My Fav....

                                                                      WEB

I’m particularly proud of blog 12, where I discussed the rebirth of death. The philosophy of death has been something that has interested me for some time, so discussing it was exciting. To me death isn’t final, not in a religious connotation but in a rather philosophical mindset. We should fear death; instead we should look at it as the end of one cycle and the beginning of another. I enjoy being able to write freely, without heavy rules and restrictions, and these blogs, for the most part, has allowed me to so. I may be discussing Shakespeare, but I get to think independently about the material and produce my own opinions about the piece. I think more teachers should step away from tedious demands and other banalities, but instead should let students minds wander to more creative thoughts. 

I learned a great deal about drama and the practice of writing about the subject. I like to understand characters on a deep level when reading and some of the exercises stressed this case. Characters, to me, are more important than the plot. If you don’t care about characters, you aren’t going to care about the plot no matter how interesting it may appear. Plot has its place, obviously, but characters ate the lifeblood of good literature. Actually, characters are the lifeblood of any good entertainment. I think this is apparent with the rise of reality TV. The plots of these shows are thick and uninteresting, for the most part, but it is the characters that make people tune in every week. Writing about drama, is in part, about writing about characters and their motivations. And I enjoyed doing so.              

Giddy

                                                                                   WEB

The definition for giddy, according to Merriam-Webster, is dizzy, or precisely: mentally confused. Most of the characters in Much Ado do seem to some extent to be suffering from mental confusion. Confusion about their feelings for one another, and generally mental confusion due to misunderstands, most of an intentional nature. The most confused characters are Benedick and Beatrice. They are confused in part for the true nature of their emotions for each other. Their outward displays of disliking truly mask their genuine emotions of love. The other definition of giddy states a frivolous and lighthearted nature, which, once again, most of the characters fall prey to. Don Pedro seems to be the most lighthearted, being the prime instigator of the deception of Benedick and Beatrice. 

Sigh no more displays the qualities of a confused, carefree individual. “One foot on sea and one foot on shore,” shows the naturally contradictory nature of most people.  “One thing constant never,” illustrates the mutable nature of people. How we are constantly shifting and adapting, changing.  The song also shows how people should let go of their woes and turn it into nothing “nonny, nonny.”  How we should be blithe, in a manner of speaking. Man never truly knows what he wants and is a constant state of flux. We are persistently trying to displace our feelings of sadness, and to become carefree, in a sense, to the natural change of time. 

Man as a giddy thing displays the true nature of humans and so plays into the comedic nature of the play. Jesting about the apparent issues of human nature lies at the core of most comedic endeavors. They make observations about everyday life, and makes us see the ridiculous of it all. We are all confused, about one thing or another, and we all at some point find one foot on sea and one on shore. But we, through life, come to see all of our woes and turn them into “nonny, nonny.” We laugh at ourselves and all of our obvious contradictions, and move forward in the word.  

THE REBIRTH OF DEATH

                                                                              WEB
 Greetings All,
      In class today we were asked to pick a question from the list stated here. Can you guess which one i picked ? Also i looked in my recient blogs and some were along the lines of each and every blog it say SO.. (lol) Being that i noticed that i will try and refrain from saying that. (random).

   The tarot card of ‘Death’ is often said to represent not an actual literal or physical death but a spiritual metaphorical death. The same could be said for the “death” of hero. In philosophy a lot of the time death is representative of the end of a cycle of phase. Many people consider death to be a negative thing, but in some contexts death is actually very much a positive. Death of an old relationship or death of an era shines light on new beginnings and possibilities. In Much Ado About Nothing, the death of Hero is greatly symbolic even beyond the obvious description. By her “dying” Claudio’s feelings about the alleged adultery are forced into the backseat, whereas his grief and love for her are brought into the forefront. He mourns the death of his love while absolving her supposed sins. Often when people die, everyone magically forgets the bad and somehow only remembers the good. By Hero dying she is in a sense becoming reborn, like the phoenix rising up from the ashes she will become something better that what she was. 

