One of the most outstanding things in the early intances of The Awakening, is the complete lack of involvement that Mr. Pontellier shows in the raising of his children. Even if he shows some concern in the condition of the kids, he does not act (... kind of Hamlety isn´t) on these worries and leaves his parenting task on the shoulders of his wife. There is evidence of this passive attitude during chapter 3 in the novel, as he tells his wife that his son Raul "... had a high fever and needed looking after" and then deliverately doing nothing. (p. 21) This shows how Mr. Pontellier has a sexist perspective of the home tasks and how he expects his wife to attend the business that he considers to be for the woman of the house.
In this passage the character of Mr. Pontellier shows to be a sort of antagonist, only basing my judgement on his attitude towards his wife. Maybe he is presented in this way be the author in order to create a general perspective on the social structure of that time. Mrs. Pontellier´s crying, later on that chapter, shows her discontent on the situation of her marriage even if she says that "... she could not have told why she was crying." Maybe, her realising of her own unhappiness is going to be the AWAKENING (Ahh... foreshadowing).
In the final sentence of the chapter she says that "she knew of none better" expressing her opinion of her husband, but I think this line could show her desire for something better that she never knew. You may be thinking, how do you miss something you never knew? Thats the beauty of it, maybe she feels there is something missing in her life.
Since I started my lecture on The Awakening, I´d asked myself the same question: why is there a parrot in the very beginning of the novel? The answer to this enigma has eluded me like a needle in a haystack, so I decided to focus the first second semester reading blog trying to figure it out.
Then, to find out why did the author used a bird in the first place, I need to realize what birds may represent in literature. So lets see; birds are free, unless they are in cage. They are pretty, they fly, they are admired by people? This seems to be much harder than I thought. Anyway, lets make some theories:
The birds represent the image of women as a trophy for men. Women are exhibited by men as museum pieces, and they are shown as a symbol of power. The prettier the wife, the better man. Even if it seems plausible, there´s no substantial evidence in the text of this supposition, so lets explore another possibilities.
Women can fly? No just kidding´ but I only have two real theories so I had to fill some space...
The real stuff is that in this book it seems that Mrs. Pontellier has strong anneals of freedom. The bird, parrot, and the cage that contains it are a metaphor of women and society. It seems pretty plausible to interpretate that Mrs. Pontellier is the parrot and that the cage that keeps the parrot is society. In the time the novel takes place, women did not have the freedom they enjoy today, probably because society was ruled in a sexist forbidding manner. Men´s society has total control over women. But lest focus on what IS on the text.
The only evidence of the last possibility I listed in on the first chapter of the novel:
The description that starts at the very first line when the "the green yellow parrot, which hung in a cage (...) the mocking bird that hung on the other side of the door...". These two birds represent Mrs. Pontellier´s current situation of reclusion and her desire of freedom. In other words Mrs. P. wants to be free as a bird.
Another hint of Mrs. Pontellier´s represed desires is presented in the form of the "language which nobody understood" as it represents the represed female voice in old time society which stoped them from achieving any progress in their lives appart from marriage.
This matter is really similar to the world of Pride and Prejudice where women were unable to succeed in life. As a matter of fact, the character of Mrs. Pontellier could be compared to the one of elizabeth.
This vacacion's assignmet was to listen to really long radio show featuring, guess what? HAMLET OF COUSRE!!! The show is about a Hamlet version preformed by inmates of a Missouri prison!!! That´s hardore.
In this preformance, we can clearly see how the inmates relate themselves with the characters in the play. All of them, specially the one who impersoned Claudius, could canalize their feelings of guilt, rage and desire for revenge in their characters. This causes their interpretation of the play into a very deep preformance rich in subtextual interpretations that are enhanced by the increadibly preformances of the actors.
Something funny about the play:
Imagine th guy in oicture A, impersoning the guy on picture B.
