Notes and quotes

Jane Bennet

• "Oh, she is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld!" p. 7, Mr. Bingley
• "He is just what a young man ought to be," said she, "sensible, good-humoured, lively; and I never saw such happy manners!- so much ease, with suck perfect good breeding!" p. 9, Jane
• "I would not be to hasty in censuring any one; but I always speak what I think" p.10, Jane
• "Laugh as much as you choose, but yo uwill not laugh me out of my opinion" p 65, Jane

TO BE CONTINUED

Elizabeth Bennet falling in love with Darcy

• "Mr. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsom features, noble mien, - and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance of his having ten thousand a year" p.6 (general description)
• "She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me; and I am ni no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men." p.7 Darcy
• "Elizabeth took up some needle work and was sufficiently amused in attending to what passed between Darcy and his companion" p.34 (general description)
• "'Do not you feel a great inclination, Miss Bennet to seize such an opportunity of dancing a reel?' she smied and made no answer."p.38 Darcy
• CONTINUED-"Oh" said she, "I heard you before; but I could not immediately determine what to say in reply. You wanted me, I know, to say 'yes' that yo umight have the pleasure of despising my taste; but I always delight in overthrowing htose kind of schemes, and cheating a person of their premeditated contempt. I have hterefore made up my mid to tell you that I do not want to dance a reel at all- and now despie me if you dare." p.38
• "Elizabeth's astonishment was beyond expression" p.142

TO BE CONTINUED

And Then There Were Two

In class, it was expressed to me that my third "option" for a paper was too broad, which would result in an overly long essay. Therefore, the resulting number of options left equals to two. Oh my. What will I do? I cannot make up my mind. I am really interested in my second topic, where I would use textual evidence to show the process in which Elizabeth falls in love with Bingley. However, I also want to show to the world (class) that Jane is not a simple minded creature! Or, that she is shallow. She really is just as intense and inteligent as Elizabeth!

Therefore, I am left with a dilemma about which to write. After pondering this tough decision, I will decide. And then, will most likely switch to the other one.

Narrowing It Down and Sorting It Out

Alright. Well, I have narrowed my topic options down. Here are my top three:

1. Defend Jane's position
2. Show how Elizabeth falls in love with Darcy
3. The role of women in Pride and Prejudice society

For number one, I would use different quotes from the book to support the theory that there is more to Jane than appears. I would show that she is intelligent, and stands apart from the rest of her female group in the book.

For number two, I would also use quotes from the book to show the process in which Elizabeth fell in love with Darcy. Throughout the essay, it would become clear that she really was in love with him, and that it happened over time, and not over night.

For number three, it would be a little more complex to sort through the information. I would need different examples of women (i.e. Elizabeth, Charlotte Lucas, Miss Bingley, Miss Darcy, and the maid of the Bennet house etc.), and their characters shown throughout the novel. Not only that, but I would need to compare, contrast, and finally come up with a conclusion with the newly found evidence that would be provided in my essay. I am contemplating on crossing this option out, merely because it would need so much information, and more than five pages of evidence.

All of these topics really interest me. This is probably because I really love the book, so really, any topic concerning it would draw me to write about it. Oh boy, this is going to be a tough decision. Maybe I could write all three essays, and pick the one that turned out the best to turn in... who knows.

My favorite characters are, of course, the main characters. Elizabeth, Darcy, Bingley, Jane, Charlotte Lucas, and Mr. Bennet. Their characters are all complimentary to the book, and are interesting in their own ways. My least favorite characters are the annoying Mr. Collins and Lady de Bourgh, along with Whickam and Lydia.

Scenes of importance are the different meetings of Darcy and Elizabeth, and the conversations that they share, conversations between only women, and the possible thoughts of the characters as they have different conversations.

This isn't very important, but I am just trying to sort through all of the ideas and comments in my head.

Papers Papers Papers

I love literature. Well, types, I guess. Okay, maybe just novels particularly - the ones that are happy. Okay, I love a limited part of literature. That is more precise.

I love our literature class. Well, parts, I guess. Okay, maybe just particular moments - the ones that dwell on happy novels. Okay, I also love our literature class limitedly. That is correct.

This is all getting to one thing - our papers. Yepp, this week we have to find a topic. I wish that papers weren't a part of this class.

So, I am avoiding the point. Right now I am supposed to pick a topic. Well, actually, I am supposed to explore the possibilities for a topic. The problem is, I don' know what to explore.

Here are some... options/things to think about:

1. Defend Jane's position. That is, show her character, etc.
2. Couples and their marriages? (too broad though)
3. Love at first sight (Darcy and Elizabeth didn't have it vs. Bingley and Jane did/sort of did)
4. How social class affects...everything (too broad)
5. The role of women in Pride and Prejudice
6. Elizabeths personality vs. Lydia's
7. The wide wants and needs of the different characters (too broad)
8. Why/how does Elizabeth fall in love with Mr. Darcy at the end of the novel? ****
9. Why does Darcy fall in love with Elizabeth?
10. What is wrong with Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins, and Lady de Bourgh? ( haha, just kidding)

**** This topic really interests me. Okay, well, I did just think of the question, but honestly, why DOES she fall in love with him at the end of the book?

Anyway, those are some of my options. I have three more blogs to do this week, so I will most likely narrow it down, and eventually chose one. (Probably to just second guess my choice, and chose something else, but oh well.)

Growing

"Elizabeth made no attempt to reason with her mother" (p. 258).

Although Elizabeth is a "very headstrong" (p. 84) girl according to her mother, she does not "attempt to reason with her." What could be the meaning of this? If Elizabeth never tries to speak to her mother about her own opinion, how does her mother think she is headstrong and foolish?

However, that description, given by her mother in the beginning of the book, was a long time ago. Now, after many chapters, Elizabeth has experienced new things and discovered new ways of dealing with situations. She has grown as a character to be more careful in her words and how she responds to the actions of her relatives.

I like how Austen does this. It makes it similar to real life. In real life, we learn, grow, and respond to our life in a progressive way. When an event takes place, we learn from it, and take a different course of action the next time a similar situation presents itself - as long as the results from the first time weren't very desireable.

For example, if you crossed the street one day without looking both ways, and a car hit you, the next time you went to cross a street, you would definitely look both ways before stepping out.

Elizabeth learned that trying to talk her mother out of her ridiculous ways does not work. Therefore she takes a new way of responding to this situation...by not "attempt[ing] to reason with her mother."

(Follow this link to see a tulip grow in fast forward...just because.)

Jane

I just realized something. Jane Bennet and Jane Austen share the first same name. Woah!

Did Jane Austen do this because she really like her name? Does she think that she is most like Jane Bennet? And therefore decided to christen her with her own very amazing name?

Personally, I thought that Jane Austen would be alot like Elizabeth Bennet.

Who knows...

But then that led me to google Jane Austen - again - just to see what I could find.

According to wikipedia, she was educated by her father and brothers, and never married. She was part of a very closely knit family, her sister Cassandra was her best friend.