         It is not only manipulative but it is in a sense cruel to have someone believe someone is dead just to amend their thoughts. The ending is obviously happy with Claudio meeting Hero’s “cousin” who is merely Hero is disguise, but it is a mean prank to put someone though such emotional turmoil to do so. Nevertheless, the love and heartbreak that occurred before died with the old Hero and it was replaced with the happy adulation of a blushing couple. Death isn’t always to be feared, as sometimes death can guide us to a rebirth and a world full of new possibilities. 

WHATS LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?

                                                                            WEB                                                    

Greetings ! More blog writting it is. In class now we are reading a book by shakespeare called Much ado about nothing. Our Professor had asked of us to choose one of these questions and answer it. Here goes nothing . Enjoy :)


     Love isn’t meant to be contained. Love should run wild and scorch the earth with passion. But in Shakespeare’s time, the Elizabethan Era, this type of love was almost constantly quelled. Back in this time marriage was not necessarily a sign of love. People married for status and for their best interest often with actual love being of secondary importance. If asked what I think of such match-making I’m almost overwhelmed with disgust. In modern times if a person was to marry for money or social status they would most likely be chastised. In my eyes people should only marry for one reason and one reason only, and that is for love. Everything else doesn’t really matter. In quoting John Lennon of the Beatles it’s suffice to say that “all you need is love.”

   When speaking of the relationship between Claudio and Hero, I think that Claudio is attracted to Hero based on her looks, as Claudio even said “In mine eye she is the sweetest lady that ever I looked on.” He is blinded by her beauty, falling in love with her without even speaking. Now I understand that in Shakespearean plays the theory of “love at first sight” is highly common and that in the Elizabethan Era Claudio and Hero’s “love” would have even been the norm but it still doesn’t make much sense. Also for him to completely rebuke her without question at their wedding is completely absurd. If he truly loved her he would have spoken to her, defended her honor but instead he rejected her fully. Love is something that is formed over time. You could be in lust with someone by just looking at them but you surely cannot be in love. With that said, the relationship that Claudio and Hero has is not necessarily love but infatuation.  On a side note, I think that the correlation between love and marriage is just an excuse for the men of that period to lay claim to a woman, to keep her as a mere object or property. Claudio wanted Hero to be married to him not out of love but because he didn’t want any other man to have her, he wanted her to himself. Hence why he was so upset when he thought she was involved in adultery. It’s almost like him saying “my lady, my prized virgin mistress, do not dote upon another but I, for I will possess thou and let no man taint thy virtuous flesh.” This may be a tad dramatic but the message is conveyed, although I am sad that I just slaughtered Shakespearean speech. But I digress. He wanted to possess her because of his infatuation with her and in essence the entirety of the play was not based on the love this pair shared but their fixation with each other. 

THE LEARNING PROCESS

                                                                                  WEB




 Hello! 
    So our teacher asked us to follow the instructions listed HERE.  The reading is over and the fun begins now as we Write.(sike)

   I’m particularly proud of blog number five where I discussed slave breeding. I’m proud of this post because it was the only time I felt I actually wrote in my own voice. I realize now the glaringly obvious grammar mistakes, but I do not think that takes away, for the most point, the voice of the piece. I could abolish blame by saying how tired I was, but doing so is silly. Editorializing, as was the comment made, is correct. I expressed myself without fear of sounding less academic or serious. Sometimes being too serious isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Why must we all write and sound the same in order to satisfy some inane standard? Originality and staying true to your own voice as a writer should be priority. But alas, every thesis and research paper sounds exactly the same as if everyone were writing from a template. This is the reason I dislike writing for school. The problem could lie with me. I suppose I read too many snarky reviews on Cracked.com for my own good or maybe Vonnegut wore off on me. Nevertheless, it is a forced requirement.

