Saturday, November 10, 2007

Poe- The Cask of Amontillado

"Nemo me impune lacessit" (937) No one harms me unpunished

The statement of this motto is ironic and funny because Fortunato doesn't know what trouble he is in, but the reader does. This ironic theme of secrecy appears throughout the story. The first line of the story foreshadows the rest of the story, and there are many points of foreshadowing, which are both ironic in delivery and capable of giving away the secret to Fortunato if he weren't so caught up in himself.

This man Fortunato has wronged the narrator in some way. In order to get back at Fornuato, the narrator uses the mans vice against him. Fortunato, believing himself to be the best authority on wine insists that he see the Amontillado. The narrator knows how vain and egotistical Fortunato is and uses this against him. Through reverse psychology the narrator teases Fortunato deeper and deeper into his wine cellar. Once again irony rears its head as the wine cellar is also a catacombs with skeletons littered about, ominously foreshadowing Fortunato's own death, though unbeknownst to him. The narrator repeatedly mentions the name of another man, Luchresi, in regards to wine knowledge, which bothers Fortunato because he believes himself the authority on wine and must put down Luchresi in order to maintain his status. The narrator really doesn't care about the wine tasting and really isn't going to get Luchresi, he just uses this to get Fortunato to follow him into the cellar. In the end, Fortunato's arrogance and ego, lead him to his death. Poe masterfully uses irony and foreshadowing to make a story that is both comical and frightening at the same time.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

The Rocking-Horse Winner

"And even as he lay dead, his mother heard her brother's voice saying to her: 'My God, Hester, you're eighty-odd thousand to the good, and a poor devil of a son to the bad. But, poor devil, poor devil, he's best gone out of a life where he rides his rocking-horse to find a winner' " (719).

Just because of this line I feel people want to pin some blame on the uncle. Like he is so bad for saying this. What he is saying is not really wrong, it is just true. He isn't saying it's a good thing. He is really just stating a fact and then reflecting on the boy's life. He feels bad for him because something made him crazy. The uncle didn't make the boy gamble, no one did but maybe his mother through some strange psychological effect. People say the uncle used the boy, but this does not show in the text. The uncle is in fact reluctant of the boys gambling. If anyone is at fault it's the mother for not loving her child and making him feel as if he needed to be lucky for his mother. The child felt as if he had to make enough money for her expensive tastes and in some strange way be the bread winner because her father couldn't. The child takes on the roll of the father in this way, and the father should have been there to stop this. The child lacks proper care from his parents. Instead he is cared for by servants and nurses. Such negligence on the parents part ultimately leads to his death. The mother is out at a party while her son is at home dying because he's riding the horse. She should have been home watching him.

A Good Man Is Hard to Find

"She [the Grandmother] reached out and touched him on the shoulder. The Misfit sprang back as if a snake had bitten him" (913).

There was much debate over whether or not the Grandmother was a good or bad character. Whether she was selfish, caring only for herself, or if she cared about everyone. Along with this is the question of who is at fault for all of them dying. The Grandmother, through numerous events, seems to be on many levels responsible for the death of all. One could go as far as to say she killed everyone, or is responsible for killing everyone. In the end, O'Connor chooses to characterize her as "a snake" which implies evil, even demonic connotations.

First she brings her cat after being told not to. Then embellishes and makes up a story about hidden silver in a house because she wants to visit it and knows the kids will make a big fuss about it if there's treasure to be found, and if the kids want to go the father will say okay to it (908). Soon after she remember the house isn't even in Florida, it's in Tennessee (909). Her realization of this makes her kick the cat (which should not be in the car) which then jumps onto Bailey and makes him crash the car. A man comes down in a car and The Grandmother, unable to keep her mouth shut, once again makes a situation worse by identifying the man as the Misfit. The Misfit admits, "it would have been better for all of you...if you hadn't of reckernized me" (910). The Grandmother is responsible for all of these things. If she hadn't done just one of these things they may have still survived, but she was relentless in her mistakes. For the most part she really does only think about herself. Even in the end after all of her family is dead she still just thinks about her own life. She goes on about religion trying to change the Misfit's mind, and even renounces her own religion saying, "Maybe He [Jesus] didn't raise the dead" (913). In the end, The Grandmother is likened to "a snake" and dies as the ultimate sinner, a sacrilegious one.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

The Lottery

" 'over in the north village they're talking of giving up the lottery' " (565).

