Monday, December 15, 2008
Blogger Shmogger.
Blog spot postings messed up all of the formatting in my deliverables so I will just hand them all in on paper.
Activity 1.7
Hamlets transformation into a madman is one that at first sight seems to be very excessive yet this is due to the fact that Hamlet is simply a good actor (He even gives a speech on how to be a good actor which shows the extent of his acting ability). His transformation is one that is more external, this meaning that it was more of a physical madness more than anything. Mentally, Hamlet remained slightly the same character throughout the play, there were smaller alterations seen in his mental state than in his physical form. I actually seem to have gained respect for Hamlet as the play progressed because he used his logic against everyone. He put on a show and everyone believed he was simply mad, outrageous, and ludicrous!
Hamlet utilized many basic human activities as his main source for showing his madness. First of all, his speech greatly changed throughout the play. He went from being a well spoken, good natured man into someone who could be clinically diagnosed as being insane. He demonstrates this in one scene when he is taking to his mother and he witnesses his father’s ghost. The severity of the description given by Hamlet of the ghost he see’s is simply stunning:
On him, on him! Look you, how pale he glares!
His form and cause conjoined, preaching to stones,
Would make them capable. –Do not look upon me,
Lest with this piteous action you convert
My stern effects. Then what I have to do
Will want true color; tears perchance for blood.
(Act 3, scene iv, 126-131)
Once again, Hamlet is simply using his logic and education to make everyone believe he is crazy. Secondly, his actions are also a good reflection of his supposed ‘madness’. He kills Polonius simply out of fright. It’s not like Hamlet murdering Polonius was pre-meditated, but Hamlet still used this as an opportunity for him to look mad. He used the body as a kind of focus point when talking to Claudius. Claudius kept asking Hamlet where he put the body but Hamlet would simply mock him, making him all the more look crazy as he is laughing at death. Furthermore, Hamlets thoughts can also be looked at as a reflection of his transformation into madness. As the play progresses his soliloquy’s become more and more random, sinister and vivid, this sparking madness all around him. He constantly questions what mankind really is, this provoking thought to be put into how mad Hamlet actually is. Hamlets appearance also changed accordingly. At the beginning of the play, he simply looked like a man who was grieving the death of his father:
Good Hamlet, cast thy knighted color off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
( Act 1, scene ii, 68-70
As the play progresses, the people around Hamlet begin to believe that he has gone completely mad. There is a transformation in the way people perceive Hamlet; this being what Hamlet wants everyone to believe.
heavy deed!
It had been so with us, had we been there.
His liberty is full of threats to all,
To you yourself, to us, to everyone.
Alas, how shall this bloody deed be answered?
It will be laid to us whose providence
Should have kept short, restrained, and out of haunt
This mad young man.
(Act 4, scene i, 12-19)
This is the king’s impression on what Hamlet has turned into. It is a very dark and vile description of a man who appears to be insane (although not at all). Hamlets feelings are also indicators that he had been theoretically transformed into a madman. At the beginning hatred was something Hamlet was not quite accustomed to. As the play went on, Hamlet and hatred soon became best friends. Hamlet often acknowledged his hatred towards his uncle and it would remain this way until the death of this uncle. All in all, Hamlets intents at becoming a madman proved successful.
The people around Hamlet were good indications that Hamlet was successful in becoming a madman. His mother didn’t want to believe that Hamlet had gone mad. She simply believed that he was mourning the death of this father and this was his own way of doing so. Further on in the play, she also acknowledges the fact that Hamlet’s madness may be derived from her re-marrying very quickly after her husband’s death, especially to her deceased husband’s brother. Claudius believes that Hamlet has become completely mad and will not believe otherwise. Hamlet is stirring up some trouble in paradise and Claudius doesn’t like this so he plots to kill Hamlet. It is hard to determine whether or not Ophelia actually believed Hamlet was mad because she herself is mad. It seems as if she took Hamlets madness, combined it with the grieving process she is going through over her father and simply went crazy herself. Horatio is the seemingly the only one who is actually in on Hamlet’s transformation into a madman. Hamlet uses Horatio as his side kick in the whole plot and Horatio goes along with this and explains it indirectly to everyone at the end of the play. Even Hamlet’s supposed best friends: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren’t even aware of Hamlet being crazy. They act as henchmen for the king and they themselves end up dying because of Hamlet. Could a madman really devise an ingenious plan to put two people who were burdened with the task of killing him, to death? I think not!
Hamlet utilized many basic human activities as his main source for showing his madness. First of all, his speech greatly changed throughout the play. He went from being a well spoken, good natured man into someone who could be clinically diagnosed as being insane. He demonstrates this in one scene when he is taking to his mother and he witnesses his father’s ghost. The severity of the description given by Hamlet of the ghost he see’s is simply stunning:
On him, on him! Look you, how pale he glares!
His form and cause conjoined, preaching to stones,
Would make them capable. –Do not look upon me,
Lest with this piteous action you convert
My stern effects. Then what I have to do
Will want true color; tears perchance for blood.
(Act 3, scene iv, 126-131)
Once again, Hamlet is simply using his logic and education to make everyone believe he is crazy. Secondly, his actions are also a good reflection of his supposed ‘madness’. He kills Polonius simply out of fright. It’s not like Hamlet murdering Polonius was pre-meditated, but Hamlet still used this as an opportunity for him to look mad. He used the body as a kind of focus point when talking to Claudius. Claudius kept asking Hamlet where he put the body but Hamlet would simply mock him, making him all the more look crazy as he is laughing at death. Furthermore, Hamlets thoughts can also be looked at as a reflection of his transformation into madness. As the play progresses his soliloquy’s become more and more random, sinister and vivid, this sparking madness all around him. He constantly questions what mankind really is, this provoking thought to be put into how mad Hamlet actually is. Hamlets appearance also changed accordingly. At the beginning of the play, he simply looked like a man who was grieving the death of his father:
Good Hamlet, cast thy knighted color off,
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
( Act 1, scene ii, 68-70
As the play progresses, the people around Hamlet begin to believe that he has gone completely mad. There is a transformation in the way people perceive Hamlet; this being what Hamlet wants everyone to believe.
heavy deed!
It had been so with us, had we been there.
His liberty is full of threats to all,
To you yourself, to us, to everyone.
Alas, how shall this bloody deed be answered?
It will be laid to us whose providence
Should have kept short, restrained, and out of haunt
This mad young man.
(Act 4, scene i, 12-19)
This is the king’s impression on what Hamlet has turned into. It is a very dark and vile description of a man who appears to be insane (although not at all). Hamlets feelings are also indicators that he had been theoretically transformed into a madman. At the beginning hatred was something Hamlet was not quite accustomed to. As the play went on, Hamlet and hatred soon became best friends. Hamlet often acknowledged his hatred towards his uncle and it would remain this way until the death of this uncle. All in all, Hamlets intents at becoming a madman proved successful.
The people around Hamlet were good indications that Hamlet was successful in becoming a madman. His mother didn’t want to believe that Hamlet had gone mad. She simply believed that he was mourning the death of this father and this was his own way of doing so. Further on in the play, she also acknowledges the fact that Hamlet’s madness may be derived from her re-marrying very quickly after her husband’s death, especially to her deceased husband’s brother. Claudius believes that Hamlet has become completely mad and will not believe otherwise. Hamlet is stirring up some trouble in paradise and Claudius doesn’t like this so he plots to kill Hamlet. It is hard to determine whether or not Ophelia actually believed Hamlet was mad because she herself is mad. It seems as if she took Hamlets madness, combined it with the grieving process she is going through over her father and simply went crazy herself. Horatio is the seemingly the only one who is actually in on Hamlet’s transformation into a madman. Hamlet uses Horatio as his side kick in the whole plot and Horatio goes along with this and explains it indirectly to everyone at the end of the play. Even Hamlet’s supposed best friends: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren’t even aware of Hamlet being crazy. They act as henchmen for the king and they themselves end up dying because of Hamlet. Could a madman really devise an ingenious plan to put two people who were burdened with the task of killing him, to death? I think not!
Activity 1.6
Maslow’s Hierarchy greatly relates to the play Hamlet because each character lies at a certain level on this pyramid of needs. It is hard to determine which level they are all at, for they all have different needs. At the beginning of the play, I believe that none of the major characters in Hamlet fall under the first stage(Physiological) of Maslow’s Hierarchy as they all have basic human needs and necessities, even though some needs such as sex are not seen, it is fair to assume that everyone is getting a piece of that pie. This concept drastically changes throughout the play though. Firstly, Hamlet is a character that may fall in the middle of two stages, those being stage two (Safety) and three (Love/Belonging). This is because when his father (Old Hamlet) was still alive, Hamlet could have been considered to be at stage three (Love/Belonging) or maybe even four (Esteem). The reason behind this being that Hamlet is a character that seems to have a large amount of self-esteem and confidence as well as respect from his peers (until he pretends to be crazy), but he does not seem to have a lot of respect for others as he appears to be a pretty overconfident person therefore not needing to show respect to others. Since Hamlet does not fall under each category of stage four, it is fair to say that he cannot be fully considered at this stage. Hamlet does show all signs of stage three, that is Hamlet demonstrates friendship, family and quite possibly sexual intimacy (with Ophelia). As Claudius killed his father, Hamlet kind of lost the family aspect of that stage, so he must therefore drop to the next stage, that being the second. Hamlet sees Claudius as the enemy and would love nothing more than for him to be out of the picture. He knows that his mother is a good person and does not understand why she loves Claudius so much. In Hamlets eyes, no one is to be trusted. He acts insane so that he can get away with more, and this was not seen by the others. He no longer feels the security of family (and some could argue mental health) therefore he tries to regain this sense of family. He does so by seeking to avenge his father as he promised to do so, and therefore he will be content with his actions and security can once again be restored in his family life. This in turn bumping Hamlet back up to stage 3 of the hierarchy (although this stage is very short lived as his mother dies, and Hamlet ends up dying also).
Secondly, Claudius being quite a bit older than Hamlet is further up in the Hierarchy because he has had more time to complete each stage. Claudius is probably on the fourth level, because he has good self-esteem, a high level of self confidence and he not only has the respect of the people but he also demonstrates some respect in return. Claudius will not make it to the top of the hierarchy because he killed his brother, this demonstrating flaws in his morality, therefore he cannot be considered anywhere above stage four. I believe that Hamlet’s mother Gertrude can also be considered to be on stage four of the hierarchy for the same reasons as Claudius. It can be assumed that Gertrude had something to do with Old Hamlet’s death, therefore causing moral issues (her believing that taking a person’s life is right).
Thirdly, I believe Polonius can be considered to be one of the only characters who is on stage five of the hierarchy. I say this because he definitely demonstrates the requirements of all of the first four stages of the hierarchy. He also demonstrates that he has good morals as he gives a speech to his son Laertes before his departure to France:Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion’d thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice:
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy:
For the apparel oft proclaims the man;
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be:
For loan oft loses both itself and friend;
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all,—to thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. (Act I, scene iii (59–80) In this speech, Polonius gives useful advice to Laertes, among his advice the most important points being: keep your thoughts to yourself and do not act recklessly, hold on to old friends and be don’t be quick to trust new ones, avoid fighting but if it is unavoidable be brave, be a good listener, learn to accept criticism but do not be too judgmental, preserve an appropriate appearance, do not borrow or lend money and most importantly; be true to yourself. This speech reveals a lot about Polonius and what his stance on a lot of morals is. In this case, it is a positive outlook of what Polonius believes in, hence him being on the fifth level of the hierarchy.
Ophelia starts off being on the same stage as Hamlet (fourth level) but she is quick to drop to the first stage as her mental health spirals down into the ground. At the end of the novel she is on the first stage as she only has simple necessities and not all of them at that (sex), and then she dies. I believe that her brother Laertes is part of the fourth stage at the beginning of the novel but this gradually begins to change as the play progresses. He is slowly making his way to the fifth stage but throughout the play ends up moving down to the first stage like his sister. He lost his family as well as his security of family, his respect from others, his friendship and his morality. This bumping him down into the first stage, until he dies (which is shortly after he reaches this stage).
Secondly, Claudius being quite a bit older than Hamlet is further up in the Hierarchy because he has had more time to complete each stage. Claudius is probably on the fourth level, because he has good self-esteem, a high level of self confidence and he not only has the respect of the people but he also demonstrates some respect in return. Claudius will not make it to the top of the hierarchy because he killed his brother, this demonstrating flaws in his morality, therefore he cannot be considered anywhere above stage four. I believe that Hamlet’s mother Gertrude can also be considered to be on stage four of the hierarchy for the same reasons as Claudius. It can be assumed that Gertrude had something to do with Old Hamlet’s death, therefore causing moral issues (her believing that taking a person’s life is right).
Thirdly, I believe Polonius can be considered to be one of the only characters who is on stage five of the hierarchy. I say this because he definitely demonstrates the requirements of all of the first four stages of the hierarchy. He also demonstrates that he has good morals as he gives a speech to his son Laertes before his departure to France:Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion’d thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice:
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy:
For the apparel oft proclaims the man;
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be:
For loan oft loses both itself and friend;
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all,—to thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. (Act I, scene iii (59–80) In this speech, Polonius gives useful advice to Laertes, among his advice the most important points being: keep your thoughts to yourself and do not act recklessly, hold on to old friends and be don’t be quick to trust new ones, avoid fighting but if it is unavoidable be brave, be a good listener, learn to accept criticism but do not be too judgmental, preserve an appropriate appearance, do not borrow or lend money and most importantly; be true to yourself. This speech reveals a lot about Polonius and what his stance on a lot of morals is. In this case, it is a positive outlook of what Polonius believes in, hence him being on the fifth level of the hierarchy.
Ophelia starts off being on the same stage as Hamlet (fourth level) but she is quick to drop to the first stage as her mental health spirals down into the ground. At the end of the novel she is on the first stage as she only has simple necessities and not all of them at that (sex), and then she dies. I believe that her brother Laertes is part of the fourth stage at the beginning of the novel but this gradually begins to change as the play progresses. He is slowly making his way to the fifth stage but throughout the play ends up moving down to the first stage like his sister. He lost his family as well as his security of family, his respect from others, his friendship and his morality. This bumping him down into the first stage, until he dies (which is shortly after he reaches this stage).
Activity 1.5
Thesis: Would Ophelia have gone mad, even if her father had not died? No Ophelia would not have gone mad. (it is impossible to find examples from the text for this thesis, it is simply a prediction therefore only explanations are given).
Reason #1: If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future.
Explanation: Ophelia had gone mad from the result of both her father dying and her losing the love of her life: Hamlet. If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future. If you go back to the scene were Hamlet was having a heated conversation with Gertrude, while Polonius stood hidden behind a curtain, since Polonius didn’t die (change in past) than this would mean that there would have been drastic changes in the future, ie: Hamlet not becoming a murderer.
Reason #2: Since Polonius did not die; Hamlet did not kill Polonius this meaning he would not have been shipped out to England. This in turn meaning that Ophelia would not have lost her lover, this being the only other factor that could have influenced her mental instability. Explanation: Since Polonius was not killed by Hamlet, Hamlet would not have to be shipped out to England. This meaning that Ophelia would not have lost the love of her life. This resulting in no changes in her life meaning that she would not have gone crazy.
Reason #3: Ophelia has not lost her father nor the love of her life, therefore she has no reason to become mentally ill simply out of the blue.
Explanation: Before losing her father and Hamlet, Ophelia was a very mentally stable person. Throughout the play there were no other factors that could have impacted Ophelia’s mental stability besides her losing her father and Hamlet. Since her father didn’t die and she didn’t lose Hamlet, she would have no reason to go crazy.Conclusion: If Polonius hadn’t died than Ophelia would have no reason to go crazy. Polonius not dying means that Hamlet would not become a murderer and get shipped out to England therefore Ophelia would not be losing her love and her life would simply go on. There are no other factors in Ophelia’s life that could have influenced her mental stability.
Reasons for believing otherwise: Hamlet would have still killed Claudius even though he didn’t kill Polonius and this might have affected Ophelia’s mental stability slightly. She may have simply looked at Hamlet in a different perspective, she would not completely go full blown crazy.
Reason #1: If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future.
Explanation: Ophelia had gone mad from the result of both her father dying and her losing the love of her life: Hamlet. If changes are made in the past, this will drastically alter the future. If you go back to the scene were Hamlet was having a heated conversation with Gertrude, while Polonius stood hidden behind a curtain, since Polonius didn’t die (change in past) than this would mean that there would have been drastic changes in the future, ie: Hamlet not becoming a murderer.
Reason #2: Since Polonius did not die; Hamlet did not kill Polonius this meaning he would not have been shipped out to England. This in turn meaning that Ophelia would not have lost her lover, this being the only other factor that could have influenced her mental instability. Explanation: Since Polonius was not killed by Hamlet, Hamlet would not have to be shipped out to England. This meaning that Ophelia would not have lost the love of her life. This resulting in no changes in her life meaning that she would not have gone crazy.