      But I digress. Writing about any book is tricky at times because a person could seriously write until their fingers turn blue describing plot and theme and character evaluations. One book could create four other books describing everything from mood and the underlying meaning of a particular paragraph.  However, throughout reading Kindred and the assorted lectures, quizzes and blogs that followed, my understanding of the craft of narrative increased exponentially. I realized that thinking critically about a book makes the experience more real and creates a deeper understanding to the world the author created. Reading for pleasure and reading for school are two different things, I think almost everyone would agree. While reading Hunger Games is fun, I don’t stop and think, “gee, I wonder what the author was trying to convey with this passage.” Instead, you read, you laugh and you move on. But when you stop for a moment and actually think about what you’ve read you sometimes see things that you missed. I think that’s what I learned most from the experience, to stop and think a little harder about things. 

LOOKING BACK

                                                                                 WEB



So today we were asked by our professor to do another blog about the book Kindred and choose one of the questions from  HERE and answer it. I actually really enjoyed reading this book. Even with some of the discussions that we encountered in class that i really did not want to participate in (personal reasons) over all it was a great book. It actually teaches you things that all individuals need to know about.

George F. Kennan once remarked that heroism is “endurance for one moment more.” While others have given up, the true heroic spirit refuses to relent. Instead, they fight and withstand. In Kindred, most of the characters are forced to endure for one reason or another, so in a sense, they are each heroic in their own way. But it was the women of Kindred who were forced to endure the most. Sarah, the cook and den mother to the slaves of the Weylin household was forced to tolerate her share of torment.  Her children were sold as slaves and she as only allowed to keep her daughter Carrie because of her shortcomings. She fears losing her daughter, so she suffers in silence. Alice had to endure losing her husband, being a slave and succumbing to a man she did not love. Dana, had to endure the constant fear of being transported to another time, and being a modern woman forced to concede to dated rules. She had to lose herself in order to save herself, because if she allowed Rufus to die, she would invoke a time-travel paradox of epic proportions. Kind of like going back in time and killing your grandmother. If your grandmother died, how were you there in the first place to kill her? Going off subject it is said that such a paradox cannot exist, and the person who wants to kill their grandmother (I don’t know why anyone would want to) would be unable to do so. Back to the subject of heroism, I think that the most heroic character in the book is Sarah. Alice was unable to handle the thought of her kinds being sold and killed herself. And Dana was forced into situations. Sarah, on the other hand, lost her children and endured abuse from her husband as well as having the burden of being a slave. She was heroic, like most women of that period, and stayed true to herself. 

KINDRED

                                                                                 WEB



       Greetings! So at this point I'm Actually almost finished with the book that we were assigned to read called Kindred . In todays blog I was asked to pick one of these questions and answer it fully.




     Kindred can be both a noun and an adjective, describing a state of being, or a related familial group. In the novel, the word kindred holds both definitions to Dana. Using the noun definition of the work, it relates to her kin, both Alice and Rufus, and ultimately the head of her family line, Hagar. It could also show the duality between Rufus and Kevin, in the sense that they were kindred spirits drawn to Dana. The most obvious of this definition is Rufus. She is literally tied to him through space and time, connected with him on a deeper level. She also has this relationship in sorts to her husband Kevin. They are writers, creatives, the lost souls drawn together by literacy intimacy. In a sense every main character is kindred to Dana in one sense or another. They each have certain lessons to teach her about life and also herself. 

The title of the book could be seen as ironic. In the antebellum south racial divisions, alongside gender roles, were heavily enforced, yet Dana was linked to these people, who outwardly seem so far away from her general being.  She is a black woman who shares a bond with a plantation owner's son. If that doesn’t describe irony, I honestly don’t know what does. In the literal sense, the book title could show Dana’s actual family ties to Rufus and Alice, but in a more metaphysical sense, they are linked beyond the level of blood relation. 

The Topsy Turvy doll, to me, shows that, in essence, we are all connected beings. I know the literal interpretation of what that doll represents, but I think it holds a stronger meaning to the bond all humans share regardless of insipid divisions we place on ourselves. Pertaining to the book, the doll could show, literally, that Dana, being black, was blood related to Rufus, who was white, and it shows the connection this has.