowing what perils would await him at that path.
Major Artifact 3B: Essay 4 Argumentative Draft 2 (23rd October)
How All Are Discriminated
The struggles of men and women against common perception of themselves
created by society has been a subject that has been constantly thought of. The
omnipotence of this issue is held testament by the sheer endurance of it within our
minds. The poems To Be A Woman by Daisy Zamora and Who’d Want to Be a Man? by
Gregory Orr both portray the mental anguish these oppressions have on humans. As the
poems on their fundamental level describe similar topics, there may be some noticeable
similarities in their content, but the subtle difference of the speakers and victims create
inherent differences in the poems’ structure and rhetoric.
The most prominent similarity between the two works is the base emotion which the speaker has to deal with due to the expectations placed by society. The first two stanzas of To Be A Woman describes the women’s role as subservient sacrifices as their “thoughts do not belong to you (women).” In order to emphasize on how women have been forced into subservient roles, the poem uses repetition of words such as “others” and “not yours”. The stanzas are divided evenly, the first line emphasizing how such a constraining role comes from “being born a woman”. This even division of the first two stanzas reflects upon the nature of the oppression that bears on the speaker; her emotional angst is immense and overwhelming, but such emotions are caged by neatly organized formatting. The themes of oppression and suffering are also prevalent throughout the poem Who’d Want to Be a Man which describes the oppressions men bring upon themselves. To the speaker, supposedly the archetypical male, “his heart” is a “black sack” where a small animal is trapped within. The poem also expresses how the man’s “grief”, “rage”, “desires” and “mind” are systematically repressed. This as a whole brings contrast to society’s usual portrayal of men as lions, the head of the household. As the dominant gender, people tend to view men as strong with the aggression and authority to do whatever they please. This concept is challenged by To Be A Man, which undermines the underlying truth that such unreasonable expectations serve to do nothing but force the man to pretend he is steel, while in reality he is human, whose veins runs volatile and deep-rooted emotions. Like To Be a Woman, Who’d Want to Be a Man shares the usage of partially identical wordings in the first lines of each stanza by putting “With his”, thus strengthening the burdens the speaker faces. These structural and contextual similarities demonstrate how perhaps both women and men are restrained by society in uncannily similar ways.
As much as the similarities between the two poems serve to connect upon a common theme, the rhetoric differences between the two poems cannot be ignored. To Be a Woman has a major shift of tone at the beginning of the third stanza, changing from a sense of hopelessness to that of rebellious spirit. The diction used within the passage emphasizes on this aspect by using words such as “Rebel”, “fight”, “Scream”, “Destroying”, “liberated”, and “conquer”. Although the poem suggests that the social pressures given to women will never change, the speaker describes how genuine rejection of such ideals will allow women to have at least themselves, their “voice”, and their “verb.” This hopeful tone is nonexistent in Who’d Want to Be a Man as the poem sees no lighter shift in tone, instead further reveling on the desperate and lonely nature of men’s struggles against societal expectations. As the poem progresses through the concept of restraint, grief, rage, and the desperateness of a man’s life like “a tree on a cliff”, the poem ends with the speaker’s desperate pleas as his “longing that’s a dry well... and where is the rain?” Orr, instead of supporting men to fight against their repressions, chooses to indulge further into the speaker’s pains. This can only be seen as inevitable as the struggles of men described by Orr are by their nature different from those of a woman. The repressions faced by women come from the outside, leaving the women free to struggle against societal expectations and be themselves. On the other hand, the repressions faced by men find their origins in men themselves, thus they cannot break down the black sack that eternally keeps their feelings within their pained hearts.
The most prominent similarity between the two works is the base emotion which the speaker has to deal with due to the expectations placed by society. The first two stanzas of To Be A Woman describes the women’s role as subservient sacrifices as their “thoughts do not belong to you (women).” In order to emphasize on how women have been forced into subservient roles, the poem uses repetition of words such as “others” and “not yours”. The stanzas are divided evenly, the first line emphasizing how such a constraining role comes from “being born a woman”. This even division of the first two stanzas reflects upon the nature of the oppression that bears on the speaker; her emotional angst is immense and overwhelming, but such emotions are caged by neatly organized formatting. The themes of oppression and suffering are also prevalent throughout the poem Who’d Want to Be a Man which describes the oppressions men bring upon themselves. To the speaker, supposedly the archetypical male, “his heart” is a “black sack” where a small animal is trapped within. The poem also expresses how the man’s “grief”, “rage”, “desires” and “mind” are systematically repressed. This as a whole brings contrast to society’s usual portrayal of men as lions, the head of the household. As the dominant gender, people tend to view men as strong with the aggression and authority to do whatever they please. This concept is challenged by To Be A Man, which undermines the underlying truth that such unreasonable expectations serve to do nothing but force the man to pretend he is steel, while in reality he is human, whose veins runs volatile and deep-rooted emotions. Like To Be a Woman, Who’d Want to Be a Man shares the usage of partially identical wordings in the first lines of each stanza by putting “With his”, thus strengthening the burdens the speaker faces. These structural and contextual similarities demonstrate how perhaps both women and men are restrained by society in uncannily similar ways.
