1. Do you feel sorry for Lady Macbeth? Why or why not?
No. I hate her guts shes arrogant and controlling and hypocritical. Most definitely lacking in intelligence. Shakespeare wrote her from a very sexist standpoint.
2. What do you think about the character of Macbeth? Was he a good guy before he met the witches, or do his actions imply that he was always capable of dark deeds? Is he to blame for his actions, or are the witches really to blame?
I like Macbeth his is the epitome of humanities flaws. Mostly hypocrisy and ignorance. He was never a 'good guy' his greed for power and influence was still the same though he did not acknowledge it for fear of what he would look like to others. I think it was Lady Macbeth that 'made him evil' not the witches, since she forced him to initially acknowledge his desire for power. Of course he is to blame for his actions in the real world, but the play is about prophecy so in reality no one is to blame for his actions as his fate was already decided.
3. Is there a personal incident in your life you wish could erase?
Yes. and you are missing another 'you' in the above question.
Envision Lady Macbeth wringing her hands unable to get the imaginary blood off of them. She is haunted by her participation in the grisly deed. Do you think her response is plausible? Yes she was not understanding of the real-world affect her actions would have, and as with most dreams she was not prepared to face reality. Do you think you would be consumed with guilt yourself if you found yourself wrapped up in such a heinous crime? Prove to me that it is heinous and I would not be nervous. I would probably become insane from the guilt.
4. Have you ever experienced a predicted dream? ??Uhh, in hindsight I have recoginzed parallel ideas and concepts between a dream and reality, yes. Has anyone ever suggested something about your future that has actually come true? Of course, but the merit of this random guesses is quiestionable. Did their comments influence your actions and the results that followed? Consequences follow for every action.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Lady MacBeth quotes
I.
"What's done cannot be undone." (5.1.71)
"What's done is done." (3.2.14)
When Lady Macbeth says "What's done is done." in the third act after Duncan's death it is obvious how she seems to feel towards the ex-king's death. She wants to make MacBeth realize that there is no longer any need for fretting because he had already committed the act. She also is making herself realize that there is no need to worry, because this is after she sees Duncan's body and becomes anxious.
When she goes back to each death in her mind and on her transformation of MacBeth in the sleep walking scene in act V she is obviously feeling quite different. When she says "What's done cannot be undone." she is having doubts that what they did was proper. Also she knows that MacBeth truely is a killer because he has killed more than just Duncan (a man who in her mind deserved it.) She says that it cannot be undone in order to point out that there is regret for taking part it what has occured, this is in comparision to her noncommital line of what's done is done.
"What's done cannot be undone." (5.1.71)
"What's done is done." (3.2.14)
When Lady Macbeth says "What's done is done." in the third act after Duncan's death it is obvious how she seems to feel towards the ex-king's death. She wants to make MacBeth realize that there is no longer any need for fretting because he had already committed the act. She also is making herself realize that there is no need to worry, because this is after she sees Duncan's body and becomes anxious.
When she goes back to each death in her mind and on her transformation of MacBeth in the sleep walking scene in act V she is obviously feeling quite different. When she says "What's done cannot be undone." she is having doubts that what they did was proper. Also she knows that MacBeth truely is a killer because he has killed more than just Duncan (a man who in her mind deserved it.) She says that it cannot be undone in order to point out that there is regret for taking part it what has occured, this is in comparision to her noncommital line of what's done is done.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Again I speak on the incredible work of Ms. Margaret Atwood as she rights, again, about 'In the Secular Night'
I LOVE In the Secular Night by Margaret Atwood, and no amount of TPCASTTing or blogging could stop that.
HAMARTIA: The character flaw or error of a tragic hero that leads to his/her downfall.
Hamartia in In the Secular Night seems to be rampant. Ms. Atwood seethes with it in this poem as she nearly screams her message at the reader.
..............."You say, The sensed absence
of God and the sensed presence
amount to much the same thing,"
Obviously Ms.Atwood speaks of the reader here by saying 'you', and obviously by the reader she means society as a whole, because not just one person would end up reading the work. No this tragic flaw is not of a singular hero or heroine, but instead it is of us, and although I am no hero I am still tragically flawed in much the same way she explains in this poem.
I too blow cigarette smoke up chimneys and eat with my hands. No not literally, except the eating thing. But I do rebel against my relationships even when I want them, and although I know what I am doing through recognition of my flaws, I still cannot help but to need the 'breathing' room. I know others to be the same, and most likely all of society. In no ones life do you constantly want to be around people... Though she is saying that a lack of relationship with God and/or others is a flaw and that we will gain suffering through it. Although I cannot disagree completely I also cannot agree completely. Maybe with a better explanation she could have articulated her point to the point where I could choose her side or another, but at tis point I only know one thing for sure.