Depicted in this scene of the lottery is an old man, the oldest man in town, talking with two other villagers about the lottery--how other towns are giving it up. Old Man Warner claims that this idea is stupid and nothing good can come of it, but the other villagers don't seem so sure. They aren't as quick to bash the idea. Maybe they don't see the point in it anymore, and indeed, Old Man Warner's reasoning is flawed. Based on what he says, "There's always been a lottery" (565). So then why say, "next thing you know, they'll be wanting to back to living in caves"? His argument is flawed and doesn't make sense. The people who are giving up the lottery are progressive and are moving forward, yet Old Man Warner sees them as moving backwards. No one voices their agreement with him because of this. He only makes his case worse. The only real argument he has for keeping the lottery is, " 'lottery in June, corn be heavy soon' " but we don't even know if this is necessarily relevant to their towns society at the moment. They don't seem to be that worried about food. Why do they still need to sacrifice someone for a good harvest? I think times are changing and Old Man Warner is another Emily.

"Hills Like White Elephants"

"I'm perfectly willing to go through with it if it means anything to you" (555).

By this point he should know it means something to her. And it is fairly safe to say that he does know this. Does he only tell her this to make himself look better? The whole goal of his conversation with her seems to be to get her to have the abortion. I think the girl thinks that he is not interested in having kids with her, but merely continuing the fling they are having. Yet, in the end it seems that he changes his mind because the girl ends up smiling, seemingly happy.

This is a classic Hemingway story because of the minimalist style of writing and fast paced dialogue where the speaker can be confused. Hemingway does a great job of mixing up the dialogue and creating a sense of ambiguity in the reader, which forces him or her to go back and check more closely the details of the story. Focused in on the story, the reader can find many hidden meanings. One of my favorites was the idea that the different sides of the railroad station represent different endings for this couple. Do they have the kid or do they go through with the "operation?" If the side they're originally on represents having the abortion, because it is barren, devoid of trees, hot, etc. then in the end, when the man says, "I'd better take the bags over to the other side of the station," this must mean he is going to have the kid because they are going to the more fertile side, and after he says this the girl smiles at him. This was my interpretation of the story.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Young Goodman Brown

"A stern, a sad, a darkly meditative, a distrustful, if not a desperate man did he become from the night of that fearful dream...Often, waking suddenly at midnight, he shrank from the bosom of Faith; and at morning or eventide, when the family knelt down at prayer, he scowled and muttered to himself, and gazed sternly at his wife, and turned away" (Hawthorne 547).

The entire last paragraph of this story is an example of what can happen when you become an extremist of your religion. You go down a different path than what the founder of that religion intended. Given Hawthorne's family background he knew this best and learned from his ancestors mistake. I'm sure he had his Grandfather(?) in mind when writing this piece. It was yet another way of distancing himself from him. Young Goodman Brown becomes a terrible person to be around. He distrusts everyone and thinks himself better than them because they are not as extremely religious.

I am noticing a trend with a lot of the authors we have read. They are all touching on topics that seem to be well ahead of their time (maybe because history repeats itself). The ending of this story makes me think of extremist regimes today. Sects of people who claim to be of a particular faith, but who violate the teachings of that religions bible. Take for example the extremists in the middle east, who suicide bomb in the name of Allah, when in reality, the teachings of the Muslim religion would never condone such action--it is supposed to be a peaceful religion. Young Goodman Brown is a good example of people taking religion too far, to the point where it is no longer what was originally intended.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

The Yellow Wallpaper

"I never saw a worse paper in my life. One of those sprawling, flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin. It is dull enough to confuse the eye in following, pronounced enough constantly to irritate and provoke study, and when you follow the lame uncertain curves for a little distance they suddenly commit suicide--plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard-of contradictions" (Gilman, 488-89).