Reason #3: Ophelia has not lost her father nor the love of her life, therefore she has no reason to become mentally ill simply out of the blue.
Explanation: Before losing her father and Hamlet, Ophelia was a very mentally stable person. Throughout the play there were no other factors that could have impacted Ophelia’s mental stability besides her losing her father and Hamlet. Since her father didn’t die and she didn’t lose Hamlet, she would have no reason to go crazy.Conclusion: If Polonius hadn’t died than Ophelia would have no reason to go crazy. Polonius not dying means that Hamlet would not become a murderer and get shipped out to England therefore Ophelia would not be losing her love and her life would simply go on. There are no other factors in Ophelia’s life that could have influenced her mental stability.
Reasons for believing otherwise: Hamlet would have still killed Claudius even though he didn’t kill Polonius and this might have affected Ophelia’s mental stability slightly. She may have simply looked at Hamlet in a different perspective, she would not completely go full blown crazy.
Activity 1.3
Each character in every novel or play has his or her own constructed reality. In Hamlet, everybody views themselves as more or less, a good person because not everyone is aware of everything that goes on. Gertrude has a constructed reality that least resembles actuality. She does not know that Claudius killed her husband. She has no idea about Hamlet seeking revenge upon Claudius. She simply believes that King Hamlet died of some natural or unknown cause and to keep her position as queen she must marry Claudius. She also believes that Hamlet has gone mad, although Hamlet is just putting on a show for everyone. In the end she dies because Claudius was trying to kill Hamlet using poison and she ended up drinking the poison.
Hamlets constructed reality is completely different. Hamlet sees Claudius as the enemy and would love nothing more than for him to be out of the picture. He knows that his mother is a good person and does not understand why she loves Claudius so much. In Hamlets eyes, no one is to be trusted. He acts insane so that he can get away with more, and this was not seen by the others. In the end Hamlet is killed.
Claudius believes that Hamlet is crazy. He thinks that it should be pretty easy to kill Hamlet, because he is crazy. Claudius knows that he had done a terrible thing by killing his brother, but he thinks that it was for the right reasons, and he is also unaware that Hamlet knows the truth about the whole ordeal.. He believes that he is a good person. In his reality Hamlet is mad, and Gertrude loves him. The actuality of it is that Hamlet is not insane, although Gertrude does seem to love him. In the end Claudius is killed.
Now, after seeing the constructed realities of some of the different characters in the play, it is easy to see how important the family unit is not only to the members of the family but also in society. Firstly, the family unit is very important to the members of the family because it is a sort of reflection on how well each member interacts with each other. If the overall outlook of the family is one that is optimistic than this means that there is a healthy relationship between its members. Conversely, if the family seems to be dysfunctional than this means that the relationship between members is either lacking or just not solid. Hamlets family is one that is dysfunctional because there is not a solid relationship between its members. Each family member has a different constructed reality therefore no one is really on the same page. If Hamlets family would have all shared a common reality than maybe their relationship would have been better.
The family unit may be one of the smallest units of society, but it is without a doubt, one of the most important. The family unit is very important to society because it ensures a standard welfare and care amongst its members. The family unit that a child is born into offers the child safety and stability and later on nurturing and advice. Further on down the road, a family offers a kind of intermediate step between the safety of the family home and the harsh real world. If a child is brought up in a world without a family unit than this child will have serious difficulties growing up. There is no one really there to offer them care and nurturing so the child will most likely have a rough childhood. This child may go on to do bad things, such as commit crimes, but can you really blame the person in this case? They never really experienced being in a family, therefore they were never really properly cared for. The family unit is important to society because it (generally) prevents children from growing up into bad people by offering them nurturing and care at a young age. Hamlet seemed to have experienced a good childhood but the same cannot be said about his later years. He grew up in a healthy family, and this stayed the same until the death of his father. After his father’s death, one could argue that Hamlet took a turn for the crazy (the reason for this being his fathers death) and this ended up costing him his life.
The family unit is very important, although it is often taken for granted by people these days. If ever you have a problem, the family unit is always there for you. If ever you just need someone to talk to, the family unit is always there for you. People do not generally take the time to think about how much family actually means to them. This reflection actually made me appreciate my family and how much they mean to me. I don’t know what I would do without my family, and I think the same can be (hopefully) said for everyone.
Hamlets constructed reality is completely different. Hamlet sees Claudius as the enemy and would love nothing more than for him to be out of the picture. He knows that his mother is a good person and does not understand why she loves Claudius so much. In Hamlets eyes, no one is to be trusted. He acts insane so that he can get away with more, and this was not seen by the others. In the end Hamlet is killed.
Claudius believes that Hamlet is crazy. He thinks that it should be pretty easy to kill Hamlet, because he is crazy. Claudius knows that he had done a terrible thing by killing his brother, but he thinks that it was for the right reasons, and he is also unaware that Hamlet knows the truth about the whole ordeal.. He believes that he is a good person. In his reality Hamlet is mad, and Gertrude loves him. The actuality of it is that Hamlet is not insane, although Gertrude does seem to love him. In the end Claudius is killed.
Now, after seeing the constructed realities of some of the different characters in the play, it is easy to see how important the family unit is not only to the members of the family but also in society. Firstly, the family unit is very important to the members of the family because it is a sort of reflection on how well each member interacts with each other. If the overall outlook of the family is one that is optimistic than this means that there is a healthy relationship between its members. Conversely, if the family seems to be dysfunctional than this means that the relationship between members is either lacking or just not solid. Hamlets family is one that is dysfunctional because there is not a solid relationship between its members. Each family member has a different constructed reality therefore no one is really on the same page. If Hamlets family would have all shared a common reality than maybe their relationship would have been better.
The family unit may be one of the smallest units of society, but it is without a doubt, one of the most important. The family unit is very important to society because it ensures a standard welfare and care amongst its members. The family unit that a child is born into offers the child safety and stability and later on nurturing and advice. Further on down the road, a family offers a kind of intermediate step between the safety of the family home and the harsh real world. If a child is brought up in a world without a family unit than this child will have serious difficulties growing up. There is no one really there to offer them care and nurturing so the child will most likely have a rough childhood. This child may go on to do bad things, such as commit crimes, but can you really blame the person in this case? They never really experienced being in a family, therefore they were never really properly cared for. The family unit is important to society because it (generally) prevents children from growing up into bad people by offering them nurturing and care at a young age. Hamlet seemed to have experienced a good childhood but the same cannot be said about his later years. He grew up in a healthy family, and this stayed the same until the death of his father. After his father’s death, one could argue that Hamlet took a turn for the crazy (the reason for this being his fathers death) and this ended up costing him his life.
The family unit is very important, although it is often taken for granted by people these days. If ever you have a problem, the family unit is always there for you. If ever you just need someone to talk to, the family unit is always there for you. People do not generally take the time to think about how much family actually means to them. This reflection actually made me appreciate my family and how much they mean to me. I don’t know what I would do without my family, and I think the same can be (hopefully) said for everyone.
Activity 1.2
Hamlet’s family tree
Gertrude- - - - - Late King Hamlet------ Claudius
Prince Hamlet
Hamlet’s family is one that seems to be very dysfunctional, this causing many problems among his family. Hamlet has suspicions that Claudius killed his own brother in order to take the throne and his wife. Hamlet thinks this because a ghost, who turns out to be his father’s spirit, approaches him and tells him that Claudius did in fact kill him. Claudius takes the throne and marries his brother’s wife Gertrude. Hamlet is very angry with his uncle and plans to kill him. He attempts to, but only ends up killing Polonius, who is the father of Prince Hamlet’s lover. In the end Claudius attempts to poison Hamlet, but ends up poisoning his wife as well. Gertrude dies, then Hamlet kills Claudius, then Hamlet dies while reciting a very moving speech. The family does not cope with their problems very well, because their only solution seems to be death and in the end everyone dies. This is appropriate though as it is a Shakespearean tragedy. The family that the reader is seeing is not a typical nuclear family because Hamlets father is not his real father. If Hamlet’s father would have still been alive then they would be categorized as a nuclear family, but since he is not, they’re not. However, even with Claudius not being Hamlets real father, all the roles are filled in the nuclear family, so it does somewhat resemble one. Polonius’ family tree
Polonius
Ophelia---------------------Laertes
The problems that this family faces are not really within the family itself. Each of the family members has their own problems, but they do look out for one another. For example, at the beginning of the play when you first find out that Ophelia and Hamlet are in love, Laertes is quick to warn his sister not to mess around or something bad will happen. When Palonius is killed by Hamlet, his children have very mixed emotions. Ophelia starts off being ridiculously sad and then later on goes insane. Once Laertes finds out that Hamlet is responsible for killing his father, he decides that the right thing to would be to kill Hamlet. In trying to kill Hamlet, Laertes ends up dying himself. Ophelia ends up drowning after going for a stroll one day(although this did not make much sense in the movie considering the movie was cast in the middle of winter). Again, the only outcome to all of their problems was death. They could have definitely coped with their problems better, by maybe taking less action and thinking things through. Considering it is a Shakespearean tragedy though, the outcome is appropriate. People went to go see Shakespeare’s plays to be entertained. If Ophelia and Laertes would of simply thought their problems through then Shakespeare would have been hearing crickets in the audience. If Ophelia and Leartes coped with their problems better, than maybe they wouldn’t have died. This family does not resemble a nuclear family because there is no mother in the family. There is simply Polonius and his two kids. There is never any mention of their mother throughout the whole play.
Gertrude- - - - - Late King Hamlet------ Claudius
Prince Hamlet
Hamlet’s family is one that seems to be very dysfunctional, this causing many problems among his family. Hamlet has suspicions that Claudius killed his own brother in order to take the throne and his wife. Hamlet thinks this because a ghost, who turns out to be his father’s spirit, approaches him and tells him that Claudius did in fact kill him. Claudius takes the throne and marries his brother’s wife Gertrude. Hamlet is very angry with his uncle and plans to kill him. He attempts to, but only ends up killing Polonius, who is the father of Prince Hamlet’s lover. In the end Claudius attempts to poison Hamlet, but ends up poisoning his wife as well. Gertrude dies, then Hamlet kills Claudius, then Hamlet dies while reciting a very moving speech. The family does not cope with their problems very well, because their only solution seems to be death and in the end everyone dies. This is appropriate though as it is a Shakespearean tragedy. The family that the reader is seeing is not a typical nuclear family because Hamlets father is not his real father. If Hamlet’s father would have still been alive then they would be categorized as a nuclear family, but since he is not, they’re not. However, even with Claudius not being Hamlets real father, all the roles are filled in the nuclear family, so it does somewhat resemble one. Polonius’ family tree
Polonius
Ophelia---------------------Laertes
The problems that this family faces are not really within the family itself. Each of the family members has their own problems, but they do look out for one another. For example, at the beginning of the play when you first find out that Ophelia and Hamlet are in love, Laertes is quick to warn his sister not to mess around or something bad will happen. When Palonius is killed by Hamlet, his children have very mixed emotions. Ophelia starts off being ridiculously sad and then later on goes insane. Once Laertes finds out that Hamlet is responsible for killing his father, he decides that the right thing to would be to kill Hamlet. In trying to kill Hamlet, Laertes ends up dying himself. Ophelia ends up drowning after going for a stroll one day(although this did not make much sense in the movie considering the movie was cast in the middle of winter). Again, the only outcome to all of their problems was death. They could have definitely coped with their problems better, by maybe taking less action and thinking things through. Considering it is a Shakespearean tragedy though, the outcome is appropriate. People went to go see Shakespeare’s plays to be entertained. If Ophelia and Laertes would of simply thought their problems through then Shakespeare would have been hearing crickets in the audience. If Ophelia and Leartes coped with their problems better, than maybe they wouldn’t have died. This family does not resemble a nuclear family because there is no mother in the family. There is simply Polonius and his two kids. There is never any mention of their mother throughout the whole play.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The big ISU.
Well I was going to hand it in on paper, but since it is a snow day today I figured I might as well post it on my blog.
The Darkness! The Darkness!
Heart Of Darkness (1902) is a novella written by Polish born writer Joseph Conrad. The highly symbolic tale is one that is metatextual. It follows the story of Marlow, as he recounts his journey into the heart of Africa- the Congo to be more precise. Marlow enlists as a ferry-boat captain, in which his task is to transport ivory; however, a more pressing task arises, that of retrieving a man named Kurtz. Throughout the novella, various aspects of darkness as well as racism are explored by Conrad. Searching for continuity, for the meaning of darkness in the novella seems to be a task that is close to impossible. Various aspects of darkness are presented, all open to various interpretation. When skimming the surface of the novella, darkness takes more of a physical form. The darkness represents the people residing in Africa as well as their societal customs; that of savagery. Furthermore, darkness can also be a metaphor for the unknown. Man has come to fear the unknown, therefore in a sense darkness is to be feared by man. Moreover, Marlow encounters various feats that embody dark themes on his journey to the heart of the Congo, this being the river that is used as a means of transportation. Secondly, at the center of every human being lies a heart of darkness (some more prominent than others) and this is the driving force behind the evil found in mankind. In the novella the white men-having been exposed to more developed societies, prove to be nothing but greedy, selfish people who are looking for nothing but self gain. They do so by taking advantage of the less experienced and civilized black people of the Congo. These types of men can be termed “hollow men” as their degree of human decency is lacking. The darkness in this sense is that found within mankind. Finally, on top of the various aspects of darkness seen in the novella, there are also numerous accounts of racism. Conrad portrays the black people of the Congo as being inferior beings to white men by contrasting the two. White men, as well as things associated with white men taking the position of “good” and the natives taking the position of “bad” respectively. Right until the end of the novella, numerous aspects of darkness and racism are seen.
As previously mentioned, the first form of darkness the reader is introduced to is that of physical darkness. What is meant by this, is that darkness represents the people(their skin color) residing in the Congo, as well as their customs. Upon first arriving to the Congo, Marlow’s first impression of darkness is seen by a group of young black men:
You could see from afar the white of their eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks-these chaps; but they had bone, muscle, a wild vitality, an intense energy of movement, that was as natural and true as the surf along their coast (Conrad,16).
This gave the reader a fairly positive outlook on how darkness could be perceived in the physical form, until Marlow actually reached his desired destination. Once arrived at the outer station, Marlow (as well as the reader) begins to see how black people are being treated:
Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind wagged to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking (Conrad, 18).
As it stands, the white men are taking advantage of the black people. The black people of the Congo are only used to savagery, it is their societal custom. The white men, who come from a more modern civilized society are taking advantage of the black people. Darkness now represents not only the black people of the Congo, but it also represents how they are being treaded, that is, unjustly, which is a bit of an understatement in itself. Throughout the novel, Conrad gives numerous vivid descriptions of the black people of the Congo: “They were dying slowly-it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now-nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom[…]”(Conrad,20). The reader comes to develop a certain degree of pity for the black people in the novella. Eventually, the black people begin to be associated with evil, more precisely evil acts, therefore darkness now taking the form of evil. For example, one day a fire breaks out. Since no one knows who, let alone what is responsible for the fire, the white men are quick to blame a black man:
A nigger was being beaten near by, they said he had caused the fire in some way; be that as it may, he was screeching most horribly. I saw him, later on, for several days, sitting in a bit of shade looking very sick and trying to recover himself: afterwards he arose and went out-and the wilderness without a sound took him into its bosom again (Condrad,28).
This without a doubt being a form of racism against black people, which will further be discussed later on in this essay. Altogether, darkness as a physical form is used by Conrad to represent the black people of the Congo, their savagery and the way they are treated.
Furthermore, Conrad also uses darkness as a means of representing the unknown. One could conceivably argue that the “heart of darkness” in the novella is in fact the Congo, which is greatly unexplored, therefore making it the unknown to the white men. As Marlow states: “We penetrated deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness[…]We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet”(Conrad,43). Marlow’s use of the “heart of darkness” here is used to represent the unknown and he describes it as being something “prehistoric” like something humans have never encountered before. Throughout history- and literature, the concept of humans fearing the unknown has greatly been explored, for example; the lord of the flies greatly investigates this phenomenon. Since darkness is used to represent the unknown than wouldn’t it be logical to assume that man should fear darkness? If so then why would one want to explore the unknown? At the beginning of the novel a very revealing piece of evidence is given about Marlow, that is: “Marlow was not typical (if his propensity to spin yarns be expected)[…](Conrad,6). Marlow not being typical would therefore allude to the fact that he was not accustom to things a typical man would be to. This would hence him not necessarily fearing the unknown and this is why he took up the position as a ferry-boat captain and plunged into the immense darkness of the Congo. As the story progresses, the unknown now becomes explored and recognized by Marlow and his crew, as well as the reader. The result being that the unknown is seemingly now less feared by man. Further evidence supporting the claim that darkness is used to represent the unknown is seen in the last sentence of the novella. Marlow is recounting his journey to the Congo while sailing to a location that is unknown to the reader. Once again, Marlow uses the heart of darkness as a metaphor for the unknown: “The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed somber under an overcast sky-seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness”(Conrad,96). Since the reader is not informed of where Marlow’s journey is taking him, it is fair to assume that this location is unknown, hence him heading into the heart of an immense darkness.