Maybe she based Elizabeth's and Jane's relationship on her relationship with her sister.

Although Jane Austen never married (which is very interesting, seeing as Pride and Prejudice is quite focused on the whole marriage thing) she did have a certain somebody, who was later sent away by her family.

Her other book, Persuasion has a part where the main character loves someone who is not approved of.

This then got me to wonder, does Jane Austen hide bits and pieces of her life in each book she writes?

I am going to try to read every single book that she ever wrote (or at least the ones that she published) and compare them to what biographies say about her.

Then, maybe, when I am old, I can write a book about it all, and title it Decoding Jane Austen, or something awesome like that.

Lydia Brings Whickam Home

Quite the scandal, Lydia runs off with Mr. Whickam, and they are not even married! Her parents were obviously not expecting this. Their reaction thereof was sort of - concerned, frightened, dissapointed?

But after, when Lydia returns with Mr. Whickam - a patched up marriage and not the least bit embarassed - her parents seem not the least bit upset. Okay, let me rephrase that, Mrs. Bennett seems not the least bit upset, while Mr. Bennett hides his frustration inside.

"Her mother stepped forwards, embraced her, nad welcomed her with rapture; gave her hand with an affectionate smile to Wickham [...]" I guffawed (great word, right?) at this, his her mother insane???? "[...] wished them both joy, with an alacrity which showed no doubt to their happiness" (p. 234).

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!? Just minutes ago, her mother was complaining of her "nerves" and sitting in her room moaning and crying about the situation.

Her father's reaction is a bit better, but not what I would expect from a father who's daughter was just married after a bit of a scandalous situation. "Their reception from Mr. Bennet, to whom they then turned, was not quite so cordial. His countenance rather gained in austerity; and he scarcely opened his lips" (p.234).

If I came home like Lydia did, my dad would be waiting with a gun, a spanking spoon, and my mother with a jar full of Holy Water - make that a bucket. My dad, even though from New York, and not Texas or some other Southern State, would have blasted Mr. Whickam to pieces, and then beaten me severly upside the...rear end. My mother would have sat down and prayed the rosary a gazillion times for everyone's souls.

So, why do Mr. and Mrs. Bennett not seem (or show) a bit of concern? I have no idea. At least Elizabeth and Jane's reactions are somewhat normal for the situation, "Elizabeth was disgusted and even Miss Bennet (Jane) was shocked" (p. 234).

Does Jane Austen have Mrs. Bennet react in this way to purely show her bipolar temperment? That was a bit of an exxageration, but Mrs. Bennet really does frustrate me sometimes. How can she be so absurd? Her daughter's husband just caused so much stress, and then she welcomes them back like they were the perfect couple ever.

Argh! And Whickam enfuriates me to no end. "Whickam was not at all more distressed than herself [the little pedifile, seriously, how old is he, twentyish? And he runs off with a 16 year old! Blach!] but his manners were always so pleasing [humph, yeah right! The little suck up!] that had his character and his marriage been exactly as they ought, his smiles and his easy address, while he claimed their relationship, would have delighted them all" (p. 235).

Well, at least the last bit of "would have" was stuck in there, or else I would have just been absolutely disgusted that his "manners" had made them all forget his actions.

How absurd that their family can actually stand to have the couple back at the house, at most, only Lydia should have visited without the companionment of Mr. Whickam.

And while I am being furious at Lydia, I'll include this quote she states from page 246, "...you know marrie dwomen have never much time for writing. My sisters may write to me. They will have nothing else to do." Doesn't that just want you to blush for her? Or, the opposite, douse her with water, to see if she will come to her senses? Her "charming" (p. 236) husband whom her "sisters must all envy" (p. 236) was PAID to marry her by his most hated ex-brother-like-friend!

How dumb can someone get? It does not seem to be anyone's nature to clearly shut out everything that goes on arround them, and envolves them, but apparently that is what Lydia is doing! Argh! It just frustrates me to no end. Why doesn't anyone sit her down and discuss her situation with her? Well, maybe that wouldn't be the best idea... maybe it is better that she blindly enters into a marriage where her husband was paid to marry her, and only married her for the money.

But still... argh!

Mr. Darcy's First Name

In Pride and Prejudice, the culture expects for everyone to be a Miss, Mr. and Mrs. And the women - especially Lydia - seem quite thrilled when they can be called Mrs. (insert husband's name here).

So, what does Colombian culture think about that? Here, where we call everyone by their first name, or simply replace their name for Mr. (sir) or Mi(iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii)ss. (And believe me, this is actually a very contagious - and convenient - habit to replace someone's full name for a simple Mr./sir or Miss. especially when you cannot remember their last name!)

If we were to replace one of our students from CNG into Pride and Prejudice society, what would the characters' and student's reaction be? Most likely shock and horror at the opposing actions.

What a major difference between times.

Here, where we think getting married before college an 'Oh My - scandalous' situation, and calling adults by their first names, a norm.

I am not saying that either one of the cultures is right or wrong, but just very very very widely different.

So how did this happen? How do characteristics of a society evolve into something so completely different from what it began as? Was it simply time? Revolutionary ideas? An advancement - or the opposite, going downhill?

But, we still share common things with eachother. For example, no one says it straight out, but marrying into money is quite convenient. Balls - parties, are very fun. And lets face it, the personalities of the characters are still present to day. From Mr. Darcy's to Mrs. Bennets, yep, they are all here.

(Differences in lives shown in two pictures of parties)

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Darcy's first name is Fitzwilliam. Hm... I kind of like the ring to that.

Filming Words

Obviously, making a novel into a movie is hard work.
First of all, the director of a movie is usually not the author of the book, so his interpretation of the novel can be different from what the author had wanted to express through his work.

Secondly, novels are sometimes accompanied with long, vivid and expressive details of setting, personalities, and events, which are very hard to mimic with a single shot, or even multiple shots.

Thirdly, characters in a book are completely unique; their personalities, looks and actions are always different from reader to reader, as the reader gets to create their own version of the character with the outline that the author sets up. In movies, you do not get that liberty. The characters are chosen, and interpreted for you. The only choice you have in the matter, is how to understand their words and expressions. That, of course, is very limited. Therefore, if you have read a novel, have a certain character in mind, and then watch a movie based on the novel, that character can be erased and replaced by the chosen character in the movie.

Lastly, and definitely the worst, sometimes what you felt as one of the most important concepts, events, or feelings from the novel are completely erased or forgotten in the movie. I personally hate this. The director can simply chose to leave out scenes and phrases - what is with that?

In lunch the other day, I asked Laura if she had liked the movie Pride and Prejudice, which starred Keira Knightly as Elizabeth. She told me that her personal opinion was one of dissapointment. Mr. Bingley seemed unintelligent, characters were missing, and the feeling had changed. I understand where she is coming from. The four characteristics listed above of what can happen to a novel turned movie were all present in Laura's description.