As much as the similarities between the two poems serve to connect upon a common theme, the rhetoric differences between the two poems cannot be ignored. To Be a Woman has a major shift of tone at the beginning of the third stanza, changing from a sense of hopelessness to that of rebellious spirit. The diction used within the passage emphasizes on this aspect by using words such as “Rebel”, “fight”, “Scream”, “Destroying”, “liberated”, and “conquer”. Although the poem suggests that the social pressures given to women will never change, the speaker describes how genuine rejection of such ideals will allow women to have at least themselves, their “voice”, and their “verb.” This hopeful tone is nonexistent in Who’d Want to Be a Man as the poem sees no lighter shift in tone, instead further reveling on the desperate and lonely nature of men’s struggles against societal expectations. As the poem progresses through the concept of restraint, grief, rage, and the desperateness of a man’s life like “a tree on a cliff”, the poem ends with the speaker’s desperate pleas as his “longing that’s a dry well... and where is the rain?” Orr, instead of supporting men to fight against their repressions, chooses to indulge further into the speaker’s pains. This can only be seen as inevitable as the struggles of men described by Orr are by their nature different from those of a woman. The repressions faced by women come from the outside, leaving the women free to struggle against societal expectations and be themselves. On the other hand, the repressions faced by men find their origins in men themselves, thus they cannot break down the black sack that eternally keeps their feelings within their pained hearts.
The two poems discussed within this essay may differ from each other due to the
different speakers, audience, and nature of the conflict present within the poem.
However, these differences must not obscure the fact that the poems fundamentally
portray the same subject: human sufferings due to unacceptable standards.
Major Artifact 3A: Essay 4 Argumentative Draft 1 (15th October)
The struggles of men and women against common perceptions of authority has
become a noteworthy subject amongst the western world as both genders had to face oppression
by the society and expectations they themselves created. The poems “To Be A Woman” by Daisy
Zamora and “Who’d Want to Be a Man?” by Gregory Orr both portray these oppressions and
their impact on the human beings who are subject to them. As the poems on their fundamental
level describe similar topics, there are some noticeable similarities in their content, but the
subtle difference of the speaker and victim creates inherent differences in the poems’ structure
and rhetorics.
The most prominent similarity between the two works are the base emotions faced by the subjects due to societal expectations. The first two stanzas of To Be A Woman describes the women’s role as subservient sacrifices as their “thoughts do not belong to you (women).” In order to emphasize on how women have been forced into subservient roles, the poem uses repetition of words such as “others” and “not yours”. The stanzas are divided evenly, the first line emphasizing how such discrimination comes from “being born a woman”. The stanzas emphasizes upon the revelation of how nothing that the women have belongs to them, thus creating much angst. The themes of oppression and suffering are also prevalent throughout the poem Who’d Want to Be a Man which describes the oppressions men bring upon themselves as “his heart” is a “black sack” where a small animal, a symbolism of the main character’s vulnerable inner self, is trapped within. The poem expresses how the man’s “grief”, “rage”, “ desires” and “mind” are systematically repressed. Like To Be a Woman, Who’d want to be a man shares the usage of partially identical wordings in the first lines of each stanza by putting “With his”, thus strengthening the burdens the subject, the typical man faces. These structural and contextual similarities demonstrate how perhaps both women and men are restrained by society in uncannily similar ways.
As much as the similarities between the two poems serve to connect upon a common theme, there are differences between the two poems that cannot be ignored. To Be A Woman has a major shift of tone at the beginning of the third stanza, changing from a sense of hopelessness to that of rebellious spirit. The diction used within the passage emphasizes on this aspect by using words such as “Rebel”, “fight”, “Scream”, “Destroying”, “liberated”, and “conquer”. Although the poem suggests that the social pressures given to women will never change, it describes how genuine rejection of such ideals will allow women to have at least themselves, their “voice”, and their “verb.” This hopeful tone is noticeably missing in Who’d Want to Be a Man as the poem sees no lighter shift in tone, instead further reveling on the desperate and lonely nature of men’s struggles against societal expectations. As the poem progresses through the concept of restraint, grief, rage, and the desperateness of a man’s life like “a tree on a cliff”, the poem ends with the speaker’s desperate pleas as his “longing that’s a dry well... and where is the rain?” Orr, instead of instigating a fight for one’s freedom, has no choice but to express hopelessness in a man’s struggle as the restraints that are put on men are done by themselves consciously, while a woman is able to stay true to her ideals by going against conventions of reality, the man’s mental prison is built by his very own ideals.
The two poems described within this essay seem so similar because they sing of in essence very similar things: repression of human beings. However, the difference between the two pieces come from the fact that the nature of the repressions are different, thus setting different tones, conclusions, and overall message.
