Shiny Kid-ley Light

Just to say, I enjoyed the poem quite a bit. However, I cannot recall a situation where I have been too afraid to let my "childish light" shine through- Not that it hasn't happened, because of course everyone is self conscious about how they appear to others and I am no exception- just, I don't have any particularly exciting instance. However, I do have an inspiration- Several years ago I babysat for my friend's family. The friend, (my age) was at a lacrosse game (match? I have no idea what it's called in lacrosse) and her parents were out to eat, so I babysat the little sister (she couldn't have been older than 4 or 5). Because I am not in contact with little kids very much, and I had never babysat before, the imagination of this kid was astounding. she had a box of little toy cars (something I had when I was a kid... well I still have...... shh...) and we spent at least an hour naming them and making up a story- who goes where, what happens when the school bus crashes, getting swallowed up by water- all sorts of fun disasters. I could barely follow it, until I remembered that I was like this as a kid too. In fact, I had several specific scenarios that I would pretend to be in- one was that I was stranded on a desert island with a friend or my made up brother (it depended on the day which it was- I do have a real brother, but he's 10 years older than me and thus too old to be included in my story) which had me foraging around in the back yard pretending to be catching fish, in one I was one of 3 orphaned sisters who made money for food by selling bowls that they made out of clay (this one was inspired by the clay in my back yard) and the third one had to do with a talking dog sleuth named Super-Sniff who solved mysteries and fought crime. (not surprisingly, the lack of adults was a distinct trend in these scenarios).

Babysitting Jada, though it was a fairly low key and generally uninteresting task to most, opened a world of wonder to the out-of-touch-with-her-childhood-awkward-teenager that was myself. I frequently wish for the imagination I had when I was younger, wondering if I could figure out where it is buried so that I can dig it up whenever I have to write a short story. However, since then and other situations that had me remembering my own childhood, I have made a conscious effort to step back and remember that once someone loses touch with their wonder and amazement with the world around them, they lose touch with the vibrant array of possibilities that life brings them. I forget what it feels like to be bored, just as I did when I was younger. So although this post didn't really have anything to do with being too self conscious to be myself or to be in touch with the world around me, it does hopefully do all right to describe the thoughts it evokes from me.

Story of an Hour

I believe that "The Story of an Hour" is similar to "The Awakening" in a lot of ways. When Mr. Mallard dies, Mrs. Mallard is extremely happy and rejoicing about how she is finally free. The parallel to the awakening is when Edna's husband leaves on a trip and Edna expresses her freedom. The difference is that Edna's awakening happens over the course of weeks while Mrs. Mallards happens over the course of minutes: the indication that she was not previously hoping for and anticipating the elation that she would feel when her husband finally died was the fact that "there was something coming to her and she was waiting for it, fearfully" . She had never experienced this relief and freedom in the past- just as Edna in the Awakening had never realized her naïvety until meeting Robert. The final similarity is the death at the end. There are a few differences; Edna commits suicide while Mrs. Mallard dies of heart troubles, but they both die of the inability to live with the possibilities of their freedom. Edna cannot live with the conflicting interests of wanting Robert, freedom, and good standing, while Mrs. Mallard cannot live with the sudden realization that she is free from all she has been bound by. However, the two pieces of literature both correspond to the idea of freedom and liberation from oppression, but the unfeasibility of it.

Lady and the Tiger

I believe that in the end, the lady has gestured to the door with the tiger. The princess is untrustworthy because she hates the woman more than she hates the idea of him being killed- the story indicates this on the last page, when it talks about how much she abhors the idea of him being with the lady. However, he knows that she cant stand the idea of him being with someone else, but he is planning to divorce the lady. Thus, he doesn't follow her advice and opens the door with the lady. He ends up getting the lady, much to the princess's dismay. However, even though they are instantly married, he has still planned to run away from the lady and elope with the princess. The lady loses, and he and the princess win. Thus the ending is happy! The lady used poor judgement in directing him towards the tiger even though it is the one that would kill him, because she did not think that he would be able to run away from the lady. However, the couple is caught by the king for running away and the man is again put in front of the doors, where he proceeds to get eaten by the tiger.

THREE ACTS IN A PLAY

2. Write about the scene in which Gloucester’s eyes are plucked out. Obviously, it serves the symbolic purpose of allowing Gloucester to “see” [the truth] better after he has been blinded. But the scene is also graphically violent. Even when Oedipus gouges out his eyes at the end of Sophocles’ play, it occurs off-stage. Consider the place of graphic violence in art. What purpose does this particular incident serve? Is it gratuitous, or is it necessary for the meaning of the play? What about slasher films? What about Grand Theft Auto? When is there a place for graphic violence? When is there not?

Though the scene in which Gloucester’s eyes are plucked is rather grotesque, I believe that it is justified. Because it is so graphic, it truly shows the insanity and utter ridiculousness of the sisters and their husbands as well. Thus this particular incident in a way can show the painful process that it takes for one to be able to see the truth- the same as what has happened to Lear, except that in his case it is more emotional pain than physical. Both of the men are the victims of a great deal of pain and violence- Gloucester, physical violence and pain, while Lear, emotional. I believe violence can be justified, especially if it is intended to show realism. For example, in movies such as “Saving Private Ryan”, the violence is realistic- showing the horrors of WWII. War movies, holocaust movies- etc; these are and should be violent for a reason. Though it is good to maintain some level of shock when one sees violence and thus should not be completely desensitized to it, one should also know what goes on in the world and should not be completely sheltered. HOWEVER, things like slasher films or Grand Theft Auto are gratuitous violence. They are not necessary at all. This doesn’t mean that they should be illegalized or banned, as that would violate a right to free expression and speech, but they are simply “indulgences” (of violence… somehow).