On his journey through the Congo, Marlow also encounters many endeavors that embody dark themes, here darkness taking more of mystical, supernatural form. At the beginning of the novella when Marlow is looking at a map of the highly undeveloped continent of Africa, he peered upon the Congo and the river he was going to use to venture to and from his desired destination. Upon viewing the map, Marlow states: “However, I wasn’t going into any of these. I was going into the yellow. Dead in the centre. And the river was there-fascinating-deadly-like a snake”(Conrad,11). All this to say that the river resembled a snake. Snakes in Greek mythology were used to represent the guardians, or messengers of the underworld, this making the river seem very dark and ominous as it does in fact resemble a snake. This gives the reader the impression that Marlow is heading to a primordial, dark, ominous, evil place. Later on in the novella, Marlow states that: “The river resembled an immense snake uncoiled and it fascinated me as a snake would a bird"(Condrad,43). Therefore, Marlow has made the transition from the above world, which can be viewed as being Europe, to the underworld, or in other words the Congo. This resulting in the novella seemingly becoming more and more dark and ominous as well as it demonstrating elements of the supernatural. Also, while on their journey through the vast Congo, Marlow and his crew encounter a strange and mysterious fog. This fog adds to the whole darkness of their journey because it causes fear to arise:
When the sun rose there was a white fog, very warm and clammy, and more blinding than the night. It did not shift or drive; it was just there, standing all round you like something solid[…]Before it stopped running with a muffled rattle, a cry, a very loud cry, as of infinite desolation, soared slowly in the opaque air[…]The faces twitched with the strain, the hands trembled slightly, the eyes forgot to wink(Conrad,48-49).
What the people are fearing in this passage is the unknown, or darkness as previously mentioned. They do not know what is going to happen to them, if someone is going to attack them, if there is a strange beast lurking around, they are fearing for their lives. This fear that is caused by the fog reveals a lot about man. It shows that man does in fact fear the unknown, and in this case the darkness that is associated with all of these endeavors that embody dark themes.
Secondly, Conrad’s use of darkness, or “heart of darkness” in this case is used to represent the evil that lies within mankind. All throughout his journey Marlow encounters numerous men who possess a “heart of darkness”. What is meant by this is that they are not only committing dark, or evil acts, but it is what they aren’t doing that is really causing them to be classified as having a heart of darkness. They saw the Congo as being an opportunity to prosper economically as there is a lot of money to be made in the ivory business. To make money, these men were not actually willing to do much work. They simply used their experience of coming from a more evolved and civilized society as their advantage over the people of the Congo who are use to nothing but savagery. They took the people of the Congo as slaves who would be used to retrieve ivory which would in turn get them rich. Now, about the men having a “heart of darkness” because of what they didn’t do has to do with slavery itself. Instead of someone waking up one day and realizing that slavery is wrong, and that these people are humans too, they simply just figured, “hey, we are making money, I can sleep well at night”. No one stood up for what was right and this is because of the darkness that lies within mankind itself. People were blinded by greed, by the lust for self gain, by profits themselves and they weren’t going to suddenly have an epiphany and see the light. One day, Marlow even questions a man on his reasons for being in the Congo: “I couldn’t help asking him once what he meant by coming there (Congo) at all. “To make money, of course. What do you think? He said, scornfully”(Conrad,24). This man was in the Congo for nothing but profits. He couldn’t care less if black people were dying around him each day, he didn’t care for anything else in the world but himself. Even though these men may have a “heart of darkness”, they can be termed “hollow men” as their degree of human decency is lacking. What is meant by this is that these men do not do anything to benefit mankind, if anything they are setting mankind back in time. They do nothing but think for themselves and they will never amount to anything good. Marlow even notices this phenomenon one day as he is talking to someone: “[…]and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe”(Conrad,31). It is simply sad if one is termed a “hollow man” as you are being compared to dirt. Dirt is nothing! These “hollow men” are nothing! The famous poet T.S. Elliot wrote a poem in 1925 on the phenomenon of “hollow men” and it had an epigraph relating to a line from Heart Of Darkness, that is “Mista Kurtz- he dead”(Conrad,87). The poem was indeed titled The Hollow Men and the first couple of lines are as follows:
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
This directly relating to the “hollow men” of Heart Of Darkness for many reasons. First of all, it talks about hollow men being nothing but men stuffed with straw as straw is not living, alluding to the fact that these men cannot think for themselves. Furthermore, “Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless” literally means that their words are worthless. They are not trust worthy, they are not worthy of anything. Whatever they say really does not mean anything as they cannot think for themselves. Whatever they will do will simply be for themselves. These “hollow men” lack a true heart, they cannot do anything good for the sake of mankind, which is why Conrad uses darkness to represent the darkness hidden within mankind.
Furthermore, the last lines of a very important character from the novella also reveal a lot about himself and mankind. Kurtz’s last words before dying are: “The horror! The horror!”(Conrad,86), and this can be interpreted in many different ways. First of all, it can be viewed as a reflection on his own life. Kurtz, although praised as a man being worthy of a saint, turns out to be nothing but a “hollow man” himself. “The horror! The horror!” can be viewed as a reflection of his life. Throughout his career, Kurtz took advantage of many people in order for him to gain success and all of this ended up taking its toll on Kurtz. “The horror! The horror!”, in a way being a confession of a “hollow man”. “The horror! The horror!” can also be looked at as a reflection of the horror found within man. Kurtz had many acquaintances throughout his life and he was exposed (and part of ) to many horrible things the men had done in the Congo. He has seen what horror man is capable of committing and this is his indirect way of admitting that man is accursed from day one. “The horror! The horror!” could also represent the horror of the whole project that went on in the Congo. The fact that men were sent there because of imperialism, which in turn is a reflection on man always wanting more, caused nothing but horror. All in all, Conrad uses darkness to represent not only the darkness and evil found within mankind, but it also represents what mankind is capable of doing, that is evil and terrible things.
Finally, as numerous accounts of darkness surface in the novel, the novel also possesses a great amount of racism. Before discussing racism, it is first necessary to get a solid understanding of what racism is and the outlook on racism at the time. Firstly, racism can simply be described as being: the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Racism is greatly portrayed in Heart Of Darkness, but one cannot fully blame Conrad for this. When the book was written in the eighteen hundreds, people conformed to racism. Conrad would not have considered a racist at the time, compared to today’s standards. It is possible for Conrad to be racist in Heart Of Darkness as Conrad is able to be racist in the story as he uses Marlow as a narrator so he himself can enter the story and say things how he would like to say them.
Heart Of Darkness casts Africa, or the Congo as being the complete and udder antithesis of Europe itself. The novella starts off with Marlow sailing on the Thames river, the sky being perfectly blue, the water tranquil, but the actual story itself will be set in the Congo. What the reader is told about the Congo is that “going up that river was like travelling back to the earliest beginning of the world”(Conrad,42). Conrad seems to be saying that one river is “better” than the other, one being good and the other being bad. The impression of the Congo river does not give the reader a very positive outlook on the continent of Africa itself, making it look bad compared to the Thames river. This alluding to discrimination towards the country itself, the majority of the racism lying in the descriptions of the people of the Congo.
We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet. We could fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance, to be subdued at the cost of profound anguish and of excessive toil. But suddenly, as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage. The steamer toiled along slowly on the edge of a black and incomprehensible frenzy. The prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us-who could tell?[…] The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there-there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were-No, they were not inhuman. Well, you known, that was the worst of it[…](Conrad,43-44).
This excerpt is one that reveals a lot about Conrad himself and the racism found within Heart Of Darkness. Conrad starts off by saying that “We could fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance…” this basically saying that it didn’t matter who had discovered the land first, as long as the white men have arrived, they can now claim it as their own. This in turn degrading the black people of the Congo because it essentially shows that they are worthless compared to the white man. This is further demonstrated by the very vivid picture Conrad paints of them by saying “as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage”. Conrad casts the black people of the Congo as basically being comparable to an animal; savage, untamed, as if it being some sort of national geographic program. The black people are probably thinking the same thing of the white men, yet nothing is ever mentioned of this throughout the novella. Conrad gives the impression that the black people are “bad” people for living the way they do, compared to the “good” white people. Conrad goes on to say “It was unearthly, and the men were-No, they were not inhuman. Well, you known, that was the worst of it”, as if it’s a shame that these men are actually considered human because of the lifestyle they inhabit. Conrad is being completely racist here, a human is a human, no matter what color their skin is or where they live.
Throughout Heart Of Darkness, Conrad constantly referred to the natives of the Congo, by using the most derogatory terms such as : black savages, niggers and brutes. This displaying ignorance toward the African history and racism towards the African people. Conrad also wrote that , Black figures strolled out listlessly[…] the beaten nigger groaned somewhere (Conrad, 28). They passed me with six inches, without a glance, with the complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages (Conrad, 19). It is easy to tell that Conrad, or Marlow in this case had a problem with black people.
All throughout the novella, Conrad constantly contrasts black and white. Whenever there is a white man in the scene, he makes the darker look even darker, or in other words, the bad look worse. The most famous account of this is when Marlow finally meets Kurtz face to face for the first time:
The glamour of youth enveloped his(Kurtz) particoloured rags, his destitution, his loneliness, the essential desolation of his futile wanderings. For months-for years-his life hadn’t been worth a day’s purchase; and there he was gallantly, thoughtlessly alive, to all appearance indestructible solely by the virtue of his few years and of his unreflecting audacity. I was seduced into something like admiration-like envy. Glamour urged him on, glamour kept him unscathed[…]I(Marlow) looked around, and I don’t know why, but I assure you that never, never before, did this land, this river, this jungle, the very arch of this blazing sky, appear to me so hopeless and so dark, so impenetrable to human thought, so pitiless to human weakness (Conrad,68-69).
It is easy to see the contrast being identified here. Marlow is praising Kurtz and in doing so realizes how dark and hopeless his surroundings are, this a direct contrast between white and black. White in this case obviously being Kurtz and black being the Congo.
The analysis of darkness and racism in Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness results in their being various aspects of each that surface. Searching for continuity for the meaning of darkness in the novella is a task that is harder than it seems. Conrad uses the natives of the Congo and their societal customs to represent darkness as a physical form. Furthermore, Conrad also uses darkness as a means of representing the unknown, which is generally feared by man, therefore man in turn fearing darkness. Moreover, Marlow encounters various endeavors on his journey to the heart of the Congo, all which embody dark themes, in which darkness takes the form of the supernatural or mystical. In addition. darkness is also used by Conrad to represent the darkness that lurks within mankind as well as the evil man is capable of doing. Throughout the novella, various elements of racism surface, with white people being associated with good and black people with bad. Conrad is able to explore elements of racism by using Marlow to represent what he really believes. Various contrasts are also made between white and black, resulting in the dark becoming even darker, or bad becoming worse. If there is a lesson to be learned from Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness is that there is a heart of darkness in all of us, but it is up to the individual to determine if it will consume them or not.
The Darkness! The Darkness!
Heart Of Darkness (1902) is a novella written by Polish born writer Joseph Conrad. The highly symbolic tale is one that is metatextual. It follows the story of Marlow, as he recounts his journey into the heart of Africa- the Congo to be more precise. Marlow enlists as a ferry-boat captain, in which his task is to transport ivory; however, a more pressing task arises, that of retrieving a man named Kurtz. Throughout the novella, various aspects of darkness as well as racism are explored by Conrad. Searching for continuity, for the meaning of darkness in the novella seems to be a task that is close to impossible. Various aspects of darkness are presented, all open to various interpretation. When skimming the surface of the novella, darkness takes more of a physical form. The darkness represents the people residing in Africa as well as their societal customs; that of savagery. Furthermore, darkness can also be a metaphor for the unknown. Man has come to fear the unknown, therefore in a sense darkness is to be feared by man. Moreover, Marlow encounters various feats that embody dark themes on his journey to the heart of the Congo, this being the river that is used as a means of transportation. Secondly, at the center of every human being lies a heart of darkness (some more prominent than others) and this is the driving force behind the evil found in mankind. In the novella the white men-having been exposed to more developed societies, prove to be nothing but greedy, selfish people who are looking for nothing but self gain. They do so by taking advantage of the less experienced and civilized black people of the Congo. These types of men can be termed “hollow men” as their degree of human decency is lacking. The darkness in this sense is that found within mankind. Finally, on top of the various aspects of darkness seen in the novella, there are also numerous accounts of racism. Conrad portrays the black people of the Congo as being inferior beings to white men by contrasting the two. White men, as well as things associated with white men taking the position of “good” and the natives taking the position of “bad” respectively. Right until the end of the novella, numerous aspects of darkness and racism are seen.
As previously mentioned, the first form of darkness the reader is introduced to is that of physical darkness. What is meant by this, is that darkness represents the people(their skin color) residing in the Congo, as well as their customs. Upon first arriving to the Congo, Marlow’s first impression of darkness is seen by a group of young black men:
You could see from afar the white of their eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks-these chaps; but they had bone, muscle, a wild vitality, an intense energy of movement, that was as natural and true as the surf along their coast (Conrad,16).
This gave the reader a fairly positive outlook on how darkness could be perceived in the physical form, until Marlow actually reached his desired destination. Once arrived at the outer station, Marlow (as well as the reader) begins to see how black people are being treated:
Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind wagged to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking (Conrad, 18).
As it stands, the white men are taking advantage of the black people. The black people of the Congo are only used to savagery, it is their societal custom. The white men, who come from a more modern civilized society are taking advantage of the black people. Darkness now represents not only the black people of the Congo, but it also represents how they are being treaded, that is, unjustly, which is a bit of an understatement in itself. Throughout the novel, Conrad gives numerous vivid descriptions of the black people of the Congo: “They were dying slowly-it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now-nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom[…]”(Conrad,20). The reader comes to develop a certain degree of pity for the black people in the novella. Eventually, the black people begin to be associated with evil, more precisely evil acts, therefore darkness now taking the form of evil. For example, one day a fire breaks out. Since no one knows who, let alone what is responsible for the fire, the white men are quick to blame a black man:
A nigger was being beaten near by, they said he had caused the fire in some way; be that as it may, he was screeching most horribly. I saw him, later on, for several days, sitting in a bit of shade looking very sick and trying to recover himself: afterwards he arose and went out-and the wilderness without a sound took him into its bosom again (Condrad,28).
This without a doubt being a form of racism against black people, which will further be discussed later on in this essay. Altogether, darkness as a physical form is used by Conrad to represent the black people of the Congo, their savagery and the way they are treated.
Furthermore, Conrad also uses darkness as a means of representing the unknown. One could conceivably argue that the “heart of darkness” in the novella is in fact the Congo, which is greatly unexplored, therefore making it the unknown to the white men. As Marlow states: “We penetrated deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness[…]We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet”(Conrad,43). Marlow’s use of the “heart of darkness” here is used to represent the unknown and he describes it as being something “prehistoric” like something humans have never encountered before. Throughout history- and literature, the concept of humans fearing the unknown has greatly been explored, for example; the lord of the flies greatly investigates this phenomenon. Since darkness is used to represent the unknown than wouldn’t it be logical to assume that man should fear darkness? If so then why would one want to explore the unknown? At the beginning of the novel a very revealing piece of evidence is given about Marlow, that is: “Marlow was not typical (if his propensity to spin yarns be expected)[…](Conrad,6). Marlow not being typical would therefore allude to the fact that he was not accustom to things a typical man would be to. This would hence him not necessarily fearing the unknown and this is why he took up the position as a ferry-boat captain and plunged into the immense darkness of the Congo. As the story progresses, the unknown now becomes explored and recognized by Marlow and his crew, as well as the reader. The result being that the unknown is seemingly now less feared by man. Further evidence supporting the claim that darkness is used to represent the unknown is seen in the last sentence of the novella. Marlow is recounting his journey to the Congo while sailing to a location that is unknown to the reader. Once again, Marlow uses the heart of darkness as a metaphor for the unknown: “The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed somber under an overcast sky-seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness”(Conrad,96). Since the reader is not informed of where Marlow’s journey is taking him, it is fair to assume that this location is unknown, hence him heading into the heart of an immense darkness.