This was one of my favorite quotes because it really made me think and it's beautifully written. After reading this I began to wonder if the wallpaper could stand for anything else because the way Gliman describes it sometimes seems like it could be about something besides wallpaper. I looked into this and found a couple of critics who made a suggestion that I thought was interesting. Karen Ford and Paula Treichler speak of the yellow wallpaper as a possible metaphor for male discourse or writing. Ford asserts that, "The wallpaper, in fact, sometimes appears like male discourse in its capacity to contradict and immobilize the women who are trapped within it" (Ford, 311). In this sense, the wallpaper, which confuses and deteriorates Jane's mental stability, represents the way John, and men at the time, treated women with these conditions. Men dominated language and told the women what was best for them, often times leading them to further mental illness. Both John and Weir Mitchell are examples of this in the way they seclude their patients, make them take all kinds of strange antidotes, and insist that they will get better this way. Jane is never given a chance to seriously speak to John because he treats her like a child and takes nothing she says seriously. John dominates her and traps her in the same way the wallpaper does. In this sense, the wallpaper mirrors the male dominance because of its suffocating and demanding nature.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

A Rose for Emily

Page 404, "When the next generation, with its more modern ideas, became mayors and alderman, this arrangement created some little dissatisfaction."

I think a lot of this story is a comment on old world vs. new world and old money vs. new money. We see this immediately in part 1 when the new council demands taxes from Emily. She represents the old world and old money. She refuses to keep up with the times, even refusing to acknowledge in her own mind that the world around her is changing. Her house is a symbol of this, growing old and decaying, while the life around it continues to change and grow. The house was once nice, her family was once prestigious, but now they have all fallen into shambles. Emily is doomed if she does not change with the times and she does not, so she suffers a sad life.

Faulkner published this story in 1930. This story is perhaps a comment on what he saw or was experiencing himself. A lot of people around him were probably going through this difficult transition from old to new, just like older people are today experiencing with technology (especially computers, my dad is horrible with them). Some people make a conscience effort to change and learn the new ways, while others who are more stubborn refuse to accept that the times are changing. I think this story reflects a lot of that sentiment.

Philip Dick

Page 357, "Is an extra-factual memory that convincing?" Quail asked. "More than the real thing, sir. Had you really gone to Mars as an Interplan agent, you would by now have forgotten a great deal; our analysis of true-mem-systems--authentic recollections of major events in a person's life--shows that a variety of details are very quickly lost to the person. Forever."

For me, this brought to mind the debate over things like stem cell research or using prosthetic parts. Or even robotic workers over human workers. Philip Dick brings up a really modern topic for our day--he is way ahead of his time. Mr. McClane is trying to convince Mr. Quail that the real thing is not as good as the simulation or made up version. I don't know why, but I just thought this was a big deal! It was kind of outrageous to me. To think that a fake memory could be better than the real thing, but maybe it's true. That's scary. It is scary how far we have come with technology and I think it's amazing that Philip Dick wrote this in 1966!

Sunday, October 7, 2007

"This tower was a giant, standing with its back to the plight of the ants. It represented in a degree, to the correspondent, the serenity of nature amid the struggles of the individual...She did not seem cruel to him then, nor beneficent, nor treacherous, nor wise. But she was indifferent, flatly indifferent. It is, perhaps, plausible that a man in this situation, impressed with the unconcern of the universe, should see the innumerable flaws of his life, and have them taste wickedly in his mind, and wish for another chance. A distinction between right and wrong seems absurdly clear to him, then, in this new ignorance of the grave-edge, and he understand that if he were given another opportunity he would mend his conduct and his words, and be better and brighter during an introduction or at a tea" (Crane, 352).