Although I do love the movie, Pride and Prejudice (starring Keira Knightly), I have to agree with Laura. Why did they chose to not include Mrs. and Mr. Hurst? Why does Bingley seem sort of silly, when really he is supposed to just sound carefree and sweet? And Mr. Darcy is definitely supposed to have a more intense look than simply the lost puppy one he wears to the ball - plus more harshness. And Elizabeth is supposed to be slightly more carefree, too. Or, at least, this is my understanding of the characters...

I've Always Wanted To Relate Something In Literature To Elvis Presley

Mr. Darcy. Stuck up, snooty, rude, but oh so dreamy. He describes Elizabeth's "fine eyes" (throughout the book), and you can't help but get those little shivers of excitement (or, at least I can't).


On Sunday, I had to go to a lunch with my family and my dad. Because I knew that my parents would be involved with the other people who work with my Padre, I brought along Jane Austen, because I knew we would be there for quite some time - Air Force people have a way of relating to each other, and lets face it, Colombians and my mother like to talk, for a very long time. So, nerdy-like me brought along my school work.

I was sitting there, waiting for my Vegetarian Spaghetti to arrive, while every five minutes looking up from my book to tell my siblings to please not try to knock over every waiter that comes by.


It was around that point when Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingley ride up to say hello to the Bennett girls, while they are talking to their new acquaintance, Mr. Whickam. I love the line where Mr. Darcy "corroborated it [the greating] with a bow, and was beginning to determine not to fix his eyes on Enlizabeth..." (Page 55). I giggled to myself, and looked up to see my younger brother looking at me as if I was possesed, and then looked back down to keep reading, an I-have-been-reprimanded look on my face from my seven year old brother, who had been interrupted from his how-fast-can-I-shovel-my-food-into-my-face contest with my youngest brother. Sigh.


But honestly, this little romance that Mr. Darcy finds himself in is so romantic. It reminds me of the song from Elvis Presley (well, I am not positive if he came up with the lyrics, but he sings it) "Wise men say, only fools rush in, but I can't help, falling in love, with you!" This is such a sweet - and funny, interesting, amazing - book. I love it! It has the perfect balance between love, hate, sillyness, rudeness, and real-lifeness.


I love that Elizabeth doesn't even notice Mr. Darcy's affections, and is determined to hate him for the rest of her life. Ah, the beauty of literature.


And spaghetti with cheese, tomatoe, olive oil, and some seasoning that is grean. I love El Mar and Pride and Prejudice.

Major Character Flaws

Let me just say that there are two kinds of people in the world. Genuinely nice people, and then, the not so genuine. Now Jane, for example, is a genuinely nice person. Sweet and sincere, she always has nice things to say about everyone, she is "honestly blind to the follies and nonsense of others" (p.10 Pride and Prejudice). However, her companions are slightly otherwise. The two ladies who have found interest in Jane and are very sweet to her, do not express the same feelings to her sister, or her family for that matter. When Elizabeth enters the room, Mrs. Hurst, and Miss Bingley are all politeness and civilty, but when she leaves them to their selves, she leaves "her own and her relation's behaviour to the remarks of the two ladies" (p. 34). How disgusting. These two women really need to figure out how to be nice people.

And what is with Miss Bingley? She is throwing herself all over Mr. Darcy, and is completely blind to the fact that he obviously does not like her. A nuisance and slightly stupid (for lack of a better word) she has no other way of making conversation with Mr. Darcy but to tease him about his admiration for Elizabeth. You'd think that she would just give up already!

I love the part where he is trying to write a letter, and she persistentley interrupts him with comments like"Pray tell your sister that I long to see her" (p. 35) and his response is even more hilarious "I have already told her so once, by your desire." And her response gets even funnier, she switches the topic to tell him to let her fix his pen, because she "mend[s] pens remarkably well." I had to laugh out loud at all of this conversation. One of my least favorite characters in this book, she is a very stuck up lady who thinks very lowly of other people.

She reminds me of Regina from Mean Girls. Both think they are the best people ever, they talk about people behind their backs, and try to get the guy that likes someone else. Yep, girl "bad" has not changed over the years.

Jane Austen - Finally, a Female!

( The picture above is of an actress as Jane Austen from the movie "Becoming Jane" which creates a story from her life)

In AP Literature, we have mostly focused on novels that are, well, depressing. The Road, Hamlet, The Great Gatsby, and Coming Through Slaughter, all encorporated death into their corrupted society. Now, after much anticipation, we get to read a chick book! Yes!

Having already read Pride and Prejudice - just about a gazillion times - I opened the pages with a satisfaction of knowing what was to come. I was reaquainted with the characters, and welcomed them back into my thoughts as old friends.

Mrs. Bennet, who opens the book as the first character to speak, reminded me of just how annoying and dimwitted she actually was. Mr. Bennet, who is practically the complete opposite of Mrs. Bennet, made me laugh at his quick comments and sarcastic remarks. How these two possibly fell in love with eachother, I have no idea. Jane Austen created two opposite characters which contrast so effectively, that we are presented with a comedic duo who have an interesting way of getting on with eachother.

The first ball also introduces some other pretty important characters. Mr. Bingley, easily one of my favorites, is an easy going and open person, who all the mother's wish their daughters to be married to. It is the good luck, more like good looks and flattering character of Jane Bennet, who gives Mrs. Bennet the satisfaction of seeing one of her daughters favored by the wealthy and pleasing young man. However, another single man at the ball does not fall under the good graces of Mrs. Bennet. Mr. Darcy, with his scowl and stuck up nature, turns the world against himself as he puts himself above the rest. Jane Austen once again puts two very different characters together as companions. She very well might be interpreting the statement that opposites attract into many aspects of her book!

I look forward to the next two weeks of reading. A flowery and funny novel, it is so nice to finally read something in class which I can really look forward to.

Lion King is based on Hamlet!!!

The Lion King is based on Hamlet! That is so crazy! I just now figured it out. Of course, it is a kid version, where not everyone dies, but the basic principles are there!

1. The Uncle kills the father (Scar kills Mufasa)

2. The son leaves the kingdom (the hyenas chase Simaba out of Pride Rock)

3. The son receives a message from the ghost of his father (Before Simba is visited by Rafiki, those huge clouds roll in, and Simba sees his dad, Mufasa, and Mufasa talks to him)

4. The son goes back to the kingdom, and kills the uncle (Simba goes back to Pride Rock, to save everyone, and the Hyenas kill Scar, and then Simba lives happily ever after with Nala.)

That is so cool! I never knew that The Lion King was based on Hamlet, but now that I actually know what goes on in Hamlet, it makes sense that it would be. I wonder what other disney movies are based on famous pieces of Literature...?

Shakespeare's End, And Pardon

After Ophelia dies, I kind of guessed that Hamlet wouldn't really want to live anymore. And what more would there be for Laertes, once his father and sister died? And, if those two were going to die, then why not the queen as well, since she really would otherwise live in darkness and depression for the rest of her life anyway. And, just because the bad guy can't go on living after causing the death of so many, he should probably die, too. Well, did that get everyone? I don't want to leave anyone out...