Act 2 blog 2!!!!

4. Cordelia has disappeared from the play. What’s she doing? You might write a dialogue between her and her new husband France—have they heard word of the goings-on in Lear’s kingdom? Is she still concerned about her father? Whatever you want to say here, but they should probably not be discussing whether or not to have roast lamb for dinner. Alternatively, you could have Cordelia write a letter to her father or sisters. What would she say?

Cordelia has physically disappeared- she is not allowed in Lear’s kingdom any longer, but now has a great deal of power in France. Cordelia, as shown by her letter to Kent, is very much concerned about her father and sisters, but is respectful and humble enough to bid her father’s wishes and keep her distance, as she is banished. This is an interesting concept- Lear banished and renounced Cordelia, doing something that would be extremely hurtful and would normally cause a daughter to resent her father very much. It would almost not be surprising for Cordelia to wish ill upon him simply because of this particular action he took, but she will not take action like this because her role to this point in the play is to show the contrast between her purity and love for her father and the scheming greed driven actions of her sisters. It is difficult to tell if Cordelia knows exactly what is going on, as the only indication of her existence in this section is Kent’s brief commentary on her letter to him. In it, she mentioned that she wanted to help the situation any way she could. This is very noble, and though it seems unlikely that she would know exactly what is going on, she must have gotten a hint of her sister’s plans to bring down her father, because she is standing behind her father more than ever even after how he wronged her. If she were to write a letter to her father, I would assume that it would warn him about what her sisters were up to- and at this point, he would trust and believe it. What she would write to her sisters, though, is a different story. As she would probably be wise enough to know that trying to reason with her sisters will be to no avail, it is possible that she would somehow try to pair up with her father and use the sisters’ own greed against them in order to save her father and led the sisters feel the effects of their own wrongdoing.

Act 2 blog 1!!!!

2. What is it—what could it conceivably be—that would make children turn against their parent as completely as Goneril and Regan have turned against Lear? They’ve gone beyond irritation and its consequent neglect to outright cruelty. You may consider this question either specifically in reference to the two women (imagine their backstory the way you did Edgar’s) or consider it in general. Where do the terrible resentments of children for their parents come from? What is so very powerful about that relationship?

There are several factors that are involved in Goneril and Regan’s blatant disrespect and subversion of the king (their father)’s power. Primarily, the girls are just inherently greedy and evil. They had been brought up as princesses their entire lives and thus knew nothing other than getting whatever they wanted. However, this cannot be the entire problem, because Cordelia did not follow in the footsteps of the other two, although she grew up in the same household. Somehow the dichotomy exists in which Regan and Goneril view their father as the King, and when he loses his Kingly power, they lose all respect and trust for him. On the flip side, Cordelia still loves and respects him as her father. Thus somehow in their childhood something switched on for Cordelia and not for Goneril and Regan. However another level to it is the fact that Cordelia had always been the favored child, and Goneril and Regan knew this. Their utter cruelty to their father could be their way of trying to get back at him for treating them like second-class daughers (though it is difficult to know in the book how much differently he really treated them). However, sometimes to a child, even the knowledge that one is viewed as inferior can be damaging. Thus although Goneril and Regan are mostly at fault for this, Lear could also be to a degree. To add on to this, Lear simply gave his kingdom away to his daughters, and to whichever daughter could sweet talk him into thinking she loved him more than the others. He obviously has a very skewed idea of what love is, as he simply cannot understand his own love for his daughters. He gives away his entire kingdom to them, rightfully expecting them to treat and love him like their father still, and yet they don't, but it could have something to do with that the doesn't really treat and love them like his daughters. I already mentioned that he picks favorites; he is quick to be offended and quick to claim hatred of and renounce one of his daughters. (This happens with not only Cordelia but later Goneril).

EDMUND IDENTIFICATION

. Identify with Edmund. What do you know about family dynamics and parents’ treatment of children that might make him act the way he does? What is there to respect about him? Why do you think Gloucester treats him the way he does? Is there any modern day equivalent to this?


Though Edmund is raised equally as his brother, it is known that Gloucester is ashamed of him as he is a bastard son. Edgar, however, may be treated a bit better because he is the legal son- he is the one that will inherit- etc. Edmund is scheming, but there is also a lot to respect about him. He is very intelligent and cunning. His drive for power is a drive to be seen equally as his brother, as his society forces him to be viewed as something lesser, even though he is clearly more intelligent than Edgar. Gloucester may treat him the way he does to try to suppress his ego, to try to keep him humble and thus keep him from striving for power, but this is obviously not effective. I can’t really think of a modern day equivalent to this, except people finding legal loopholes to cheat each other out of money. The idea of bastard sons having less power than legitimate sons has kind of dissipated.
One family dynamic that is interesting is that Edgar seems to be very innocent and not treat Edmund badly. Edmunds schemes would seem to make sense if the entire family treated him as if he were something lower, but in fact it seems as though only Gloucester does- and in fact, Gloucester may not treat him all that badly. This is what forms the realization that Edmund truly is a villain in the story- in the beginning, the reader wants to feel sorry for him, and though out the first few scenes it is easy to sympathize with Edmund, but when Edgar is brought into the story, oblivious and obviously loving of his brother Edmund, it is easy to begin to see the switch into Edmund’s true intentions.