This is a passage I marked in my book and found to be the best and most important. That is to say, I got the most out of it. I think it is the most direct attempt by Crane to voice his thoughts directly to the reader, in a manner that is straightforward and true.

This tower can be interpreted as representing nature or some all-powerful being or God, which is an embodiment of nature. Nature is refered to as "She," and most importantly is niether cruel nor wise, but "flatly indifferent." Looking at it this way, it is as if no one cares. The God of nature does not care. The correspondent, or Crane, however you wish to look at it, then states that in this situation, a man should want to be a better person.

At first this assertion made sense to me, but now I'm not sure I understand why, "the unconcern of the universe," the Gods, and nature, should make you want to be a better person. If anything why wouldn't it make you not care as well? If you are a mere ant to the Gods, or whomever, wouldn't this make you angry? It is sad to think they do not care about us at all, and that they would discard us, or let us die so easily.

On the other hand, maybe because the correspondent is face to face with death, or close to it, he is looking back on his life--a life that could have been better. I understand this making someone want to change and be a better person.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

The Story of an Hour

"He stood amazed at Josephine's piercing cry; at Richard's quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife...When the doctors came they said she had died of heart disease--of joy that kills" (Chopin, 268).

After my first reading of, "The Story of an Hour" I did not understand the last line of the story completely. I assumed Louise had died from the shock of seeing her husband alive. But now I'm not sure that she ever even saw her husband at the door. If it is true that she died of joy, then I think she died on the way down the stairs from the excitement and joy of being a free woman.

This made me think of the question of whether she was weak or not. I think she was mentally strong and physically weak. I think she was mentally strong for a few reasons. Most likely she was married off to Mr. Mallard by her father. Because of the way she feels about her marriage, like the fact that she only sometimes loved Brently and felt controlled or trapped, points to this. Being in an unhappy marriage took a toll on her, but she did it. Also when confronted with the death of someone so close, even if you didn't fully love them, is startling. She survived that shock. So I would say she is mentally strong.

I think she is physically weak only because of her heart problem, which we do not know the cause of. It could just be something she was born with, and no fault of her own. This problem of a weak heart and her over excitement ultimately kills her.

I also think that Chopin is making a commentary on how great it is for a woman to be free. How important it is that women be allowed the rights of men. From what I have heard about times overs 100 years ago (since this was written in 1894), women were rather subservient to the men. Women had a set place in the relationship, they took care of the house and did not work. (I think this drove a lot of women mad). Louise' reaction to her husbands death is ironic, because one would think, as the other characters did, that she would be crying in sadness over his death. But the tragedy of his death is quickly replaced with her realization that being able to make decision for herself and live for herself is what she has always secretly wanted.

Pauls Case

"The carnations in his coat were drooping with cold...their red glory over...It was only one splendid breath they had, in spite of their brave mockery at the winter outside the glass. It was a losing game in the end, it seemed, this revolt against the homilies by which the world is run" (Cather, 214).

Like the red carnation, Paul has his, "one splendid breath," his spending spree. I believe what we saw of Paul's life leading up to this point was his revolt against "normal" life. He was always an outsider, maybe because of his appearance, or maybe by his choice of actions. Paul cannot live in their world--he has a need for the high fashion of the theatre life, and his tastes are more suited for the wealthy, elitist class that can weekly afford to go to the theatre. Paul's refusal to accept his ordinary life is what ultimately leads to his suicide.

I think many of us have been guilty of being bored in school, or have wished we had money and fancy things. However, we do not let our desires rule us; we do not let our imaginations become our lives. There is a line between fantasy and reality that Paul cannot grasp. Maybe the world was not fair to Paul because they did not understand them. I think it is certainly possible that, had Paul been living in our time, he would have been diagnosed with a variety of conditions. He would have been treated differently. But in this story, real life is too much for Paul. His father, teachers, and classmates do not understand him. I think Paul needed help, but because no one understood him, he was treated like everyone else, which in Paul's case, was a mistreatment. The normal rules and punishments were the wrong thing for Paul and they pushed him further away from reality.