Shakespeare created such a twisted and complicated story, that the only resolution possible was to kill off all of the main characters involved in the corrupt plot. How could there be a happily ever after, after such a disgusting act as what Hamlet's Uncle did, killing his brother, and marrying his brother's wife, to become King. But was it really necessarry to kill off Laertes and Hamlet, too? Not to mention Ophelia, although it was probably better for her to die, seeing as she had resorted to singing about her problems, and most likely wouldn't have recovered from the traumatic experience of her father's death.


But, what was the whole point of Shakespeare's play, if everyone was just going to die in the end? Was it a fable, where a hidden lesson is tucked between the words of the characters? Could it have merely been a distraction for people back then? Were the audiences' lives so miserable that they needed to watch a play to forget about their own troubles? Maybe, but why do people find these plays so interesting now-a-days, then?


Obviously, our lives aren't that bad. We have a more substantial diet than just potatoes, work is generally possible to find, and we aren't exactly freezing to death. We pretty much have all of Asops' Fables now, (which, to tell you the truth, are much happier) so all of our moral lessons have already been taught. So, why does everyone still make a big deal about Shakespeare's plays?


I am guessing, just because it is old. Why wouldn't it be interesting? It is a way of going back in time, to read the words that were written so long ago. People actually gathered to hear those same exact words be performed that we can watch and/or read today. Thinking about it, it is actually super cool! Same goes for the Odyssey, Dante's Inferno, and Chauncery's Tales. All of those pieces of Literature that were parts of people's lives hundreds of years ago interest us today, because it allows us to grasp the concept of how they lived, and that they really did exist. Having pieces of the past makes the past more tangible. And that is why we find things like Hamlet interesting. Not because the plot is super genius, or the characters completely likeable, but because the fact that it was written long ago allows us a source to understand and experience the past.

So, I won't give Shakespeare too hard of a time for such a bad ending. After all, he is kind of famous for his tragedies. Through his plays, we can see that his life was most likely not all that happy, he was probably surrounded by alot of death, and didn't exactly get to experience the whole warm-and-fuzzy feeling all that often, seeing as he never really focuses on the relationships between people, but more on the conflicts. And that reflects on that time period, maybe people didn't really want to focus on the love that they felt for one another, because they were all going to die soon anyway (the life span wasn't exactly what we would call long). Maybe it was easier to dwell on what was bad, so that they wouldn't miss the good when it was gone.


That said, Hamlet has allowed me to experience a revelation consisting of three parts. One, I can appreciate Shakespeare now, not because I adore his plays, but it is a way of understanding history. Two, I now see that my life has so little drama, that it is pretty much boring compared to Shakespeare's works. And three, after looking Shakespeare up on wikipedia, I found out that he was married to a lady named Anne Hathaway, which now a days is the name of one of my favorite actresses! Woah.

Nope, Maybe He Isn't Brilliant

T.S. Eliot seems pretty intelligent. A poet, playwrite, literary critic, and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature, I am sure he knows his stuff. So, when he says "which Shakespeare did not understand himself" (Hamlet and His Problems), I kind of, sort of, want to jump up and down shouting yes! I am right! All along, I have said that Shakespeare doesn't exactly seem too amazing. Sure, he has some original plays, but so? Barney is pretty original. Who thinks of a singing purple dinosaur that teaches kids life lessons? But does that make the directors of the show honored members of the genius club? I don't think so.

Shakespeare was probably just some ordinary guy who wanted to make his mark on the world, or even more likely, was just trying to earn a bit of money. So, he made up some plays, and viola! He becomes super known and popular.

But does that mean that Shakespeare created a whole bunch of little secrets to put in his plays? Possibly not. It could be that things just happened coincidentally, and all of those literary geeks had to over look the obvious to find the "hidden meaning". For example, if Shakespeare has one character say "the sky is blue", all of a sudden, everyone is going crazy, and "deep reading" the phrase. It could mean that the guy is depressed, oh wait! He is probably in love, oooh! Even better, he is pregnant.

Obviously I am exagerating just a little bit (okay, alot) and I know that there really are very smart people out there, who write stuff with hidden meanings. But what if some of these Literary geniuses actually didn't really mean what everyone deep reads through their pieces? Couldn't there be some that just meant there works to be taken literally? Maybe, maybe not.

Vocabulary While Speaking of Hamlet

The different opinions of Derek Jacobi, Freud and T.S. Eliot are given in their own works, while interpreting the tragic play, Hamlet, by William Shakespeare. Although these three men have different ideas concerning the play, they all use their intense vocabulary skills to get across their feelings and portray their point of view. Following are a few words used, their definitions, and pictures to tie them to.

Vocabulary

stratification: the building up of layers

"critics have failed in their "interpretation" of Hamlet by ignoring what ought to be very obvious: that Hamlet is a stratification, that it represents the efforts of a series of men, each making what he could out of the work of his predecessors" (Hamlet and His Problems by T.S. Eliot).

Vicarious: experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person.

"These minds often find in Hamlet a vicarious existence for their own artistic realization" (Hamlet and His Problems by T.S. Eliot).

Buffoonery: behavior that is ridiculous but amusing.

"In the character Hamlet it is the buffoonery of an emotion which can find no outlet in action" (Hamlet and His Problems by T.S. Eliot).

Neurasthenia: a psycho-patholigical term to describe a condition with symptoms of fatigue, anxiety, headache, neuralgia, and depression

"According to another conception, the poet has endeavored to portray a morbid, irresolute character, on the verge of neurasthenia" (Freud).

Arras: a rich tapestry
"Once upon a sudden burst of outrage, when he stabs the eavesdropper behind the arras," (Freud).

Dreams

"Dreams", Hamlet says. During his soliloquoy, he focuses on three things: Sleep, death, and dreams. Sleep - because he is tired, and obviously needs some rest. Death - probably because he is sort of overwhelmed with his dad asking him to take revenge on his uncle. But dreams? What could dreams mean for him? What would Hamlet dream about?

Maybe Hamlet is talking about the dreams which present themselves while you are sleeping. In that case, he might just be referring to the whole sleep issue again. However, if he means dreams as in 'my goal in life' or 'this is what I want to do someday', then that still doesn't lead me anywhere. Sleeping dreams would probably just be a reoccurance of the whole revenge bit, and for his ultimate dream, or goal in life, what could that possibly be? We know that he doesn't really want to kill the uncle (or else he would have done it by now). It could be that he wants to just live happily ever after with Ophelia. Or, that he dreams of someday as King. But to tell you the truth, I can't really picture him "dreaming" of doing anything. Honestly, I think that he says "dream" with a voice of someone who will doesn't have a dream. One who doesn't want life to go on, sees nothing for himself in the future, nothing to look forward to.

So...