On his journey through the Congo, Marlow also encounters many endeavors that embody dark themes, here darkness taking more of mystical, supernatural form. At the beginning of the novella when Marlow is looking at a map of the highly undeveloped continent of Africa, he peered upon the Congo and the river he was going to use to venture to and from his desired destination. Upon viewing the map, Marlow states: “However, I wasn’t going into any of these. I was going into the yellow. Dead in the centre. And the river was there-fascinating-deadly-like a snake”(Conrad,11). All this to say that the river resembled a snake. Snakes in Greek mythology were used to represent the guardians, or messengers of the underworld, this making the river seem very dark and ominous as it does in fact resemble a snake. This gives the reader the impression that Marlow is heading to a primordial, dark, ominous, evil place. Later on in the novella, Marlow states that: “The river resembled an immense snake uncoiled and it fascinated me as a snake would a bird"(Condrad,43). Therefore, Marlow has made the transition from the above world, which can be viewed as being Europe, to the underworld, or in other words the Congo. This resulting in the novella seemingly becoming more and more dark and ominous as well as it demonstrating elements of the supernatural. Also, while on their journey through the vast Congo, Marlow and his crew encounter a strange and mysterious fog. This fog adds to the whole darkness of their journey because it causes fear to arise:
When the sun rose there was a white fog, very warm and clammy, and more blinding than the night. It did not shift or drive; it was just there, standing all round you like something solid[…]Before it stopped running with a muffled rattle, a cry, a very loud cry, as of infinite desolation, soared slowly in the opaque air[…]The faces twitched with the strain, the hands trembled slightly, the eyes forgot to wink(Conrad,48-49).
What the people are fearing in this passage is the unknown, or darkness as previously mentioned. They do not know what is going to happen to them, if someone is going to attack them, if there is a strange beast lurking around, they are fearing for their lives. This fear that is caused by the fog reveals a lot about man. It shows that man does in fact fear the unknown, and in this case the darkness that is associated with all of these endeavors that embody dark themes.
Secondly, Conrad’s use of darkness, or “heart of darkness” in this case is used to represent the evil that lies within mankind. All throughout his journey Marlow encounters numerous men who possess a “heart of darkness”. What is meant by this is that they are not only committing dark, or evil acts, but it is what they aren’t doing that is really causing them to be classified as having a heart of darkness. They saw the Congo as being an opportunity to prosper economically as there is a lot of money to be made in the ivory business. To make money, these men were not actually willing to do much work. They simply used their experience of coming from a more evolved and civilized society as their advantage over the people of the Congo who are use to nothing but savagery. They took the people of the Congo as slaves who would be used to retrieve ivory which would in turn get them rich. Now, about the men having a “heart of darkness” because of what they didn’t do has to do with slavery itself. Instead of someone waking up one day and realizing that slavery is wrong, and that these people are humans too, they simply just figured, “hey, we are making money, I can sleep well at night”. No one stood up for what was right and this is because of the darkness that lies within mankind itself. People were blinded by greed, by the lust for self gain, by profits themselves and they weren’t going to suddenly have an epiphany and see the light. One day, Marlow even questions a man on his reasons for being in the Congo: “I couldn’t help asking him once what he meant by coming there (Congo) at all. “To make money, of course. What do you think? He said, scornfully”(Conrad,24). This man was in the Congo for nothing but profits. He couldn’t care less if black people were dying around him each day, he didn’t care for anything else in the world but himself. Even though these men may have a “heart of darkness”, they can be termed “hollow men” as their degree of human decency is lacking. What is meant by this is that these men do not do anything to benefit mankind, if anything they are setting mankind back in time. They do nothing but think for themselves and they will never amount to anything good. Marlow even notices this phenomenon one day as he is talking to someone: “[…]and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe”(Conrad,31). It is simply sad if one is termed a “hollow man” as you are being compared to dirt. Dirt is nothing! These “hollow men” are nothing! The famous poet T.S. Elliot wrote a poem in 1925 on the phenomenon of “hollow men” and it had an epigraph relating to a line from Heart Of Darkness, that is “Mista Kurtz- he dead”(Conrad,87). The poem was indeed titled The Hollow Men and the first couple of lines are as follows:
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
This directly relating to the “hollow men” of Heart Of Darkness for many reasons. First of all, it talks about hollow men being nothing but men stuffed with straw as straw is not living, alluding to the fact that these men cannot think for themselves. Furthermore, “Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless” literally means that their words are worthless. They are not trust worthy, they are not worthy of anything. Whatever they say really does not mean anything as they cannot think for themselves. Whatever they will do will simply be for themselves. These “hollow men” lack a true heart, they cannot do anything good for the sake of mankind, which is why Conrad uses darkness to represent the darkness hidden within mankind.
Furthermore, the last lines of a very important character from the novella also reveal a lot about himself and mankind. Kurtz’s last words before dying are: “The horror! The horror!”(Conrad,86), and this can be interpreted in many different ways. First of all, it can be viewed as a reflection on his own life. Kurtz, although praised as a man being worthy of a saint, turns out to be nothing but a “hollow man” himself. “The horror! The horror!” can be viewed as a reflection of his life. Throughout his career, Kurtz took advantage of many people in order for him to gain success and all of this ended up taking its toll on Kurtz. “The horror! The horror!”, in a way being a confession of a “hollow man”. “The horror! The horror!” can also be looked at as a reflection of the horror found within man. Kurtz had many acquaintances throughout his life and he was exposed (and part of ) to many horrible things the men had done in the Congo. He has seen what horror man is capable of committing and this is his indirect way of admitting that man is accursed from day one. “The horror! The horror!” could also represent the horror of the whole project that went on in the Congo. The fact that men were sent there because of imperialism, which in turn is a reflection on man always wanting more, caused nothing but horror. All in all, Conrad uses darkness to represent not only the darkness and evil found within mankind, but it also represents what mankind is capable of doing, that is evil and terrible things.
Finally, as numerous accounts of darkness surface in the novel, the novel also possesses a great amount of racism. Before discussing racism, it is first necessary to get a solid understanding of what racism is and the outlook on racism at the time. Firstly, racism can simply be described as being: the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Racism is greatly portrayed in Heart Of Darkness, but one cannot fully blame Conrad for this. When the book was written in the eighteen hundreds, people conformed to racism. Conrad would not have considered a racist at the time, compared to today’s standards. It is possible for Conrad to be racist in Heart Of Darkness as Conrad is able to be racist in the story as he uses Marlow as a narrator so he himself can enter the story and say things how he would like to say them.
Heart Of Darkness casts Africa, or the Congo as being the complete and udder antithesis of Europe itself. The novella starts off with Marlow sailing on the Thames river, the sky being perfectly blue, the water tranquil, but the actual story itself will be set in the Congo. What the reader is told about the Congo is that “going up that river was like travelling back to the earliest beginning of the world”(Conrad,42). Conrad seems to be saying that one river is “better” than the other, one being good and the other being bad. The impression of the Congo river does not give the reader a very positive outlook on the continent of Africa itself, making it look bad compared to the Thames river. This alluding to discrimination towards the country itself, the majority of the racism lying in the descriptions of the people of the Congo.
We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet. We could fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance, to be subdued at the cost of profound anguish and of excessive toil. But suddenly, as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage. The steamer toiled along slowly on the edge of a black and incomprehensible frenzy. The prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us-who could tell?[…] The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there-there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were-No, they were not inhuman. Well, you known, that was the worst of it[…](Conrad,43-44).
This excerpt is one that reveals a lot about Conrad himself and the racism found within Heart Of Darkness. Conrad starts off by saying that “We could fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance…” this basically saying that it didn’t matter who had discovered the land first, as long as the white men have arrived, they can now claim it as their own. This in turn degrading the black people of the Congo because it essentially shows that they are worthless compared to the white man. This is further demonstrated by the very vivid picture Conrad paints of them by saying “as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage”. Conrad casts the black people of the Congo as basically being comparable to an animal; savage, untamed, as if it being some sort of national geographic program. The black people are probably thinking the same thing of the white men, yet nothing is ever mentioned of this throughout the novella. Conrad gives the impression that the black people are “bad” people for living the way they do, compared to the “good” white people. Conrad goes on to say “It was unearthly, and the men were-No, they were not inhuman. Well, you known, that was the worst of it”, as if it’s a shame that these men are actually considered human because of the lifestyle they inhabit. Conrad is being completely racist here, a human is a human, no matter what color their skin is or where they live.
Throughout Heart Of Darkness, Conrad constantly referred to the natives of the Congo, by using the most derogatory terms such as : black savages, niggers and brutes. This displaying ignorance toward the African history and racism towards the African people. Conrad also wrote that , Black figures strolled out listlessly[…] the beaten nigger groaned somewhere (Conrad, 28). They passed me with six inches, without a glance, with the complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages (Conrad, 19). It is easy to tell that Conrad, or Marlow in this case had a problem with black people.
All throughout the novella, Conrad constantly contrasts black and white. Whenever there is a white man in the scene, he makes the darker look even darker, or in other words, the bad look worse. The most famous account of this is when Marlow finally meets Kurtz face to face for the first time:
The glamour of youth enveloped his(Kurtz) particoloured rags, his destitution, his loneliness, the essential desolation of his futile wanderings. For months-for years-his life hadn’t been worth a day’s purchase; and there he was gallantly, thoughtlessly alive, to all appearance indestructible solely by the virtue of his few years and of his unreflecting audacity. I was seduced into something like admiration-like envy. Glamour urged him on, glamour kept him unscathed[…]I(Marlow) looked around, and I don’t know why, but I assure you that never, never before, did this land, this river, this jungle, the very arch of this blazing sky, appear to me so hopeless and so dark, so impenetrable to human thought, so pitiless to human weakness (Conrad,68-69).
It is easy to see the contrast being identified here. Marlow is praising Kurtz and in doing so realizes how dark and hopeless his surroundings are, this a direct contrast between white and black. White in this case obviously being Kurtz and black being the Congo.
The analysis of darkness and racism in Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness results in their being various aspects of each that surface. Searching for continuity for the meaning of darkness in the novella is a task that is harder than it seems. Conrad uses the natives of the Congo and their societal customs to represent darkness as a physical form. Furthermore, Conrad also uses darkness as a means of representing the unknown, which is generally feared by man, therefore man in turn fearing darkness. Moreover, Marlow encounters various endeavors on his journey to the heart of the Congo, all which embody dark themes, in which darkness takes the form of the supernatural or mystical. In addition. darkness is also used by Conrad to represent the darkness that lurks within mankind as well as the evil man is capable of doing. Throughout the novella, various elements of racism surface, with white people being associated with good and black people with bad. Conrad is able to explore elements of racism by using Marlow to represent what he really believes. Various contrasts are also made between white and black, resulting in the dark becoming even darker, or bad becoming worse. If there is a lesson to be learned from Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness is that there is a heart of darkness in all of us, but it is up to the individual to determine if it will consume them or not.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Tragedy in the common man
1. In his essay, Tragedy in the common man, Miller describes classical tragic heroes as being “fit only for the very highly placed, the kings or the kingly, and where this admission is not made in so many words it is most often implied”. By this he means that the classical hero must occupy a position fairly high up in the great chain of being i.e.: a noble man or a king. Furthermore, this phenomenon might not always be distinctly stated but it is usually implied. Miller also believes that a tragic hero-modern or classical, must be ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure his sense of personal dignity. The individual is attempting to gain his place in society.
2. Miller prefers for a common man to be a tragic hero. He believes the common man to be more fit for the position because “if the exaltation of tragic action were truly a property of the high-bred character alone, it is inconceivable that the mass of mankind should cherish tragedy above all other forms, let alone be capable of understanding”. What miller means by this is that if tragedy were exclusively to be something only higher class citizens were capable of being a part of, the majority of the population would not be able to relate- or let alone understand the tragedy itself. ‘If rank or nobility of a character was indispensable, then it would follow that the problems of those with rank were the particular problems of tragedy’, therefore it is more suitable for a common man to be a tragic hero.
3. Miller says tragedy is a consequence of “a man’s total compulsion to evaluate himself justly”. A man’s compulsion to evaluate himself clearly will without a doubt cause flaws in this man to surface. A flaw in this case, not necessarily being a weakness, it is simply a crack in the character. A flaw is a challenge to one’s dignity and only those who act against the scheme of things that degrades them can be considered a tragic hero.
4. Miller claim’s that those who are passive, those who accept their lot without active retaliation are “flawless”. This meaning that those who do not evaluate themselves justly, or simply do not act against the things that degrade them are “flawless”. They are not willing to take any risks therefore tragedy cannot be cast upon them. Miller believes it is better to be flawed because those who are flawed are the ones who will act against the scheme of things that degrades them. In doing so, everything we have accepted out of fear or insensitivity or ignorance is shaken before us and examined. The result of this re-evaluation of everything we have accepted out of fear or insensitivity or ignorance is terror and fear that is classically associated with tragedy. It is better to be flawed because it shows you have guts, you are willing to question things. You must think for yourself and question authority and to question authority you must think for yourself.
5. Tragedy is not necessarily pessimistic in a sense because it reveals a lot about a character himself. The tragic hero will come to a realization(V8 moment) and with this is fulfilled. The tragic hero has done what had to be done and is now content. It may be pessimistic for the readers but for the tragic hero the outcome is optimistic. You must put yourself in the hero’s shoes.
6. Pathos, in a tragedy, and in the sense that Miller uses it is the suffering and experience that a tragic hero goes through in order to achieve their desired result. Whether it be questioning society or questioning oneself, there is always a lesson to be learned. The tragic hero has fought a battle he could not possibly have won but has learned through suffering and experience. Pathos is usually viewed by the pessimist but tragedy needs a balance between what is possible and what is impossible.
Standerdizing final.
. The race factor's symbolic powerGlobe editorialBarack Obama's election as the first black (or, more accurately, biracial) president in the United States will not rescue black children from poverty, or sound the death knell for racism or inequality. Yet it is a profound and moving achievement. In the year he was born – 1960 – his parents' marriage would have been illegal in more than half the country. Everyone of middle age in the United States remembers, or should, the terrible violence that enforced those rigid social codes. “In many parts of the South, my father could have been strung up from a tree for merely looking at my mother the wrong way,” Mr. Obama wrote in his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father. His very existence, in other words, was legally forbidden in parts of the country where he is now the president-elect.It is tempting to say that his race or skin colour doesn't matter any more. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job. And the symbolism – compelling though it may be – won't fight al-Qaeda, or bring home the troops from Iraq, or ease the financial crisis. Role models for black children, though helpful, are no substitute for creating the conditions that breed success in large numbers.And yet, as president he will be not only the chief executive but the head of state. He is the world's most powerful man. He is, in other words, no ordinary symbol. He will drive cultural change simply by being who he is.His presence should, for instance, galvanize black communities to become more engaged in the federal political process. More subtly, it may alter the culture of expectations within black communities. “We just assume that young people in our communities won't aspire to higher education and we are not surprised when they drop out,” he said in a 2004 speech, as he ran for the Senate. “We are not shocked that there are more African-American men in prison than there are in college. And when it comes to Washington, we just assume that the game is fixed for the powerful, for the special interests.” The essence of his campaign, he said, was to “no longer accept the unacceptable, to raise the bar, to set a new set of standards, to start thinking differently about what is possible in our communities and in our politics.”This son of a Kenyan father and a white mother also has no ordinary grasp on the politics of identity. There is nothing insular about him. He spent many of his formative years outside the U.S., allowing him to see it more clearly. Thus, in his speech distancing himself from some extreme comments of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother, who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” Black or white, to be flawed is human; but human beings are much more than the sum of their flaws. Here was a vision of acceptance and reconciliation.The United States at a difficult moment in its history voted in a black man as president because he was the best candidate. That's why people all over the world celebrated, and shed tears. Because race didn't matter, at last.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081105.werace06/BNStory/specialComment/home
Standardized Form:
1. Barack Obama's election as the first black president in the United States is a profound and moving achievement.
2. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job.
3. Thus, Barack Obama wa the best person for the job.
4. Therefore, race does not matter anymore.
Standardized Form:
1. Barack Obama's election as the first black president in the United States is a profound and moving achievement.
2. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job.
3. Thus, Barack Obama wa the best person for the job.
4. Therefore, race does not matter anymore.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Standardizing Arguments.
Standardizing Arguments
I wasn't sure if I was doing it right so I decided to standardize three editorial/opinion pieces. I figured I could use the extra practise.
1. The race factor's symbolic power
Globe editorial
Barack Obama's election as the first black (or, more accurately, biracial) president in the United States will not rescue black children from poverty, or sound the death knell for racism or inequality. Yet it is a profound and moving achievement. In the year he was born – 1960 – his parents' marriage would have been illegal in more than half the country. Everyone of middle age in the United States remembers, or should, the terrible violence that enforced those rigid social codes. “In many parts of the South, my father could have been strung up from a tree for merely looking at my mother the wrong way,” Mr. Obama wrote in his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father. His very existence, in other words, was legally forbidden in parts of the country where he is now the president-elect.
