Round of Applause for TS Eliot

This post kind of goes along with my other commentary on Hamlet but I hadn't read Eliot's response to it at the time. In all honesty, I agree with Eliot's criticisms of Shakespeare's play. I'm not sure I would go as far as calling it an "artistic failure," but I don't see why it is such a widely discussed piece of literature. Like Eliot says, most of the play is puzzling an confusing. Half of the time while reading Hamlet I thought to myself, "What's the point?" I agree with Eliot that there are a lot of superfluous scenes in the play--scenes that don't make sense or pretty random. If someone asked my to describe the tone of the play or discuss a major theme, I truly would have a difficult time doing so. As discussed in class, throughout the entire story you never know why Hamlet is doing what he's doing. You hardly know anything about Hamlet himself, or any of the other characters. You're given no explanations, no background information, and no foundation to build your own personal theories on. You're pretty much just guessing at what's going on in the play the entire time. I was, at least. I think Eliot has a pretty good response to the play. There's a big part of me that thinks people like and praise Hamlet simply because Shakespeare wrote it--if Shakespeare wrote something, it has to be good doesn't it? seems to be most people's train of thoughts. I'm glad Eliot doesn't pretend to enjoy the play or give it false sentiments. It was kind of refreshing to read about a well-known author bashing Shakespeare for once.

Recitatif

So throughout the entire story I wasn't sure which girl was white and which girl was African American. Every time I thought I had it figured out, Morrison would write something that made me question everything. Originally I assumed Morrison herself was the narrator, making the story from an African American perspective. But then I realized it wasn't her and then I got super confused. At first it kind of annoyed me, not knowing who was who. I wasn't sure if I was completely missing something, or what. I just knew I had no idea what color skin the narrator had and what color skin the friend had. But in retrospect, I realize it doesn't really matter who has what color skin in the story. It actually makes it kind of interesting, not knowing. Because the story really could be told from either perspective--it works both ways. And I think that really adds something special to the story. It's interesting to read through the piece of writing twice--once from the viewpoint of a young African American girl; and once from the point view of a young white girl. Either way the story gives the audience a good look into the different stages of life between the friendship of an African American girl and a white girl. The story makes me wonder if any part of it was based on a personal experience of Morrison's.





P.S. I still don't understand the title of the story at all.

Barbie Doll

Marge Piercy wrote "Barbie Doll" over forty years ago, yet people--especially, of course, girls--can still relate to it today. You would think that forty years later society would throw away their standards of how young girls should look as they are growing up. That's not the case, though. Girls today are still under the same pressure Piercy wrote about in the early 1970s. The sad truth of reality is that you could be one of the smartest, healthiest girls out there, but if you are not pretty by society's standards, you're not really anything. And that's the worst part. Day in and day out girls are getting criticized based on how they look. Yeah sure, some girls can brush off the nasty comments as if they're nothing, but at some point that patience is going to run out (Her good nature wore out/like a fan belt, lines 15-16). That girl who acted like the remarks didn't bother her is going to crack. Just like in the poem. If you take the poem literally, the narrator kills herself because society has told her she's not pretty. If you take the poem metaphorically, the narrator seems to have undergone some sort of surgery to make herself pretty in society's eyes--thereby killing who she truly is. Either way it doesn't end well. To me, it's just sad to look at the poem knowing it was written in a different time, with different people and pretty much different everything, and still see that females are criticized on how they look in the same way. Not a lot of progression, in my opinion, and something that really needs to change.

Emily Dickinson

So for the longest time I have been pretty indifferent about Emily Dickinson and her writing. I haven't really liked her, but I can't say I disliked her poems. I do have to admit that I find her liberal use of capitalization and dashes very intriguing. I also find it interesting that no one really knows why she writes like she does. After reading "My Life had stood--a Loaded Gun--" I've decided that I do actually enjoy Dickinson. This isn't the first time I've read this poem, but it is the first time I've actually retained what she's saying in it. I guess the overall poem is a bit strange--comparing her life to a gun--but for some reason it interests me to a great extent. I like how Dickinson was able to compare a life to such a random object, and even better is that what she said made sense to me. I actually get where Dickinson's coming from in this poem, which makes it a lot easier and more interesting to read. I guess I really enjoyed how she chose something a person normally wouldn't think of when they're describing a life, but Dickinson was able to create 24 lines of, in my opinion, really great writing.

Hamlet

The first time I read Hamlet was in senior year of high school. It wasn't my favorite piece of literature ever, but in my opinion it was pretty good as far as Shakespeare goes. Now, after reading it again, my opinion on it still stands: Hamlet is one of my least favorite characters I have ever read about. For some reason I find him cowardly and pathetic. As I read the play I kept going back and forth in my mind, Is Hamlet really crazy? Or is he just faking it and using it as an excuse? Honestly I don't even know if I could give an answer to either of those questions because I simply do not know. When I was reading it this time, I tried to look at the story through the Sigmund Freud critical approach that says Hamlet likes his mother a little too much. And I have to admit, with that approach in mind, there are points in the play where it does seem like that. I'm still not one hundred percent sure I buy that theory, but I'm willing to consider it. Which, in my personal opinion, is just another strike against Hamlet in my book. It's like he's everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Hamlet is one of the most sporadic and unpredictable characters I've ever encountered, but in this instance I don't really mean that in a good way. I know a lot of people sympathize with Hamlet and claim he's a victim of outside sources--which I do agree with to some extent--but to me he's still just a tragic character who needs to get his act together. The question posed in class today was, "Why does Hamlet delay?" Naturally we came up with a lot of different reasons for Hamlet's delay in killing his uncle, but personally I think he was just scared. He seemed so driven and determined to do it, yet never actually executed a plan. Until the very end but by then it was too late, as Hamlet himself was already dying. So basically in conclusion, I didn't find myself sympathizing with Hamlet very much. I found myself criticizing and questioning him, every move he made and every word he said.