He most likely will commit suicide at the end of the play, seeing as he has no initiative to do anything in the days to come.

Death

Death.

What a mystery.

Where do you go after death?

What will it be like after death?

How do you cope with the death of a loved one?

All of these questions, and no one can answer them for certain.

Hamlet is faced with death. It stares him in the face. He has to acknowledge it now, now that his father is gone. But what is death? He says the word with the reverance of something so mighty that its concept is not tangible.

He asks what dreams come with the sleep of death.

Sleeping Beauty

Sleep. Something we could all use a little bit more of. It is that wonderful time between when the sun goes down and comes up, where we close our eyes, and our bodies have to do nothing but keep breathing in and out. Our minds can relax, and can go to whichever part of thought that they want. It is during this time that we can refule, take a break from our complex lives and float into the land of fantasy.

Hamlet says "to sleep". He says this with his eyes closed, and a lustful sigh. Apparently, he needs a bit more sleep. Obviously showing that he has been too busy to sleep, too many thoughts going on in his mind to take a break.

He needs his beauty sleep; maybe if he were to get this sleep, he would be able to think more clearly, and feel less stressed out, resulting in less of the dark contemplation of death, and of his want to -- kill someone.

He should start taking some lessons from Sleeping Beauty. All he needs is for some witch to cast a spell on him so that he can fall into a deep sleep, and eventually be rescued by an overly beautiful person who will take care of all of his troubles.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a fairy tale?

Big Hutch Can Relate Much... But Can We?

As I listened to the experience of prisoners who acted out Hamlet, I immediatley felt empathy for Big Hutch. His gravely voice, and the way he spoke, made you feel the intensity of his character. This was obviously a man who was in prison for a reason. When he was criticizing the play, and asking why Hamlet kept second guessing his decision to kill his uncle, he told us basically why he was in prison, for murdering the rapist of his daughter. His story isn't out of the usual for the other prisoners. They are all dangerous people, people you wouldn't really want to associate with. People who share barely anything in common with us... the "normal" people. But that is why they can associate so well with Hamlet, and the characters in Hamlet. Those fictional characters hold so many likenesses with the prisoners, that it lets the prisoners interpret them, and relate to them, in such a different way then us mere "normal people" could ever do. And, because of this insight that they hold, they can portray such a different image of Hamlet that we could ever completely understand.
That made me look at my own experience with Hamlet. Let me first say that I am completely opposed to what the uncle did, obviously it was wrong - murder generally is. But why fight fire with fire? Two wrongs don't ever make a right. So what would killing the uncle do for Hamlet? Nothing. Just dirty his own hands. Therefore, I cannot understand Hamlet's actions at all. How can someone who has not experienced something similar to these characters interpret the play? If you are completely naive in a subject like this, how can you relate to the characters? Can I really compare my strong feelings - a failed test, my dog swallowing a sock - to those of Hamlet's? Which would be the murder of his father? I don't really think so. The events that take place in my life are so un-similar to those that take place in Hamlets, that I cannot relate at all, and am left to understand the play with the little knowledge of murder that I have from other movies and books.

Passive vs. Active (+ examples of both)

Is the picture posted below correct in stating that active is better than passive? Follow this link in order to find out!
The following are sentences that are first in passive voice, and then followed by active voice.

1. The statue is being visited by hundreds of tourists every year.

Hundreds of toursists visit the statue every year.

2. My books were stolen by someone yesterday.

Someone stole my books yesterday.

3. These books were left in the classroom by a careless student.

A student carelessly left these books in the classroom.

4. Coffee is raised in many parts of Hawaii by plantation workers.

Plantation workers raise coffee in many parts of Hawaii.

5. The house had been broken into by someone while the owners were on vacation.

Someone broke into the house while the owners were on vacation.

6. A woman was being carried down the stairs by a very strong firefighter.

A very strong firefighter carried a woman down the stairs.

7. The streets around the fire had been blocked off by the police.

The police blocked off the streets around the fire.

8. Have you seen the new movie that was directed by Ron Howard?

Have you seen Ron Howard's new movie?

9. My car is in the garage being fixed by a dubious mechanic.

A dubious mechanic is fixing my car in the garage.

10. A great deal of our oil will have been exported to other countries by our government.

Our government will have exported a great deal of our oil to other countries

Repiticion (accent on the o) In the Play of Mi Vida

In Krapp's Last Tape, the poor old man obviously is a little bit... disturbed? It seems to be obvious that this is not the first time that he goes through the cycle of eating bananas, drinking, listening to previously recorded tapes, and then recording a new edition. Hence why it is a cycle, or, to put the term loosely, a schedule. It is normal behaviour - for him - to eat more than one banana, right after the last one. It is normal behaviour - for him - to listen to a recording of his own voice, telling his own story. And this made me ponder a very philosophical question (well, I think it is): does the human being think anything is 'normal' as long as you do it often, and it becomes natural, or are brought up doing it, and that is natural as well?

Well, I started thinking and realized that this could very well be the case. My friends in Germany eat horse, no problem at all, it's delicious meat that comes from an animal. Dip it into mustard, and it makes quite a good substitution if there are no Brat Wursts around.

Also, some friends from Colombia put cheese into their hot-chocolate. Personally, I find that to be absolutely disgusting. Cheese? In your hot-chocolate?! Gross! I thought, but then realized, if I had been brought up doing that, would I find it gross? Most likely not, just as if I had been brought up sleeping in a tent, it would be the normal for me, and therefore my way of life.

So, getting a little bit deeper, if people are brought up around drinking, drug abuse, physical abuse, it is 'normal' for them. They believe that that is the way of life, poor things. Just how I think that everyone brushes their hair right before going to bed, sings in the shower, worries about college, and has to babysit their little siblings, while trying to decide if their dog really needs a bath, or can wait one more week. (And also liking google better than whatever this ridiculous bing thing is, getting frustrated that everyone stares at my hair because they have never seen a blonde head before, and disliking the fact that I have now started calling people "sir" and "miss" without adding their last name to it.)

It is difficult to realize that everyone has different backgrounds, and that your way of life is not the only way. And also, to realize that anything that is out of the ordinary, something that you have never done, is not a wrong or weird way of doing something. It is simply different from what you are used to.

So, getting back to Krapp. Do I think that his little schedule is different from mine? Absolutely. Unhealthy, and unbeneficial for life? Definitely. But does Krapp necessarily think that? No. Probably not. And also, he is a fictional character who was being acted out by an actor, with a script as a guideline.