It is tempting to say that his race or skin colour doesn't matter any more. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job. And the symbolism – compelling though it may be – won't fight al-Qaeda, or bring home the troops from Iraq, or ease the financial crisis. Role models for black children, though helpful, are no substitute for creating the conditions that breed success in large numbers.
And yet, as president he will be not only the chief executive but the head of state. He is the world's most powerful man. He is, in other words, no ordinary symbol. He will drive cultural change simply by being who he is.
His presence should, for instance, galvanize black communities to become more engaged in the federal political process. More subtly, it may alter the culture of expectations within black communities. “We just assume that young people in our communities won't aspire to higher education and we are not surprised when they drop out,” he said in a 2004 speech, as he ran for the Senate. “We are not shocked that there are more African-American men in prison than there are in college. And when it comes to Washington, we just assume that the game is fixed for the powerful, for the special interests.” The essence of his campaign, he said, was to “no longer accept the unacceptable, to raise the bar, to set a new set of standards, to start thinking differently about what is possible in our communities and in our politics.”
This son of a Kenyan father and a white mother also has no ordinary grasp on the politics of identity. There is nothing insular about him. He spent many of his formative years outside the U.S., allowing him to see it more clearly. Thus, in his speech distancing himself from some extreme comments of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother, who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” Black or white, to be flawed is human; but human beings are much more than the sum of their flaws. Here was a vision of acceptance and reconciliation.
The United States at a difficult moment in its history voted in a black man as president because he was the best candidate. That's why people all over the world celebrated, and shed tears. Because race didn't matter, at last.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081105.werace06/BNStory/specialComment/home
Standardized Form:
1. Barack Obama's election as the first black president in the United States is a profound and moving achievement.
2. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job.
3. Thus, Barack Obama wa the best person for the job.
4. Therefore, race does not matter anymore.
2. Can Diet and Exercise Beat a Tummy Tuck?
SEVERAL dozen would-be cosmetic-surgery patients gathered at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan recently to hear a lecture on the latest procedures by a prominent plastic surgeon.
But the surgeon, Dr. Gerald Pitman spent the first 20 minutes of his talk trying to discourage the audience from having cosmetic operations in the first place.
“Ask yourself ‘Can you avoid it?’ ” Dr. Pitman said to the audience last month. “What kind of lifestyle changes can you make?”
Dr. Pitman often asks the same questions during initial consultations with patients at his Upper East Side office, to find out whether they have tried diet and exercise to improve satisfaction with their appearance before choosing surgery.
In fact, he has asked some patients whose extra weight could make surgery risky to get in shape before he operated on them. He has referred some patients to a swimming coach.
“Some people think liposuction and tummy tucks are alternatives to diet and exercise,” Dr. Pitman said. “They are not.”
During the lecture, he endorsed a number of behavioral changes that might improve both health and appearance.
For example, resistance exercises, which help retard osteoporosis, may have a secondary benefit. “You will look better because your posture is better,” he said.
Ditto for aerobic exercise for heart health. “When you do aerobic exercise, you release endorphins,” Dr. Pitman said. “You feel better, so you look better.”
He added: “If you have dark circles and bags under your eyes, maybe you are not getting enough sleep.” His prescription: eight hours a night. He also suggested updating hairstyle, makeup or wardrobe and staying out of the sun to protect the skin.
Those who do choose surgery can take some measures to help reduce the possibility of complications. For example, he might tell patients with high blood pressure to eat less salt.
Uncontrolled high blood pressure is “the most common cause of bleeding after a face-lift,” Dr. Pitman said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/fashion/06skinside.html?ref=health
Standardized Form
2. Exercises such as resistance exercises help retard osteoporosis
3. Aerobic exercises release endorphins. “You feel better, so you look better.”
4. Sleep may also play a role in a healthy lifestyle.
5. Thus dieting. exercise and a change in lifestyle are more beneficial than surgery to improve appearance.
1. Therefore, people considering surgery to improve their appearance should first look into dieting, exercising and making changes in their lifestyles before going under the knife.
3. Hospitals seeing drop in paying patients
In another sign of the economy’s toll on the nation’s health care system, some hospitals say they are seeing fewer paying patients — even as greater numbers of people are showing up at emergency rooms unable to pay their bills.
While the full effects of the downturn are likely to become more evident in coming months as more people lose their jobs and their insurance coverage, some hospitals say they are already experiencing a fall-off in patient admissions.
Some patients with insurance seem to be deferring treatments like knee replacements, hernia repairs and weight-loss surgeries — the kind of procedures that are among the most lucrative to hospitals. Just as consumers are hesitant to make any sort of big financial decision right now, some patients may feel too financially insecure to take time off work or spend what could be thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses for elective treatments.
The possibility of putting off an expensive surgery or other major procedure has now become a frequent topic of conversation with patients, said Dr. Ted Epperly, a family practice doctor in Boise, Idaho, who also serves as president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. For some patients, he said, it is a matter of choosing between such fundamental needs as food and gas and their medical care. “They wait,” he said.
The loss of money-making procedures comes at a difficult time for hospitals because these treatments tend to subsidize the charity care and unpaid medical bills that are increasing as a result of the slow economy.
“The numbers are down in the past month, there’s no question about it,” said Dr. Richard Friedman, a surgeon at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, although he said it said it was too early to call the decline a trend.
But many hospitals are responding quickly to a perceived change in their circumstances. Shands HealthCare, a nonprofit Florida hospital system, cited the poor economy and lower patient demand when it announced last month that it would shutter one of its eight hospitals and move patients and staff to its nearby facilities.
The 367-bed hospital that is closing, in Gainesville, lost $12 million last year, said Timothy Goldfarb, the system’s chief executive. “We cannot carry it anymore,” he said.
Some other hospitals, while saying they have not yet seen actual declines in patient admissions, have tried to curb costs by cutting jobs in recent weeks in anticipation of harder times. That includes prominent institutions like Massachusetts General in Boston and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, as well as smaller systems like Sunrise Health in Las Vegas.
“It’s safe to say hospitals are no longer recession-proof,” said David A. Rock, a health care consultant in New York.
A September survey of 112 nonprofit hospitals by a Citi Investment Research analyst, Gary Taylor, found that overall inpatient admissions were down 2 to 3 percent compared with a year earlier. About 62 percent of the hospitals in the survey reported flat or declining patient admissions.
Separately, HCA, the Nashville chain that operates about 160 for-profit hospitals around the country, reported flat admissions for the three months ended Sept. 30 compared with the period a year earlier, and a slight decline in inpatient surgeries.
Many people are probably going to the hospital only when they absolutely need to. “The only way they are going to tap the health care system is through the emergency room,” Mr. Taylor said.
And now, as the economy has slid more steeply toward recession in recent weeks, patient admissions seem to have declined even more sharply, some hospital industry experts say. “What we have not seen through midyear this year is the dramatic slowdown in volume we’re seeing right now,” said Scot Latimer, a consultant with Kurt Salmon Associates, which works closely with nonprofit hospitals.
While the drop-off in patient admissions may still seem relatively slight, hospital executives and consultants say it is already having a profound impact on many hospitals’ profitability. As fewer paying customers show up, there has been a steady increase in the demand for services by patients without insurance or other financial wherewithal, many of whom show up at hospital emergency rooms — which are legally obliged to treat them.
“It’s disproportionately affecting the bottom line,” Mr. Latimer said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/business/07hospital.html?ref=business
Standardized Form:
2. Hospitals are seeing less and less paying patients.
3. The loss of money making in hospitals has led many hospitals to close down.
4. Many jobs have been loss because of the low income of hospitals.
5. Thus, healthcare in the united states is becoming less and less promising.
1. Therefore, the downward spiraling economy in the united states is not only taking its toll on everyone’s spirits, but their health also. Many hospitals are seeing less and less paying patients because no one can afford to pay for hospital bills anymore.
I wasn't sure if I was doing it right so I decided to standardize three editorial/opinion pieces. I figured I could use the extra practise.
1. The race factor's symbolic power
Globe editorial
Barack Obama's election as the first black (or, more accurately, biracial) president in the United States will not rescue black children from poverty, or sound the death knell for racism or inequality. Yet it is a profound and moving achievement. In the year he was born – 1960 – his parents' marriage would have been illegal in more than half the country. Everyone of middle age in the United States remembers, or should, the terrible violence that enforced those rigid social codes. “In many parts of the South, my father could have been strung up from a tree for merely looking at my mother the wrong way,” Mr. Obama wrote in his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father. His very existence, in other words, was legally forbidden in parts of the country where he is now the president-elect.
It is tempting to say that his race or skin colour doesn't matter any more. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job. And the symbolism – compelling though it may be – won't fight al-Qaeda, or bring home the troops from Iraq, or ease the financial crisis. Role models for black children, though helpful, are no substitute for creating the conditions that breed success in large numbers.
And yet, as president he will be not only the chief executive but the head of state. He is the world's most powerful man. He is, in other words, no ordinary symbol. He will drive cultural change simply by being who he is.
His presence should, for instance, galvanize black communities to become more engaged in the federal political process. More subtly, it may alter the culture of expectations within black communities. “We just assume that young people in our communities won't aspire to higher education and we are not surprised when they drop out,” he said in a 2004 speech, as he ran for the Senate. “We are not shocked that there are more African-American men in prison than there are in college. And when it comes to Washington, we just assume that the game is fixed for the powerful, for the special interests.” The essence of his campaign, he said, was to “no longer accept the unacceptable, to raise the bar, to set a new set of standards, to start thinking differently about what is possible in our communities and in our politics.”
This son of a Kenyan father and a white mother also has no ordinary grasp on the politics of identity. There is nothing insular about him. He spent many of his formative years outside the U.S., allowing him to see it more clearly. Thus, in his speech distancing himself from some extreme comments of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother, who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” Black or white, to be flawed is human; but human beings are much more than the sum of their flaws. Here was a vision of acceptance and reconciliation.
The United States at a difficult moment in its history voted in a black man as president because he was the best candidate. That's why people all over the world celebrated, and shed tears. Because race didn't matter, at last.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081105.werace06/BNStory/specialComment/home
Standardized Form:
1. Barack Obama's election as the first black president in the United States is a profound and moving achievement.
2. The election, after all, was not really about race. It was about the best person for the job.
3. Thus, Barack Obama wa the best person for the job.
4. Therefore, race does not matter anymore.
2. Can Diet and Exercise Beat a Tummy Tuck?
SEVERAL dozen would-be cosmetic-surgery patients gathered at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan recently to hear a lecture on the latest procedures by a prominent plastic surgeon.
But the surgeon, Dr. Gerald Pitman spent the first 20 minutes of his talk trying to discourage the audience from having cosmetic operations in the first place.
“Ask yourself ‘Can you avoid it?’ ” Dr. Pitman said to the audience last month. “What kind of lifestyle changes can you make?”
Dr. Pitman often asks the same questions during initial consultations with patients at his Upper East Side office, to find out whether they have tried diet and exercise to improve satisfaction with their appearance before choosing surgery.
In fact, he has asked some patients whose extra weight could make surgery risky to get in shape before he operated on them. He has referred some patients to a swimming coach.
“Some people think liposuction and tummy tucks are alternatives to diet and exercise,” Dr. Pitman said. “They are not.”
During the lecture, he endorsed a number of behavioral changes that might improve both health and appearance.
For example, resistance exercises, which help retard osteoporosis, may have a secondary benefit. “You will look better because your posture is better,” he said.
Ditto for aerobic exercise for heart health. “When you do aerobic exercise, you release endorphins,” Dr. Pitman said. “You feel better, so you look better.”
He added: “If you have dark circles and bags under your eyes, maybe you are not getting enough sleep.” His prescription: eight hours a night. He also suggested updating hairstyle, makeup or wardrobe and staying out of the sun to protect the skin.
Those who do choose surgery can take some measures to help reduce the possibility of complications. For example, he might tell patients with high blood pressure to eat less salt.
Uncontrolled high blood pressure is “the most common cause of bleeding after a face-lift,” Dr. Pitman said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/fashion/06skinside.html?ref=health
Standardized Form
2. Exercises such as resistance exercises help retard osteoporosis
3. Aerobic exercises release endorphins. “You feel better, so you look better.”
4. Sleep may also play a role in a healthy lifestyle.
5. Thus dieting. exercise and a change in lifestyle are more beneficial than surgery to improve appearance.
1. Therefore, people considering surgery to improve their appearance should first look into dieting, exercising and making changes in their lifestyles before going under the knife.
3. Hospitals seeing drop in paying patients
In another sign of the economy’s toll on the nation’s health care system, some hospitals say they are seeing fewer paying patients — even as greater numbers of people are showing up at emergency rooms unable to pay their bills.
While the full effects of the downturn are likely to become more evident in coming months as more people lose their jobs and their insurance coverage, some hospitals say they are already experiencing a fall-off in patient admissions.
Some patients with insurance seem to be deferring treatments like knee replacements, hernia repairs and weight-loss surgeries — the kind of procedures that are among the most lucrative to hospitals. Just as consumers are hesitant to make any sort of big financial decision right now, some patients may feel too financially insecure to take time off work or spend what could be thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses for elective treatments.
The possibility of putting off an expensive surgery or other major procedure has now become a frequent topic of conversation with patients, said Dr. Ted Epperly, a family practice doctor in Boise, Idaho, who also serves as president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. For some patients, he said, it is a matter of choosing between such fundamental needs as food and gas and their medical care. “They wait,” he said.
The loss of money-making procedures comes at a difficult time for hospitals because these treatments tend to subsidize the charity care and unpaid medical bills that are increasing as a result of the slow economy.
“The numbers are down in the past month, there’s no question about it,” said Dr. Richard Friedman, a surgeon at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, although he said it said it was too early to call the decline a trend.
But many hospitals are responding quickly to a perceived change in their circumstances. Shands HealthCare, a nonprofit Florida hospital system, cited the poor economy and lower patient demand when it announced last month that it would shutter one of its eight hospitals and move patients and staff to its nearby facilities.
The 367-bed hospital that is closing, in Gainesville, lost $12 million last year, said Timothy Goldfarb, the system’s chief executive. “We cannot carry it anymore,” he said.
Some other hospitals, while saying they have not yet seen actual declines in patient admissions, have tried to curb costs by cutting jobs in recent weeks in anticipation of harder times. That includes prominent institutions like Massachusetts General in Boston and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, as well as smaller systems like Sunrise Health in Las Vegas.
“It’s safe to say hospitals are no longer recession-proof,” said David A. Rock, a health care consultant in New York.
A September survey of 112 nonprofit hospitals by a Citi Investment Research analyst, Gary Taylor, found that overall inpatient admissions were down 2 to 3 percent compared with a year earlier. About 62 percent of the hospitals in the survey reported flat or declining patient admissions.
Separately, HCA, the Nashville chain that operates about 160 for-profit hospitals around the country, reported flat admissions for the three months ended Sept. 30 compared with the period a year earlier, and a slight decline in inpatient surgeries.
Many people are probably going to the hospital only when they absolutely need to. “The only way they are going to tap the health care system is through the emergency room,” Mr. Taylor said.
And now, as the economy has slid more steeply toward recession in recent weeks, patient admissions seem to have declined even more sharply, some hospital industry experts say. “What we have not seen through midyear this year is the dramatic slowdown in volume we’re seeing right now,” said Scot Latimer, a consultant with Kurt Salmon Associates, which works closely with nonprofit hospitals.
While the drop-off in patient admissions may still seem relatively slight, hospital executives and consultants say it is already having a profound impact on many hospitals’ profitability. As fewer paying customers show up, there has been a steady increase in the demand for services by patients without insurance or other financial wherewithal, many of whom show up at hospital emergency rooms — which are legally obliged to treat them.
“It’s disproportionately affecting the bottom line,” Mr. Latimer said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/business/07hospital.html?ref=business
Standardized Form:
2. Hospitals are seeing less and less paying patients.
3. The loss of money making in hospitals has led many hospitals to close down.
4. Many jobs have been loss because of the low income of hospitals.
5. Thus, healthcare in the united states is becoming less and less promising.
1. Therefore, the downward spiraling economy in the united states is not only taking its toll on everyone’s spirits, but their health also. Many hospitals are seeing less and less paying patients because no one can afford to pay for hospital bills anymore.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Appeal To Flattery.
Appeal To Flattery
Argumentum ad adulatio
1. Person A is flattered by person B.
2. Person B makes claim “X”.
3. Therefore “X” must be true.
Appeal to flattery, also known as apple polishing, is a type of logical fallacy that appeals to emotion. It is often used in media, politics as well as every day situations, although one might not even notice the use of such a fallacy. Appeal to flattery is the use of excessive complements to flatter someone (or many people), in attempt to winning them over, or gaining support for ones side. Flattery can be used to ones advantage because it acts as a momentary distraction that can weaken judgment.