Its Harmatia.
HAMARTIA: The character flaw or error of a tragic hero that leads to his/her downfall.
Hamartia in In the Secular Night seems to be rampant. Ms. Atwood seethes with it in this poem as she nearly screams her message at the reader.
..............."You say, The sensed absence
of God and the sensed presence
amount to much the same thing,"
Obviously Ms.Atwood speaks of the reader here by saying 'you', and obviously by the reader she means society as a whole, because not just one person would end up reading the work. No this tragic flaw is not of a singular hero or heroine, but instead it is of us, and although I am no hero I am still tragically flawed in much the same way she explains in this poem.
I too blow cigarette smoke up chimneys and eat with my hands. No not literally, except the eating thing. But I do rebel against my relationships even when I want them, and although I know what I am doing through recognition of my flaws, I still cannot help but to need the 'breathing' room. I know others to be the same, and most likely all of society. In no ones life do you constantly want to be around people... Though she is saying that a lack of relationship with God and/or others is a flaw and that we will gain suffering through it. Although I cannot disagree completely I also cannot agree completely. Maybe with a better explanation she could have articulated her point to the point where I could choose her side or another, but at tis point I only know one thing for sure.
Its Harmatia.
An ancient tradition; TPCASSTing and poetry, most especially the poetry of Margaret Atwood entitled 'In the Secular Night'
After TPCASSTing "In the Secular Night" by Margaret Atwood I discovered many things which I did not believe to be buried in her work. The first most noticeable thing was the relentless female voice. I believe that Ms. Atwood did this in order to describe her views on religion more passionately, and from a familiar perspective. The female voice eminating through the page is outstanding, but it is not only her need to be passionate and comfortable which drives her to use it so.
this could have been mysticism
or heresy. It isn't now.
Women have been low on the totem pole for a long time until recently, and the time she refers to with the above line sin the third stanza were about the same time. Her female voice here lendcs itself to this idea, and tied in with her need for passion and comfort in her own message it makes the voice completely necessary for the poem.
You may also notice the use of rebellion in the poem; the purple shake, the cigarette, and then the slightly less rebellious rebellion of retaing a secret vice, and eating with hands. This is lending to the final stanza as well. A sort of going-against-the-flow seems to be a recurring element in this poem. This is showing the redundancy of rebellion as well, kind of like Ms.Atwood saying to her rebellious readers "You aren't rebelling when you rebel".
I will not share everything, I would much rather leave it to your own devices but I am sure from what I have said that you can have a good jumping point in which to leap from so that you can swim in the deep blue words of Atwood.(haha postmodern essay moment; where prose becomes poetry and poetry prose)
this could have been mysticism
or heresy. It isn't now.
Women have been low on the totem pole for a long time until recently, and the time she refers to with the above line sin the third stanza were about the same time. Her female voice here lendcs itself to this idea, and tied in with her need for passion and comfort in her own message it makes the voice completely necessary for the poem.
You may also notice the use of rebellion in the poem; the purple shake, the cigarette, and then the slightly less rebellious rebellion of retaing a secret vice, and eating with hands. This is lending to the final stanza as well. A sort of going-against-the-flow seems to be a recurring element in this poem. This is showing the redundancy of rebellion as well, kind of like Ms.Atwood saying to her rebellious readers "You aren't rebelling when you rebel".
I will not share everything, I would much rather leave it to your own devices but I am sure from what I have said that you can have a good jumping point in which to leap from so that you can swim in the deep blue words of Atwood.(haha postmodern essay moment; where prose becomes poetry and poetry prose)
One righteous diggity dog named Plath (dawg is spelled incorrectly, please do not comment as it is not an old woman writing the blog at all homies)
Dickinson, Plath, or Atwood? Who is the better poet? After much deliberation I have discovered that none is better than another because of the variance between their styles, messages, and backgrounds. Though I also have decided that I adore Plath the most. Her style is simply irresistible. The way she uses symbolism and metaphors to present a message through a scenario is phenomenal.
Her down to earth messages and political, social, and philosophical viewpoints are astounding. I nearly agree with her completely in all of her poetry, then again I cannot say that I am completely correct in my interpretation of her words...
Her style is similar to my own in the way she and I choose to write our messages through symbols and metaphors, though she is a far better artist than I. I can also understand how she writes at only a certain time of day, though for my it is only night and I absolutely cannot think anyone is aware of me.