The most prominent similarity between the two works are the base emotions faced by the subjects due to societal expectations. The first two stanzas of To Be A Woman describes the women’s role as subservient sacrifices as their “thoughts do not belong to you (women).” In order to emphasize on how women have been forced into subservient roles, the poem uses repetition of words such as “others” and “not yours”. The stanzas are divided evenly, the first line emphasizing how such discrimination comes from “being born a woman”. The stanzas emphasizes upon the revelation of how nothing that the women have belongs to them, thus creating much angst. The themes of oppression and suffering are also prevalent throughout the poem Who’d Want to Be a Man which describes the oppressions men bring upon themselves as “his heart” is a “black sack” where a small animal, a symbolism of the main character’s vulnerable inner self, is trapped within. The poem expresses how the man’s “grief”, “rage”, “ desires” and “mind” are systematically repressed. Like To Be a Woman, Who’d want to be a man shares the usage of partially identical wordings in the first lines of each stanza by putting “With his”, thus strengthening the burdens the subject, the typical man faces. These structural and contextual similarities demonstrate how perhaps both women and men are restrained by society in uncannily similar ways.
As much as the similarities between the two poems serve to connect upon a common theme, there are differences between the two poems that cannot be ignored. To Be A Woman has a major shift of tone at the beginning of the third stanza, changing from a sense of hopelessness to that of rebellious spirit. The diction used within the passage emphasizes on this aspect by using words such as “Rebel”, “fight”, “Scream”, “Destroying”, “liberated”, and “conquer”. Although the poem suggests that the social pressures given to women will never change, it describes how genuine rejection of such ideals will allow women to have at least themselves, their “voice”, and their “verb.” This hopeful tone is noticeably missing in Who’d Want to Be a Man as the poem sees no lighter shift in tone, instead further reveling on the desperate and lonely nature of men’s struggles against societal expectations. As the poem progresses through the concept of restraint, grief, rage, and the desperateness of a man’s life like “a tree on a cliff”, the poem ends with the speaker’s desperate pleas as his “longing that’s a dry well... and where is the rain?” Orr, instead of instigating a fight for one’s freedom, has no choice but to express hopelessness in a man’s struggle as the restraints that are put on men are done by themselves consciously, while a woman is able to stay true to her ideals by going against conventions of reality, the man’s mental prison is built by his very own ideals.
The two poems described within this essay seem so similar because they sing of in essence very similar things: repression of human beings. However, the difference between the two pieces come from the fact that the nature of the repressions are different, thus setting different tones, conclusions, and overall message.
Major Writing 2B: Essay 3 Argumentative Draft 2 (8th October)
Reflections of Insanity
Then in the very bright spots she (the woman) keeps still, and in the very shady spots she just takes hold of the
bars and shakes them hard. And she is all the time trying to climb through. But nobody could climb through that
pattern—it strangles s; I think that is why it has so many heads. They get through, and then the pattern strangles
them off and turns them upside down, and makes their eyes white.
The anonymous narrator of the short story The Yellow Wall Paper, written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, is an unfortunate existence, a woman born during a time when women were oppressed by society. The passage demonstrates how an intellectually active woman in the early 20th century inevitably descends upon madness due to the “rest cure” that mentally broke down countless number of like-minded women. The Yellow Wall Paper uses imagery and parallelism to depict how dreadfully women were suppressed and broken down by such a cure.
The passage takes place near the end of the novel when the narrator has for a long period of time hallucinated due to her obsessive fixation of the yellow wallpaper. As the perception of reality begins to waver, the narrator imagines that there is a woman within the patterns of the wall paper and alludes her circumstances to her creation.
It must be noted that both of these characters are by nature unable to escape. The woman on the wall paper, no matter how hard she shakes the bars “in the very shady spots” (Gilman), is unable to break away from the bounds of reality. Just like the woman she has conceived from her delusions, the narrator is also oppressed by the bars of reality in the form of John, her husband. John genuinely cares for her wife and wishes only for the narrator’s swift recovery. He is an established and competent member of society, and is also a physician, which puts him up at a higher authority regarding his wife’s medical needs. The narrator is fully aware of just how much her husband loves and cares for her, so she is submissive to her husband’s every orders and “keeps still... in the very bright spots” (Gilman). Internally, however, the narrator feels the embraces of her husband suffocating, thus, like how the woman on the wallpaper “takes hold of the bars and shakes them hard” (Gilman), challenges the authority of her husband by writing secretly and obsessively fixating on the patterns on the wall. The fact that John is morally flawless turns him into a representation of the bars women such as the narrator faced: well meaning, but mentally destructive.
Both the woman on the wall and the narrator struggles against the constrictions built by their societies, but they are ultimately unable to “climb through” (Gilman). As the novel is written in first person, or more specifically in “streams of conscience”, the plights of the woman on the wallpaper serves mostly to depict the desperate struggles of the narrator. This passage further elaborates on the victimization of womankind as the narrator realizes in her despair that “nobody could climb through the pattern” (Gilman). She comes to realize that no matter how much she attempts to climb through the patterns of expectations and pressures built by her husband, and therefore the world, she would only be “strangled so,” (Gilman) just to become one of the “so many heads” (Gilman) that have suffered the same fate as her. Even if it is done subconsciously, the mentally strained narrator gains the revelation that her struggles are fruitless, and that her fate was to be “strangled”, like the countless number of victims of her time.