Flattery is often used to hide or “sugarcoat” the true intent of an idea or proposal, this leading it to be very fallacious. It is fallacious in the sense that fact is not being used to support the argument, flattery is used instead in the place of evidence for accepting a claim. The reasoning being used by person B is completely irrelevant to the actual situation therefore it should not be taken into account when person A is making a decision. In reality, person B should not get what they want just because they complement person A, but because they have proven that they deserve it and use factual evidence to support their argument. This fallacy will only truly work best if person A cannot see right through person B. The next time you try to ask for something, throw in a complement or two in hopes of flattering your person A.
Examples
The following is an example of appeal to flattery that really demonstrates the use of flattery in the place of evidence for accepting a claim (the example is not my own, it is simply used to demonstrate how extreme flattery can be used. Also I found it very amusing):
My Bill, that is a really nice tie. By the way, it is quite clear that one plus one is equal to forty three (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-flattery.html).
My own examples:
1. Clearly, only a gifted intelligent group of individuals such as yourselves can see that this man is a complete idiot.
Failing to admit that the man is an idiot in this example would result in the person feeling stupid or unwanted therefore the man is an idiot.
2. Mr. Murray, all of the yoga you have been doing has really paid off, you are looking great, and may I ad, your attire today is just looking superb. So, how about a couple of extra marks on this project.
An obvious example of appealing to flattery. Person A will clearly see through person B therefore person B will not receive extra marks on the project.
Examples In Media
The other day I came across an old Ottawa citizen newspaper and I found a letter in it that demonstrated appealing to flattery. It is as follows:
Brightly polite
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, October 25, 2007
I really enjoyed the clever humour of Bruce Ward's front-page article. After a year of living in Ottawa, I find residents and retail staff to be brightly polite. But having lived in Winnipeg for 29 years, I do find people in that city more likely to be openly friendly.
In Ottawa, drivers tolerate cyclists far more, for example waiting for us to cross in front of them, and moving over to another lane to give us more space.
This is such an ethnically diverse city, more so by the mix of Anglophones and francophone’s. Perhaps many people are shy and hesitant to be nice in case the act is misconstrued. People are the same the world over so all of us should relax and try harder to be nice.
DenzilFeinberg,Ottawa
This letter demonstrates appealing to flattery for the following reason: just because the man enjoys Bruce Ward’s humor does not make his claim valid. He is simply trying to get people to agree with him by adding flattery, it is really up to you to decide if you agree with him or not, maybe his attempt at flattery will shape your view.
Another example I found of appealing to flattery was while watching television. It was in a television program titled “Desperate Housewives” and it was aired on Sunday November 2, 2008 and it came from season 5 episode 6. A lady named Mrs. Hilderburn is talking to a woman named Gabby Solice and she says the following:
“I suppose I should be flattered that a woman as young and beautiful as you should see me as a threat”
In saying this Mrs. Hilderburn is complementing Gabby and expecting a certain reaction, and
she got it. Gabby was flattered and did not know how to react.
Selected References
1. Unknown, et al "Fallacy: Appeal to flattery." Nizkor, 28th May, 1999, 30 Oct 2008.
2. Feinberg, Denzil. "Brightly Polite." 25 Oct 2007 2 Nov 2008.
3. LaBossiere, Micheal. "Appeal To Flattery ." 5/20/2004 2 Nov 2008.
Argumentum ad adulatio
1. Person A is flattered by person B.
2. Person B makes claim “X”.
3. Therefore “X” must be true.
Appeal to flattery, also known as apple polishing, is a type of logical fallacy that appeals to emotion. It is often used in media, politics as well as every day situations, although one might not even notice the use of such a fallacy. Appeal to flattery is the use of excessive complements to flatter someone (or many people), in attempt to winning them over, or gaining support for ones side. Flattery can be used to ones advantage because it acts as a momentary distraction that can weaken judgment.
Flattery is often used to hide or “sugarcoat” the true intent of an idea or proposal, this leading it to be very fallacious. It is fallacious in the sense that fact is not being used to support the argument, flattery is used instead in the place of evidence for accepting a claim. The reasoning being used by person B is completely irrelevant to the actual situation therefore it should not be taken into account when person A is making a decision. In reality, person B should not get what they want just because they complement person A, but because they have proven that they deserve it and use factual evidence to support their argument. This fallacy will only truly work best if person A cannot see right through person B. The next time you try to ask for something, throw in a complement or two in hopes of flattering your person A.
Examples
The following is an example of appeal to flattery that really demonstrates the use of flattery in the place of evidence for accepting a claim (the example is not my own, it is simply used to demonstrate how extreme flattery can be used. Also I found it very amusing):
My Bill, that is a really nice tie. By the way, it is quite clear that one plus one is equal to forty three (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-flattery.html).
My own examples:
1. Clearly, only a gifted intelligent group of individuals such as yourselves can see that this man is a complete idiot.
Failing to admit that the man is an idiot in this example would result in the person feeling stupid or unwanted therefore the man is an idiot.
2. Mr. Murray, all of the yoga you have been doing has really paid off, you are looking great, and may I ad, your attire today is just looking superb. So, how about a couple of extra marks on this project.
An obvious example of appealing to flattery. Person A will clearly see through person B therefore person B will not receive extra marks on the project.
Examples In Media
The other day I came across an old Ottawa citizen newspaper and I found a letter in it that demonstrated appealing to flattery. It is as follows:
Brightly polite
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, October 25, 2007
I really enjoyed the clever humour of Bruce Ward's front-page article. After a year of living in Ottawa, I find residents and retail staff to be brightly polite. But having lived in Winnipeg for 29 years, I do find people in that city more likely to be openly friendly.
In Ottawa, drivers tolerate cyclists far more, for example waiting for us to cross in front of them, and moving over to another lane to give us more space.
This is such an ethnically diverse city, more so by the mix of Anglophones and francophone’s. Perhaps many people are shy and hesitant to be nice in case the act is misconstrued. People are the same the world over so all of us should relax and try harder to be nice.
DenzilFeinberg,Ottawa
This letter demonstrates appealing to flattery for the following reason: just because the man enjoys Bruce Ward’s humor does not make his claim valid. He is simply trying to get people to agree with him by adding flattery, it is really up to you to decide if you agree with him or not, maybe his attempt at flattery will shape your view.
Another example I found of appealing to flattery was while watching television. It was in a television program titled “Desperate Housewives” and it was aired on Sunday November 2, 2008 and it came from season 5 episode 6. A lady named Mrs. Hilderburn is talking to a woman named Gabby Solice and she says the following:
“I suppose I should be flattered that a woman as young and beautiful as you should see me as a threat”
In saying this Mrs. Hilderburn is complementing Gabby and expecting a certain reaction, and
she got it. Gabby was flattered and did not know how to react.
Selected References
1. Unknown, et al "Fallacy: Appeal to flattery." Nizkor, 28th May, 1999, 30 Oct 2008
2. Feinberg, Denzil. "Brightly Polite." 25 Oct 2007 2 Nov 2008
3. LaBossiere, Micheal. "Appeal To Flattery ." 5/20/2004 2 Nov 2008
English up to date.
Well I don't really like doing a play by play kind of stereotypical type of blog so every now and then I like discussing how english is going up to date.
Really what we have done up to date is: lit crit, first Isu, test on lit crit and some fallacy stuff. It may not seem like a lot considering we have been in school for a couple of months now but I find it quite sufficient and well, I am learning a lot. The lit crit stuff was pretty interesting, some schools of thought are kind of abstract but all the more interesting. After watching a couple of fallacy presentations you really start seeing them everywhere. Its like the number 23, you can't escape them. Wherever I look, there seems to be some sort of fallacy.
Some up coming work seems to be some rhetorical devices and standerdizing arguments. It should be a fun couple of weeks.
If anyone actually reads my blog, this is just a funny video to check out if you have time:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mark-wahlberg-talks-to-animals/727504/
Its worth watching if you think Mark Wahlberg's acting is anything but half decent.
On another note, christmas is quickly approaching and it should be a nice one this year. I'm slowly getting into christmas mode, and also snow mode. It is going to be another crazy winter this year, too bad I am not an Eskimo.
Really what we have done up to date is: lit crit, first Isu, test on lit crit and some fallacy stuff. It may not seem like a lot considering we have been in school for a couple of months now but I find it quite sufficient and well, I am learning a lot. The lit crit stuff was pretty interesting, some schools of thought are kind of abstract but all the more interesting. After watching a couple of fallacy presentations you really start seeing them everywhere. Its like the number 23, you can't escape them. Wherever I look, there seems to be some sort of fallacy.
Some up coming work seems to be some rhetorical devices and standerdizing arguments. It should be a fun couple of weeks.
If anyone actually reads my blog, this is just a funny video to check out if you have time:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mark-wahlberg-talks-to-animals/727504/
Its worth watching if you think Mark Wahlberg's acting is anything but half decent.
On another note, christmas is quickly approaching and it should be a nice one this year. I'm slowly getting into christmas mode, and also snow mode. It is going to be another crazy winter this year, too bad I am not an Eskimo.
The wizard of Oz, a psychoanalytical view.
A modest Compromise
The motion picture The Wizard Of Oz (1939) is a movie about a young girl named Dorothy Gale who is sent-unknowingly on a journey of self discovery and exploration. In the movie, Dorothy is swept away from her homeland of Kansas by a tornado where she ends up in a strange and interesting land known as the land of oz. Once in oz, Dorothy alongside friends she meets along the way embark on a journey to see the wizard of oz who will be able to help Dorothy return home. When looked at in a Freudian point of view, the places, characters and plot development all exemplify psychoanalytical feats, all falling under Freud’s theory of id, superego and ego. Firstly, in the movie, Dorothy’s life in Kansas is a physical representation of her superego. In Kansas, Dorothy is presented with the harsh reality’s and consequences of life. This is Dorothy’s conscience at work and for her, life is hard. Secondly, the land of oz is the fictional representation of Dorothy’s id. The land of oz symbolizes all that Dorothy wants. She wants to be heard, she wants her opinion to matter and she wants to feel loved, all of which is not being experienced in Kansas. Finally the character of Dorothy is a depiction of her ego. Throughout the whole movie Dorothy is trying to make a compromise between her superego(Kansas) and her id(land of oz) and at the end of the movie a compromise is made thus concluding the power struggle between id and superego.
To begin with, Dorothy’s superego is physically depicted by her life in Kansas. In Kansas, Dorothy has to face all of the harsh realties of growing up. She lives with her foster-parents where her voice in not so often heard. In Kansas, Dorothy makes many attempts to be heard but is soon shut down by everyone around her. She is simply a child looking for attention, but her thirst for attention is not fully quenched until later on in the movie. In Kansas, a sepia tint is used and this says a lot about life in Kansas. The sepia is used to further exemplify Dorothy’s superego. The sepia represents the dark, ominous and bleak realities of life that Dorothy has to face, the reality being that she is basically alone in this world. She may have family but her voice does not really matter when it comes to this. Later on in the movie, Dorothy signs a song titled “over the rainbow”. This song is really a plead from Dorothy’s id, which in other words is the land of oz. It can be viewed as being a metaphor for what Dorothy really wants “Somewhere, over the rainbow, skies are blue. And the dreams that you dare to dream Really do come true”. The color blue here can represent hope. This hope being derived from Dorothy’s ego which will force Dorothy to keep moving on and to not give up. The dreams that Dorothy dares- which are formulated by her id, will really come true one day when a compromise is made between her superego and id, by her ego.
As previously mentioned, Dorothy is swept away by a tornado which in turn brings her to a fictional land which is a representation of her id. The tornado in this case is the result of another plead from Dorothy’s id. A pathetic fallacy is the result of a confrontation between Dorothy’s superego and her id. Dorothy’s family in Kansas takes her dog Toto away because it is causing trouble for the neighbors(superego). Dorothy does not want this to happen (id), so she decides to take the dog and leave. One thing led to another and Dorothy became very upset and the environment around her reacted to this. A tornado hit Kansas and Dorothy was swept away into a magical land known as the land of oz.
Conversely, the world of Oz is a fictional utopia that is a representation of Dorothy’s id, or in other words, what she wants and desires. The land of oz represents the other side of the rainbow for Dorothy. It is on the opposite side of the spectrum from her superego, being the harsh realities she has to face in life(Kansas). The use of color in the land of Oz further exemplifies that this is Dorothy’s id. The land of oz is such a joyful and happy place because of the added color. It makes it seem like a paradise compared to Dorothy’s life back in Kansas where sepia tone is used. Dorothy’s main desires are all fulfilled in the land of oz within the first couple of minutes of her arrival. In Kansas, all Dorothy wanted was to be heard and for her voice to matter. In the land of oz, she is proclaimed to be the savior of the munchkins because she kills the wicked witch of the east. Anything she says is highly valued and everyone’s attention is focused on her, which is exactly what she wanted. After discussing with Glenda- the good witch in the land of oz, Dorothy decides that she must return home. Her returning home at this point is her ego trying to make a compromise between her superego and her id. She decides that she must embark on a journey to see the great wizard of oz, who will guide her home where she will live happily ever after. On her journey, Dorothy meets various odd characters that she befriends. In Kansas, Dorothy does not seem to have many actual friends although, it seems like she wants to. In the land of Oz, this want for friends is fulfilled and with the help of her friends Dorothy is able to complete her journey. Everything Dorothy wants in Kansas is carried out in the fictional land of Oz, which is in reality Dorothy’s id. Finally, throughout the whole movie Dorothy is unknowingly battling between her superego and id, trying to make a compromise between the two. She is trying to find a median between the harsh realities and sepia tint of Kansas and the colorful vividness and joyfulness of the land of Oz. At the end of the movie, Dorothy returns home with the help of the friends she has made along the way. Dorothy returning home at this point is really the compromise she has decided to make between her superego and id. Once arrived back in Kansas, Dorothy awakes to find herself surrounded by her whole family and some friends of the family. Due to the fact that Dorothy was taken away by the tornado, this made her family realize that she was still there, it shone a light on her. Her family came to the realization that she is a human being and that she is important. The future is looking bright for Dorothy, her voice may now be heard by everyone and her thirst for attention is quenched, at last.
In essence, The Wizard Of Oz is a movie that depicts a high level of Freudian psychoanalytical criticism. The plot line, places in which the story take place and the main character of the story all exemplify qualities of Freud’s id, superego and ego. Kansas being Dorothy’s superego in which she has to face the harsh realities and consequences of life where sepia tint and pathetic fallacy are used to demonstrate this. The land of Oz is a colorful fictional utopia that is used to represent Dorothy’s id. Dorothy’s wishes and desires are all fulfilled here by the people around her and the journey she has been faced with. Finally, Dorothy herself is the ego in the movie. Throughout the whole movie she is trying to make a compromise between her superego and id, and at the end of the movie she succeeds in doing so by returning to her home of Kansas after completing her journey in the land of oz. At the end of the movie, a balance is achieved between id and superego with the help of ego. As with life, the ego will always be trying to find compromises and because of this, harmony is the product.
The motion picture The Wizard Of Oz (1939) is a movie about a young girl named Dorothy Gale who is sent-unknowingly on a journey of self discovery and exploration. In the movie, Dorothy is swept away from her homeland of Kansas by a tornado where she ends up in a strange and interesting land known as the land of oz. Once in oz, Dorothy alongside friends she meets along the way embark on a journey to see the wizard of oz who will be able to help Dorothy return home. When looked at in a Freudian point of view, the places, characters and plot development all exemplify psychoanalytical feats, all falling under Freud’s theory of id, superego and ego. Firstly, in the movie, Dorothy’s life in Kansas is a physical representation of her superego. In Kansas, Dorothy is presented with the harsh reality’s and consequences of life. This is Dorothy’s conscience at work and for her, life is hard. Secondly, the land of oz is the fictional representation of Dorothy’s id. The land of oz symbolizes all that Dorothy wants. She wants to be heard, she wants her opinion to matter and she wants to feel loved, all of which is not being experienced in Kansas. Finally the character of Dorothy is a depiction of her ego. Throughout the whole movie Dorothy is trying to make a compromise between her superego(Kansas) and her id(land of oz) and at the end of the movie a compromise is made thus concluding the power struggle between id and superego.