Monday, September 17, 2007

I came into class thinking that this was a fun story, but one without a point, which bothered me. I was hoping there would be something enlightening to learn about this story; something I missed. However, I left class feeling the same way as when I entered.

What I did gain was the sense that Mark Twain (I will always call him Mark Twain because of the fond memories I have of reading Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer as a child and thinking the author's name was Mark Twain) was an amazing story teller; his use of specific dialect and story style are enthralling.

I love the frame tale or story within a story set up. I have read many books like this and it always leaves me amazed when I realize that the story is really about someone telling a story. For me this happened at a certain point in "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County."
Just as Wheeler is telling his story, he gets cut off, "And-- [Here Simon Wheeler heard his name called from the front yard, and got up to see what was wanted.] And turning to me as he moved away, he said: 'Just set where you are, stranger, and rest easy--I ain't going to be gone a second" (Clemens, 275). It was at this point that I realized I'd forgotten I was reading a story within a story. The use of this device by Twain captures the reader, in the same way a twist ending might in a mystery story. For me, this and the dialect made the story worth reading, even though I was unsure of the whole point of the story.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Opinions/Thoughts on, "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge" by Ambrose Bierce

I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion, but I will try. Most of what I think has already been said, but I will state my opinions/thoughts.

Against my personal interests, I awkwardly found myself rooting for Peyton. I was happy for him when he made it back to his wife; I like happy endings. It was a rude, yet interesting surprise when I found he had actually died, and was imagining the whole thing right before his death.

Bierce creates a crafty story by using his three part set up. The time shifting element is a favorite of mine. I am a big fan of Pulp Fiction, and got excited when it was brought up in class. I think telling stories out of sequence adds an element of surprise, which can only increase the readers fascination, respect for the author, and desire to continue reading.

Meaning in, "The Other Duel" by Jorge Luis Borges

Some of the first thoughts I had after reading "The Other Duel" by Jorge Luis Borges were, what's the significance of the title? And, why is there a defined winner at the end?

With the first question in mind, I began to scan back over the story. What did Borges mean by the other duel? It was at this time I began to notice a lot of comparing and contrasting between the two protagonists as well as the men or soldiers in general (page 142). This paralleling of characters was done in a way that would represent their character, what kind of men they were, what kind of thoughts they had, and how you might judge them further or define them as human beings, whether good or bad. To me, this suggested that the title was a play on words. The other duel is dual, which the online dictionary defines as, "of, pertaining to, or noting two. Composed or consisting of two people, items, parts, etc. Having a twofold, or double, character or nature."
I think the whole story, has to do with the dual nature of men. Both protagonists may not be ideal heroes or role models, but if you look back through the story, the better choice, or “better man” seems to be Cardoso. On page 142, Captain Nolan makes an interesting statement, “You’re going to run a race…may the best man win.” The first time, I read these words as cliché, and meaningless. However, after a second, third and fourth time I began to wonder if there was more in this simple phrase. This lead me back to my second question, why is there a defined winner in the end? One could read this as meaning that Cardoso is the better man.

In order to further this claim I went back and re-read the beginning of the story, noticing that Cardoso loses to Silveira in everything else prior to the “death race”. The feud is said to have possibly started over, “a bareback horse race during which, Silveira, who was stronger, had bumped Cardoso’s horse off the track,” which sounds like cheating. Then, look at the way the truco game went down. Cardoso tries every trick, only to be scoffed at and beat by Silveira, who, after winning, thanks Cardoso for the “lesson”. When Silveira sees Cardoso courting a girl, he, out of spite, begins courting the girl himself, and takes her to his home, releasing her after a month so she can go crying to Cardoso, who, at this point, sees the girl as tainted by his enemy.

That is Silveira’s style, that is his nature. Someone like Silveira might claim he deserved all of these victories. But anyone with sound morals can see he is a cheater and a bad sport. He does not know how to win with honor, and so in the end, in death, Cardoso is the winner, the “better man”.