The anonymous narrator of the short story The Yellow Wall Paper, written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, is an unfortunate existence, a woman born during a time when women were oppressed by society. The passage demonstrates how an intellectually active woman in the early 20th century inevitably descends upon madness due to the “rest cure” that mentally broke down countless number of like-minded women. The Yellow Wall Paper uses imagery and parallelism to depict how dreadfully women were suppressed and broken down by such a cure.
The passage takes place near the end of the novel when the narrator has for a long period of time hallucinated due to her obsessive fixation of the yellow wallpaper. As the perception of reality begins to waver, the narrator imagines that there is a woman within the patterns of the wall paper and alludes her circumstances to her creation.
It must be noted that both of these characters are by nature unable to escape. The woman on the wall paper, no matter how hard she shakes the bars “in the very shady spots” (Gilman), is unable to break away from the bounds of reality. Just like the woman she has conceived from her delusions, the narrator is also oppressed by the bars of reality in the form of John, her husband. John genuinely cares for her wife and wishes only for the narrator’s swift recovery. He is an established and competent member of society, and is also a physician, which puts him up at a higher authority regarding his wife’s medical needs. The narrator is fully aware of just how much her husband loves and cares for her, so she is submissive to her husband’s every orders and “keeps still... in the very bright spots” (Gilman). Internally, however, the narrator feels the embraces of her husband suffocating, thus, like how the woman on the wallpaper “takes hold of the bars and shakes them hard” (Gilman), challenges the authority of her husband by writing secretly and obsessively fixating on the patterns on the wall. The fact that John is morally flawless turns him into a representation of the bars women such as the narrator faced: well meaning, but mentally destructive.
Both the woman on the wall and the narrator struggles against the constrictions built by their societies, but they are ultimately unable to “climb through” (Gilman). As the novel is written in first person, or more specifically in “streams of conscience”, the plights of the woman on the wallpaper serves mostly to depict the desperate struggles of the narrator. This passage further elaborates on the victimization of womankind as the narrator realizes in her despair that “nobody could climb through the pattern” (Gilman). She comes to realize that no matter how much she attempts to climb through the patterns of expectations and pressures built by her husband, and therefore the world, she would only be “strangled so,” (Gilman) just to become one of the “so many heads” (Gilman) that have suffered the same fate as her. Even if it is done subconsciously, the mentally strained narrator gains the revelation that her struggles are fruitless, and that her fate was to be “strangled”, like the countless number of victims of her time.
As the narrator realizes how her struggle was not an individual crusade and how countless number of like-minded women were strangled by the societal pressures of her times, the narrator falls deeper into despair. To reflect upon the change of the initially hopeful tone that pervades within the passage, the last sentence sees a change in styling with the noticeable shift from singular tense to plural tense. The narrator sees how the many women on the patterns “get through” (Gilman), only for the pattern to “strangle them off” (Gilman), “turn them upside down” (Gilman), thus taking away the sense of freedom they may have felt from struggling against the expectations of society upon them. After they have been strangled off and turned upside down and thrown away, the women in the shadows have “eyes white” (Gilman), indicating that they have turned insane from the bars of society. From her realization of inevitable defeat, the narrator is able to foreshadow her tragic fate.
The passage, even if it is contextually at the end of the novel The Yellow Wallpaper, can be seen as a profound reflection of the story as a nightmare odyssey for the narrator. The narrator attempts to struggle against her well-meaning husband and society, fails, and becomes insane from the revelation like the countless other victims of the rest cure. The dark, cryptic imagery and the narrator’s visions serve to demonstrate to the readers how women were utterly broken from the unreasonable expectations of the society that was represented by the rest cure.
Works Cited:
Gilman, Charlotte P. The Yellow Wallpaper. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2013. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1952/1952-h/1952-h.htm>.
Major Artifact 2A: Essay 3 Argumentative Draft 1 (11th September)
The concept of illusion and deception are the fundamental themes in Haruki Murakami’s After Dark, which questions the readers on not only the nature of the surrealistic happenings of the book, but also the legitimacy of interactions of the characters as a whole. The interactions between Mari and Takahashi alludes to this crucial theme within the novel, questioning the readers why the readers would trust the words of the characters word for word.
The conversation between Mari and Takahashi in 3:42AM occurs after Mari’s trial within Alphaville had met its conclusions. As the conversation occurs right after such an emotionally charged event, the conversations between Mark and Takahashi takes on a contemplative and reflective tone. The diction of the conversation that comes before the passage is clear and direct, as if Mari and Takahashi are taking turns making confessions of their darkest and their most closely guarded secrets. As the night deepens, Mari questions her companion on the hypothetical situation of him having slept with Mari’s sister Eri, which Takahashi at first attempts to not answer through avoidance, only to later justify his unconditional reason for rejection of Mari’s claims. This constant rejection of Mari’s claims on the part of Takahashi becomes ever so evident within the styling of his speech, where he emphasizes the hypothetical nature of the situation. When this is still unable to shake off Mari’s curiosity concerning her speculations, Takahashi states plainly that for the sake of “professional confidentiality”, he would have to answer no to her questions. The concept of forced deception introduced by Takahashi for what is the middle of the novel serves to underscores irony of his situation within the novel, which, in its objective point of view, refuses to tell the readers about what the characters are thinking within this passage, let alone throughout the novel. This in turn helps the passage to weave the illusions of uncertainty in not only the physical aspect of the novel, but also within the mental aspects of it as well.
