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?

Animals That Talk!

There are so many books and movies that incorporate animals that talk to create a story that is interesting and eventful. Just to name a few; The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Princess and the Frog, Babe, Rescuers Down Under, Up...etc. As you can see, they are mostly for children's entertainment.

The dreary, creepy, and depressed poet Edgar Allen Poe, in his poem "The Raven", throws in an animal (big shock, a raven) to be used as a symbol to represent mourning. The character is either mourning about his upcoming death, or the past death of a very much loved Lenore. I can't exactly make up my mind which one it is. The later would be more romantic, and I would have a little bit more pity for the poem.

But seriously? Did he have to choose a speaking raven? In kids' stories, it is cute and funny to have animals that can talk, but in Poe's poem, it is just creepy, and supports the theory that he is crazy and is hearing voices.

I know, I know, he is a great poet who thinks outside of the box. His poem is completely famous, and an amazing example of symbolism. But still, it is absolutely and thoroughly depressing. Couldn't Poe right anything happy? How about a joyful, talking bunny that represents the bounce in life?

A Feminist Gone Bad

Feminists are not all bad. The extremists are the ones who give the group a bad name, as in any other political or social group. The normal feminists are the ones who wanted to be given the right to vote, and fought hard and long for the final positive outcome (School House Rock - Sufferin' Till Suffrage). The extremists are the ones whoare paranoid that everyone is taking advantage of them just because they are female, they are the ones who throw a fit when a woman is fired, even though ten men are fired with her, etc. etc. They seem to turn a blind eye towards the obvious situation, and create a sort of haze that makes it look like they are being mistreated.

In the case of the wife of Bath, she is a feminist who has been silly from the start. A chronic flirt with a long line of husbands behind her, she uses the bible to support her many marriages.

She is obviously self conscious that she has committed some evil, because she defends herself without anyone even rebuking her. By citing from the Bible, she upholds herego by making herself feel intelligent, and supports her crazy lust and obsession with sex by masking it with the right to choose her own life. Using that same sort of haze, in order to see things from a perspective that is most attractive towards herself.

A simple and lesser creature, she is in love with beauty and boasts of her former good looks. This leads us to believe that she is now an old wench, stripped of the prettiness of youth. (She must be old, how quickly can you go through five husbands?!? Although, she did start at 12.)

Her life story, which she tells before beginning her actual tale, depicts a character still living in her eventful past, and mourning the days when she was wanted after by many men.

The simplicity of her mind is shown by the way she is sidetracked by her own story, forgetting about what she was talking about, and having to pause for a moment to remember. It is as if she has told her story to many listeners, and probably has started to add on to each sentence to make it frillier, and more desirable to the audience and herself.

Because her life story is so long and drawn out, it leads us to have it in our headsfor a little bit longer - most likely what she would have wanted - therefore I was still thinking about it when she began to tell her tale. It was at the part where the knight raped the poor maiden, when I had to pause for a moment. What stance was the wife of Bath taking on this? As I started the audio again, it was obvious that she was actually supporting the rapist! This "knight", the rescuer of damsels in distress 'supposed to be', actually just committed a crime he was intended to prevent from happening! Why then, is the wife of Bath not appalled?

Oh, wait. That is right, this is the wife of Bath - the supporter of sex at any time, any day. No wonder she would create a romantic love story for a rapist, so that he could live happily ever after. But what happened to the poor victim?

Apparently my assumption of the wife was wrong - a feminist, she could not be, or else she would have told a story of the poor girl getting back at the knight, making it so that he could never harm another girl that way again.

And plus, feminists are supposed to hold themselves with high esteem. With a title of 'The Wife of Bath', that isn't exactly possible. Because, it obviously meansthat you are married to Bath. And what do you do in a marriage? Now times that by all of Bath, and voila! You are greeted with a clear picture - the slut of The Canterbury Tales.