And then that got me thinking. Am I an actress? Of course not in the actual sense, I can barely talk to one person without a natural pinkness creeping itself across my face, much less act out a different person's words and actions in front of a bunch of people! But, when I think about it, I am kind of given a "script" and told to "interpret" it and do the best I can to make it believable. The script would be the obligation to go to school, do outside activities, be a member of my family, pretty much the script of "obligations of a teenager in the world of 2010". But then I have the option to "interpret" my "lines" the way I want to. Just like an actor. I can be a good student, or a bad student, I could do one or a hundred activities, I could go all emo and not speak to my family, or I could be one of those gushy people who can't seem to stop gushing about how cute her little brother was when he said "Gimee dat wight now, peeeeez!" And subconsciously, I am acting out a lifestyle that my parents impose upon me. Did I just wake up one day and say, "I want to get good grades and go to college"? No. My parents from the beginning gave me that mind set. Of course, everyone is different, and not everyone has this same experience (previous paragraph etc.).

Anyways, instead of going on and on forever and ever, I guess that I should just conclude that I need to not be so quick to judge, in other words have a more open mind to things. For example, with the unhappy and depressing books that we have to read, I just need to take a deep breath, and try to see where the author was coming from.

Even if I prefer the repitition in the play of mi vida.

And to continue with this repitition, I am going to place a picture below this blog. Most likely of something happy.

Tears and Sweat

In Krapp's Last Tape, Krapp sits and listens, with his occasional outburst, comments, laughs, interruptions, pauses, or silent sobs, with a sheen of glistening sweat running down his face, mixing with the fat tear drops as they run down, and eventually fall of his face to the awaiting table.

During the brief interruptions, we can infer that Krapp makes his way to a backroom in order to take a drink from an alcoholic beverage. This can therefore be linked to the sweating. "Sweating after drinking aclhohol is common, because alcohol has a tendency to dilate the vessels in the skin. This leads to an increase in body heat and temperature. To keep the body temperature at its optimum, the body releases sweat. Click here to know more about alcohol addiction" (cited from this website).

Obviously he is drinking with the intent of steadying his nerves. He is depressed. He has been drinking for -most likely- many years. The alcohol creates a means of escape, but must be drunken in increasing amounts so that it still has the same effect. It is "a central nervous system depressant with a range of side effects. The amount and circumstances of consumption play a large part in determining the extent of intoxication" (wikipedia). Krapp is intoxicated, and the effects of the alcohol mingle with the feelings that are hiding inside him. Thus leading to tears.

The regretful Krapp, peering into the past, with sadness enveloping him during the duration of the tapes, listens, at the point where the regret and sadness and remembrance of the happy times are all that remains for him.

Therefore, he drinks. And drinks some more. All the while bathing in his depression, and wallowing in the could-have-beens, and used-to-be-s.

Losing with Filming

In books, the author describes the characters with deep detail, depicting a certain image that you are left with to discover, and make your own. They leave you lots of room to interpret the characters, to picture what the characters would look like, and how they react to certain events. You are left to make your own characters out of the author's ideas and words. With certain books, you fall in love with the characters, and laugh when the are happy, and cry when they are sad. You feel apart of their lives, and feel somewhat sad when the last sentence is said, and you find yourself at the back of the book, with only the binding between your fingers.
Yet, when books are made into films, that entire experience is lost. Making your own story from what the books outline, picturing what certain things look like, whether it be scenery, actions, or even the characters. In movies, everything is laid out for you. Whether it be for the better, or most often, for the worst. Movies take away the luxury of being able to imagine what this or that would be like if it were for real. No two people think exactly the same, so the director will most likely not create an exact feeling that the certain book did. And even if they do a pretty good job, what about the actors? The actors are not exactly the people in the book, and could never look exactly like how you imagined they would look like, or act.

I was thinking about this when I watched the interview of the director for the full-versioned Hamlet. Will this director create a portrait of the book with a deep insight into what people read between the lines? Will he discover what these characters should look like, and what they should express for the audience? I have not read Hamlet before, and ignorantly do not know the story either, so I do not know the exact opposition the director is facing when he created the film. Is it a difficult Shakespear creation, that seems to only come alive with words? Or can it be presented in a film? We will have to see...

The End

Yay! The dad dies. I am so relieved. I was absolutely terrified that the little boy was going to die. But, since he didn't, the book is okay. The little boy will keep going south with his 'new' family, and will have a little brother and sister to play with, a loving mother and father. What a happy ending! Although I wasn't too happy with the entire book (a bit too depressing for me, if I hadn't already depicted that certain opinion) I loved the ending. I think that I would just add this last little bit though at the end...

We walked. And walked. But that is all I had ever known. When dad was alive, sometimes we would walk in silence, and other times he would tell me stories. The picture of my dad was slowly fading into the deep parts of my mind. All that had happened was doing the same. It was as if I was trying to push away the bad parts, and whilst doing that, accidentally my dad got caught up in all of the mess and was pushed back as well.

I remember the way he would look at me though, sometimes unblinkingly, as if I was the one thing he was living for...which was probably true. He would try to give me the majority of the food, the best found clothing. And that gun. The gun.

My sister looks over at me now, smiles slightly and then looks back ahead, laughing at something Mom had said. I remember the day we discussed about what I should call them.

You should call mom, mom. His new friend said to the boy.

I... He began to respond.

You don't have to, sweetie, just call me anything you feel comfortable with.

Well, I...I would like to call you mom.

She knelt down, and looked at me, straight into my eyes, and I could see the tears that were swelling in her clear blue eyes. The eyes that shone out like lost lights in the middle of a storm. I would like that very much. She said.

That was a long time ago. But now, we were almost there. One more day, no two. We had slowly been shedding our clothes, yet piling them on the cart, just in case. Our dog was traipsing along behind us, panting heavily with the heat. The green flowering had been slowly growing to finally reveal what was just over this hill. But finally. We came. We were panting, hiking, when suddenly, we froze, seeing what lay below us. As if heaven had just suddenly fallen out of the sky.

And they watched the sun rise.

A much better ending, I think. Kind of shows you that they do live happily ever after.

If At First You Don't Succeed...

How many times have I heard this phrase? Once, twice, a thousand times? Rehearsed over and over again, especially when I fail at something (cough, cough... Life?). The little mistakes, and also the big ones, make me remember the line:

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

A bit old, but of course! Wrong? No! It can pertain to everything in life, gymnastics, babysitting, and voila! Even Literature.

In the blog by Sonya Chung, a teacher who re-read The Great Gatsby for the third time, realized that this quote by - who is it even by? - applies to reading and comprehending the deep literature that makes its way into the lives of the average high school student, English major, etc. etc.

She portrayed a message that although the writings stay the same "it is we who change." When I read that, it was a serious 'Woah' moment. That makes complete sense! After you read something, so much can happen in between, or even a couple of seconds afterwards! The text could even have a subconscious affect on you, and you don't really realize that you are half onto something until you read it for a second, third, or even fourth time!

Alright, well, I have been inspired to (possibly, if I have time) read things for a second or third time. I guess that it really does make a difference in your understanding of the work, and if comprehension takes multiple readings, hopefully it will be worth it.