The revelation that could be gained within this short passage runs in discord with the characterizations that have been established throughout the novel. Under the hypothetical premise introduced by Mari and Takahashi, it becomes ever so apparent that Mari and Takahashi are not simple characters, but real humans with the capability to lie when need be. This revelation could be unbearable for the readers, as they have no way to filter the lies the characters may have spouted throughout the passage, as the novel takes place in a matter of just one night within Metropolitan Japan, where those awake flourish under the obscurity provided by the darkness. Such confusions may at first seem frustrating on the part of the readers, but this brilliant subversion of the distinction of characters as a plot device strengthens the concept of duplicity and illusions within the novel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
passage chosen:
say you took my sister to that hotel and had sex with her. Hypothetically speaking.”
“hypothetically speaking.” “If I did that, do you think you would honestly answer yes?”
“Takahashi thinks about this for a moment.”
“Probably not,” he says. I probably answer no.”
“Why?”
“Cause it would compromise your sister’s privacy.”
“Kinda like professional confidentiality?”
The conversation between Mari and Takahashi in 3:42AM occurs after Mari’s trial within Alphaville had met its conclusions. As the conversation occurs right after such an emotionally charged event, the conversations between Mark and Takahashi takes on a contemplative and reflective tone. The diction of the conversation that comes before the passage is clear and direct, as if Mari and Takahashi are taking turns making confessions of their darkest and their most closely guarded secrets. As the night deepens, Mari questions her companion on the hypothetical situation of him having slept with Mari’s sister Eri, which Takahashi at first attempts to not answer through avoidance, only to later justify his unconditional reason for rejection of Mari’s claims. This constant rejection of Mari’s claims on the part of Takahashi becomes ever so evident within the styling of his speech, where he emphasizes the hypothetical nature of the situation. When this is still unable to shake off Mari’s curiosity concerning her speculations, Takahashi states plainly that for the sake of “professional confidentiality”, he would have to answer no to her questions. The concept of forced deception introduced by Takahashi for what is the middle of the novel serves to underscores irony of his situation within the novel, which, in its objective point of view, refuses to tell the readers about what the characters are thinking within this passage, let alone throughout the novel. This in turn helps the passage to weave the illusions of uncertainty in not only the physical aspect of the novel, but also within the mental aspects of it as well.
The revelation that could be gained within this short passage runs in discord with the characterizations that have been established throughout the novel. Under the hypothetical premise introduced by Mari and Takahashi, it becomes ever so apparent that Mari and Takahashi are not simple characters, but real humans with the capability to lie when need be. This revelation could be unbearable for the readers, as they have no way to filter the lies the characters may have spouted throughout the passage, as the novel takes place in a matter of just one night within Metropolitan Japan, where those awake flourish under the obscurity provided by the darkness. Such confusions may at first seem frustrating on the part of the readers, but this brilliant subversion of the distinction of characters as a plot device strengthens the concept of duplicity and illusions within the novel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
passage chosen:
say you took my sister to that hotel and had sex with her. Hypothetically speaking.”
“hypothetically speaking.” “If I did that, do you think you would honestly answer yes?”
“Takahashi thinks about this for a moment.”
“Probably not,” he says. I probably answer no.”
“Why?”
“Cause it would compromise your sister’s privacy.”
“Kinda like professional confidentiality?”
Major Artifact 1B: Eye of Murakami Draft 2 (8th September)
Haruki Murakami’s After Dark is peculiar for its presence of the eye, a literal point of
view. Through this eye, which is continuously emphasized, the audience becomes a
passive, hidden observer, and, as an observer, the audience is led to believe that they
have a full understanding of both the physical happenings of the book ant the intentions of
the characters. Under closer inspection, however, such a premise must be looked upon
with scrutiny.
The genuineness of the interactions between the characters are questioned several times during the novel, especially within the interactions involving Takahashi. When Mari asks Takahashi whether or not he had slept with Eri, Takahashi answers that he would have to say no regardless of what he had done, calling it “professional confidentiality,” thus implying to the audience that some things that have been said may be far from the truth. Takahashi’s honesty is further questioned as the novel progresses. During his conversation with Mari, Takahashi expresses his desire to quit the band and start law school. However, when the audience is given a glimpse of Takahashi’s supposed last practice with his band, the atmosphere and mood of the passage says nothing of Takahashi quitting the band, instead demonstrating what seems to be just another routine practice. This inconsistency between Takahashi’s words and actions reveal that he has either lied to Mari about his future prospects, or that he has lied to his band concerning his retirement. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that Takahashi has lied, thus allowing the readers to doubt not only the characters themselves, but also the premise of the novel.