To begin with, Dorothy’s superego is physically depicted by her life in Kansas. In Kansas, Dorothy has to face all of the harsh realties of growing up. She lives with her foster-parents where her voice in not so often heard. In Kansas, Dorothy makes many attempts to be heard but is soon shut down by everyone around her. She is simply a child looking for attention, but her thirst for attention is not fully quenched until later on in the movie. In Kansas, a sepia tint is used and this says a lot about life in Kansas. The sepia is used to further exemplify Dorothy’s superego. The sepia represents the dark, ominous and bleak realities of life that Dorothy has to face, the reality being that she is basically alone in this world. She may have family but her voice does not really matter when it comes to this. Later on in the movie, Dorothy signs a song titled “over the rainbow”. This song is really a plead from Dorothy’s id, which in other words is the land of oz. It can be viewed as being a metaphor for what Dorothy really wants “Somewhere, over the rainbow, skies are blue. And the dreams that you dare to dream Really do come true”. The color blue here can represent hope. This hope being derived from Dorothy’s ego which will force Dorothy to keep moving on and to not give up. The dreams that Dorothy dares- which are formulated by her id, will really come true one day when a compromise is made between her superego and id, by her ego.
As previously mentioned, Dorothy is swept away by a tornado which in turn brings her to a fictional land which is a representation of her id. The tornado in this case is the result of another plead from Dorothy’s id. A pathetic fallacy is the result of a confrontation between Dorothy’s superego and her id. Dorothy’s family in Kansas takes her dog Toto away because it is causing trouble for the neighbors(superego). Dorothy does not want this to happen (id), so she decides to take the dog and leave. One thing led to another and Dorothy became very upset and the environment around her reacted to this. A tornado hit Kansas and Dorothy was swept away into a magical land known as the land of oz.
Conversely, the world of Oz is a fictional utopia that is a representation of Dorothy’s id, or in other words, what she wants and desires. The land of oz represents the other side of the rainbow for Dorothy. It is on the opposite side of the spectrum from her superego, being the harsh realities she has to face in life(Kansas). The use of color in the land of Oz further exemplifies that this is Dorothy’s id. The land of oz is such a joyful and happy place because of the added color. It makes it seem like a paradise compared to Dorothy’s life back in Kansas where sepia tone is used. Dorothy’s main desires are all fulfilled in the land of oz within the first couple of minutes of her arrival. In Kansas, all Dorothy wanted was to be heard and for her voice to matter. In the land of oz, she is proclaimed to be the savior of the munchkins because she kills the wicked witch of the east. Anything she says is highly valued and everyone’s attention is focused on her, which is exactly what she wanted. After discussing with Glenda- the good witch in the land of oz, Dorothy decides that she must return home. Her returning home at this point is her ego trying to make a compromise between her superego and her id. She decides that she must embark on a journey to see the great wizard of oz, who will guide her home where she will live happily ever after. On her journey, Dorothy meets various odd characters that she befriends. In Kansas, Dorothy does not seem to have many actual friends although, it seems like she wants to. In the land of Oz, this want for friends is fulfilled and with the help of her friends Dorothy is able to complete her journey. Everything Dorothy wants in Kansas is carried out in the fictional land of Oz, which is in reality Dorothy’s id. Finally, throughout the whole movie Dorothy is unknowingly battling between her superego and id, trying to make a compromise between the two. She is trying to find a median between the harsh realities and sepia tint of Kansas and the colorful vividness and joyfulness of the land of Oz. At the end of the movie, Dorothy returns home with the help of the friends she has made along the way. Dorothy returning home at this point is really the compromise she has decided to make between her superego and id. Once arrived back in Kansas, Dorothy awakes to find herself surrounded by her whole family and some friends of the family. Due to the fact that Dorothy was taken away by the tornado, this made her family realize that she was still there, it shone a light on her. Her family came to the realization that she is a human being and that she is important. The future is looking bright for Dorothy, her voice may now be heard by everyone and her thirst for attention is quenched, at last.
In essence, The Wizard Of Oz is a movie that depicts a high level of Freudian psychoanalytical criticism. The plot line, places in which the story take place and the main character of the story all exemplify qualities of Freud’s id, superego and ego. Kansas being Dorothy’s superego in which she has to face the harsh realities and consequences of life where sepia tint and pathetic fallacy are used to demonstrate this. The land of Oz is a colorful fictional utopia that is used to represent Dorothy’s id. Dorothy’s wishes and desires are all fulfilled here by the people around her and the journey she has been faced with. Finally, Dorothy herself is the ego in the movie. Throughout the whole movie she is trying to make a compromise between her superego and id, and at the end of the movie she succeeds in doing so by returning to her home of Kansas after completing her journey in the land of oz. At the end of the movie, a balance is achieved between id and superego with the help of ego. As with life, the ego will always be trying to find compromises and because of this, harmony is the product.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
First ISU Essay.
Blind Regression
The invention of the world is Vancouver Island novelist Jack Hodgin’s first full length novel. The novel was published in 1977 and it tells two stories in retrospect. The first story being told is a historical account of Donal Keneally’s journey to re-invent the world by creating a colony known as the Revelations Colony of Truth which resulted in a failed utopia. The second and modern day story is the tale of Maggie Kyle, who used an insurance settlement to purchase what was once the Revelations Colony of Truth. The focus of this essay falls primarily on Donal Keneally’s attempt to re-invent the world and not the modern day aspect of the novel. Firstly, to fully understand the nature of Keneally’s endeavor to re-invent the world it is first necessary to examine his childhood. As a child, he was taught too much knowledge for his own good and this propelled him to commit various acts of mischief on the people around him. Donal’s childhood molded him into being an unstable leader from the start. Secondly, Donal believed he knew everything there was to know and he was blind to the world around him. He would later find out that he does not know how to accomplish his one goal in life, which is to re-invent the world, and this would be the main cause of his failed utopia. Furthermore, on the journey to the new world (Vancouver Island) many people lost their lives and even when arrived, many lives were taken due to insufficient food supplies and disease. Finally, Donal believed he had succeeded in creating his own world, this being the root of his mistake. He was blind to the fact that he had failed and he was too ignorant and stubborn to come to this realization. Donal Brendan Keneally’s attempt to invent the world by starting a colony (revelations colony of truth) resulted in him being blind to his own failed utopia.
First of all, in order to see the result of a failed utopia, it is first necessary to investigate Donal Keneally’s childhood to really understand what is behind his vision. Donal Keneally’s childhood is what really molded him into being an unstable leader, therefore making a failed utopia inevitable. Donal is the son of a whore and a bull and at a young age he was taught too much knowledge for his own good“[…] she went out to the shed in the night to check on the girl and found her mounted by a monstrous black bull with eyes that shone like red lanterns and a scrotum that hung like a sack of turnips.” (Hodgins,71). From the start he was born to a dysfunctional family and he would go on living his life without ever seeing his real mother. He was raised by an old woman named Grania Flynn and a man named Jerry Quirke. Even at a young age Donal was very stubborn and bold, and all of the townspeople agreed.
The O’Sullivan family reported that they’d seen him, at the age of three, marching across their bottom field where their meanest bull was kept out of the way of mischief, to give the snorting beast a crack across his nose. And Moriarty In his bar reported less than a year later that he’d seen the boy give Jerry Quirke a good kick that set him rolling on his back. “Oh he’s a bold child, that one,” they all agreed (Hodgins, 79).
Jerry Quirke would be the one to teach Donal but he did not teach him how to change his ways; his stubbornness and ignorance “[…] for in some matters he’s as ignorant as the next man and twice as dangerous.” (Hodgins, 82). Donal was a quick learner but he would often use his knowledge for the worse “[…] the boy was the easiest pupil he’d ever taught.” (Hodgins, 80). Donal’s knowledge would soon surpass that of Mr. Quirke’s and he proved this on many accounts. “On another occasion he hypnotized them all [the village] into believing they were a herd of cows and sent them mooing down the road tossing their heads at flies…Quirke told him he’d gone too far and ought to be beaten like a dog” (Hodgins, 81). Donal believed there was nothing wrong with what he had done because everyone was afraid to actually do something about it. He would go on living his whole life thinking he could get away with anything. At the young age of twelve, Donal had a vision of creating a new world, a world which will be a utopia for any human being, a world where truth will be exemplified “By the age of twelve he was able to tell everyone in Moriarty’s Bar of fifty different ways you could come at a world like ‘truth’” (Hodgins, 81). He started off with the right idea but would later go off on a tangent and completely forget the whole principle of his vision. Donal’s unstable childhood is without a doubt what caused him to be an unstable leader which is the root of his failed utopia.
Correspondingly, Donal thought he knew everything there was to know about everything. “[…]for Keneally with his usual capacity for not only learning all there was to teach, but also going on from there to every possible logical extreme[…]” (Hodgins, 83). He claimed to have the answer to everything, giving him the ability to accomplish anything but the truth is, he does not know how to accomplish his one goal in life: to re-invent the world. Donal had an apparatus that he claimed was God. He used this device to persuade people into thinking that he had God in his pocket. This would make him seem greater than God, which would lead anyone to believe that he could accomplish anything.
Out of this pocket and that pocket and out of his sleeves he pulled wheels and rods and cylinders and boxes until he had assembled before him a large complicated machine which he told them was God…he said, but the fact was that God was a machine which he carried around in his pocket. God was his slave too, just as all of them had become his slaves, and he would show them what he thought of God his slave. (Hodgins, 99).
Donal’s problem was that he too was convinced that he could accomplish anything. He would not listen to anyone, take their input on anything, he would remain blind to everything around him until his death. Since he was blind to his own stubbornness which he developed as a child, he would without a doubt be blind to his own failed utopia.
Moreover, since Donal was so stubborn and full of himself, re-inventing the world would be no problem for him. Nevertheless, the reaction of his followers proved otherwise. Many people lost their lives on the journey from Ireland to the new world which was set to be established on Vancouver Island. Once arrived on the island people were still losing their lives because of disease, lack of food and supplies. No one ever seemed happy, the mood was always dark and ominous and this was exemplified by Donal’s own wife. Upon first seeing the colony Donal had established, the first impression his wife had was not a very good one “One of the first things I remember thinking when I got down into this place was what have they done to it so that I feel as if I should keep my eyes always on the ground?”( Hodgins, 246). “You were conscious only of the earth, the dirt…the houses were all squat, dark made of logs[…]” (Hodgins, 247). First impressions go a long way and her first impression was an accurate one, “ It was an ugly sight, that first day, that first week, in the rain. Those brown log shacks, those pale fields, everything was so dull.” (Hodgins,.247). The colony was not successful but Donal did not come to this realization. “[…] he thought he’d provided everything on it that anyone could possibly want: a piece of land, a sense of belonging, enough work to keep you too tired to start worrying about anything[…]” (Hodgins, 254). Donal claimed to be the father of his followers but if he were in fact their father, he would have taken much better care of them and a half decent society could have been established. Instead he was blind to his own actions and the reaction to this was a failed utopia.
Finally, Donal Keneally thought he had succeeded in creating his own world but this was in fact the root of his failed utopia. The problem was that Donal thought. He thought he had done everything he could to create the ideal new world but a thought and the truth are sometimes very different things. Even if someone would have had the courage to tell Donal he had failed he would have probably just ignored them. He was stuck in his own little world, his own little paradise where everything was perfect. He had failed in re-inventing the world and if he could have just opened his eyes and looked around, that would have been enough proof to persuade God himself. He was blind to the reactions of his followers and therefore could not accept failure. He blindly regressed his colony into a less evolved, less mature society than the outside world. On the outside world, society’s were evolving into more well adapted environments where humans were fine the way they were living. Instead of doing his people good by re-inventing the world, he sent his colony into a less developed state than what they had been from the start and he was not able to see what he had done. He would often give speeches on how his colony will be used as a model in future societies yet its existence did not surpass a decade.
And then there were the speeches just for me. About his colony and how it would be held up as a model in the future and how he was trying to get the government to come in and have a look in order to set up others like it on the island. You shouldn’t colonize a place by just inviting people onto it and letting them do what they want, he said, that way in fifty years they’ll have ruined it all, you’ll get people thinking they have the right to sell some of it to the others. (Hodgins, 255).
If existing societies were turned into Donal’s vision, then the whole world would be in ruins. No one would ever be happy, endless lives would be lost yet Donal would still not see this as if he has made a mistake. Even a character in the modern day aspect of the novel discussed that fact that Vancouver Island had been the home of many failed utopias, Donal’s being one of them “this Island is littered with failed utopias"(Hodgins,77). Donal failed in re-inventing the world and he failed in seeing this.
Clearly, Donal’s goal to re-invent the world had no other outcome then to become a failed utopia. From the start, Donal’s childhood would mold him into an unstable leader which would be one of the main reasons behind his failed utopia. He thought he knew everything but the truth is, he does not know how to accomplish his one goal in life and he is blind to this. If he could of just opened his eyes and taken a look around his colony he would have seen how unhappy everyone was. He could have acknowledged his mistake but he was too stubborn and ignorant to do so and because of this, countless lives were lost. Donal thought he had succeeded in re-inventing the world, but this was his biggest mistake. He was blind to everything around him and because of this, a failed utopia was inevitable.
The invention of the world is Vancouver Island novelist Jack Hodgin’s first full length novel. The novel was published in 1977 and it tells two stories in retrospect. The first story being told is a historical account of Donal Keneally’s journey to re-invent the world by creating a colony known as the Revelations Colony of Truth which resulted in a failed utopia. The second and modern day story is the tale of Maggie Kyle, who used an insurance settlement to purchase what was once the Revelations Colony of Truth. The focus of this essay falls primarily on Donal Keneally’s attempt to re-invent the world and not the modern day aspect of the novel. Firstly, to fully understand the nature of Keneally’s endeavor to re-invent the world it is first necessary to examine his childhood. As a child, he was taught too much knowledge for his own good and this propelled him to commit various acts of mischief on the people around him. Donal’s childhood molded him into being an unstable leader from the start. Secondly, Donal believed he knew everything there was to know and he was blind to the world around him. He would later find out that he does not know how to accomplish his one goal in life, which is to re-invent the world, and this would be the main cause of his failed utopia. Furthermore, on the journey to the new world (Vancouver Island) many people lost their lives and even when arrived, many lives were taken due to insufficient food supplies and disease. Finally, Donal believed he had succeeded in creating his own world, this being the root of his mistake. He was blind to the fact that he had failed and he was too ignorant and stubborn to come to this realization. Donal Brendan Keneally’s attempt to invent the world by starting a colony (revelations colony of truth) resulted in him being blind to his own failed utopia.
First of all, in order to see the result of a failed utopia, it is first necessary to investigate Donal Keneally’s childhood to really understand what is behind his vision. Donal Keneally’s childhood is what really molded him into being an unstable leader, therefore making a failed utopia inevitable. Donal is the son of a whore and a bull and at a young age he was taught too much knowledge for his own good“[…] she went out to the shed in the night to check on the girl and found her mounted by a monstrous black bull with eyes that shone like red lanterns and a scrotum that hung like a sack of turnips.” (Hodgins,71). From the start he was born to a dysfunctional family and he would go on living his life without ever seeing his real mother. He was raised by an old woman named Grania Flynn and a man named Jerry Quirke. Even at a young age Donal was very stubborn and bold, and all of the townspeople agreed.
The O’Sullivan family reported that they’d seen him, at the age of three, marching across their bottom field where their meanest bull was kept out of the way of mischief, to give the snorting beast a crack across his nose. And Moriarty In his bar reported less than a year later that he’d seen the boy give Jerry Quirke a good kick that set him rolling on his back. “Oh he’s a bold child, that one,” they all agreed (Hodgins, 79).
Jerry Quirke would be the one to teach Donal but he did not teach him how to change his ways; his stubbornness and ignorance “[…] for in some matters he’s as ignorant as the next man and twice as dangerous.” (Hodgins, 82). Donal was a quick learner but he would often use his knowledge for the worse “[…] the boy was the easiest pupil he’d ever taught.” (Hodgins, 80). Donal’s knowledge would soon surpass that of Mr. Quirke’s and he proved this on many accounts. “On another occasion he hypnotized them all [the village] into believing they were a herd of cows and sent them mooing down the road tossing their heads at flies…Quirke told him he’d gone too far and ought to be beaten like a dog” (Hodgins, 81). Donal believed there was nothing wrong with what he had done because everyone was afraid to actually do something about it. He would go on living his whole life thinking he could get away with anything. At the young age of twelve, Donal had a vision of creating a new world, a world which will be a utopia for any human being, a world where truth will be exemplified “By the age of twelve he was able to tell everyone in Moriarty’s Bar of fifty different ways you could come at a world like ‘truth’” (Hodgins, 81). He started off with the right idea but would later go off on a tangent and completely forget the whole principle of his vision. Donal’s unstable childhood is without a doubt what caused him to be an unstable leader which is the root of his failed utopia.
Correspondingly, Donal thought he knew everything there was to know about everything. “[…]for Keneally with his usual capacity for not only learning all there was to teach, but also going on from there to every possible logical extreme[…]” (Hodgins, 83). He claimed to have the answer to everything, giving him the ability to accomplish anything but the truth is, he does not know how to accomplish his one goal in life: to re-invent the world. Donal had an apparatus that he claimed was God. He used this device to persuade people into thinking that he had God in his pocket. This would make him seem greater than God, which would lead anyone to believe that he could accomplish anything.