In conclusion, Plath is one righteous diggity dog.
Her down to earth messages and political, social, and philosophical viewpoints are astounding. I nearly agree with her completely in all of her poetry, then again I cannot say that I am completely correct in my interpretation of her words...
Her style is similar to my own in the way she and I choose to write our messages through symbols and metaphors, though she is a far better artist than I. I can also understand how she writes at only a certain time of day, though for my it is only night and I absolutely cannot think anyone is aware of me.
In conclusion, Plath is one righteous diggity dog.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
If in a hypothetical situation I was asked if tragic flaw was an issue in the novel In the Skin of a Lion by Michael Ondattje I would have to say:
If someone like a hypothetical English teacher hypothetically named Mrs. Lavender created a question which asked, hypothetically, “Is tragic flaw an issue in this novel?” and then hypothetically continued “Choose one character and explore how their tragic flaw resulted in disaster.” Then I would have to say the following:
Tragic flaw is not only an issue in this novel, it is in fact a leading theme throughout, and may in fact be what gives this novel any important message or purpose. The character which I choose is Ambrose Small because his disaster and flaw are easy to see. His flaw is obvious;
“Ambrose Small, as a millionaire, had always kept the landscapes of his world separate, high walls between them. Lovers, compatriots, businessmen, were anonymous to each other. As far as they knew there were no others, or they assumed the others lived in far countries.”
Ambrose suffered from detachment. He attempted to divide his life until he divided so much he actually divided himself. In the end paragraphs before his end we see that he became confused and his mind began to jumble so much to have Clara “shocked…in the intricacy of his knowledge”. The disaster was death.
Tragic flaw is not only an issue in this novel, it is in fact a leading theme throughout, and may in fact be what gives this novel any important message or purpose. The character which I choose is Ambrose Small because his disaster and flaw are easy to see. His flaw is obvious;
“Ambrose Small, as a millionaire, had always kept the landscapes of his world separate, high walls between them. Lovers, compatriots, businessmen, were anonymous to each other. As far as they knew there were no others, or they assumed the others lived in far countries.”
Ambrose suffered from detachment. He attempted to divide his life until he divided so much he actually divided himself. In the end paragraphs before his end we see that he became confused and his mind began to jumble so much to have Clara “shocked…in the intricacy of his knowledge”. The disaster was death.
This is the title for my post on a chracter(Patrick) who I most identify with in the novel "In the Skin of a Lion" by Michael Ondaatje; the Canadien.
If I were to pick one character to be the one I most identify with it would probably be Patrick. I know everyone thinks they identify with him as well, and my class…I mean my book club!- will probably be filled with people who believe that Patrick exemplifies their traits, but I believe he also is like me. Of course, we all may choose him only because we understand the aspects of his character the best, due to the fact that he is the protagonist. It would be natural for us to pick him because each of us can see at least a little of ourselves in him.
I personally identify with him because of his background, his emotional state, and the ladies. His background is similar to mine because we both were raised in a single parent household in the middle of the countryside. Also his father’s teaching style was very similar to my Father’s, being the watch-and-pray teaching style. Where his father simply did the things he wanted to teach and made his son watch in order to learn. His emotional state is similar to mine as well, being the detached observer (my classmates…I mean fellow book clubbers!- will probably disagree with me, but in more formal situations or in situations of which I am less comfortable I tend to be…reserved). He also has the classic emotions-bottled-up attitude that most men have. This is one of the reasons he blows up the dock after Alice’s death. His emotions finally have built up far too much. I personally relate to the dock incident because of my minds tendency to do things mentally which would be considered wrong in society. Blowing up a dock is child’s play. The matter of ladies being something I identify with is absolutely incorrect.
I would never have someone break up with me. :O
I personally identify with him because of his background, his emotional state, and the ladies. His background is similar to mine because we both were raised in a single parent household in the middle of the countryside. Also his father’s teaching style was very similar to my Father’s, being the watch-and-pray teaching style. Where his father simply did the things he wanted to teach and made his son watch in order to learn. His emotional state is similar to mine as well, being the detached observer (my classmates…I mean fellow book clubbers!- will probably disagree with me, but in more formal situations or in situations of which I am less comfortable I tend to be…reserved). He also has the classic emotions-bottled-up attitude that most men have. This is one of the reasons he blows up the dock after Alice’s death. His emotions finally have built up far too much. I personally relate to the dock incident because of my minds tendency to do things mentally which would be considered wrong in society. Blowing up a dock is child’s play. The matter of ladies being something I identify with is absolutely incorrect.
I would never have someone break up with me. :O
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