When it becomes clear that the readers do not have a clear understanding of the characters, the premise of the novel begins to break apart. Supposedly, Mari and Takahashi, individuals with severe emotional scars, are shown to not only to interact with each other, but also reveal their darkest secrets in one night, when in real life, such characters would have a difficult time opening up, let alone interact. A more abnormal case appears in the form of Kamugi, a supposed high school graduate and employee of Alphaville. During her conversations with Mari, Kamugi expresses her opinions concerning the significance of memory and humans’ dependency on it. While Kamugi’s argument proves to be quite insightful and fascinating, it seems uncharacteristic that a woman with such a background would have any knowledge of the philosopher Kant, let alone such abstract topics.
Through the assurance of the seemingly all-seeing nature of the eye, Murakami reinforces our delusions concerning our omnipotence over the novel and its characters. This assurance in turn opens the audience’s suspension of disbelief too far, which Murakami seeks to deconstruct mercilessly. When the audience finally realize the artificiality of both the premise and the duplicity of the characters, the real illusions within the novel seem trivial compared to the illusions which both Murakami and the readers weaved for themselves.
The genuineness of the interactions between the characters are questioned several times during the novel, especially within the interactions involving Takahashi. When Mari asks Takahashi whether or not he had slept with Eri, Takahashi answers that he would have to say no regardless of what he had done, calling it “professional confidentiality,” thus implying to the audience that some things that have been said may be far from the truth. Takahashi’s honesty is further questioned as the novel progresses. During his conversation with Mari, Takahashi expresses his desire to quit the band and start law school. However, when the audience is given a glimpse of Takahashi’s supposed last practice with his band, the atmosphere and mood of the passage says nothing of Takahashi quitting the band, instead demonstrating what seems to be just another routine practice. This inconsistency between Takahashi’s words and actions reveal that he has either lied to Mari about his future prospects, or that he has lied to his band concerning his retirement. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that Takahashi has lied, thus allowing the readers to doubt not only the characters themselves, but also the premise of the novel.
When it becomes clear that the readers do not have a clear understanding of the characters, the premise of the novel begins to break apart. Supposedly, Mari and Takahashi, individuals with severe emotional scars, are shown to not only to interact with each other, but also reveal their darkest secrets in one night, when in real life, such characters would have a difficult time opening up, let alone interact. A more abnormal case appears in the form of Kamugi, a supposed high school graduate and employee of Alphaville. During her conversations with Mari, Kamugi expresses her opinions concerning the significance of memory and humans’ dependency on it. While Kamugi’s argument proves to be quite insightful and fascinating, it seems uncharacteristic that a woman with such a background would have any knowledge of the philosopher Kant, let alone such abstract topics.
Through the assurance of the seemingly all-seeing nature of the eye, Murakami reinforces our delusions concerning our omnipotence over the novel and its characters. This assurance in turn opens the audience’s suspension of disbelief too far, which Murakami seeks to deconstruct mercilessly. When the audience finally realize the artificiality of both the premise and the duplicity of the characters, the real illusions within the novel seem trivial compared to the illusions which both Murakami and the readers weaved for themselves.
Major Artifact 1A: Eye of Murakami Draft 1 (22nd August)
From the sober odysseys of Mari to the surrealistic and sequences of Eri, Haruki
Murakami’s novel After Dark transitions between the realities of the Japanese night and
the private bedroom of a sleeping beauty. This is all because Murakami bestows upon the
readers way of exposition and description: the omniscient eye.
The pure omniscience of the eye is noted over the course of the novel. It is under the presence of the eye that the strange happenings of the night occur. It is the eye that allows us to see the man in Eri’s unpowered TV, and it is the eye that focuses on the reflections on the mirror which simply stare at their initiators. What may be strange is that when these strange occurrences happen, there is nobody else to witness it; Eri is asleep while the illusions take place. Accordingly, Shirakawa and Mari leaves the bathroom before they see their apparitions on the mirror. Even if minuscule and barely visible, audience is allowed to see Eri’s “quick trembling of the lips” (6:52 A.M) through that eye. The audience is given these minute details to be able to infer among the image of the pages, and through these snapshots, they are able to predict the outcomes of the novel, even if Murakami does not directly state them, adding to the allure of the night which he so skillfully weaves into the novel.
However, like a camera that focuses on the smallest details of objects and character, the eye can only distort what seems to be the face in the portrait. leaving the readers with no real answer; what was the nature of the happenings of Eri’s room. What was the identity and purpose of the faceless man of Eri’s television? Why did Shirakawa’s room appear in Eri’s dream in the first place? In situations where the hints given by the details are matters of wide debate, the book ends as ambiguous as it’s dreamlike scenes, reverting back to normal into the obscurity of the night. It makes the readers wonder whether they have more answers than questions, and, in front of the titanic weight of the questions, the answers may seem dwarfed in comparison.
The eye of Murakami, as much as it is an object of revelation, is also a shroud that distorts the images presented. It can be inferred that the eye, as much as it is a significant tool of exposition, is also the author’s way of analogy into the process of narration and reading. It is direct, sharp and all knowing when allowed, but when restrained, it is as mortal as our very own eyes. The floating eye demonstrates to the readers just how vulnerable they are to the narrow viewpoints created by the books that they read, and how authors, like illusionists, only show the things which they desire the readers to see, while hiding the tricks of trade and the underlying truth and revelation that comes from it.