Death of a Salesman

Having read Death of a Salesman in high school really helped me when approaching it a second time around for this class. I was able to prepare myself for the potential confusing parts of the play. I warned myself to read it carefully, knowing that last time I read it I probably missed some key points. The first time I read the play there were a lot of parts in it where I asked myself, What the hell did I miss? So when reading it this time I was a bit more prepared for those parts--though some parts were still a bit confusing and I had to read them over and over again until what was happening actually sunk in. A lot of people say you when you read something for a second time you discover a lot of stuff you missed, and I couldn't think of a better example than Death of a Salesman. I have to say that I wasn't very fond of it in high school. I found it pretty boring and didn't really see the point of it. Though even after a second time of reading it I'm still not the play's biggest fan, I can appreciate it more now and even analyze it better.

The Lady with the Dog

Throughout my lifetime I've read my share of love stories--some of which were good, some of which weren't so good. When I first read The Lady with the Dog I was expecting a stereotypical happy-ending love story. I figured the man would divorce his wife, Anna would divorce her husband, and the man and Anna would live together happily ever after. Of course, like every love story the two characters faced a number of trials and tribulations throughout their relationship. None of that was surprising. In my opinion the most shocking part was when Anna left the man for her husband when her husband wasn't feeling well--I didn't see that coming. Again, not surprising the man chased after Anna after some time. I expected her to welcome him with open arms, as long as her husband wasn't aware, so when she sent him away I was surprised yet again. The whole story, for me, was kind of sad and tragic; I found the ending neither hopeful nor promising--it didn't seem like the man and Anna's relationship was going to work out in the long run, which is ironic seeing as it was the main focus of the piece of writing. To me, it seemed like the whole story was a build up of the man and Anna's relationship, only to have it crash and burn at the end, which isn't like the majority of love stories.

Hemingway

Overall, I am usually a big fan of Ernest Hemingway and his writing, with a few criticisms of course! Hills Like White Elephants was not one of my favorite stories by him. I know we talked about it in class so I'd just like to reinforce how frustrating it can be to read Hemingway when he literally gives you almost nothing to work with when it comes to dialogue. Nine out of ten times I have no idea how a statement or question should be said or asked. Sometimes I am able to infer from surrounding context, but not all the time, or most of the time for that matter. He never adds "she said sarcastically," or "he asked in a teasing tone," and after a while it gets rather annoying. Hills Like White Elephants was no different; the part where the man and woman are going back and forth about having the entire world to themselves and everything, I had no idea how to read. Was it serious? Was it sarcastic? I truly do not know.
Another thing that I didn't like about Hemingway's piece was at first the woman says the hills in the distance look like white elephants; shortly after that, though, she makes the statement that they don't really look like elephants, just their coloring does. Honestly the only thing going through my mind then was, What are you even talking about? Hemingway doesn't provide a lot of extraneous details about his stories and characters, something that isn't always the best thing for a piece of literature.

Grad School

Even though I'm only a freshman and even the idea of grad school seems like a long way away, I'm glad Ray Horton gave me some information on it already. He brought with him a lot of helpful tips and pieces of information that I think will help me throughout my years as an English major, regardless of whether or not I decide to go to grad school. I think my favorite part of his talk was when he told us that you may not get into one of your "safety" schools, but get accepted to one of your "reach" schools. That came as a huge relief to me! I also did like how he didn't only stick to grad school, though--I was grateful he covered his time at Mercyhurst. In my opinion it was a lot more effective that he actually went to the same college as us, had the same professors we have, or will have, and shared some of the same experiences as us--that made it a lot easier to relate to Ray. I really believe everything he talked to us about will help me with a successful English career no matter where I wind up!

Carver's Cathedral

Raymond Carver's Cathedral really said a lot to me, and so far is my favorite reading we've done for class. Of course, at the beginning of the story the husband seems like, for lack of a better word, a complete jerk who can't really connect with other people, or himself for that matter. The husband doesn't name any other characters in his story except for Robert, the blind man, further distancing himself from the people around him; however, the husband doesn't actually reveal Robert's name until later in the story. The husband seems to have a certain ignorance about him and doesn't like anything he isn't fully informed about. Even when Robert comes to his home the husband does almost everything he can to avoid any conversations with the blind man--he goes as far as turning on the television so he wouldn't be forced to talk to Robert. However, as the night stretches on, the husband seems to break down a few of his boundaries. When Robert asks him to describe cathedrals, the husband does the best he can to do the buildings justice; when it is clear the husband can't describe them very effectively Robert suggests drawing a cathedral. The husband doesn't even question the action as he gathers the needed materials. Soon, his hand is guiding Robert's across the paper as they create their own cathedral. The husband then realizes what he was doing then wasn't like anything else in his life. Overall it's nice to see the character transformation of the husband throughout the story. I think everyone at one point in their life experiences something they aren't to thrilled about--the husband's was meeting Robert. However, most situations that originally make us uncomfortable a lot of times end up being the things that change us for the better most of all.

Changing Fiction

      The Norton book has a small section dedicated to what happens when merely one word in a piece of literature is changed--it describes the drastic effects that change can have on the writing. We proved this in class the other day when we tweaked various words in "The Dust of Snow" by Robert Frost. Just by changing the word "crow" to "vulture" or "dove" really gave the poem an entire different meaning. It's interesting how such a little change can alter the overall affect of a piece of writing. It's actually a lot of fun to now read various things and change some of the words to see what kind of different results you get!