The lesson here is that it does´nt matter if you are good, bad, black, Jack Black, Tiger Woods, a tiger in the woods, or a tiger in James Woods; you will always be able to make a great preformance on a play. Unless you are Homer Simpson, or maybe he could... ?
(From left to right: A,B)
Here comes (The Sun!!!; yep, Mr. Tangen, Beatles reference) another of my classic essay analisis responses. This time, however, I´m going to try an experimental way of writing that is called "read only what you want"!!! This is how it works, Im going to give a list of choices for you to pick and you will only read the paragraphs with the number of that choice. Lets give it a try:
1. I want to read a serious Hamlet analysis.
2. I want to hear about the story of the shrimps of Anapoima
3. I want to Read about why the Beatles are the best rock band of the world´s history
4. Read?!? Im sick of reading for today!!! (Straight to the video)
1. Northrop Frye´s essay debates if a man can be judged only by his actions, or for what he intends to do in the precie moment of the judgment. As it is one of the keys aspects of the play, Frye describes the situation between Claudius and Hamlet. He states that Claudius has a great potential but he is stained by his crime, point I like. I think nobody can scape his past; man is the slave of his words and actions, so in a certain way, we ca be really good people but to kill any chances of success because of our past actions. True, true... there is the second chance policy that mayb rescue Caludius from his criminal figure, but he killed the king, he killed his own brother and then married his wife!!! Is this guy totally ignoring the golden rule (is not the Lonely Island one...) you dont ride on your friend´s horse. I think that a man is judged by his actions, and it should not get second chances when his crimes are great. (Note: Mr. Tangen, please don´t cnsider this as your class policy).
2. Once upon a time, a kid ate shrimp in Chicala (country club in Anapoima) and he suffered of food intoxication. Lesson, dont eat shrimp in hot places that are far away from the ocean.
3.The Beatles are the best rock band in the world´s history. There is no explanation needed for this statement.
4. Random video, actually not so random but totally anoying and hilarious.
Ok, here it goes... My first blog entry since the road, and I´m kind of nervous... Well, ,aybe just too lazy to admit I don´t really enjoy spending my off-school time analyzing Hamlet essays.
On August Wilhelm (Ha ha, like the funny scream from action movies!!!)
essay, he describes the character of Hamlet as a master of the art of deception, that masterfully achieves to make the people arround him that he is mad by impersonating the looney in a way that not even Natalie Portman could achieve.
On contrary, Hamlet is describe as a man that is a hipocrite to himself, as he over-thinks the stuff he wants to do, ruining his own success. Is said that Hamlet is one part of wisdom, but three parts a coward.
My thoughs on this matter are split, he is a master of acting and all of that; but who says Hamlet is a coward (please dont say August), he is brave enough to kill his mother and his uncle. He finishes the act of revenge, so he is braver than many people in my english class. (Pollo thats you; just kiddin´)
What else can I say, I really dont want to keep on writing, so here is the traditional video at the end of my entries:
Can a novel be a round turn? By any chance, can the whole novel be a circle that makes takesthe reader to a start? Yes it is!!! The Road is a novel that doesn't end, but rather finish with a new start. We can clearly see evidence of this in the final chapter of the novel:
"Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see themstanding in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly inthe flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional.On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in itsbecoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be maderight again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and theyhummed of mystery."
as you can see, even if this an extract from the end of the novel, it clearly speaks of the past, "Once there were(...) You could see(...) They smelled..." This may refer to the world's recovery from its catastrophic state into something better, but the author utilises scenes from the past (I assume) in order to create a sense of hope that resembles the one that existed before the catastrophy striked.
On the other side, McCarthy uses imagery to give a sense of mystery upon the future, "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming". The extract alludes again to the past when reffering to the "earth on its beggining" this reiteration reinforces the author's possition on the returning to the past; but more importantly, it links to the phrase "...could not be put back" wich implies that even if the world is going back to its origins it will never regain its original glory.
In conclusion, the ciclic structure of The Road is designed by McCarthy in order to reinforce his message that tells us that we shall take care of our world.