Understanding the Inner Sounds

Right before the first chapter of Coming Through Slaughter by Michael Ondaatje, there are three sonographs with a slight explanation underneath. I think that these sonographs represent the inner emotions and thoughts of human beings. These emotions have "so many frequencies or pitches [...] vocalized simultaneously," just like the dolphins, that the human sense system cannot pick up on all of them. By "frequencies", and "pitches", for humans it could mean all of the different things we can feel, think, sense, and respond to, in a minute.

For example, Buddy seemed to be okay for a while, he had a normal job, cutting hair, a family that he lived with, he seemed to portray understanding. But as the book goes, you can see all of the different currents he was in at the same time, while still seeing the general image that everyone else was getting.

I think that the sonographs show that although people may seem silent, they are really sending out millions and millions of messages, and feelings. They may seem one way, but on the inside they have so much going on, that they themselves have a hard time keeping up and understanding it. And I think that when you lose complete track of what is going on in the inside, and lose all understanding whatsoever, it is at this point that you lose it completely, and end up going insane.

Therefore Buddy probably lost track of what was going on inside of him, his feelings and emotions, and way of thinking became too complex and too jumbled for him to understand, therefore he went insane.

The Cheerleader

Prologue

Like, Oh my Gosh,

Did you just see Josh?

He's lookin' pretty hot,

Oh wow! Look! A dot!

The other day at cheer,

they were talkin' 'bout beer.

But of course I don't drink,

that would, my reputation, sink!

Ooo! I got my nails done,

and - oh look - the sun!

It's getting pretty warm,

and I hate bees! How they swarm!

What was I saying?

I do hope I'm not greying,

Oh yeah! That's right,

they put vodka in my sprite!

But vodka isn't beer,

(she said this with a sneer)

Beer - Stacy was drinking,

and her reputation is sinking.

She got so drunk,

her rep. is so sunk.

She's slept with everyone,

minus the nerd, Dun.

Vodka I don't mind,

I just couldn't find,

the keys to my car,

I knew they couldn't be far.

But that is when Ken,

stepped right in.

Offered me a ride,

what a delicious guy!

I despise all those girls,

they think they are such pearls.

They ooh and ahh 'bout boys,

and act as if they are toys!

Speaking of those males,

Oh no! I chipped my nails!

Oh, I decided to break up,

Oh, hey! Matthew, whats up?

Matthew is the guy,

who was right by my side,

when the vodka, I threw up,

right into his cup!

Well, I guess I will start,

to tell of the broken heart,

that was left, breaking down,

when Becky walked in the gown.

The Cheerleader's Tale

It makes good girls kind of itch,

but Becky was a B----.

Girls couldn't understand what,

they saw besides above her gut.

She wasn't very skinny,

always wore a mini.

Kind of like a Ho,

and come to think of it, she did glow...

She was really mean,

and her blonde hair was kind of green.

She wasn't very nice,

out of the two, she definitely was spice.

Poor Mary was a white dove,

and completely in love,

with the boy Jake,

that Becky was trying to take.

Mary went to a party,

Becky acted haughty,

Made Mary cry,

and in the end, did die.

Of course, not in earnest,

but Becky did her darnedest,

to make it so that,

she was as noticeable as a gnat.

Jake of course overlooked her,

and took Becky, for her purr,

Scarring Mary for life,

and creating a huge strife.

Becky always had

the article that was bad

white, black, smile and frown

she - awful and gorgeous - wore the gown.

Eventually Mary had enough,

she started to become tough,

stand up by her own.

decided to steal the gown.

Mary confronted Becky,

the fight turned out icky.

Becky left town,

and Mary took the gown.

Confident and strong,

her brunette hair grown long.

Mary became pretty,

and even stayed -a bit- witty.

She went to more parties,

lost a couple smarties,

She got a better life,

And ended up Jake's wife.

[Jake proposed senior year,

It was beautiful to hear,

Mary said yes,

and you can now guess...]

They lived happily ever after,

lives filled with laughter.

Had a bunch of kids,

and a kitty named Liz.

A different Becky came,

took Jake as a game,

made him cheat, his wife,

and created a huge strife.

But Jake and Mary overcame,

once again that fowl game,

that those terrible Beckys play,

in such a B----- way.

Sharing & Helping Without Expecting Something Back

The other day I saw a little girl walk up to her friends with a cookie. Her friend asked her for some, and she un-hesitantly broke the cookie in half, and gave half to the other little girl.

Another day, I watched as my little brother helped our youngest brother walk up the stairs, with 'Baby' holding on tightly to his hand, as he pulled him up the big stone-steps.

And, I read about a lady lending her credit card to a homeless man who asked for some change.

Is this kindness natural? Or do you have to learn it? Or is it possible that you are born with it, and then slowly over time, you either keep it, or lose it, and become more and more selfish.

In The Road the son is always asking his father if they can help people - the dog that they hear, the boy that they see, the old man that they find. His father, always and coldly, says no. Straight up - no. Maybe it is because he has the pressure of taking care of his son, that all of his love and compassion for others is ruled out, because of the strong caring he has for his son. It makes sense, that if he gave the food to others, then he wouldn't have as much for his boy and his self.

But who taught the boy to want to give, and have kindness to others? His father evidently did not, and his mother probably didn't either. So it is just a natural gift that you are born with?

I think I have to second guess myself a little, I have had to tell my little siblings countless times to share, and be nice to each other. But on occasion, they surprise me by their own willingness to share. Maybe it is a feature that jumps in and out of some people, while others are just blessed with the natural instinct to share and help others without asking for anything in return.

Nuclear Bomb Shelters

The picture above shows a nuclear bomb shelter stocked with food, water, and other necessities in case of an extreme emergency. During the 1950s, after the Russians had tried out their first Hydrogen Bomb, the United States had multiple drills in case of a nuclear attack, and children in schools learned how to "duck and cover" in the many practice bomb drills. (As seen below)

In The Road the starving father and son stumble across a shelter that was obviously meant to be a safe haven in case of a time of need. Obviously, the poor person that built it was never able to use it, it was found completely untouched, stacked full of food - a heaven for the dying two. What luck that they found that safe hiding place, they were able to rest up, eat, and bathe themselves. They are now well stocked for their journey, and hopefully won't lose their food again. Let's just hope that their is something in the south for them, when they get there, and that the dad will make it there okay. I have a hunch that he is dying from consumption.

Cannibalism

The act of eating one's own race. I was sitting down with my little brother, Joseph, just the other weekend, and watching Pirate's of The Carribean with him. He loves the part where Jack Sparrow is tied upside down, and is about to be burnt up, because it is made funny. Of course, you know that he isn't really going to be eaten, and will eventually escape with the other pirates. No one being harmed, except for the traitor-bad guys, who stole from the good-bad guys.

Yet in The Road the tone is so much more intense and terrifying, that I wouldn't even imagine laughing. Here they are, the son - not much older or younger than my brother - and the father, starving to death, and they happen upon a group of humans being kept locked in a room, freezing, and being saved for supper. How absolutely blood-curdling, to realize that these people were going to be eaten by their own human brothers and sisters!