Out of this pocket and that pocket and out of his sleeves he pulled wheels and rods and cylinders and boxes until he had assembled before him a large complicated machine which he told them was God…he said, but the fact was that God was a machine which he carried around in his pocket. God was his slave too, just as all of them had become his slaves, and he would show them what he thought of God his slave. (Hodgins, 99).
Donal’s problem was that he too was convinced that he could accomplish anything. He would not listen to anyone, take their input on anything, he would remain blind to everything around him until his death. Since he was blind to his own stubbornness which he developed as a child, he would without a doubt be blind to his own failed utopia.
Moreover, since Donal was so stubborn and full of himself, re-inventing the world would be no problem for him. Nevertheless, the reaction of his followers proved otherwise. Many people lost their lives on the journey from Ireland to the new world which was set to be established on Vancouver Island. Once arrived on the island people were still losing their lives because of disease, lack of food and supplies. No one ever seemed happy, the mood was always dark and ominous and this was exemplified by Donal’s own wife. Upon first seeing the colony Donal had established, the first impression his wife had was not a very good one “One of the first things I remember thinking when I got down into this place was what have they done to it so that I feel as if I should keep my eyes always on the ground?”( Hodgins, 246). “You were conscious only of the earth, the dirt…the houses were all squat, dark made of logs[…]” (Hodgins, 247). First impressions go a long way and her first impression was an accurate one, “ It was an ugly sight, that first day, that first week, in the rain. Those brown log shacks, those pale fields, everything was so dull.” (Hodgins,.247). The colony was not successful but Donal did not come to this realization. “[…] he thought he’d provided everything on it that anyone could possibly want: a piece of land, a sense of belonging, enough work to keep you too tired to start worrying about anything[…]” (Hodgins, 254). Donal claimed to be the father of his followers but if he were in fact their father, he would have taken much better care of them and a half decent society could have been established. Instead he was blind to his own actions and the reaction to this was a failed utopia.
Finally, Donal Keneally thought he had succeeded in creating his own world but this was in fact the root of his failed utopia. The problem was that Donal thought. He thought he had done everything he could to create the ideal new world but a thought and the truth are sometimes very different things. Even if someone would have had the courage to tell Donal he had failed he would have probably just ignored them. He was stuck in his own little world, his own little paradise where everything was perfect. He had failed in re-inventing the world and if he could have just opened his eyes and looked around, that would have been enough proof to persuade God himself. He was blind to the reactions of his followers and therefore could not accept failure. He blindly regressed his colony into a less evolved, less mature society than the outside world. On the outside world, society’s were evolving into more well adapted environments where humans were fine the way they were living. Instead of doing his people good by re-inventing the world, he sent his colony into a less developed state than what they had been from the start and he was not able to see what he had done. He would often give speeches on how his colony will be used as a model in future societies yet its existence did not surpass a decade.
And then there were the speeches just for me. About his colony and how it would be held up as a model in the future and how he was trying to get the government to come in and have a look in order to set up others like it on the island. You shouldn’t colonize a place by just inviting people onto it and letting them do what they want, he said, that way in fifty years they’ll have ruined it all, you’ll get people thinking they have the right to sell some of it to the others. (Hodgins, 255).
If existing societies were turned into Donal’s vision, then the whole world would be in ruins. No one would ever be happy, endless lives would be lost yet Donal would still not see this as if he has made a mistake. Even a character in the modern day aspect of the novel discussed that fact that Vancouver Island had been the home of many failed utopias, Donal’s being one of them “this Island is littered with failed utopias"(Hodgins,77). Donal failed in re-inventing the world and he failed in seeing this.
Clearly, Donal’s goal to re-invent the world had no other outcome then to become a failed utopia. From the start, Donal’s childhood would mold him into an unstable leader which would be one of the main reasons behind his failed utopia. He thought he knew everything but the truth is, he does not know how to accomplish his one goal in life and he is blind to this. If he could of just opened his eyes and taken a look around his colony he would have seen how unhappy everyone was. He could have acknowledged his mistake but he was too stubborn and ignorant to do so and because of this, countless lives were lost. Donal thought he had succeeded in re-inventing the world, but this was his biggest mistake. He was blind to everything around him and because of this, a failed utopia was inevitable.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Essay Outline
I figured I might as well post my outline on my blog just because. I gave my hard copy into murray on friday so hopefully I'll get it back tommorow (tuesday) and I'll start my essay thursday night at around 11 p.m. because it is due friday.... just joking. Im going to do a bit of work each night and hopefully get it done by wedendsay.
Essay outline
The invention of the world
Yanick Lee
Thesis: Donal Brendan Keneally’s attempt to invent the world by starting a colony(revelations colony of truth) resulted in him being blind to his own failed utopia.
Reason: In order to see the result of a failed utopia, it is first necessary to investigate Donal Keneally’s childhood in order to really understand what is behind his vision. Donal Keneally’s childhood molded him into being an unstable leader therefore a failed utopia was inevitable.
Example: He is the son of a whore and a bull and at a young age was taught too much knowledge for his own good. He is a quick learner, but a learner of the wrong things and arrogant as well as not listening to what people have to say. He used his knowledge to make people’s lives around him miserable.
Examples: 1. Son of a whore and bull “…she went out to the shed in the night to check on the girl and found her mounted by a monstrous black bull with eyes that shone like red lanterns and a scrotum that hung like a sack of turnips” (pg. 71)
2. “ The O’Sullivan family reported that they’d seen him, at the age of three, marching across their bottom field where their meanest bull was kept out of the way of mischief, to give the snorting beast a crack across his nose. And Moriarty In his bar reported less than a year later that he’d seen the boy give Jerry Quirke a good kick that set him rolling on his back. “Oh he’s a bold child, that one,” they all agreed. (pg. 79)
3. “… the boy was the easiest pupil he’d ever taught.” (pg. 80)
4. “ By the age of twelve he was able to tell everyone in Moriarty’s Bar of fifty different ways you could come at a world like “truth””. (pg.81) – had the right idea as a child but vision changed.
5. “ on another occasion he hypnotized them all(the village) into believing they were a herd of cows and sent them mooing down the road tossing their heads at flies…Quirke told him he’d gone too far and ought to be beaten like a dog.” (pg.81)
6. “… for in some matters he’s as ignorant as the next man and twice as dangerous”. (pg.82)
7. “…for Keneally with his usual capacity for not only learning all there was to teach, but also going on from there to every possible logical extreme, immediately turned himself into a pair of twins.” (pg.83)
8. “ The villagers became so angry at the boy’s nonsense that instead of complaining to Quirke as they had done in the past they came in a group to Brendan, and tried to persuade him that for the good of the whole mountain he should strangle his brother in his sleep…” (pg.85)
Reason (continuation of reason #1): Donal thought he knew everything there was to know but the truth is, he does not know how to accomplish his one goal in life: to invent the world. This causing the failed utopia.
Example: Donal had an apparatus that he claimed was god. He used this apparatus to persuade people into thinking that he had god in his pocket, making him seem greater than god. Which would lead them to believe that he could accomplish anything.
Example: 1. “Out of this pocket and that pocket and out of his sleeves he pulled wheels and rods and cylinders and boxes until he had assembled before him a large complicated machine which he told them was God…he said, but the fact was that God was a machine which he carried around in his pocket. God was hs slave too, just as all of them had become his slaves, and he would show them what he thought of God his slave.” (pg. 99).
Reason: Many people lost their lives on the trip to Vancouver island, and many lost their lives in the actual colony because of disease and lack of food and supplies. No one was ever happy, the mood was always dark and ominous and Keneally had gotten power hungry. He claimed to be the father of his followers but if he were in fact their father, he would of taken much better care of them.
Examples: 1. “ One of the first things I remember thinking when I got down into this place was what have they done to it so that I feel as if I should keep my eyes always on the ground?”(pg. 246).
2. “ You were conscious only of the earth, the dirt…the houses were all squat, dark made of logs…” (pg.247).
3. “ It was an ugly sight, that first day, that first week, in the rain. Those brown log shacks, those pale fields, everything was so dull.” (pg.247)
4. “ I saw them all through that rain, living in their cloud, going about their plodding business with their eyes hardly ever lifted off the ground in front of their feet. I imagined that they were incapable of seeing anything beyond they own bodies, their own clay.” (pg. 250)
5. “… he thought he’d provided everything on it that anyone could possibly want: a piece of land, a sense of belonging, enough work to keep you too tired to start worrying about anything…” (pg. 254)
Reason: Donal Keneally thought he had succeeded in creating his own world. This was the root of his failed utopia. He was blind to the reactions of the pioneers of his colony and therefore could not accept the fact that he had failed.
Example: Donal would give speeches on how his colony will be used as a model in future society’s yet its existence did not surpass a decade.
Example: “ And then there were the speeches just for me. About his colony and how it would be held up as a model in the future and how he was trying to get the government to come in and have a look in order to set up others like it on the island. You shouldn’t colonize a place by just inviting people onto it and letting them do what they want, he said, that way in fifty years they’ll have ruined it all, you’ll get people thinking they have the right to sell some of it to the others.” (pg. 255)
Essay outline
The invention of the world
Yanick Lee
Thesis: Donal Brendan Keneally’s attempt to invent the world by starting a colony(revelations colony of truth) resulted in him being blind to his own failed utopia.
Reason: In order to see the result of a failed utopia, it is first necessary to investigate Donal Keneally’s childhood in order to really understand what is behind his vision. Donal Keneally’s childhood molded him into being an unstable leader therefore a failed utopia was inevitable.
Example: He is the son of a whore and a bull and at a young age was taught too much knowledge for his own good. He is a quick learner, but a learner of the wrong things and arrogant as well as not listening to what people have to say. He used his knowledge to make people’s lives around him miserable.
Examples: 1. Son of a whore and bull “…she went out to the shed in the night to check on the girl and found her mounted by a monstrous black bull with eyes that shone like red lanterns and a scrotum that hung like a sack of turnips” (pg. 71)
2. “ The O’Sullivan family reported that they’d seen him, at the age of three, marching across their bottom field where their meanest bull was kept out of the way of mischief, to give the snorting beast a crack across his nose. And Moriarty In his bar reported less than a year later that he’d seen the boy give Jerry Quirke a good kick that set him rolling on his back. “Oh he’s a bold child, that one,” they all agreed. (pg. 79)
3. “… the boy was the easiest pupil he’d ever taught.” (pg. 80)
4. “ By the age of twelve he was able to tell everyone in Moriarty’s Bar of fifty different ways you could come at a world like “truth””. (pg.81) – had the right idea as a child but vision changed.
5. “ on another occasion he hypnotized them all(the village) into believing they were a herd of cows and sent them mooing down the road tossing their heads at flies…Quirke told him he’d gone too far and ought to be beaten like a dog.” (pg.81)
6. “… for in some matters he’s as ignorant as the next man and twice as dangerous”. (pg.82)
7. “…for Keneally with his usual capacity for not only learning all there was to teach, but also going on from there to every possible logical extreme, immediately turned himself into a pair of twins.” (pg.83)
8. “ The villagers became so angry at the boy’s nonsense that instead of complaining to Quirke as they had done in the past they came in a group to Brendan, and tried to persuade him that for the good of the whole mountain he should strangle his brother in his sleep…” (pg.85)
Reason (continuation of reason #1): Donal thought he knew everything there was to know but the truth is, he does not know how to accomplish his one goal in life: to invent the world. This causing the failed utopia.
Example: Donal had an apparatus that he claimed was god. He used this apparatus to persuade people into thinking that he had god in his pocket, making him seem greater than god. Which would lead them to believe that he could accomplish anything.
Example: 1. “Out of this pocket and that pocket and out of his sleeves he pulled wheels and rods and cylinders and boxes until he had assembled before him a large complicated machine which he told them was God…he said, but the fact was that God was a machine which he carried around in his pocket. God was hs slave too, just as all of them had become his slaves, and he would show them what he thought of God his slave.” (pg. 99).
Reason: Many people lost their lives on the trip to Vancouver island, and many lost their lives in the actual colony because of disease and lack of food and supplies. No one was ever happy, the mood was always dark and ominous and Keneally had gotten power hungry. He claimed to be the father of his followers but if he were in fact their father, he would of taken much better care of them.
Examples: 1. “ One of the first things I remember thinking when I got down into this place was what have they done to it so that I feel as if I should keep my eyes always on the ground?”(pg. 246).
2. “ You were conscious only of the earth, the dirt…the houses were all squat, dark made of logs…” (pg.247).
3. “ It was an ugly sight, that first day, that first week, in the rain. Those brown log shacks, those pale fields, everything was so dull.” (pg.247)
4. “ I saw them all through that rain, living in their cloud, going about their plodding business with their eyes hardly ever lifted off the ground in front of their feet. I imagined that they were incapable of seeing anything beyond they own bodies, their own clay.” (pg. 250)
5. “… he thought he’d provided everything on it that anyone could possibly want: a piece of land, a sense of belonging, enough work to keep you too tired to start worrying about anything…” (pg. 254)
Reason: Donal Keneally thought he had succeeded in creating his own world. This was the root of his failed utopia. He was blind to the reactions of the pioneers of his colony and therefore could not accept the fact that he had failed.
Example: Donal would give speeches on how his colony will be used as a model in future society’s yet its existence did not surpass a decade.
Example: “ And then there were the speeches just for me. About his colony and how it would be held up as a model in the future and how he was trying to get the government to come in and have a look in order to set up others like it on the island. You shouldn’t colonize a place by just inviting people onto it and letting them do what they want, he said, that way in fifty years they’ll have ruined it all, you’ll get people thinking they have the right to sell some of it to the others.” (pg. 255)
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The invention of the world: Thesis.
After completing my novel this weekend (basically reading all of it) I came up with three possible thesis's.
1. Donal Brendand Keneally's attemp to re-create the world turns out to be a failed utopia.
2. The characters in the novel make the extraordinary seem ordinary in his/her own ways.
3. The novel is a fictional retelling of Edward Arthur Wilson A.K.A Brother Twelve's journey.
These all seem pretty decent to me and I was thinking of maybe combining the first and second thesis's into one big thesis.
1. Donal Brendand Keneally's attemp to re-create the world turns out to be a failed utopia.
2. The characters in the novel make the extraordinary seem ordinary in his/her own ways.
3. The novel is a fictional retelling of Edward Arthur Wilson A.K.A Brother Twelve's journey.
These all seem pretty decent to me and I was thinking of maybe combining the first and second thesis's into one big thesis.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Lesson Plan for Reader Response
Lesson Plan
Reader Response Criticism:
Freddie, Julian, Nicole, Yanick
Objectives:
a) By the end of our presentation, students will be able to have a solid understanding of what reader response criticism is. Furthermore they will be able to identify key figures who theorized reader response and some of their theories behind reader response.
b) Students will be presented with background history of reader response in hopes of identifying the roots of this literary criticism.
c) Students will also be able to analyze a given text in the context of reader response.
d) Students will be presented with an interesting presentation which will hopefully keep them entertained and avidly participating.
Resources/Materials:
a) Projector
b) Laptop
c) Notes
d) Internet
Methodology:
Our group will be conducting a very informative presentation (slide show) concerning reader response criticism. We will be presenting background information on reader response and how it has evolved over the years as well as bibliographies and theories of the father’s of reader response (Fish, Iser, Holland, Jauss). Student’s will also be asked to read several texts and analyze them using reader response criticism.
Evaluation:
We will know when we have met our objectives when students are avidly participating in our presentation. We will also see that we have gotten through to the students when they are analyzing given texts using our literary criticism and they have a solid understanding of the theories behind reader response criticism.
Reader Response Criticism:
Freddie, Julian, Nicole, Yanick
Objectives:
a) By the end of our presentation, students will be able to have a solid understanding of what reader response criticism is. Furthermore they will be able to identify key figures who theorized reader response and some of their theories behind reader response.
b) Students will be presented with background history of reader response in hopes of identifying the roots of this literary criticism.
c) Students will also be able to analyze a given text in the context of reader response.
d) Students will be presented with an interesting presentation which will hopefully keep them entertained and avidly participating.
Resources/Materials:
a) Projector
b) Laptop
c) Notes
d) Internet
Methodology:
Our group will be conducting a very informative presentation (slide show) concerning reader response criticism. We will be presenting background information on reader response and how it has evolved over the years as well as bibliographies and theories of the father’s of reader response (Fish, Iser, Holland, Jauss). Student’s will also be asked to read several texts and analyze them using reader response criticism.
Evaluation:
We will know when we have met our objectives when students are avidly participating in our presentation. We will also see that we have gotten through to the students when they are analyzing given texts using our literary criticism and they have a solid understanding of the theories behind reader response criticism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