The pure omniscience of the eye is noted over the course of the novel. It is under the presence of the eye that the strange happenings of the night occur. It is the eye that allows us to see the man in Eri’s unpowered TV, and it is the eye that focuses on the reflections on the mirror which simply stare at their initiators. What may be strange is that when these strange occurrences happen, there is nobody else to witness it; Eri is asleep while the illusions take place. Accordingly, Shirakawa and Mari leaves the bathroom before they see their apparitions on the mirror. Even if minuscule and barely visible, audience is allowed to see Eri’s “quick trembling of the lips” (6:52 A.M) through that eye. The audience is given these minute details to be able to infer among the image of the pages, and through these snapshots, they are able to predict the outcomes of the novel, even if Murakami does not directly state them, adding to the allure of the night which he so skillfully weaves into the novel.
However, like a camera that focuses on the smallest details of objects and character, the eye can only distort what seems to be the face in the portrait. leaving the readers with no real answer; what was the nature of the happenings of Eri’s room. What was the identity and purpose of the faceless man of Eri’s television? Why did Shirakawa’s room appear in Eri’s dream in the first place? In situations where the hints given by the details are matters of wide debate, the book ends as ambiguous as it’s dreamlike scenes, reverting back to normal into the obscurity of the night. It makes the readers wonder whether they have more answers than questions, and, in front of the titanic weight of the questions, the answers may seem dwarfed in comparison.
The eye of Murakami, as much as it is an object of revelation, is also a shroud that distorts the images presented. It can be inferred that the eye, as much as it is a significant tool of exposition, is also the author’s way of analogy into the process of narration and reading. It is direct, sharp and all knowing when allowed, but when restrained, it is as mortal as our very own eyes. The floating eye demonstrates to the readers just how vulnerable they are to the narrow viewpoints created by the books that they read, and how authors, like illusionists, only show the things which they desire the readers to see, while hiding the tricks of trade and the underlying truth and revelation that comes from it.
Reflection on Myself as a Writer
I am a person who grew up with the inane desire to be different from others. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I find distinct pleasure in pursuing risks, as petty as that might sound. Without the excitement of distinction I easily find myself bored, and I mostly cringe at the idea of regurgitating the same ideas others have expressed, no matter how genuine and compelling they might be. These traits that define me have unsurprisingly become the foundation of how I write: I write as if I am observing Las Meninas, a painting drawn by Diego Valaquez in 1656. I carefully examine the awkward faces of the characters presented, attempt to look at the work from an alternate point of view, at times from different angles (sometimes from the back, contradictory to the common idea of observing from the front), or delve as deeply as possible at the hopes of unearthing a well held secret. That being said, my attempts at trying to be unique and quirky often came out to be “sometimes too big,, sometimes too narrow, sometimes just plain bizarre.” (My Writing Story) Often , I would either have an idea that was not contrasting to the fundamentals, but just plain wrong, and if logically sound, dreadfully lacking coherence. My journey as a writer during this semester was used systematically to amend the problems I originally had, and in turn allowed me to think with much more depth and breadth.
Haruki Murakami’s After Dark was the first novel I had to read for this class, and as my class had begun budding with discussions on the complexities of the characters, the contrast between the realistic setting of the Japanese night and Eri’s room, and the significance of each of the events that happened in a chronological manner, I found much more interest in the seemingly omniscient eye that seemed to gloom over all of the scenes presented in the book, an abnormality that to me seemed to make little sense in its existence. With this unsubstantiated hunch, I had written my first essay at an attempt to demonstrate how differently I thought from everyone else, and, to be expected, the first draft was a wreck, which Ms. Brayko even once said to have had “jumbled opinions, that seem to be at times even contradictory”. As much as I had fancied my previous concepts, it didn’t surprise me that the reception for my first essay was far from stellar, so I attempted to take another path in my writing. After realizing that Takahashi must have either lied to Mari or his fellow band mates sometime over the course of the novel, I came to wonder the genuineness of the interactions between the characters. After all, it just seemed improbable that Komugi, a supposed high school graduate would have an intricate understanding of the philosophical thought of Kant. Based on those much more arguable circumstances, I
wrote the second draft of my first essay, my peers expressing doubts on my theory. They questioned the legitimacy of my interpretation due to the fact that it contradicted everything my class had discussed about the novels, but said in a restrained manner that my argument was intriguing. These sentiments brought me much joy as a writer and stood as one of the most significant triumphs I had experienced while doing AP Literature.
After the completion of After Dark, I was given yet another task that challenged my style of writing and exposition to literature. After Dark was a complete novel that was fully developed with room for countless number of assumptions. The text dealt with in Essay number 3 was different in that regard as I was asked to write an analysis on a paragraph from the short story The Yellow Wall Paper. As The Yellow Wall Paper was a short story written to demonstrate the horrors of the resting cure common during the 19th century, I found it nearly impossible to find a true alternate interpretation within the work, but my desire to roll the dice of chance was still etched within me. This desire came to be manifested within the method which I used to analyze the various symbolisms that were found within the short story as I described how “The narrator attempts to struggle against her well-meaning husband... fails, and becomes insane from the revelation...” (Essay 3 Draft 2) The fundamental ideas that I had described within the essay was fairly orthodox in my interpretation, but my systematic method of separating the struggles of the protagonist into three parts (husband, society, despair) allowed me to put my own perspectives into the various motives represented within the novella. Ultimately, I came to learn from this essay that, while it was certainly helpful to have different points of views, I could find alternate interpretations by looking at the same angle as everyone else. After all, the analysis of Las Meninas always begins from the angle which the picture presents: from the front.