These two scenarios of cannibalism are presented in such different ways. In the Pirates movie, it is comical, while in the novel, it is absolutely sinister. The feeling that you get from watching a movie, while eating popcorn with your little brother, and listening to his peels of laughter as the pirates escape, fills you with good spirits. The opposite happens when reading about the pitiful human beings, about to be eaten, and the heart-rending situation of the father and of the son.

Cannibalism

The act of eating one's own race. How absolutely disgusting and horrific. The father and son stumble upon a house, as they are starving, and search it for food. They come across a locked room, and find a group of people, obviously kept there as animals for the food of the evil ones.

Terrible. Disgusting. Horrific. Traumatizing.

I don't want to read about this. This book had better have a happy ending, or I might just quit, drop out of, AP Literature. I know I am just a teenage girl who likes her clichés and happily ever afters, but seriously! The books have just gone from eh, to bad, to completely scarring me for life!

Selflessness or Selfishness?

Ashes. In every description of the landscape in The Road, the picture described to us is always dirt, grime, dust...ashes. A fire? What happened? Was it a nuclear bomb, the end of the world?

After whatever happened, whatever it was, everything died. But there were people still alive. And from the way the dad talks about them, they seem to all be evil, except for him and his son.

His wife just walked away one day, just got up and left her husband and her son. Was this an act of selflessness, or selfishness? There were two bullets left. She said that it made the most sense to just die, become nothingness, rather than stay in the ashes and risk being overtaken by the evil ones. But did her walking away show her love? By saying, here, you take the easy way to die. Shoot our baby, and then yourself, and I will go away, and starve.

Or was it selfish to just take the easy way, and to die? Would it not have been more selfless to keep pushing on, with the hope of survival in a warmer area? To suffer more, so that your loved ones could have the possibility of having happiness and comfort? Or was the risk of harm, and the constant suffering too overwhelming for hope? Is there a point where you just shut down with so much stress, and just want to give up completely, and lose all hope that you ever had?

I couldn't possibly know the answer.

It is too far from my current situation. The warmth of my home, the nice hot tea and sweat pants, the food in my refrigerator, and the laughter of all of my siblings, all of my comfort. I think that the human mind can't possibly wrap itself around something that it has never even closely experienced. So, when given a situation like this, it doesn't really affect us very deeply. Sure, it might make us think a little bit, but we will go to bed, wake up, eat breakfast, and keep on going about our normal lives. But should we think about such possibilities at all?

This is way too depressing for me. Maybe for school, to analyze, pick apart piece by piece and discuss amongst my peers, it will be given a created point, an overall reason. But can it be beneficial for my being? Does it have some overall meaning that will affect my life? Or is just another one of those stories that is made to impress the human mind, distract it for a while, and then to be forgotten amongst the other pieces of Literature picked up here and there.

Lyf

The Knight, the Miller, the Wife and the Pardoner. Four tales, and one word repeated over and over again: Life. Or, more accurately, lyf. The following were found in the corresponding tales, and capture the essence of the mood for each one:

The Knight's Tale -

"Allas, myn hertes quene, allas my wyfe,

myn hertes lady, endere of my lyfe" (2775-2776).

As you can see, this shows that the Knight's

tale is a dramatic and flowery story, full of love and

tragedy. Showing how fake the Knight is, and

how he wants to be viewed...noble, and chivalrous.

Because he is trying so hard, we can conclude

that he is the opposite of that.

The Miller -

" I am thy trewe, verray wedded wyf;

Go, deere spouse, and help to save oure lyf" (3609 - 3610).

In context, this excerpt shows the deceit of love,

and the blindness of the fools. It's vulgarness

describes the Miller's perverted sense of humor,

and his version of love.

The Wife -

"And be to yow a trewe, humble wyf,

And nevere yow displese in al my lyf" (1221-1222)

The wife, who had just been telling of her own

cruelty to her many husbands, tells a story of a

rapist marrying an old hag, who ends up becoming

beautiful, and pledging to dutifully serve her husband.

This shows us that the wife is a silly woman who

doesn't understand herself, or what she wants.

The Pardoner -

"Ne deeth, allas, ne wol nat han my lyf.

Thus walke I, lyk a restelees kaityf" (727-728).

This is the first tale that does not rhyme the words

lyf and wyf. This is most likely because the Pardoner

has been castrated, thus does not feel the pull of lust.

All four of these excerpts contain t he word lyf, and three of them rhyme lyf with wyf, except for the eunuch. Coincidence? I think not! However, I haven't exactly developed my ideas into a logical reason for this. I am sure it is very obvious, and after class tomorrow, I will most likely feel very dumb for not realizing it, and come home and finish this post.

Indulgences and Some Personal Complaints

Around the 1500s, what seemed like a harmless penance for sins had actually grown into a fearsome beast that sunk its teeth deep into the very depths of the Roman Catholic Church, which would have slain the faith if it hadn't been removed.

It was the era of the Indulgences, the dark corruption that had somehow crept slowly upon the people, without them noticing. They started feeding evil with their money "Buy your way into heaven, Get a free pass for a sin..." that doesn't exactly sound like something Jesus would say. But that is what those terribly corrupt and evil leaders of the church were doing!

In Chauncer's Canterbury Tales, the Pardoner - who the people would buy their indulgences from - shows us how terrible that dark history of the Church really was. He was a crude and evil man, not anywhere near what we would consider to be a priest or a man of the Church. He willingly admitted his selfishness and other sinful actions:

448 I wol have moneie, wolle, chese, and whete,
449 Al were it yeven of the povereste page,
450 Or of the povereste wydwe in a village,
451 Al sholde hir children sterve for famyne.
452 Nay, I wol drynke licour of the vyne
453 And have a joly wenche in every toun. (The Pardoner's Tale - The Canterbury Tales)

What kind of a man is this? How could people actually follow the practices that were consuming the Church during this time? Did they not realize that it was evil?

This leads me to ask the question, will people do anything or follow anything as long as it is pleasant to the naked eye? Will they simply brush over the fine print, the grimy truth, and close their eyes to the obvious, just so that they can live the way that most pleases them? So are humans naturally evil, selfish, and corrupt? The history of Indulgences definitely supports this theory.

But humans can't be all that bad, look at all of the good we have done! When Haiti was in trouble, everyone gave money to help them out. When a child goes missing, family, neighbors, police men and so many others help to try to find him. We can do so much good, but it is only the bad that gets highlighted and remembered.

Which leads me back to another thought of mine. Literature only likes to depict the evil that goes on in the world! I haven't read one book that has told of a happy story and had a happy meaning throughout my time as a Literature student. It seems that only works that show the crudeness of human beings receive the deep analyzing and hype that is lacking in the reviews of the moral ones, if there are any.

Is happiness too cliche? Is it just boring and common? Personally, I love happiness; the happy ending, the happily ever after, the happy people, it gives me warm fuzzies inside and reminds me of the little marshmallows in hot

-chocolate. Why o

h why can't AP Literature have some of those books?