The supposed culmination of everything I had leant during AP Literature came with Essay 6 which gave me the liberty to write about how the author used diction, symbolisms, motives, and plot devices to characterize one of the protagonists within the novel Frankenstein. As I was under the presumption that a good majority of my class mates were going to discuss Frankenstein in book 1, I chose to discuss how Shelley humanized the hideous monster through various usages of diction and symbolisms. I found much pleasure in writing this particular essay as I experimented with the usage of context to describe the impact of Shelley’s descriptions in addition to my alternate interpretation of plot devices and symbolisms. However, attempting to combine everything I have learnt to use proficiently over the course of the semester in one paper proved too much for me to swallow in too short an amount of time. Ultimately, I was unsuccessful in convincing my peers on the legitimacy of my ideas. As much as I loved the prospects of coming with new ideas and demonstrating the difference between my peers and I, I discovered the underlying reason why people did not favor the prospective of taking the path of alternate interpretations. In order to convince a crowd with an idea that they had never considered, or at times have distinctively disagreed, the speaker was always obligated to do a correspondingly larger amount of research and analysis to create a compelling argument. This revelation, however, does not impede me from continuing my path full of thorns as I realize that I find so much joy and enjoyment in this approach of work, and I plan to refine my sense of logic, coherence, and writing during the next semester.
My Growth as a Reader
Before I had begun AP Literature, I had expressed little interest in poetry and short stories. This was partially because I was not an avid reader for a good three years, as described in My Reading Story. More importantly, I found little interest in these two genres due to the fact that with my cursory reading of written material, it seemed impossible for short stories and poems to convey different stories or themes, thus limiting my degree of interpretation of the work. In contrast, I reveled in long novels for precisely the opposite reasons; well written novels often were multi-faceted, and, even with a cursory understanding of the novel’s plot any symbolisms, I was able to find several themes which I could delve into endlessly. Little did I know then that all I was doing was to drink water from a pond with my hands, which suffice to say, meant I was taking small portions at a time.
The first novel that I had to read for AP Literature, Haruki Murakami’s After Dark, taught me the importance of Point of View within the novels and how it influenced the narrative, and subsequently how I came to feel about the characters, the background and the events that surrounded them. More importantly, I had come to learn that the author was capable of using that Point of View to both convey an immersive atmosphere and to trick his audience into not only seeing the world narrated in the novel, but also themselves without even knowing it. Of course, this revelation did not come easily. To be able to readily recognize such aspects of literature, I had to focus upon the work strenuously, just as I had to do so with the Arnolfini’s portrait. On both accounts, I was rewarded handsomely, as on the middle of the portrait, as this allowed me to see the characters’ true intentions and even a glimpse of the author. Of course, at this stage of my growth, I wasn’t able to realize the deeper implications of the multiple points of view.
It was during the Poetry unit that I was finally able to delve into the significance of literary elements, and in turn further strengthened my understanding of Point of View. The two poems which I had to analyze for Poetry Analysis (To Be a Woman and Who’d Want to Be a Man?) were written with similar intentions in mind, describing the anguish men and women feel due to societal pressures and expectations. Yet the two poems differed in mood, conclusion and composition. At first, I struggled to understand that it was by these elements that poems were understood, and as a result constantly misinterpreted even the most basic aspects of poems, such as plot, purpose, and even themes. As I began to grasp that the difference in rhetoric with the two works were due to the nature of men and women’s sufferings, I had come upon the revelation that literature, not only poetry, held a fundamental part of overall message within its symbolisms, and I had ignored this aspect until then. When I discovered the momentum literary elements had on literary works, I felt that I had discovered a completely new world, a world which was rife with subtle, rich nuances. With this in mind, I analyzed the novels I had to read for the Independent Reading Project, adding notes on how the birds of Pala in Huxley’s Island symbolized the simple ideologies of the habitants of the nation, and how Bernard’s pathetic portrayal was a portrayal of the common, petty man.
With a potent new tool of analyzation at my disposal, I went through the final part of my growth during this semester; I fused these components in order to immerse myself into the base emotions and sentiments of the works I read. While reading Frankenstein, I at first shifted my point of view from the modern reader of the 21st century to the Victorian reader in order to understand the sheer impact Shelley’s bold decisions regarding the portrayal of a man playing god, the usage of Paradise Lost, and the humane yet artificial construct would have brought. In order to gain a deeper understanding and bond to the work, I experimented with shifting my point of view back as a modern audience, considering how the prospects of science, ethics and religion had changed since the day Shelley had penned the first word of the novel. My success in empathizing and connecting to the work may be questionable, but I feel that my attempts to do so has vastly enriched my understanding of literature as a whole, and that my growth as a reader had vastly contributed to the increasing quality of my essays as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)